Friday, 20 February 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-The islands of the South Pacific have always been regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic well-being. As long ago as the middle of last century, Australian leaders recognised that events in the islands to our north and east could have a decisive effect on our security. This was proved correct in World War II, when battles on land and at sea in the island chain to our north turned the tide of Japanese expansion. It was at Milne Bay that Australian forces won the first significant victory against Japanese land forces in the Pacific war. This is an historic fact of which Australians are not very well aware. The first army to turn the Japanese was not the United States Army or the British Army; it was the Australian Army. It is absolutely vital to Australia that we do not forget the strategic lessons taught by the Pacific war. Paul Dibb has said that a self-reliant defence posture demands that we shape our defence capabilities to suit our environment. Likewise, it requires that we pay great attention to maintaining and strengthening the congenial features of that strategic environment. In doing this we must, of course, go well beyond the specific area of defence. Our policies must encompass aid, trade, immigration and a host of other issues. But as the island groups of the South Pacific have developed into independent nations, they have developed their own strategic perceptions and concerns. This has increased the scope for co-operation in this field. This Government is concerned to explore and develop the opportunities for defence co-operation among our island neighbours. We intend to give them the same priority as we give to our much older and more substantial defence relations which have been established with the nations of South East Asia over the last four decades. Naturally, the specific nature of our defence co-operation with the South Pacific requires careful adjustment to the needs and wishes of the countries themselves. Developing effective programs to meet those needs and wishes will be a major policy challenge over the coming years. In this region, Australia's longest-standing defence relationship is with Papua New Guinea. With its geographical position, its relative size and its proximity both to Australia and to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea is an important factor in Australia's security considerations. Our close defence relations with Papua New Guinea, continuous since World War II, are reflected in our largest defence co-operation program. In this statement I wish to focus on the efforts we are making to develop our newer defence relations with the other South Pacific islands. The island countries lie across important lines of communication between Australia and Japan, our major trading partner, and the United States, our major ally. They also lie across important trade routes and approaches to Australia's east coast, where many of our major population centres are located. An unfriendly maritime power in the area could inhibit our freedom of movement through these approaches and could place in doubt the security of overseas supply to Australia of military equipment and other strategic materiel. The Government has recently decided upon a number of initiatives to help protect and extend the strategic interests we share with our island neighbours. These initiatives include: * moves to help island countries upgrade their national maritime surveillance systems by provision of patrol boats, naval advisory assistance and training; * deployment of Royal Australian Air Force long-range maritime patrol aircraft to the region; * increasing numbers of Royal Australian Navy ship deployments to the island countries; and * defence co-operation activities providing technical support to island defence and security forces. The closer defence relations between Australia and the island countries now being forged will complement our older established defence links with other countries in our region including those with our partners in the five power defence arrangments and with Papua New Guinea. Our activities in the South Pacific are being developed in close consultation with our allies the United States and New Zealand, both of which are also giving increased priority to their defence contacts with the South Pacific region. In the future, as in the past, our international security will be inextricably bound up with that of our island neighbours, if only because we share the same geographical neighbourhood. More importantly, we also share with the peoples and governments of the island countries a common commitment to democratic ideals and principles, and a desire for continuation of the regional peace and stability necessary for economic development and growing prosperity. After World War II the island countries were remote from regions of the world where major power rivalries or local disputes produced tensions and armed conflict. These fortunate circumstances, together with the fact that, until the 1970s most of these countries remained under the administration and protection of Western powers friendly to Australia, meant that there was little justification for Australia to develop closer defence links with the island countries in this period. Over recent years, however, there have been far-reaching changes in the region. With the exception of the French territories and American Samoa, all of the island countries have moved from their former dependent colonial status to full independence or to self-government in free association with the former administering state. There are now eight independent island states ranging in size from Fiji with a population of over 600,000 to Tuvalu, which has only about 8,000 inhabitants. During this period too the island states have begun to develop their own national and, in many areas, regional approaches in dealing with the outside world. Conversely, the South Pacific region has begun to attract increasing international attention. These processes are inevitable and reflect the growing international self-confidence and self-reliance of the island states. We recognise that these changes have made our regional strategic environment more complex. They carry the potential risk that disputes between the major powers, and influences which could be harmful to our longer term strategic interests, may be introduced to the region. In these circumstances, the Australian Government seeks to encourage the island countries to develop common views, attitudes and approaches to international issues, including strategic and defence issues. We do this not as a major power seeking to impose its views on smaller, less powerful nations, but rather as a friend, counsellor and equal partner to our regional neighbours. We aim to achieve a common regional approach to these issues through dialogue, discussion and subsequent consensus, in what the islanders themselves call the `Pacific way'. This approach to developing defence relations among members of the South Pacific community of nations is already well established and has proved its effectiveness in practice. Through it we aim to maintain our position as a natural partner to the island countries in defence matters. This requires an active Australian defence role in the region. We intend to increase that activity not only through regular consultations and discussions with island leaders about matters of mutual defence and strategic interest but also through practical working co-operative activities in which Australian defence units and personnel combine with island government agencies to achieve mutually desired goals. In increasing our defence activity in the South Pacific, we are mindful of the fact that the small size of the island countries' defence and security forces imposes a practical constraint. Moreover, the island governments believe, quite correctly in my view, that in their current and foreseeable economic and strategic circumstances economic development is their main national concern. The island countries' pre-occupation with economic security and greater self-reliance highlights the continuing importance of Australia's contribution to regional social and economic stability through the various means of international co-operation that are available. Obviously, our civil aid programs and trade and commercial policies will play the main role, but our defence activities can make an important contribution to the overall Australian effort. One area that presents opportunities for such an Australian defence contribution is the upgrading of the island countries' abilities to manage and protect their maritime resources and to safeguard their national sovereignty. Australian defence support in this area accords with the priorities of the island countries themselves. It also serves Australian defence interests by making a direct contribution to our knowledge of maritime activities in our region of primary strategic interest. From a practical point of view it is also a field of activity where the Australian Defence Force possesses appropriate resources and expertise that are not readily available from outside the defence community. Accordingly, the Government has agreed that I should take steps to enhance and extend the defence relations that Australia has with Pacific island countries, concentrating on initiatives in the maritime area. Much of the groundwork has already been laid. Shortly after this Government assumed office, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced to the South Pacific Forum meeting, in Canberra in August 1983, the Government's offer to assist the island countries in developing a Pacific patrol boat, specifically designed to meet their needs for surveillance of their 200 mile exclusive economic zones. Subsequently a contract was concluded with a Western Australian firm, Australian Shipbuilding Industries. The project is now well advanced. The first of the 12 boats on order is now undergoing sea trials off Fremantle and it will be handed over to a trained Papua New Guinea defence force crew in the next few months. In addition to Papua New Guinea, which is taking four boats, other countries participating in the project are Fiji, which is also taking four boats, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands. RAN technical advisers who will assist in bringing the vessels into service have already taken up duty in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji; another will shortly be posted to Western Samoa. I would emphasise that at an estimated total cost of $61.7m the Pacific patrol boat project is far larger that any previous Australian defence co-operation project, in the South Pacific, or in South East Asia. Many of the other defence initiatives the Government has now decided on in the South Pacific will complement the Pacific patrol boat project by assisting the development of island country maritime surveillance systems or by supporting their operations with Australian defence resources and expertise. I will briefly detail the more important of these initiatives. We are increasing the number of RAAF long range maritime patrol aircraft deployments to the South Pacific from five to 10 per year. These deployments generally extend over five days, during which time surveillance of several countries' maritime areas can be accomplished. This is a significant increase when one considers the many other duties we assign to those long range maritime patrol aircraft, including operations out of Butterworth in the South East Asia and South China Sea area and the very important role the aircraft play in coastal surveillance associated with fishing activity off the Australian coast. Using the data available from the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara, we shall aim to concentrate the increased level of operations at the times of the year and in the areas where intrusions by foreign fishing and other vessels are known to be most probable. Maritime surveillance authorities in the island countries will be consulted when we are planning these deployments and we shall pass reports to them. We shall maintain close liaison with the New Zealand defence authorities to ensure that our efforts and their similar deployments are complementary. As honourable members would know, the New Zealanders have recently acquired a number of additional aircraft in this category and are intending to increase activities in the area. I have also asked my Department and the Defence Force to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of operating RAAF long range maritime patrol aircraft from suitable airfields in the island countries for short periods, if this should be desired by the governments concerned. Turning to naval activities, we shall endeavour to ensure when planning the RAN fleet program that RAN ships make regular visits to the independent countries of the region. This year, some 17 RAN ships will be deployed to the region and will visit ports in 12 island countries. I would add that these RAN deployments are not simply flag-showing exercises. Our vessels will engage in co-operative activities with the maritime authorities of the island countries, including passing on any surveillance observations made in local waters. The smaller, more remote ports will not be overlooked. Extended deployments by the RAN Fremantle class patrol boats will be given priority. These vessels and their crews will become familiar with all of our significant island neighbours. They will participate in combined fisheries surveillance exercises with the Pacific patrol boats to help maintain the skills and expertise of their island crews. Another area of Australian Defence Force expertise relevant to South Pacific requirements is hydrographic survey and charting. As part of our defence co-operation arrangements with Fiji we are assisting the Royal Fiji Military Forces Naval Squadron to acquire a hydrographic survey vessel, replacing one which had to be taken out of service. Fiji has agreed that, with our assistance to meet the additional costs involved, this vessel will be used to undertake survey work in the waters of other South Pacific countries when requested. In the longer term, this will contribute to a steady improvement in charts of South Pacific waters, a reduction in hazards to navigation and consequent benefits to inter- island commerce and economic development. We also plan to continue to assist the development of the island countries' national maritime surveillance systems. This assistance, which will comprise technical advice, training and provision of specialised equipment, will complement the Pacific patrol boat project and help ensure that island countries gain maximum benefits from the boats' operations. Looking to the longer term, we shall encourage and endeavour to facilitate, co-operation and co-ordination of maritime surveillance on a region-wide basis. Subject to the agreement of Forum countries, this could involve assistance to the Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara to enable it to better fulfil the co-ordinating role assigned to it by the South Pacific Forum. In co-operation with the Australian civil aid authorities, my Department and the Defence Force will work closely with the Agency, including through provision of advice, equipment, and training in maritime surveillance management techniques. Other initiatives my Department will pursue in this area include sponsoring a seminar for South Pacific Forum country representatives to discuss maritime surveillance systems and procedures; and the establishment of a maritime surveillance course for regional countries at the Australian Maritime College. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear, in Tasmania! Mr BEAZLEY —That is true. Over the past 10 years, Australian Army survey personnel have played a key role in surveying base lines for South Pacific countries' exclusive economic zones. This survey work is an essential prerequisite to permit the island countries to define, protect and gain maximum benefits from their maritime resources. We plan to offer further assistance to the island countries in survey operations and the preparation of maps and charts. Australian Army engineers are also making valuable contributions to our co-operative activities with South Pacific countries. Each year we deploy an engineer construction troop to a South Pacific country for two to three months to undertake a construction project in co-operation with the local authorities. In 1986, the deployment was to Western Samoa to construct some of the shore facilities required for the Pacific patrol boat. This year, we are examining the possibility of a similar project with the Vanuatu authorities. In conclusion, I would stress once again that all of the activities about which I have spoken are undertaken in the closest possible co-operation with the island governments concerned. In many instances their complementary efforts make essential contributions without which our common aims would not be achieved. Together we can ensure that the South Pacific remains an area characterised by peace and stability in which the island people can continue to pursue economic progress and prosperity. I present the following paper: Defence Initiatives in the South Pacific-Ministerial Statement, 20 February 1987. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.19) —I commend the Government on its belated and long overdue initiative in recognising the growing importance of the South Pacific to Australia's strategic interests and general well-being. Whilst the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is inadequate, it does at least recognise a potential threat to Australia's integrity and it is a reasonable first step; however, it lacks a general appreciation of the overall strategic environment. Before addressing the South Pacific consequences of the Minister's statement, I wish to paint on a slightly larger canvas and take in the Pacific Rim countries to our north which are so important to Australia's future. I will address the problems in Vietnam in particular. Recently, senior Soviet representatives issued Press releases in this country to the effect that the Soviet presence in the Pacific and South East Asia is of very small consequence. The Soviet presence has denied physical presence in Cam Ranh Bay and other major American logistic bases from the Vietnam War. We know, emphatically and irrefutably from evidence that has been released recently by the United States of America, that the Soviet presence, particularly in Cam Ranh Bay, is of immense significance to Australia and its neighbours. The Soviets have a capacity to project power down Australia's east and west coasts to New Zealand. Mr Hodgman —What are we doing about it? Mr HALVERSON —Our policies will reflect a growing concern. We will do something emphatic about it. However, the Government ignores this major Soviet threat. The Soviets can project power not only down Australia's and New Zealand's coastlines but also, more importantly, to the smaller Pacific states. The Philippines is an area of growing concern to Australia and its neighbours. We saw the demise of President Marcos and the rise of President Cory Aquino. However, the nation of 55 million people-it is a very important nation to Australia-has not yet seen the democratic way. We can see tremendous prospects for further destabilisation in the area. We must, as Australians, encourage the Filipinos out of the darkness and into an era of harmony and co-operation. We would see this happening through the orbit of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Malaysia and Singapore have been areas of considerable Australian interest and involvement over recent years. We have an integrated air defence commitment up there, and we have a very large air base at Butterworth. We have a maritime commitment with occasional Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol aircraft, in co-operation with our Malaysian Air Force friends, controlling significant areas to Australia's north. Singaporean Air Force and naval units and military personnel undergo training in Australia. Immediately to our north is Indonesia. That enormous nation is of considerable significance to Australia. There are 156 million restless people with a government that is hurt, injured, by Australia's attitudes. This Government, in its 3 1/2 years in power, not only has continued to offend and confuse our most significant northern neighbour but also has not put out any olive branch whatsoever. I dread to think that a further Hawke Government would continue that thrust of offending our significant neighbour with the consequences of fear and apprehension in that neighbour. We are trying to encourage Papua New Guinea to make friendly overtures to Indonesia with the thought that the border troubles that exist there could be overcome. We hope to use our mediation to encourage a reconciliation of attitudes between those two important neighbours. We can see, from this vast Pacific region of ours, a very welcome initiative by the Government. It is sparse in its details but, nevertheless, it is a welcome step. I turn now to the South Pacific. Nothing better indicates an Alice in Wonderland approach to defence and foreign affairs than the Labor Government's attitude towards developments over recent years in the South Pacific. Labor's reaction has been indifferent, apathetic, and shortsighted, to say the least. It has been completely oblivious to Australia's national interest and the strategic interests of our allies and friends. At this moment, the Soviets' commercial interests continue to extend throughout the South Pacific. They are building a presence on our doorstep which even this myopic Government can no longer ignore. Events are taking place with dramatic speed. Mr Hodgman —While Australia sleeps. Mr HALVERSON —While Australia sleeps, indeed. Premier Gorbachev has made a very interesting statement about the Pacific in recent times. There should not be an iota of confusion about Soviet intentions in this part of the world; but to make things absolutely clear, I refer to a statement made by Mikhail Gorbachev on 28 July 1986 in Vladivostok. The General-Secretary made the Soviet position resoundingly clear by saying that his country is determined to extend its power in the Pacific. He said: The Soviet Union's policy towards Asia and the Pacific region is an integral part of the general platform of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's international activity worked out by the April Plenary meeting and the 27th Congress. But a platform is not a chart that can be applied to any situation. Rather, it is a set of principles and a method based on experience. Intrinsic to this statement are all the platitudes that cloak Soviet opportunism. In the face of it, what do we get from the Hawke Government? In the light of Soviet expansion in the South Pacific, one would have thought that Australia's strategic responsibilities within the region were unmistakably clear. The seemingly impossible has happened, and we now have the beginnings of a super-power confrontation in our part of the world. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Defence and the Labor Party offer nothing more than incredibly sanguine assessments of our region's prospects-in the process completely ignoring the pivotal importance of Soviet intentions. Labor's view, aided by a powerful Socialist Left, is completely unrealistic. Paul Dibb, in his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, last year, wrote: In South-East Asia and the South Pacific, which is Australia's area of primary strategic interest, defence policy has an important role to play in support of our more substantial foreign policy and economic concerns. In this region our fundamental national security interest is to maintain the benign strategic environment that currently prevails, free from unwelcome external pressures. However, defence activities in this wider region should not determine our force structure, as they do in our area of direct military interest. How can an area be of primary strategic interest and yet not be an area of direct military interest? Dibb certainly highlights the importance of the South Pacific, but he offers nothing but a circumscription of Australia's ability to play a constructive part in maintaining the security of the region. Unlike Labor, the Liberal and National parties do not draw imaginary lines between Australia's national and strategic interests. They really are one and the same, because without the benign strategic environment that Mr Dibb talks about, Australia's national interest will not only be brought into question; it will be placed under threat. Taking a more realistic and constructive line, the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Peter Henderson, recently rewrote Mr Dibb's statement and said: In the South Pacific, which is Australia's area of primary strategic interest, defence policy has an important role to play in support of our more substantial foreign policy and economic concerns. In broadest terms, what Australia must hope to achieve in the South Pacific is the establishment and development of a sense of community, of our all belonging to a group of countries which, while differing in size, resources and population, have a commonly-held set of basic values and aspirations. Nothing could be further from the sense of this statement than what is happening in the South Pacific at the moment. There is no need for Australia to dominate or play politics with its neighbours, but it can do a whole lot more to develop mutual help and frank consultation between our independent-minded neighbours. In other words, we need positive action to be taken towards practicalities of applying our defence policy to the support of our wider objectives. Australian units have already helped with civil works and emergency relief, as in Vanuatu recently and in Fiji and the Solomons. But an embracing defence policy would have far more constructive foreign policy options than giving assistance during cyclones. There are reasons for serious concern. At a time when Mr John Halfpenny's Pacific Trade Union Forum moves closer and closer to abetting the Soviet thrust into the South Pacific, the question now is whether Australia can fix the damage that has already been done to our strategic interests in the South Pacific in recent years. Part of the damage has been caused by the vacillation and contradictory policies of this Government. On the one hand, we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs freely admitting that the political systems of the region could easily be penetrated by the Soviets; and on the other hand, we have the lunacy of Labor's promotion of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty protocols. Over the past few years, while the Soviet Union's commercial agents and powerful Pacific fleet have busily gone about building up their presence in our neighbouring region, the left wing, anti-nuclear, anti-American factions of the Australian Labor Party have contented themselves with pushing this Government into sponsoring the farce that is the Treaty of Rarotonga. Really, the Prime Minister has been too clever by far in encouraging the island governments to subscribe to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty protocols. Quite plainly, the protocols are not what they purport to be, being more symbolic than substantial. If anything, all the protocols have managed to do is provoke unparalleled controversy between the 13 Forum nations-mainly because of their conflicting aspirations of banning nuclear weapons from the South Pacific while still holding out limited access to visiting allied shipping. While the Treaty might legally allow transit of allied shipping, it will really be read politically, and as such it represents a slap in the face to our American allies, and gives the Soviets a cheap propaganda ploy to exert even further influence. In true fizzer tradition, the SPNFZ is another of Labor's each way bets in foreign and defence issues. Each way bets, however, do not do much for Australia's credibility as an ally or as a nation to which our neighbours look for leadership in matters of regional security. All SPNFZ has managed to do is to become a platform for the advent of super-power rivalry and spark new tensions in the relationship between the United States of America and Australia. In a sentence, it has achieved exactly the opposite to what this Government said it would do. A Soviet official in Canberra, for example, recently said: The Soviet Union proceeds from the premise that the creation of such a zone will serve as an important contribution to forming a reliable security system in the Asian-Pacific region . . . Mr Slipper —Doesn't it make you worry? Mr HALVERSON —Reliable security-for whom? And it is a worry. From the viewpoint of a Western nation or ally of the United States, there is nothing in the protocols to provide any form of reassurance. Indeed, all that the blarney associated with it has done is to distract public attention from the really disquieting developments in our area of primary strategic interest. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.35) —Before I comment on the speech of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) I wish to congratulate the Government and in particular the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on presenting this paper to the Parliament. I hold dear foreign relations matters and defence matters concerning Australia and the South Pacific. Foreign relations and defence are intertwined and are very important to Australia, and will become even more so over the next few decades. The present Minister for Defence has made his mark on defence matters and he is held in very high regard. He is obviously one of the best Ministers for Defence this country has seen. Today we have witnessed another step in the right direction. In the last couple of years this Government has presented the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, an independent look at our defence forces, to try to overcome the replacement mentality that so occupied the present Opposition parties when they were in government-and they were in government for 31 out of the 34 years prior to 1983. Mr Dibb's report was well received by all quarters. Obviously there are people who disagree with parts of it, and the Government may even disagree with one or two parts. We shall see, because the Government will be presenting within the next few weeks a defence White Paper which will express its position. That will be another step forward. We will be taking a concerted look at defence in Australia, at what we need now and in the future and not at what someone else wants us to have in our armoury. This will enable us to get around the replacement mentality that plagued us for so long. Of course the conservative parties in this country never really had many thoughts on defence, except that they bought things around election time to try to gain a few votes. Quite often they pulled those projects back afterwards. This statement tackles another aspect of Australia's relations in the South Pacific and in particular with South Pacific states. The Minister mentioned the Pacific way. There is a Pacific way of doing things and Australia, as does every country, has to relate to that way. Unfortunately some of our allies in the Western world, in the Anglo-Saxon world, do not quite understand this very important point. As I have said in this House before, much as I am a great friend of the Americans, who have been great allies of Australia, sometimes they do not understand how the people of the Pacific perceive things and think about things. A number of initiatives have been put forward by the Minister. We see that nearly $62m is to be spent on patrol boats-the biggest program of defence co-operation between Australia and the Pacific. Such co-operation was never undertaken by the coalition Government. It had 31 years to look at something like that but it did nothing. Honourable members opposite can pontificate as much as they like now but the fact is that the Opposition is in chaos and in many areas it has no policy. Yet again this morning the honourable member for Casey berated the Government about a number of things but we did not hear one word about the Opposition's policy. We will probably hear some titillating bits from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) when he speaks, possibly about the reds under the beds and all those sorts of things, like a true Bob Menzies speech of the 1950s. But the Opposition has no concrete policy. We hear much nonsense spoken about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is a very important Treaty. Legislation that sets that Treaty in concrete has gone through this House but, unfortunately, the Americans have rejected its protocols. I have had long discussions with my American friends and I cannot understand their viewpoint. Indeed, there are two viewpoints in the United States-one that basically agrees with this Government's position and one that rejects the protocols. Obviously the latter has won out. Unfortunately we will again see a situation in which the Americans will wonder why they get bad publicity throughout the Pacific. The Pacific states see this treaty as quite significant, and as something not to bring confrontation to the Pacific but in fact to do the reverse. In Fiji-the honourable member for Casey did not say this-the long time Prime Minister, Ratu Mara, is about to go into an election campaign. If he is defeated by forces from the so-called Left, as I think the Opposition would describe them, he can probably in some way blame the attitude of the United States because one of the specific things the Fijian people want is the South Pacific nuclear free zone, and Ratu Mara has stated that publicly over the last week or so. It is ironical that within his own country he is being attacked during the election campaign and United States policies may well help to throw out his Government and bring in a more Left orientated government. Still, that is the sort of policy that conservatives have pursued. They cannot see the wood for the trees. It is an ironical twist. Again the Opposition has come in here with no policy whatsoever. The Government, through the Minister, has initiated a number of other policies that I am pleased to agree with and again bring before the House. Those policies include helping island countries upgrade their national maritime surveillance. The deployment of Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrols, an increase in the number of Royal Australian Navy ship deployments, and defence co-operation activities, mainly in technical support, are just some of the Government's proposals. It is interesting to note that RAAF long range maritime patrol deployments will double. That will be, as the Minister said, on top of all the deployments throughout South East Asia and the Pacific rim. So deployments to the South Pacific will double over the next year. That is a significant move forward because this Government is trying to work with, not dominate, the states of the South Pacific. We are asking: `What do you want? What co-operation do you need?' They want patrol boats and more maritime surveillance to assist them in many ways-in strategic matters, fishing matters and commercial matters-and this Government is providing that assistance. These are concrete things that we are doing. The honourable member for Casey said that this Government draws a line between national interests and strategic interests. I totally reject that. In fact, Dibb states quite clearly that there must be a marrying of the national interests and the strategic interests of Australia. This Government recognises that. But it has to be put in perspective. I think the Opposition is still trying to thrust upon the people of Australia the forward defence syndrome whereby we have several aircraft carriers and battleships operating in a forward defence position-but not in the defence of Australia; there is no thinking about whether it fits into the Australian defence structure. In fact, even if we wanted to adopt a forward defence posture how would we pay for it? For just one aircraft carrier fully fitted-I do not suppose we would want to put toys on it-we would be looking at several billion dollars. And one is not much good by itself. Even the Opposition's defence advisers would tell it that. They would say that they would want three. So we are looking at $8 billion or $9 billion, and if we added that to the $14 billion deficit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) I am sure he would knock it on the head before it got to first base-although the Opposition is in such chaos that heaven knows what it might come up with these days. It is absolutely crazy stuff-madness. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that those days will never come back. We are not into forward defence; self-reliance is what this Government is about so that, apart from in a major war, we can defend ourselves quite adequately. Mr Hodgman —Really? Mr CHARLES —The honourable member knows as well as I do that anything put in place in the defence area does not occur tomorrow; there is a lead time. In the years ahead, when the defence policy of this Government is put firmly into place and we have self-reliance, we will be able to defend ourselves because we will have some of the best strike capability in the region with our F111s, the FA18s and the new submarine project. We are looking at patrol boats and light frigates that will have sufficient armoury to deter most people. A mobile and self-reliant defence force will be able to protect our interests. We heard about New Zealand, Vietnam and Association of South East Asian Nations countries in the speech of the honourable member for Casey. In the short time I have left I shall make just a few comments about the Russian influence coming down from Vietnam. The build-up in Cam Ranh Bay is significant and it is of concern to everyone, but I do not believe the Russian influence in the Pacific is as big as some people are saying at this time. I am not trying to underestimate the situation; I am trying to look at it rationally. Obviously, we should watch developments carefully because such things can escalate very quickly but, from the speech of the honourable member for Casey and from what has been said by the Opposition in the last few months in regard to defence, I cannot see any justification for the suggestion that we are promoting confrontation in our own backyard between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. How are we promoting that? We are suggesting that there should be a South Pacific nuclear free zone apart from anything else and that the super-powers should sign the protocols. That is the exact opposite of what the Opposition has been saying. The Russian influence is there-Russia is coming in commercially-but I do not believe it is as significant as the honourable member for Denison does. He will probably refer to this in his speech. The paper presented by the Minister for Defence is a significant step forward. It is one of a number of steps this Government has taken in the last couple of years. Its defence initiative, over time, will mean significant and important changes to our defence structure. This country will gain self-reliance and mobility within its Defence Force to be able to tackle just about all contingencies. Our co-operation with South Pacific states will increase significantly. There will be extended patrols by the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy when the 16 patrol boats worth $62m come into full operation. I hope that this Government will continue to extend its co-operation with and involvement in the South Pacific. I would like to see a similar statement in the next few months from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in regard to Australia's co-operation with the South Pacific. The Defence Minister has been looking ahead and has been doing an excellent job. This Government is well aware of its duties to and its relationships with the South Pacific states. That has been projected at the South Pacific Forum by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Foreign Minister. I support the statement before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia today is Australia undefended. In defence terms, Australia today is Australia asleep. Whatever parts of the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) we in Her Majesty's loyal Opposition might welcome, the plain fact is that it is too little and too late. The Minister's statement confirms my view that the Hawke socialist Government's defence policy is again based on the totally dangerous and crazy view that any threat to Australia will take 10 years to develop, that we will have 10 years warning. This totally ignores the sinister and massive buildup of Soviet forces in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is Pearl Harbour all over again. Mr Slipper —Shameful! Mr HODGMAN —Correct. There is a myth abroad that the Australian Labor Party, for some peculiar reason, has a better idea of the defence of Australia than the non-Labor forces. It is a total myth. Mr Charles —Absolutely correct. Mr HODGMAN —If the honourable member for Isaacs will listen for a moment I will tell him how a very great Labor Prime Minister, the late John Curtin, so frequently quoted today by Prime Minister Hawke, went completely off the rails just before World War II. Fourteen days before I was born, John Curtin-he was not then Prime Minister-made a speech in this House. I shall read into the Hansard what he said just 10 months before the start of World War II. It is recorded at page 1095 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 2 November 1938. Mr Curtin, who was later our war-time Prime Minister, and a very great one, had this to say about what he thought was the threat at that time: Defence expenditure must depend entirely upon the conditions that prevail in the world from time to time. Obviously that must be the position. I have no argument with that, but he then went on to say this: I say that any increase in defence expenditure after the Munich Pact so far as Australia is concerned appears to me to be an utterly unjustifiable and hysterical piece of panic propaganda. So 10 months before the start of World War II, Prime Minister John Curtin, as he later became, told the Parliament and the people of Australia that any call for an increase in defence expenditure after the Munich Pact was, in his words, `an utterly unjustifiable and hysterical piece of panic propaganda'. We have just heard my friend, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), telling the people of Australia that there is no worry about the Soviet Union and that we are not to be concerned. The honourable member thinks the concern is grossly overstated. His argument is based on the premise that some predator nation is going to hold up a sign to give us 10 years warning of its intention to attack. Australia is worse defended today than it was in September 1939. The extent and proximity of the Soviet Union within our region is frightening. The destruction of ANZUS by Prime Minister Lange, with the meek compliance of Prime Minister Hawke, must concern-and I believe does concern-every thinking Australian. Yet this Hawke socialist Government effectively says: `Fortress Australia, she'll be right, Jack'. That is its policy. Let me make it clear that I do not personally attack the Minister for Defence. Many of the things he says and many of the things he has tried to do I support. What I do attack is this weak pro-Moscow orientated, mad left wing of the Hawke socialist Government which drags down every defence initiative that comes from the more rational members of the Government and white ants, and white ants and white ants the Minister on every move. If this Government were genuinely committed to the defence of Australia it would double our defence expenditure forthwith, and I mean today. Tomorrow will be too late. The plain fact is that the 1986-87 Budget is an absolute disaster from the point of view of defence. Those of us who believe in the prime commitment of defending the national security of Australia can only hang our heads in shame. Last year the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, wanted a 3 per cent increase in defence expenditure. It is an increase which I suggest would have been supported by all members of this Parliament and all people who believe in defending Australia. He was rolled and dumped in Cabinet. The pro-communist Moscow Left got its way. Instead of getting the 3 per cent increase which he sought he finished up with only a one per cent increase. Yet the Minister, despite this devastating and humiliating defeat, in some way claimed that he had had a victory. To me, that indicates the strength of the pro-Moscow Left in the Hawke socialist Government. If the Minister thinks he has had a victory when he gets a one per cent increase, after going for a 3 per cent increase, it makes me think that in that Cabinet room there are people who are not putting the right arguments in the defence of Australia. It pains me to say it, but I have to say it: The Minister, in the current situation, has been humiliated and rolled so often that he should really give consideration to resigning. It is quite clear that the Hawke socialist Government is now only inches away from decreeing a new flag for the Department of Defence, and that flag will be all white. To complete the Government's shameful handling of the defence of Australia, I confidently predict that it will shortly arrange for carpenters and painters to erect two structures on our northern coastline, with messages emblazoned upon them as an aid to prospective aggressors `Please invade between these two signs'. The two madnesses that we have had inflicted upon us, particularly from the pro-Moscow Left of the Hawke socialist Government are: One, that we will get 10 years warning of an invasion; and, two, that if we up a couple of signs any invader will come in between those two signs. It is only a matter of time before the Government puts them up on the northern coastline. Mr Goodluck —I wonder what they will put up in Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —My colleague the honourable member for Franklin will be delighted to know that I will be dealing with the Tasmanian aspects in a moment. Although the Minister does not realise it, on page 11 of the printed copy of his speech he said something, which I will come back to, which is ideally suited to Tasmania. I do not know whether he intended to say it, but I will certainly quote it back to him in a moment. It is no surprise to me that the Defence chiefs disagreed with the strategic philosophy of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. But in fairness, it is the Hawke socialist Government which must accept the blame for this, as it laid down Mr Dibb's guidelines. If we look at the executive summary which was prepared and presented to Mr Dibb, and which effectively was his charter, we see that the Government told Mr Dibb, in working out the details of his report, to act on this assumption: It would take at least 10 years and massive external support for the development of a regional capacity to threaten us with substantial assault. But there are possibilities for lower levels of conflict-some of which might be very demanding-arising within shorter warning times. There it is, 10 years warning. According to this Government and its executive summary for the Dibb report, we are now in a new world and a prospective invader will give us 10 years warning of what it intends to do. It is Pearl Harbour all over again. As an Australian, I am ashamed that this Government continues to turn a blind eye to the frightening Soviet buildup in the Indian and Pacific oceans. It is just like Chamberlain with nazi Germany. There are members of this Government who deny that there is a Soviet naval base, one of the biggest in the world, at Cam Ranh Bay. A few weeks ago a member of the Soviet Embassy even wrote to the Press saying that it is an absolute myth, that there is no Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay. Let me say that that statement is untrue, because I, and a few hundred passengers on an Alitalia Airlines flight which, because of weather conditions, was re- directed in 1982, at about 30,000 feet, flew over what the captain announced to us was Cam Ranh Bay. I looked down and saw the most enormous naval base I have ever seen in my life. I do not think the Russians would have demolished the whole thing in the last five years, but I suppose that is possible! The plain fact is that we have only to look at Jane's Fighting Ships to find out all about Cam Ranh Bay and the Kiev class aircraft carriers and the Moskva aircraft carriers. I was in Singapore in 1980 when the aircraft carrier Minsk went through the Straits of Singapore, and it was front page headlines in the Singapore Straits Times. Yet when I got to London four days later, the people did not even know that the Minsk had been moved from the Indian Ocean into the Pacific Ocean. If honourable members opposite do not believe it, the fact is that even Secretary-General Gorbachev, in his speech in Vladivostok, talked about an increased Soviet involvement. Do honourable members opposite think that the Soviets will have an involvement in the South Pacific all the way from Vladivostok, when they have Cam Ranh Bay at their disposal? While we are thinking of that, why is the Government not saying firmly and categorically that we are concerned about the fact that the Soviet Union now has a virtual free go in our near region? We have a situation, as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will confirm, that because of the death of ANZUS, the Tasman Sea is now totally lacking in naval surveillance from Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Why? The Royal Australian Navy does not have the capacity to do it. It is a criminal shame that in the year of its 75th anniversary the Australian Navy was the weakest it had ever been because of what has been provided by this Government. The Royal New Zealand Navy is tiny; it cannot do a thing. The United States Navy cannot conduct surveillance in the Tasman Sea because it cannot get access to New Zealand ports. So the Tasman Sea has become a virtual naval playground for the Soviet Union. Anybody who says that there are no Soviet vessels around Australia should go to Western Australia. My colleague the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), will tell us that there have been sightings of Soviet vessels off the coast of Western Australia. The same goes for the southern oceans in the Antarctic. On the most recent visit, bar one, the Deputy Director of the Australian Antarctic Division, counted some 27 ships on the horizon of the Antarctic coastline, of which 21 were Soviet vessels. What do honourable members opposite think they are doing there? Having a picnic? When the Soviet marine science vessel got into engineering difficulties in 1979 and sought access to the port of Hobart for repairs, did it come in alone? No it did not, as the honourable member for Franklin will confirm; it came in accompanied by a Soviet submarine. That berthed at Princess wharf No. 3, and our telephones ran hot with calls from many of our very strong ethnic supporters. I got on to the phone to Sir James Killen and said: `What is going on?'. He said: `We have given permission for this marine science research vessel'-which was bigger than HMAS Jervis Bay-`to come in'. I said: `But they have brought a damn submarine with them'. The ratings from the sub actually stood with submachine guns on the Princess wharves Nos 3 and 4 in Hobart, Tasmania, in 1979. So I have actually seen armed Soviet personnel standing on a wharf in Hobart. Mr Goodluck —The anti-Americans weren't down there. Mr HODGMAN —No. Of course, a couple went down with a welcome sign saying `Welcome, comrades'. This is the blindness. It is the same group. We hear of the moratorium ex-Vietnam brigade. They are the ones who are shaping the defence policies of the Hawke socialist Government. The Minister should get full marks-he is very presentable. But his colleagues are ripping at him all the time, white-anting him and not supporting him in Caucus or Cabinet. He goes for 3 per cent and he gets one per cent. I bet the Minister for Social Security was delighted. If he had got his way, the Minister for Defence would have got zero per cent. Mr Carlton —He would have given the money to the Soviet Union. Mr HODGMAN —Of course. It would be funny if it were not so serious. It is a combination of Munich and Pearl Harbour all over again. I am informed by a former Chief of Defence Force Staff that Australia today would be flat out lasting three weeks in a conventional combat situation. One of our most distinguished recently retired Australians said to me, less than six months ago, that we are in a worse position to defend ourselves today than we were on 3 September 1939. Does that not frighten honourable members opposite? Does it not frighten this Government? The former Minister for the Army, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), will confirm that we have an army in which young trainees are allowed only one hour in three months in a Leopard tank. They do not have boots to march in. We have a Royal Australian Air Force that cannot fly and a Royal Australian Navy that cannot go to sea. Our uniformed personnel have dropped below 70,000, and for every person in uniform we have 1.1 public servants trotting along with them. It is an absolute disaster. The Russell Hill Offices are now known as Malfunctional Junction. The Soviets must be laughing and laughing; yet the Minister says: `Fortress Australia-she'll be right, Jack'. Let there be no doubt about it: The Soviet Union regards Australia as the richest prize in the Pacific. It has sent to our shores a diplomat of such seniority that we can only question the motive for his being here. Dr Samoteikin is a very senior ranking Soviet diplomat, one of the highest in the world. I warn Australia and I warn this Government that the sands of time are running out. Unless the Government gets its act together and defends this country, we will lose it. If we lose it, this Government will stand condemned by future generations. It is not defending Australia; it is permitting Australia to be undefended; it is permitting Australia to sleep. Shame on it! The sooner it is thrown out and we get into office and really defend this country, the better for Australia and for future generations of Australians. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.05) —The speech that we have just been listening to really was a cabaret act. It would have been a joke had it not been about such a serious subject. It is not really worth going through in detail. But the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) did say that if we are serious about defence expenditure we should double it. Therefore, he is proposing an addition of $7 billion to government outlays. This is in the same week as his Party has proposed tax cuts estimated to cost $14 billion. So he is proposing today a $21 billion increase in the deficit in a year when the deficit is only about $1.5 billion. It is just empty rhetoric-verbiage of no value whatsoever. Also, what he said was irrelevant to the subject of the debate. The statement that we are debating is really a very important statement and I warmly welcome it. We are talking about Australian defence co-operation in the South Pacific, in case those listening to the debate have lost track of it. The statement that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) made is an effective response to a perceived need. Since independence most Pacific island states have begun to feel a little more vulnerable. The super-powers are taking more interest in the region. There has been intrusion by fishing trawlers from Asia into the exclusive economic zones of Pacific island states. In some of those countries uncertainty has been created by internal conflict within ANZUS. Some Pacific island leaders would like to support New Zealand; others would like to support the United States of America. They feel more vulnerable because there has been some conflict between those two countries. Also, all of the Pacific island countries are in a difficult economic situation. Most of them have declining, low or negative growth rates. Therefore, they find it difficult to fund their defence. They have small budgets anyway; they are all microstates, after all. But, in addition, their economic situation has been deteriorating. Australia has a significant interest in the area. We have a long-standing historic and shared economic interest in the region. But we also now share a strong social interest because of the movements in migration in the region. Of course, we have always shared a strategic interest in the region through trade and investment. In fact, we have a very positive trade balance with the Pacific island countries. We have a substantial aid program with them, which is to our advantage because all of that aid and much more is spent in Australia. The statement is a very practical one. There are four parts to it. It moves to help island countries upgrade their national maritime surveillance systems by the provision of patrol boats, naval advisory assistance and training. This will help those Pacific island states to enforce their exclusive economic zones. It will involve the provision of advice, equipment and training in maritime surveillance management techniques. That is the first of the four initiatives. The second initiative is deployment of Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol aircraft to the region. There are already some such deployments-five a year on average. That number will be increased to 10 a year. Each of those deployments is for about five days. They will be concentrated from now on in the times of the year and in the areas where intrusion of foreign fishing vessels is most likely. That is very important because fishing is the major economic resource that those countries have. It is essential that they be able to protect their exclusive economic zones so that they can maximise the benefit that they receive from the fish in their regions. We will co-operate with New Zealand in making those RAAF deployments because New Zealand takes part in that kind of activity. Thirdly, we will be increasing the number of Royal Australian Navy ship deployments to the island countries. For example, it is expected this year that 17 ships will visit the region, calling at 12 island countries and their ports. Fourthly, defence co-operation activities will involve providing technical support to island defence and security forces. That comes in various ways-for example, hydraulic survey and charting and deployment of an engineer construction troup to South Pacific countries for several months a year. There are substantial benefits to those countries from this upgraded activity. Firstly, it will increase their economic self-sufficiency. Those countries are preoccupied with improving their capacity for economic development. As I began by saying, all of them have experienced very difficult economic circumstances. The price of copra, which is one of their main commodity exports, has slumped in the same way as Australian commodity export prices have slumped in the past couple of years; we therefore know what they are experiencing. Tuna prices are low, too. Four of the Pacific island countries have experienced hurricanes in the last 12 months-the Solomon Islands and Fiji in 1986 and the Cook Islands and Vanuatu already this year. All four of those hurricanes have done enormous damage and added to the major economic and fiscal problems that those countries experience. For example, the Solomon Islands are trying to cope with steep falls in copra, timber, fish and vegetable oil prices. Vanuatu has had to devalue because of the seriousness of its economic crisis. The only country in the region that is managing to cope well at present is Fiji because it has had a strong influx of tourists and a near record sugar crop-it has very good sugar support arrangements-and it also exports gold. So, from three sources not so readily available to other countries, it has managed to maintain its economic position quite well. Australia supports all of those countries through a generous aid program. I think aid this year totals about $58m, which is a very substantial contribution. But that alone is not enough to support the economies of those countries. It is far more important that they build up their own capacity for self-sufficiency. That becomes particularly important in a period when not only are commodity prices low but also the outlook for commodity prices continues to be poor. The importance of this statement is partly that it will enable those countries to protect their exclusive economic zones by controlling the influx of foreign shipping trawlers. Australia's development assistance and trade investment will play the major role, but our defence support can also be very useful. The second major benefit of the statement to those countries and to Australia is that it re- inforces the commitment to the Pacific patrol boat program. As the Minister outlined, Australia is contributing 12 Pacific patrol boats costing $62m-a very major aspect of defence co- operation-to those Pacific island countries. Four of those patrol boats are going to Papua New Guinea, four to Fiji and one each to the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands. The first of those patrol boats is already completed and undergoing sea trials; the rest are on the way. The importance of that program is that it enables the Pacific island states to help themselves. We are contributing not only through capital grants to the defence of those countries but also through the training of crews and through technical support in a number of ways to the operational activities of those patrol boats. We are also providing complementary activities to Australian defence forces; those Pacific island defence activities will be complementary to the sorts of activities that we are involved in. Another great benefit of this statement is that it will contribute to reducing the danger of super- power rivalry in the region. As the Minister said in his statement, there is the potential risk that disputes between the major powers, and influences that could be harmful to our long term strategic interests, may be introduced to the region. So to the extent that Australia and New Zealand take up a supporting defence role, the opportunity for the super-powers to become involved will be reduced. That is heartily to be desired and certainly is desired by all the Pacific island countries. The statement by the Minister is consistent with national military considerations as outlined by Paul Dibb. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), the first speaker for the Opposition, suggested that this statement is in some way inconsistent with the Dibb Review. That is not true at all. What is being proposed in the statement is that the kinds of equipment and skilled military personnel within Australia needed for its defence should also have some involvement in the wider area of direct military interest. That is exactly what Dibb recommends. This statement proposes the use of frigates, patrol boats and surveillance aircraft within our area of direct military interest in the same way as they will be used around Australia's coast. We will be protecting ourselves directly by participating in the protection of countries in the South Pacific region. The honourable member for Casey also criticised the statement because, he said, it did not deal with the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay. Quite apart from that being quite irrelevant to the statement, which is about the South Pacific, after all, what does the Opposition want the Government to do? Is the honourable member proposing that the Australian Government launch an attack on Cam Ranh Bay? That would be consistent with the excessively and provocatively aggressive stance which Opposition spokespeople have sometimes taken. I can remember attending a public meeting in the 1960s at which a Liberal leader publicly advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China. Anything more damaging to the possibility of world peace is impossible to imagine. I hope that no one in the Opposition would now support that grossly and brutally aggressive stance. The sort of rhetoric that comes from the Opposition and which came from both Opposition speakers this morning, inclines one to believe that, unconsciously or semi-consciously, in some of its members' thinking that sort of thought is still present. One aspect of our relationship with the South Pacific which it is important to touch on in this debate is the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Treaty has been signed by 10 South Pacific island states. It prohibits the stationing or production of nuclear weapons in the area, so-called peaceful nuclear explosions and the dumping of nuclear waste at sea. It has been criticised by some Pacific island states for not being strong enough but it has general support and it is an important constraint on what present and future governments can do in the area. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said recently, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is a Treaty by the countries of the region whose calls on world support are moderate and modest and whose expectations in the Treaty are high because of their concerns about the vulnerability of their environment to nuclear damage. He said: These concerns go to the very heart of preserving a free, independent livelihood for their people. The Treaty is an important symbol of the commitment to peace and security in the area. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the United States has not agreed to sign the protocols. Given the opposition from the United States to such a mild treaty, the claimed commitment of the United States Administration to arms control and disarmament is hard to believe. The United States decision is antagonistic to the genuine concerns and views of the South Pacific states. It has handed another propaganda victory to the Soviet Union and China, which have already agreed to sign the protocols. The United States decision is divisive of a friendship. It makes those of us concerned with the peace and security of the region very sad. It is a great pleasure to support this statement wholeheartedly and to say that it has the strong support of experts in the area. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.20) —While welcoming the fact that the Government is preserving the defence co-operation program, elements of this statement cause us grave concern. There is no doubt that it indicates, perhaps better than anything, the Alice in Wonderland approach to defence and foreign affairs which this Labor Government has pursued and which, sadly, is even more evident in regard to the South West Pacific area. Despite the fact that Australia has a specific responsibility to play an active role in the region, Labor's reaction hitherto has been indifferent, apathetic and shortsighted, to say the least. Its responses indicate a total lack of concern about the Soviet presence in the region and a benign acceptance that the increasing involvement in the South Pacific of the Soviet Union-albeit predominantly in the fishing industry-will not in any way affect our interests. Australia's security is inextricably tied up with the future of the islands on our doorstep. But at the moment Soviet commercial interests continue to extend throughout the region. The Soviets are building a presence on our doorstep which even this myopic Government can no longer ignore. Events are taking place with dramatic speed. There should not be one iota of confusion about Soviet intentions. To make things absolutely clear, it is worth referring to a statement made by Mikhail Gorbachev on 28 July 1986 in Vladivostok. The General-Secretary made the Soviet position resoundingly clear by saying that his country is determined to extend its power in the Pacific. He said: The Soviet Union's policy towards Asia and the Pacific region is an integral part of the general platform of the CPSU's international activity worked out by the April plenary meeting and the 27th Congress. But a platform is not a chart that can be applied to any situation. Rather, it is a set of principles and a method based on experience. Given the continued involvement of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Vietnam and the build-up of its forces in the North Pacific, one can only be apprehensive as the present directions of Soviet policy are further pursued. Intrinsic to this statement are all the platitudes which cloak Soviet opportunism. In the face of it, what do we get from the Hawke Government? In light of Soviet expansion in the South Pacific, one would have thought that Australia's strategic responsibilities within the region were unmistakeably clear. The seemingly impossible has happened. We now have the beginnings of super-power confrontation in our part of the world. Unfortunately, the Government's benign approach denies a realistic understanding of the fact that circumstances are changing and that Australia cannot just ignore those developments. Paul Dibb, in his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities last year, wrote: In South East Asia and the South Pacific, which is Australia's area of primary strategic interest, defence policy has an important role to play in support of our more substantial foreign policy and economic concerns. In this region our fundamental national security interest is to maintain the benign strategic environment that currently prevails, free from unwelcome external pressures. However, defence activities in this wider region should not determine our force structure, as they do in our area of direct military interest. In other words, Dibb is saying that we are not going to have a force structure developed around being able to protect any of these changing strategic situations as they impinge on Australia's interests, but we are still going to have those interests and let all those events pass us by. With the unwelcome external influences already there, how can an area be of primary strategic interest and yet not be an area of direct military interest? That in itself is a fundamental conflict of Dibb. We are awaiting with some interest the presence of the Government's White Paper. I will be very interested to see the extent to which the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has decided that the original programs recommended by Dibb are far too remote from the realities of the situation that surrounds us. Dibb certainly highlights the importance of the South Pacific, but he offers nothing but a circumscription of Australia's ability to play a constructive part in maintaining the region's security. Unlike Labor, the coalition does not draw imaginary lines between Australia's national and strategic interests-they are one and the same. Without the benign strategic environment that Mr Dibb talks about, Australia's national interest will not only be brought into question; it will be placed under threat. Taking a more realistic and constructive line, the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Peter Henderson, recently rewrote Mr Dibb's statement to say: In the South Pacific, which is Australia's area of primary strategic interest, defence policy has an important role to play in support of our more substantial foreign policy and economic concerns. In broadest terms, what Australia must hope to achieve in the South Pacific is the establishment and development of a sense of community, of our all belonging to a group of countries which, while differing in size, resources and population, have a commonly held set of basic values and aspirations. Nothing could be further from the sense of this statement than what is happening in the South Pacific at the moment. There is no need for Australia to dominate or to play politics with its neighbours. But it can do a whole lot more than this Government is doing to develop mutual help and frank consultation between our independent minded neighbours. In other words, we need positive action to be taken towards the practicalities of applying Australia's defence policy to the support of our wider objectives. As I said in this House on 14 December 1982 of the coalition-I stress that-in government: We seek to provide what help we can to improve the independent capabilities of our neighbours to safeguard their own security and, particularly in the South West Pacific where military potential is bound to be limited, we try to support efforts to promote a sense of regional interest and co-operation resistant to external interference. This activity commands priority in our policy not simply as a goodwill gesture at the expense of Australia's own defence effort; it is direct investment in the security and the stability of the region and is of significant importance to our own security. The paper handed down by the Minister today restricts that involvement in this region in a way that, as in so many other areas of the Minister's commitment to defence, is reducing Australia's ability to deter aggression at a time when locally based instability sources-which relate to the situation in some of the islands and the problems of succession or Soviet interference-are greater than they have been before. Of course, Australian units have traditionally helped with civil works and emergency relief, and they must continue to do so, as they have in Vanuatu and the Cook Islands only recently. But an embracing defence policy should have far more constructive foreign policy options than just giving assistance during cyclones. The fact that not enough has been done is reflected in the serious developments presently occurring in the region. At a time when John Halfpenny's Pacific trade union forum moves closer and closer to abetting the Soviet thrust into the South Pacific, the question now is whether Australia can fix the damage that has been already done to our strategic interests in the South Pacific in recent years. Part of that damage has been caused by the vacillating and contradictory policies of this Government, and the failure of this Government to assert enough influence on the Government of New Zealand at a time when it has changed the whole strategic environment by its withdrawal from ANZUS. On the one hand we have the Foreign Minister freely admitting that the political systems of the region could easily be penetrated by the Soviets and on the other we have the lunacy of Labor's promotion of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty protocols. Over the past few years, while the Soviet Union's commercial agents and powerful Pacific fleet have busily gone about building up their presence in our neighbouring region, the left wing anti-nuclear, anti-American factions of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament and in this Government have contented themselves with pushing this Government into sponsoring the farce that is the Treaty of Rarotonga. There are reservations on this side of the House that we believe need to be put into that Treaty. The concept of trying to prevent nuclear war is not the same as the signature to the protocols of this agreement. We seek to restrict the involvement of other countries in destroying the democratic and economic opportunities of the island states of the South Pacific, the countries of South East Asia that surround us and, of course, Papua New Guinea. In our view the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty under its present protocols will deny the Americans the ability to involve themselves, as they have been. It is going to be a further constraint, at a time when New Zealand has withdrawn from ANZUS, and it is not going to enhance the overall strategic capability of Australia to try to ensure that this part of the world is not placed under the same threats as it seems so many other parts of the world are today. In our view the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been too clever by far in encouraging island governments to subscribe to the present South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone protocols as they are now drafted. Quite plainly, the protocols are not what they purport to be, being more symbolic than substantial. If anything, all the protocols have managed to do is to provoke unparalleled controversy between the 13 forum nations, mainly because of their conflicting aspirations of banning nuclear weapons from the South Pacific while still holding out limited access to visiting allied shipping. While the Treaty might legally allow transit of allied shipping, it will really be read politically. As such it represents a slap in the face for the United States and it gives the Soviets a cheap propaganda ploy to exert further influence in an area which is of prime strategic concern to Australia. There is no doubt that this is just another one of those treaties in which the Australian Government believes it is necessary to hedge its bets with those peaceniks within its ranks who really do not understand that unilateral disarmament is not a way to secure Australia and is not a way to ensure that no child or citizen of this country is going to be insulated from the threats that could emerge unless adequate action is taken. As far as the statement is concerned-and there is not enough time to go over it in detail-it is worth commenting that, in addition to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, Australia has watered down a joint declaration of principles that was drawn up by Papua New Guinea aimed at strengthening the tenuous bilateral relationships between our two countries. We all know that relations with Papua New Guinea have deteriorated significantly thanks to the lack of care by the Foreign Minister and thanks to the failure of this Government to maintain the firm financial arrangements entered into. One cannot divorce the problem of maintaining defence security from the problem of ensuring that the country's economic and political stability is satisfactorily attended to. The arbitrary withdrawal, without consultation, of financial help to Papua New Guinea is yet another illustration of the high-handed approach not peculiarly to foreign affairs or defence matters but to the way in which farmers, small businessmen and other Australians are today treated with absolute contempt. Libyan trained Kanaks are also proving a problem for stability in New Caledonia. The French presence there is such that France is now the second largest military power in the region after Australia. We are all aware of the deterioration in relations between France and the Government of Australia simply because of the intransigence of this Government and the failure of the Labor Government to comprehend that it is necessary to work with countries in this region and elsewhere to try to develop a cohesive policy against external threat instead of trying to divorce reality by following some sort of philosophic ideological line as portrayed particularly by those radical trendy lefties that so dominate so much of the foreign policy attitudes of this Government. I am concerned that in recent statements the retiring Chief of the Defence Force seems to ignore the development of the Soviet threat. To my mind, it is important that we understand that the developments in Vietnam do not pose an immediate threat to Australia, but when they are taken in conjunction with the changing situation in New Caledonia, the problems there still are in Vanuatu and the difficulties there are in other island countries in this region we cannot be complacent that there is going to be an ability for the United States to assist us. Therefore, it is particularly important that our defence co-operation program be used to help to bolster the defences of all this region, and in the categories that have been identified in this statement there are a number of particular areas that worry me. The patrol boats are certainly far more capable than I had originally expected them to be. But I am told that the island nations will find it difficult to maintain them. While they are too sophisticated in that sense, they are still inadequate to catch tuna fishing boats that might enter into the 200-mile fishing zones. At a time when the Soviets are also in that zone I would suggest that it is important that there be some co-operative effort to ensure that there is a supplementary capability, perhaps in conjunction with other countries in this region, so that if a more capable patrol is required it can be done not just by the island nations. I thought that might have been something the Minister could have addressed in the statement. The deployment of our long range maritime aircraft is welcome, but without airborne early warning aircraft their operations must be restricted to the ability to detect surface or underwater intrusion into the area. We need to understand that what has happened in New Zealand means that there is a significant reduction generally in the capabilities of that country. Indeed, it is interesting that New Zealand, without American intelligence and defence co-operation, was only recently unable to identify a submarine which surfaced off the Cook Islands. I am afraid that that augurs things to come. Much more needs to be said about defence than this statement contains. Many aspects of our trading relations, our political relations and our defence relations with the countries that are the prime subject of this statement are absolutely critical to Australia's future security. I fear that the general rundown in defence numbers, both in uniformed and in general force capability in this region, does not augur well for Australia's future. I commend the Minister for having presented this statement to the House but I say to him that I am afraid a lot more needs to be done before those of us on this side of the House feel happy about the general strategic uncertainties that face Australia in the South Pacific and in South East Asia. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(11.35) —In replying to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) it is interesting to remark on the item with which he closed his speech; that is, that while he welcomes the initiative of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to increase the program of assistance to the South West Pacific, in the area of defence co-operation a lot more needs to be done. The first thing I say is that this Government already is doing infinitely more in the defence co-operation program in the South West Pacific than the previous Government did. Indeed, in the current year our defence co-operation activities in the South Pacific have received an increase of $7.76m, from $27m to $34.8m, as compared with the previous year. As I have said, this Government and this Minister are doing infinitely more than our predecessor did in the South West Pacific. Mr White —You certainly are. Mr CROSS —The coalition has always been obsessed with the threat from the north. Mr White —You will not have a defence force by the end of the year. Mr CROSS —Well, I-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Brisbane to ignore the interjections and I ask the honourable member for McPherson not to interject. Mr CROSS —I will deal with some of the matters raised by the right honourable member for New England. Firstly, he dealt with Soviet Union commercial interests in the Pacific. There have always been Russian commercial interests in the Pacific. Russian explorers were active in the days of the czars and in more recent times the Soviet Union has become one of the great whaling and fishing powers of the world. The Soviet people eat a lot more fish than we do and they have entered into commercial agreements with two of the small island nations. I do not see anything sinister about that. There have always been people who have suggested that any Soviet commercial interest in the Pacific is a threat. It is not necessarily a threat if it remains a commercial interest. If that commercial interest were to extend to some sort of military agreement, such as the establishment of home porting facilities, not only for fishing boats but also for submarines or other naval vessels, that would be a different kettle of fish. One has to understand that the Soviet interest has been received with open arms by some of these small island countries which have extremely limited resources and are greatly vulnerable to the economic circumstances of the day. The agreement with the Soviet Union-there were some traumas about Kiribati because the Soviets paid a lot more money than was justified by the fish they caught-has to be seen against the background of the previous insensitivity of the United States of America in the area of tuna fishing. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that these small island territories have very few resources. They have coconuts, copra, in some cases timber, fish and tourism potential, but at a time when Australia is suffering from the consequences of declining terms of trade for its farm products, one has to understand that these Pacific nations are being greatly affected and are more vulnerable than this country. The other basic fact which the Opposition ignores is the traditional orientation of these island territories towards the West. Most of them were colonies of Britain or France and those connections remain in terms of cultural matters and the assistance that the former colonial powers gave them in training public servants and the like, as well as the influence of Christian missionaries; so it would take an enormous turnabout before any of these island territories became oriented towards the Soviet Union. What they do share as common ground is an opposition to great power rivalries and confrontations in the Pacific. I was interested in what the right honourable member for New England said about the atomic weapons tests. I have had the honour of being the Australian delegate to the past two South Pacific conferences, together with the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) in 1985 and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) in 1986. There is a genuine concern amongst these island nations about the testing of atomic weapons in the Pacific. That is certainly not something which Australia has stirred up-there is a genuine concern. If we are to have the sort of relationship that everybody in this House would like us to have with the countries of the South West Pacific, Australia must listen to what they say and react to their concerns. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone concept is not only an Australian initiative in terms of this Government's policy; it also strikes a warm chord in the hearts of the people of the South Pacific. The greatest threat to stability in the region at the moment is the problem in New Caledonia. We await with interest further details of the referendum which is proposed to be held by the French Government, hopefully in the near future. We will have to determine whether that is a proper act of self-determination insofar as the people of New Caledonia might determine their future government structure and their future relationship with France. We have been criticised for the views we have expressed, but one has to take into account the views of our other neighbours in the South West Pacific, such as Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands-the so-called Melanesian bloc. Papua New Guinea, for example, looks at Australia as a former colonial power. We have given Papua New Guinea great assistance, assisted it towards independence and we have a very good relationship with it. The countries of the Melanesian bloc are concerned that the people of New Caledonia do not exercise that level of independence which Papua New Guinea has had since 1975. I think I have dealt with most of the matters raised by the right honourable member for New England. I will say something about the program the Minister has outlined, but I do not want to cover the ground already covered by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). Firstly, the defence forces in the South West Pacific countries are fairly modest in terms of size and equipment. None of these territories has the capacity to mount a sizable defence force in the present circumstances. Secondly, they require equipment appropriate to the region. Some Opposition members have criticised the Pacific patrol boat. Although that patrol boat is a fairly modest vessel, it is appropriate to the surveillance and patrol tasks which are to be carried out. But some of those nations will have great difficulty maintaining their commitment to provide trained personnel and the like. It is quite ridiculous for people to suggest that we should give those nations a much more sophisticated vessel as it would be inappropriate to their needs and too costly for them to maintain. Their independence is extremely valuable to them, as our independence is extremely valuable to us. The new initiatives are particularly welcome and ought to be seen against the value of the existing programs. Australia has sought to develop programs which not only assist the military efficiency of the South West Pacific countries but also have a significant civil value. I had the opportunity in 1985 to look at the program as it applied to the Solomon Islands. I briefly mention some of the headings under which our present program falls. Firstly, I refer to the police communications project, provision of radio equipment, and training and technical assistance to expand and upgrade the Royal Solomon Islands Police communications system. The Australian Army is assisting with that project. In an island nation such as the Solomon Islands, communications are absolutely vital, not only for strategic purposes but also, as we have been reminded recently with the cyclone, for matters of relief and assistance. That is a very important program. We have assisted the police field force with equipment, technical assistance and training. We have in place a navy clearance diving team, in co-operation with the RSIP diving team, to clear shipping passengers. In an island nation, that is tremendously important. We are building up the skills of the Solomon Islands, as well as helping in their communications problems. Under `engineering assistance', we see studies of roads, airfields, the Tulaghi marine base, and a coastal hydrographic unit. We have a RAN chief petty officer and several sailors over there helping to chart the inshore waters of the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands generally have been charted by the Royal Navy. There are coral reefs which expand and the channels between the islands are subject to the influence of cyclones. Therefore, we have a modest presence of a chief petty officer and several sailors working closely with the Solomon Islands authorities to ensure that the small harbours and the passages through the islands are properly charted. That has a defence as well as a commercial significance. I could go on to consider the other details of the program. However, I make the point that this useful program is in place and it has been significantly improved under the present Government. We increased our South Pacific expenditure by $7.8m in the last year. I mention a further aspect through which the Australian Defence Force, through the Natural Disasters Organisation, has assisted South Pacific countries in recent times. Honourable members will recall our support as a result of Cyclone Namu in the Solomon Islands last year and, more recently, Cyclone Uma in Vanuatu. Australia, because of its proximity to the South Pacific, is able to render that assistance in a more timely and appropriate way than any other nation. The nations of the South Pacific accept the fact that Australia, together with New Zealand, is ready to respond at short notice. The cost of the program is not included in the defence co-operation program, but it is another way, in addition to the program, in which the Australian Defence Force has assisted those nations. It is all part of the continuous level of contact commercially, culturally, and so on, which gives Australia a very good relationship with the islands of the south-west Pacific. Having mentioned the Natural Disasters Organisation, it might be appropriate to mention that the Director-General, Air Vice-Marshal John Lassels, is to retire shortly. He deserves a great deal of credit for the work that that Organisation has done under his leadership. His successor will be Major-General Horrie Howard. I have tried to cover the area in some detail, filling in what has been said by previous speakers on this side of the House. It is important to realise that this is a good program. The increased attention and assistance, financially and otherwise, that the Government is giving to the nations of the south-west Pacific are timely. It is quite hypocritical for the people on the other side of the House to criticise what we have done and to say that it is too little, too late, when that is compared with the almost nothing which they did in their time in government. There has never been in place a program of such significance as the Pacific patrol boat program. It is an initiative of this Government. I compliment the Minister for Defence on how that program has been achieved and for what it will achieve in the south-west Pacific. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.49) —I believe that the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is one of the most extraordinary statements that he has made. With a certain amount of fanfare he came into the House and declared new Australian defence initiatives in the South Pacific. They turned out to be a repeat of earlier announcements and boiled down to the fact that we are conducting trials of a patrol boat off Fremantle and that we have plans, already announced, to build 12 Pacific patrol boats to help our South Pacific neighbours, and we will be doing more maritime surveillance and giving technical assistance. Of course, that will do some good. Nobody would deny that. It is a little, but not much, better than nothing. However, compared with the problems of the region, it is a pathetic effort. Part of the explanation is in the last sentence of the Minister's statement when he described the South Pacific as `an area characterised by peace and stability'. That view would be shared, let us say, by casual tourists in Vanuatu or Fiji. From that perspective, it has a certain truth. The basic fact, as the Minister must be aware, is that the area which he describes as `characterised by peace and stability' is an increasingly unstable area. I am not just referring to the consequences of the most dramatic development in recent times; that is, New Zealand's decision to scuttle ANZUS. That had some immediate bad consequences by its undermining of the Western alliance. It was a very serious blow to the Western alliance in the South Pacific. It also had some immediate cut and dried consequences, such as the declaration by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands that, as a result of New Zealand's decision, his country was neutral in the world because it depends on New Zealand and, as such, it was defenceless. Apparently, New Zealand had been unable to identify a mystery submarine that surfaced off the Cook Islands. The consequences go further than the decision by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. New Zealand has real influence in the Pacific-in certain respects, more than Australia. It is a country of a couple of islands. It has a feeling for small islands. It has a feeling for the Polynesian and Melanesian islands of the South Pacific and what it does influences them. The ripple effect of New Zealand's decision will be felt for some time. We have seen in the region the development of an anti-Western-which also means an anti-Australian-neutralism continuing to surface. For example, Papua New Guinea has refused to permit Guam-based B52s to fly over its territory. That is also the region where, according to Denis Warner, even the Solomons refused to let a civilian United States Government Cessna carrying supplies for the Solomons land because the pilot would not say that the Cessna was neither nuclear powered nor nuclear fuelled. Those are the sorts of currents of opinion, the sorts of influence, that I believe the New Zealand decision has been having. One ought to note in passing that the Solomons has the only labour federation in the region which is affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions. It is also the region-I think that New Zealand's influence is important in Fiji-where the Fijian Labour Party is pledged, if it wins the next elections, which it may do, to ban port visits by United States warships, along the lines of New Zealand. It is not only a question of New Zealand's influence. The right honourable member for New England and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has pointed out that it is a region in which Soviet activities are expanding, not only on the level of fishing deals but also on the intelligence-gathering and political levels. It is not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with which we are concerned. Colonel Gaddafi is increasingly active in the region. It is the region where, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has confirmed, Colonel Gaddafi has formed a regional revolutionary committee made up of representatives of the ruling Vanu'aku Party in Vanuatu, the OPM in Irian Jaya and a faction of the FLNKS-the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front-known as FULK, the United Front for Kanak Liberation. He is also known to have offered Tonga an international airfield and unlimited free oil if it adopts anti-Western and anti-Israeli policies. Colonel Gaddafi has also given military training to two groups of Kanaks from New Caledonia. In addition to the activities of Colonel Gaddafi we have the activities of Cuba. The Secretary-General of the Vanu'aku Party visited Cuba as a guest of the Communist Party of Cuba, which offered to train Vanuatu Police. All these developments are destabilising and unsettling. But it is not only these developments. This is the region where the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, as promoted by Australia, would add, and is adding, to the instability of the region. It permits passage, but not the stationing, of nuclear-armed or nuclear-fuelled vessels. By its very essence it declares that the major deterrent of Soviet expansion in this area and in the world is unacceptable-that is, the nuclear deterrent. Would it not have been real leadership in this region if, instead of encouraging this ostrich-like view of the world, the Australian Government had argued in the South Pacific for the view that if the South Pacific states want United States defence protection, that means, and can only mean, defence by nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels, which is about all there are. But no, the Australian Government decided not to show that kind of leadership, but to put forward this South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which is partly, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) described it, a Mickey Mouse treaty but it is more than that because of what it implies and what it actually would do as far as the stationing of nuclear-powered vessels is concerned. The South Pacific is a region over which Australia has quarrelled with most of our allies-with Britain over the Invincible, with France over the nuclear tests which it regards as essential for its defence in the exercise of its sovereign rights, not to mention the repeated quarrels we have had with Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. Our quarrels with the United States are probably the most telling. We are giving aid to the United States enemy in Central America, the Sandinistas. We are opposing the SDI-the strategic defence initiative-when most of the leading Western powers are co-operating with it. We will not co-operate with the United States in testing the MX missile. We urge restraint-which amounts to doing nothing-in relation to terrorism, and we vote in the United Nations against the United States as often as we vote with it. This is a region in which our defence policy, under the influence of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, is isolationist, and where the Soviet base at Cam Rahn Bay casts its shadow with its TU16 Badgers, its TU95 Bear Ds, its TU142 Bear Fs, its squadron of MIG23 Flogger Gs, its 20 Soviet Navy vessels and six attack and cruise missile submarines, its missile loading and handling equipment, and its electronic intelligence gathering facility. This is the largest naval base for forward deployment outside the Warsaw Pact area-whatever the spokesman from the Soviet Embassy in Canberra has the hide to say. It is, incidentally, a naval base from which the Vietnamese are excluded. That is part of the very worrying Soviet expansion in the region, either immediately within the South Pacific or within those parts which influence the South Pacific. One could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker. Against this background what does the Minister for Defence offer? He offers a patrol boat-a few more to come-and some maritime surveillance. This statement is another example of Labor government technique. It mouths certain words with which everyone would agree and then does the opposite, or does nothing or very little. In this case it is a matter of doing very little as against the problems that are emerging, problems which make it plain that the Minister's description of this area as an area characterised by peace and stability is misleading. To the extent to which people take that view, they are not serving Australia's interests. Is it any wonder, given this pathetic contribution to the problem, that the Japanese are taking a greater interest in the South Pacific? That interest includes a very wide-ranging set of proposals for aid to the South Pacific states. The Japanese may well be doing this because of our past neglect and our present feeble effort. Again, we are doing too little too late. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(12.03) —Most of the comments made by honourable members opposite in this debate do not relate to initiatives in the South Pacific but rather, as they would have it, to responses to events in the South Pacific. I welcome the opportunity to support the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his statement on defence initiatives in the South Pacific. It is a statement which shows initiative and foresight on the part of the Government. It is a statement which goes not only to defence as such-defence simpliciter-but also to the assistance of nations in the South Pacific in other forms. These defence initiatives in the South Pacific are not formed, and do not totally exist as, responses to the presence of the Soviets in the Pacific-and nor should they. The assistance given to the Solomons, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, for example, following cyclones, volcanic eruptions and other events, relates to matters which should be taken into account by this country. It is something that can be integrated with defence assistance in the southern Pacific. The islands of the South Pacific have always been, and always will be, regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic well-being. This was well shown in World War II, when battles on land and at sea in the island chain to our north turned the tide of the Japanese expansion, and it is still so. It is vital to Australia that we not forget the strategic lessons learned then in the Pacific theatre of war. I accept and concur with Mr Dibb's comments that a self-reliant defence posture demands that we shape our defence capabilities to suit our environment. Likewise, it requires that we pay great attention to maintaining and strengthening the congenial features of that strategic environment. In doing this we must go well beyond the specific area of defence to other matters to which I have already referred. Our policies must-and I emphasise `must'-encompass aid, trade, immigration and many other issues. At this stage I refer to the assistance that has been forthcoming to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is an important factor in Australia's security considerations. Australia's assistance at a military level, a defence level and other levels is well documented. We have to examine critically future aid to Papua New Guinea, having regard to our austere budgetary considerations at present. The supply and maintenance of patrol craft and the training of crews from Papua New Guinea are important in the combined efforts of these two countries for the future defence of that region, an area which includes the Torres Strait region, where the Australian Army is driving successfully to seek assistance from the indigenes in relation to the reserve forces in that area. The participation of Torres Strait Islanders-people from Darnley Island, Yorke Island, Thursday Island, Horn Island and many other islands scattered throughout the Torres Strait-in the Army Reserve is proving a real boon in that area and it is that sort of initiative by the present Australian Government which is assisting in the integration of our defences and our aid in these regions. I was pleased to hear our Minister for Defence indicate the expanded deployment of patrol craft from Australia into the South Pacific region. No doubt, the base at HMAS Cairns will play an important role in that regard. Mr Beazley —That is quite correct. Mr GAYLER —I thank the Minister. Whilst I am not calling for additional patrol craft, I think that additional deployments from that base would play a very important role in this region. In proximity, it is one of the closest bases to the South Pacific nations, and the more integration we have with these areas-not only at a defence level but also at an aid level-the more benefits will accrue not just to the South Pacific nations but to Australia as well. It is important to note that our activities in the South Pacific are being developed in close consultation with our allies the United States and New Zealand, both of which are also giving increased priority to their defence contacts with the South Pacific region. With the exception of the French territories and American Samoa, all of the island countries have moved from their former dependent colonial status to full independence or self-government. It is in this regard that aid extended further than defence aid alone is important in the development of those nations. Self-government, with free association with former administering states, should of course be complete. As the Minister said in his speech, there are now eight independent island states ranging in size from Fiji with a population of over 600,000 to Tuvalu, which has about only 8,000 inhabitants. In conclusion may I just reiterate that those opposite have focused on responding to Soviet presence in the Pacific, which is a short-sighted and narrow view. The Minister did not speak about a response; he spoke about initiatives in this region-initiatives which are well documented, which I have referred to and which I trust this Government in the future years can expand upon. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.09) —What we have received today is another ad hoc defensive rationale by the Government which seeks to persuade us that it has an overall security strategy for our region. Let me tell the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) with respect that platitudes and hollow declarations of concern are no substitute for re-equipment, new deployments and diplomatic initiatives of substance. We have in the Minister's statement no new initiatives of any significance. We have a commitment only to stretch our defence tasks even further beyond our resources. We have a declaration of what is already happening, which we all know is insufficient, and we are told that there will be a few extra maritime patrols and a few extra tours for army survey teams. Let me remind the House of the highlights of the regional developments over the last 12 months that have caused me to make my previous comments. We had a tour of the region by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and had the Vladivostok speech by Mr Gorbachev. That latter speech declared the Soviet Union's determination to expand its influence in-and I emphasise this-our own backyard. It followed Soviet boasts of the year before that, as a result of the neutrality of New Zealand, ANZUS was dead. Last year we saw the implementation of the Soviet Vladivostok declarations via fishing deals and offers of aid by the Soviet Union and its proxies to the developing micro-states of the South Pacific-new and ominous initiatives in addition to the Russian involvement that has been mentioned in previous speeches. What was the Government's response to these events? Let me first tell the House what we did not get in the Minister's speech today. We have not yet seen a comprehensive joint foreign affairs and defence statement with initiatives covering the full spectrum of economic, military and diplomatic challenges that the Pacific community faces. We did get a cut in aid to the region despite the pleas from nations such as Papua New Guinea concerning the long term instability that that cut would create. We then got the Government's sole diplomatic initiative-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. That Treaty, the Prime Minister's own work, represented a major concession to those who seek to subvert public acceptance of our alliance with the United States, to those who seek to subvert our support for the West's diplomatic and political objectives in our region, to those who seek to subvert our support for nuclear deterrence, and to those who seek to subvert our active opposition to the Soviet Union, its proxies and their political systems. That Treaty simply strengthens the morally simplistic case and rhetoric of those who tell the people of the region that their peace is threatened not by the Soviets but by the presence of the United States Pacific Fleet. It is patently obvious that this Government has failed to learn the strategic lessons of the Second World War, which the Minister referred to today. Its neglect of the region, its denial of a capacity for our Navy to project power, and its naive approach to Soviet moves into our region have caused our allies such concern that they have taken matters into their own hands. We recently saw the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr Kuranari, tour the region to take up the responsibilities we have shed. He signalled significant economic and diplomatic involvement by Japan in the region. What is the reason? To block Soviet expansion. Of greater concern, I believe, is the now regular use of Australian papers by United States military spokesmen to tell Australians the facts that we are not hearing from our own Government. There are a number of depressing aspects of this statement. It fails to indicate that the Government understands that the key to Australia's contribution to military security in the region is the development of a naval capacity for force projection. More frustrating is the realisation that nothing will be changing in the future. This statement tells us so but so does the Government's stupidity, I believe, in allowing the Soviet Foreign Minister to fulfil propaganda objectives basic to the Vladivostok strategy by undertaking his forthcoming visit to Australia. The Minister came before us today with an initial call for historical reflection. My colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) took him seriously and showed how shallow this Government's familiarity with strategic history in our region really is. I too take the Minister's call seriously. I recall, as others have, that General Douglas MacArthur once said that the history of failure in war can be summed up in two words-`too late': Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in resisting the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in utilising all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with one's friends. A generation before, Lloyd George had confronted the British House of Commons with a similar piece of wisdom. Speaking of the First World War he stated: . . . too late? Ah! Two fatal words of this war! Too late in moving here. Too late in arriving there. Too late in coming to this decision. Too late in starting with enterprises. Too late in preparing. In this war the footsteps of the Allied Forces have been dogged by the mocking spectre of ``Too Late''! Those words, `too late', are the recurring message of military and diplomatic history. I believe it is the Minister's responsibility to heed them. Over the last year in particular the Government has not stood with its major ally. It has distanced itself from the United States and in many ways it has rebuffed it diplomatically. The Government appears not to comprehend the nature of the threat we face and it still has no program to prepare our nation and our armed forces for the challenges we will face over the coming generations. It is ironic that this statement comes a day after the anniversary of the first attack on Darwin. I hope those in Darwin and elsewhere who lost loved ones because Australia was not prepared then are listening and that they will warn their children of the lunacy and eventual tragedy of the Government's security policies. I implore, and even beg, the Government to change its course by the time we consider a defence White Paper. I urge caution on those on the other side who scoff and laugh at those who warn of potential perils we face. Many United States leaders laughed at those who warned of Japanese capabilities and intentions before Pearl Harbour. I conclude by saying that alarm bells are ringing in Tokyo, Beijing, Washington, Paris, Singapore and elsewhere as a result of the Soviet challenge in our region. The question I ask today is: Why are they not ringing in Canberra? Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.17) —Over the last few years there has been a growing concern amongst partners to the Western alliance about the identified Soviet interest in and penetration into the South West Pacific. Issues have arisen: For example, the fishing agreement signed by the Soviet Union with Kiribati, the interest in Vanuatu by Cuba and the Soviet Union only recently, and Libya's interest in the South West Pacific. All of these have given rise to very legitimate concern amongst partners of the Western alliance. The South West Pacific is one of the few areas on this planet that are relatively free from ongoing conflict and intense Western and communist rivalry. But this part of the world is very important to the Western alliance, to the free world and to world peace. Paul Dibb, in an article entitled `Soviet strategy towards Australia, New Zealand and the South-West Pacific', published in the magazine Australian Outlook in August 1985, wrote: In Soviet perceptions Australia and-until recently-New Zealand are tied directly into the Western alliance system and the islands of the South-West Pacific are Western inclined and generally suspicious of Soviet intentions. The ANZUS Treaty has aligned Australia and New Zealand closely with the USSR's enemy, the United States, for over 30 years. Papua New Guinea, a major island state of the South-West Pacific, has friendly relations with Australia, including a strong defence relationship. The Soviet Union would like to see the ANZUS alliance system disrupted in its favour and the close relationship that has developed between Australia, New Zealand and the United States with ASEAN countries and with the nations of the South-West Pacific destroyed. The importance of ANZUS to the USSR needs to be clearly understood. Unlike NATO, ANZUS does not directly threaten the national security of the Soviet homeland with military attack but the role of North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar suggests that it is in the Soviet Union's interest to see them removed from Australia through political pressure. Moreover, Moscow would like to see the US prevented from using port and air facilities in the region for its naval warships and military aircraft-as has occurred in New Zealand. Soviet propaganda seeks to influence the denial of such facilities to America by frequently pointing out that it is only the presence of the US military forces in Australia and New Zealand that would make them Soviet nuclear targets: Indeed, Mr Dibb went on to point out that at the time of the discussions held between the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand on the ban by New Zealand of the visit of nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed alliance ships to New Zealand media reports in the Soviet Union had this to say: . . . the [ANZUS] alliance is showing a crack, to wit in the most important place-in the bloc's nuclear function, in Washington's global strategy. . . . implementation of the New Zealand Labour [Government's] election pledges might set off a chain reaction leading to the collapse of the ANZUS block. the example of New Zealand might also be followed by Australia. . . . The present severe political tensions with the ANZUS alliance are creating several important strategic benefits for the Soviet Union A breakdown of the ANZUS alliance would represent a major advance for the Soviet cause. I have listened to the speeches in this debate. Reference has been made to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. Paul Dibb observed: The Soviet Union's interest in a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific can also be seen in the context of wanting American warships and military aircraft excluded from the territories of close US allies. Australia and some of the islands of the South-West Pacific want a South Pacific nuclear-free zone to allow for the transit of nuclear-powered warships through the region. The USSR is in favour of what it calls `a real nuclear weapon-free zone' because it has no requirement to deploy its surface warships in the region in peace time. Moreover, Moscow wants French nuclear testing excluded from the South-West Pacific because France might find it difficult to find an alternative acceptable site and this would slow down the development of French nuclear weapons. It is against this background of increasing Soviet interest in the south-west Pacific, as evidenced by the speech in Vladivostok by the Secretary-General of the Soviet Union Communist Party, that this Government has put in a position paper on its proposal with respect to defence co-operation with certain island states in the South West Pacific. I would respectfully suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is against this background that the Western alliance-particularly the ANZUS partners Australia and the United States of America-should play an ever-increasing role in ensuring that penetration by the Soviet Union, whether commercially or in any other sphere, can be deterred, dissuaded, and diminished as much as possible. The concerns that I have expressed in this chamber today, unfortunately, are not readily shared by many of the island states, judging by their expenditure on defence. Apparently most of the nations perceive relatively little immediate danger to require them to increase their defence expenditure. Indeed, of the nine fully independent South Pacific Forum countries only three-Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga-have regular defence forces. The Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have paramilitary capability. Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu and Western Samoa rely on civil police to carry out enforcement and protection responsibilities against external threats. This surely must be a source of concern to Australia and New Zealand who are charged with the responsibility of providing adequate defence assistance in this region. I suppose one of the reasons why the Pacific island states are unable to provide more in respect of defence expenditure lies in their economic limitations. Those limitations make them especially vulnerable to external influences with respect to trade and other matters. I believe that the threat here is the compromise of sovereignty to the island states, originating from economic distress; for example, a collapse in copra prices or other exports. This would give an opportunity to the Soviet Union, or one of its surrogates, to enter almost indistinguishably into commercial arrangements and then to develop those and enter into a more permanent relationship with those island states. Australia and New Zealand must realise that, from an island perspective, economic vulnerability must be assessed in terms of practicalities and price; hence the recent initiatives by Vanuatu, and the former initiatives by Kiribati two years ago in signing a fishing contract with the Soviet Union. I believe the island states place their development as being crucial to their foreign policy. I cannot see them avoiding the need to improve their trading relationships with various countries if the alternative is an artificially high aid-generated standard of living, which would clearly be unacceptable to the vast majority of their populations. I see the economic vulnerability of the Pacific island states as being one of the most critical weaknesses in the whole defence relationship between them and the ANZUS partners. I suppose I should touch briefly on the economics of some of the Pacific island states. A number of characteristics are common to the majority of the Pacific countries. The first is a set of items that reflect the smallness of island economies. There is a narrow range of human and non-human economic resources. Land areas and populations are relatively small. There are few exports and, in a good number of cases, they have only a single cash crop-copra. With four exceptions, known mineral resources are practically non-existent. Total exports are so minuscule that they have no impact on world prices. Domestic markets are also small, and as most of the countries have the same products there is little in the way of intra-regional trade. A major portion of the world's annual tuna catch comes from the Pacific. However, to date, licence fees which permit distant nations' fishing industries to operate within their 200-mile exclusive economic zones have been of only minor significance for most island economies. Some sea areas are rich in minerals, particularly manganese nodules, but the technology to exploit these resources is not yet available or economically feasible. Another factor is the islands' geographic isolation and remoteness. The great distances from world markets make for high transportation costs. Air and shipping rates for commodities and air travel are amongst the highest in the world. The islands and their economies are also vulnerable to natural disasters. Typhoons or cyclones in recent years have devastated portions of Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands. Finally, the smallness of the economies of the Pacific island states also implies a dis-economy of scale in both the public and private sectors. Investment in economic and social infrastructures, such as roads, ports and airports, power and communication facilities, is such that it requires a minimum size below which it cannot be economic. It is against that background of those Pacific island countries that Australia is faced with the urgent need, in co-operation with the United States of America, to ensure that our defence forces have a very visible and effective presence in that region. As has been said in this debate, Australia does not seek to dominate or to unduly influence inimically the interests of the Pacific island states. But Australia and those states do have a collective interest, and a very vital interest, in ensuring that the South West Pacific, Australia and New Zealand, do remain free of conflict and free of Soviet influence, and remain firmly committed to the Western Alliance and to the free world. By means of the aid policies of Australia and New Zealand we can build, at a pace acceptable to the Pacific island nations, an economic infrastructure that is sufficient to place them on their feet economically. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(12.32) —It is always very refreshing to hear the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) because he is the one member on that side of the House who really appreciates how vital it is to this country to have an effective and meaningful relationship with the United States of America. I commend him for it. I was anxious to speak in this debate for a number of reasons. I suppose the main reason is that since entering this House I have been associated with the defence of this country in one way or another. I welcome any such opportunity. I point out that I have had the great privilege of chairing the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-committee on Defence Matters, and also of having the advantage of the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) as a very effective member of that Committee, together with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the present shadow Treasurer. I think all members of that Committee would concede that those two men worked extremely well together. We took evidence at a very high plane. It was taken from people who were internationally recognised as having a sincere regard for the defence of our Western group and who were very dedicated to their own countries. I would like to refer to one or two of the comments made by the Minister for Defence in his statement. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the House because the Minister for Defence made reference to the fact that our longest standing defence relationship has been with Papua New Guinea. This is true. When I had the privilege of being Minister for the Army for this country I almost wore a track to Papua New Guinea to try to get a realistic concept, to try to understand just what role Papua New Guinea, as our nearest neighbour, was playing in our defence. Of course, the honourable member for Herbert has had a long experience in that country. Certain facts emerge very loudly and clearly, but we will not go back into history. I just want to make one point, which is that a few of us had what was a rather profound responsibility. Again, due to the understanding of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, we were permitted to go to Papua New Guinea to make an inquiry into just what was happening on the West Irian border. Most of us came back with one very clear concept, which was that the Government of Papua New Guinea seemed to have the matter well in hand. Although it appreciated the fact that Australia was aware of the possibilities in that area, it more or less indicated that it understood what was happening and was well able to handle it. If we want to retain relationships with both Indonesia and Papua New Guinea-relationships that are very critical to the security of this country-let us remain as an observer who could in the long run term perhaps have some involvement in the event of difficulties. However, it was obvious to us all that the troublemakers had been planted in that area to overexaggerate what may be difficulties with the Indonesians. This will always occur. But I do not think that any of us believed that the more extreme statements were true. I point to the fact that I have had a great advantage in that many years ago, when Admiral Long was the Commander in Chief Pacific, I had the advantage of what was a very effective briefing in Pearl Harbour. Certain very clear facts emerged from what those very senior officers were able to impart. Firstly, the Soviet intrusion into the Pacific area was equally as significant and accelerating as it was into the Indian Ocean area. I am sure that all honourable members will recall that in those days-of course, it still is-the great accent was on the submarines prowling around the Indian Ocean. What was happening was an intrusion into the Pacific and South Pacific areas. Probably the most significant development was the command post that exists in the northern Pacific area. According to my briefing-it has been exposed in very explicit terms since then-the Soviet command in the northern Pacific areas was very well equipped and had a great capacity to fight, command and co-ordinate either a global nuclear war or a conventional war. Its capacity was unlimited and extremely updated. Of course, we well remember the shooting down of the aircraft which was intruding into the fringe of that area. The area was so vital and the security in it so high that, to be gentle in my interpretation, the plane crashed. So that command exists up there. I refer to the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities brought down by Paul Dibb. I say here-the Minister for Foreign Affairs will confirm this-that Paul Dibb was one of the very valuable witnesses who appeared before the sub-committee on defence. He pointed to a number of matters which very much involved the security of the South Pacific area. He recorded that our concentration of defence and defence capabilities should not be down in the Bass Strait area or towards Antarctica but should be very much in the north. There is a move at the moment-it is not accelerating as quickly as I would like to see it accelerate-to build up Norforce in the peninsula area, in that far northern area. I have had advice from many people who are international authorities on the subject. For instance, this afternoon we shall be seeing Admiral Hays. We saw him last year and had a very valuable discussion with him. Who is Admiral Hays? He is the Commander in Chief Pacific, the successor to Admiral Long. No doubt we will come out of that meeting with him much better informed. But I believe that in the matter of defence we theorise. We set out a map on a table and put little flags on it. What we have to do is not just imagine what could happen; we must go out and talk to the people in those areas-both the past and present Foreign Affairs and Defence committees have done this from time to time. We need to see the terrain and the isolation of those areas, to look at the vast seashores that are so vulnerable up there in the north and say to ourselves: Supposing there is an intrusion into these areas, how will we deal with it? Let me say very emphatically, and with respect, that I am not blaming the Minister for Defence-- Mr McGauran —I am. Mr KATTER —My friend does blame him. But the problem is with the whole concept of our defence. People can go into a Cabinet room and put forward ideas; maybe they will be accepted; maybe they will be rejected. My plea to the Minister for Defence is for him to do everything humanly possible to convince his Government that we have to have the sort of defence system that I was about to refer to-a realistic concept of defence. Frankly, from all the evidence and all the advice I have received, and all of the observing that I have had the advantage of doing, there is only one answer: We have to have small, highly mobile, highly armed units. I am thinking in terms of new generation weapons-into the laser area if you like-because we have so much to defend and so little with which to do it. The units would have to go to those areas and carry out a hit and run type operation. In recent military history, a precedent of the type of operation to which I refer was the raid on Entebbe, or the average Israeli-type expedition-or even, dare I say, the example of the North Vietnamese, who had small, mobile units. Of course, added to that formula there has to be a knowledge of the areas involved. When we consider that, we see that it is high time that the Minister went to Cabinet to say: `We had better decentralise and establish small command headquarters'. I would not for a moment detract from the importance of Lavarack; we well know that the dedicated men there would give all, including their lives, if necessary. We supposedly have a task force that is mobile. I do not know how many helicopters it has at the moment-perhaps three, but it should have 15 or 19. Maybe it will get them eventually; it certainly does not have them now. The actual arming of that task force is very much less than we would desire. Its mobility is very limited. I am stating the obvious, but we could be faced with our great unit having to go to meet an expedition landing on the north-west of this nation-perhaps a detracting operation-which is small, highly mobile and armed with new generation weaponry. To get off that subject for a moment, I want to read a fairly authoritative extract. It relates to the intrusion of the Soviet Union into the Pacific area. It emerges as one of the findings of the International Defence Review. It states: In recent years, the Soviet Union has repeatedly claimed that it has the right to play an active role in South-East Asia and the Pacific and to extend its military influence into these regions. Apart from statements to this effect made by leading Soviet politicians, this was clearly recognised from the intensification of Soviet diplomatic activities and propaganda as well as the continuous build-up of Soviet military forces in these areas. Before I go on, let me say that Lieutenant-Commander Hodgman-he is a lieutenant-commander-stated in this House earlier that the significance of all this is indicated by the very high status of the present Soviet Ambassador to this country. One can see the accent. The quotation continues: The clearest indication so far was given- this quotation has been made in the House two or three times- by Communist Party chief Mikhail Gorbachev on 28 July 1986 in a speech at Vladivostok. He described the Soviet Union as a `Pacific power' . . . Come on! Honourable members opposite should not try to tell us that the Soviet Union has no real intentions in this regard, that it is not really interested. Like hell it is not really interested! The Soviets are intruding into the Pacific area equally as significantly as they have intruded into the Indian Ocean area. I have several quotations, which time will not permit me to present to the House. You have been more than indulgent, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that it is a little after a quarter to one. If we are to accept the proposition that the Soviet presence in the Pacific Ocean is not something to be worried about, then God help this nation, God help its security, and God help its survival. Debate (on motion by Mr Tickner) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr WHITE —How does the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism reconcile his call earlier today for Australians to get behind Expo 88 and show solidarity with his decision to bypass capable Australian companies in awarding the major audio-visual contract for the Australian Expo pavilion to an American company? Why were Australian companies not given the opportunity to tender for this contract, but only to submit their proposals? On what basis does the Minister reconcile this decision with his Government's buy Australian campaign? Why did the Minister reject the strong advice of his Department that this audio-visual contract not be proceeded with? Was it because established procedures for this contract had not been followed? Mr JOHN BROWN —First of all, the question is based on a fairly doubtful premise. There is no contract; no contract has been drawn up. so that undermines the basis of the question. I am as conscious as anybody else in this House of the value and the spirit of the buy Australian campaign or Australian made campaign. The basis of that campaign is that we are imploring Australians to evaluate their purchases and, all things being equal or nearly equal, to buy Australian. I said in the House the other night that there were proposals for the theatre at the Australian Expo pavilion in Brisbane. It is fairly obvious that the most talented proposition was put up by an American company. That contract involves $5m of an $18m contract, about $1,500,000 of which was to be spent in Australia anyhow, so if that contract had been drawn up and signed, it would have been a very minor part of the total Australian budget. But at this stage there is no contract so the question falls down. Allegations, some of them quite erroneous and some of them quite mischievous, have been made in various sections of the Press about the propriety of how my committee arrived at its decision to advise me to sign with an American company. I have asked my Department to investigate all aspects of the procedures that the committee followed to reach that decision. I am sure that all honourable members will share my view-not only because of the display that took place on the lawns of Parliament House today with the Prime Minister launching a new campaign to help Australian Expo achieve the greatness that I am sure it will achieve-that everyone would like the Australian pavilion at Expo Brisbane to be the best pavilion. I think that is an acceptable proposition-that the host country should have the best pavilion. I can assure this House that no stone will be left unturned by my Department, by my committee or by me to see that that happens, but by the same token I am just as concerned, confident and determined that that decision will be made with all the due processes of government contracting having been followed. Mr WRIGHT —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of the levels of State taxes and charges levied on mining and resources industries in Queensland? Is he able to inform the Parliament whether the mining and resources industries in Queensland approve of the taxing levels and regard them as being an incentive to their endeavours? Finally, does the high level of resources taxes in Queensland give credibility to Premier Bjelke-Petersen's nationwide campaign for lower taxes and flat taxes in Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —It is interesting to hear the would-be ayatollah from the north, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, espousing the cause of lower income taxes when, according to a recent analysis based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, his Government has increased its revenue from State taxes and charges, fees and fines, and the profits of State run businesses at a faster rate than any other State, irrespective of whether it is a Labor government or a non-Labor government. Mr Hawke —There is only one other non-Labor government. Mr BARRY JONES —Tasmania is the only other State, but there is the Northern Territory, of course, not to mention the Australian Capital Territory. Queensland State revenue from these sources increased by an average real rate of growth of 7 per cent over each of the last six years compared with the average of all the other States of 4 per cent per year. That is Queensland style State socialism under Sir Joh. A major part of Queensland tax revenue comes from the State's very heavy coal transport charges, which contain a significant element of taxation by way of profit, particularly on rail freights. The Queensland Chamber of Mines has estimated that the profit or tax component of the $584m collected as rail freights in Queensland in 1984-85 was $364m, or 62 per cent. A recent report by one of the major coal producers in Queensland also estimated that railway `profits' amounted to 67 per cent of its total rail freight costs. Arguably, this is the highest tax in the world on coal exports. That is shameful at a time when the industry is fighting to maintain international competitiveness. As Senator Gareth Evans stated at the Australian Coal Conference last year, taxes and charges on the coal industry need to be reviewed and replaced with a more equitable and rational taxation scheme. The Commonwealth Government is not opposed to the taxation of resource industries but taxation has to be open to the public view and must not discourage production. That is much better than the hidden profits or the concealed system of taxation which operates on Queensland coal production. The rail freight agreements negotiated between the Queensland Government and coal producers are confidential. Because they are confidential this inhibits informed debate on the matter. How can we have an open debate in the Kafka-like atmosphere of secrecy and cronyism of Joh style politics? The Queensland Government is also using public services to consumers, including electricity charges, as a taxing mechanism to a greater extent than other States. Rail freights in particular though are being used as the milch cow. It is the depths of hypocrisy and wilful misleading of the public for Joh to proclaim what he believes about tax levels at a time when Queensland's average income has fallen from 92 per cent of the national average in 1979-80 to 90 per cent in 1984. As Steve Hatton remarked, how extraordinary it is to have a person standing on the steps of his $10m aircraft, which costs Queensland taxpayers $1,800 an hour, talking about taxation discipline. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his statement on 2 April last year that the Government would guarantee the construction of 135,000 new houses this financial year. Given that the housing industry now anticipates that there will be only 118,000 new housing starts-17,000 fewer than the Prime Minister's guarantee-and in the light of the forecasts made by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry yesterday and referred to by the New South Wales Minister for Housing in the New South Wales Parliament that home loan interest rates are unlikely to fall, and may even rise during the current financial year, what is the Prime Minister's excuse for the continued parlous state of the Australian housing industry? Mr HAWKE —We have been down this track a couple of times with questions from the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin. Firstly, the document to which the Leader of the Opposition referred-the one reported in the Press-is a working document from the New South Wales Indicative Planning Council which will be considered by its national counterpart in due course. I do not want to take up the time of the House by making these points, but at least I will start off with the first point, which I have made on a number of occasions before. As in any area of economic policy to which the Leader of the Opposition wants to refer, he speaks from a foundation of failure-the failure of all areas of economic policies which, taken together, meant that he walked out of office in March 1983 having plunged the Australian economy into its worst recession for 50 years. A significant part of the fact that the Australian economy was in its worst recession for 50 years was what the Opposition had done to the housing industry, because the number of housing starts in the last year of the former Government was 105,000. If the Opposition wants to know how to conduct a housing industry, compared with its own pathetic performance, it should look at the record of this Government. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I preface my question by referring to the continuing widespread community interest in questions of longer term economic adjustment and the continuing incapacity of the Opposition to make any contribution to that debate. I ask the Prime Minister to remind the House of the strategies being applied by his Government towards revitalising the Australian economy. Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his penetrating and very relevant question. As to the policies of this Government, I remind him that not only did we, immediately on coming to office, undertake those policies that were necessary to rescue the economy from that worst recession in 50 years-the responsibility of the current Leader of the Opposition-but also we realised that we had to start immediately on a basic longer term strategy of restructuring the Australian economy. The honourable member, from his well known understanding of economic history and the economics of this country, would appreciate that when we came to office in March 1983, for 30 of the previous 33 years the control of the economy was in the hands of the Liberal and Country parties, and what a mess they made of it. So we set about the business of the fundamental restructuring of the economy. Of particular interest to the honourable member, of course, is the situation of the steel industry. When we came to office Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was seriously considering whether it would close down the steel industry altogether. That was its judgment. We said to the Australian people: `No Labor Government would contemplate, let alone tolerate- Mr Sinclair —Why didn't you give the same help to small business? Mr HAWKE —Be quiet, passing leader, your time has gone. The honourable member would know that we said that no Australian Labor Government would tolerate contemplation of the closing down of the steel industry. So we set about bringing in a plan, within almost 100 days of coming to office, which has revolutionised the steel industry from being one in contemplation of being closed down to one which has now been transformed into one of the most competitive, export oriented steel industries in the world. There has been a remarkable increase in productivity in the steel industry because of the outstanding co-operation we achieved between the industry, the unions, relevant State governments and the Commonwealth Government. What we have done in the steel industry we have also moved to do in the restructuring of the Australian motor vehicle industry, the heavy engineering industry, the shipbuilding industry and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The honourable member will be aware of what we have been able to do in terms of the longer term economic restructuring of Australia. So our record is clear. It makes one wonder what to expect in the area of economic policy from the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt the honourable member, like all of us, looked forward with bated breath to the speech which the Leader of the Opposition delivered to the National Press Club earlier this month. I do not know whether, as a form of intellectual masochism, the honourable member has yet taken the opportunity to read it. Mr Sinclair —Come on, wind up. This is a total abuse of Question Time and you know it, little boy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —I suggest this is totally out of order. If he wants to make a speech, he can do it, but not within Question Time. He is hopeless, and you know it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order, including the Leader of the National Party. Mr HAWKE —We looked to this speech for the statement of record, the outlook of what the Leader of the Opposition would do. I will go to only two or three pages and share these thoughts with the honourable member. On the first page we had this observation from the Leader of the Opposition, when he said: Our higher education policy which- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is a very simple one. Under the Standing Orders it is provided- Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I would appreciate it if those on my right would be silent. Mr Spender —Yes, the kiddies are a little restless today. Under the Standing Orders it is provided that questions may be asked on those matters within the portfolio responsibilities of Ministers and the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, you raised this objection on 9 September 1981 and you will recall that you got a favourable ruling on that occasion. This matter is dealt with on page 489 of House of Representatives Practice. In the past it has been ruled in this House, amongst other things, that questions which have been ruled out of order and, therefore, answers which should be ruled out of order, have included: Statements . . . of the Minister's own party or of its conferences or officials, or of those of other parties, including opposition parties, . . . If we are to have a serious Question Time which is directed towards the issues before the House and within Standing Orders, the Prime Minister should answer questions directed to those matters and not use it as a Max Gillies opportunity to try to divert himself from matters within his responsibility. It is not an occasion to use statements made by leaders of the opposition or anybody else outside Parliament. That has been the ruling in the past and it is the ruling that should be followed here now. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for North Sydney that it has been the practice of many Speakers before me to give latitude to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's portfolio ranges widely as he is the Prime Minister. However, I suggest that questions should be shortened. I call the Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —It is not in my power to shorten the question, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the House that the Chair has no authority to shorten the answers, but I can give advice that questions and answers are becoming quite long. It might be an idea if we cut them back. Mr HAWKE —With due deference to your ruling, Madam Speaker, I will be briefer in dealing with this question than I otherwise would have been. I make this observation: One can understand why the Opposition wants to hide its statement of policies. On the first page of the Leader of the Opposition's speech he referred in these terms to the education policy: Our Higher Education policy which contains some exciting proposals to meet the needs of the 30,000 to 40,000 young Australians locked out of tertiary-- Mr Sinclair —I suggest that none of this is relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have dealt with the point of order. Are you raising another point of order? Mr Sinclair —I am raising a point of order. I suggest that within the Standing Orders it is necessary for the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question. He is referring to matters not within his responsibility. This is a specific matter canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition; it is not a matter which has been raised by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is using this matter as an excuse to deliver a political diatribe which he could more appropriately deliver by way of a statement to the House. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you should apply the Standing Orders of relevance, even though the man delivering the answer is the Prime Minister. Madam SPEAKER —Order! In regard to the point of order, the matter of relevance has been canvassed in the House on a number of occasions and, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, relevance is very often a matter of opinion. In regard to the Prime Minister answering the question, it has been the practice of many back benchers to sit in this place and listen to longer answers than we have been getting today. Nevertheless, I caution those on my right that the answers have been getting longer and I would appreciate it if they accepted my advice to shorten them. Mr HAWKE —I will not go any further than two paragraphs of the speech from which honourable members on this side of the House and, I think, those on the other side will see what weight they can attach to the assessments of the Leader of the Opposition. He concluded his speech in these terms: The Federal Coalition between the Liberal and National Parties is one of the great success stories of Australian politics. Recent days have demonstrated the strength of that Coalition. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. He will recall his assurance to this House on 22 August last year when he said that the Budget would bring interest rates down. Why are many farm producers forced to continue paying rates of at least 18.5 per cent, and some over 20 per cent and rising, in the face of record institutional farm debt now exceeding $8 billion, and the National Farmers Federation has estimated the total debt is $10 billion or more? In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the interest rate problem is the biggest problem facing farmers, will he call a debt crisis meeting with the banks, the rural adjustment agencies in the States and the State Ministers responsible to develop a strategy to assist our efficient farmers-the Prime Minister agrees that they are efficient-especially our grain growers, to ride out their current financial crisis and to help overcome the very serious financial and social circumstances facing so many families in rural Australia? Mr KERIN —It was a pretty long question, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Do not make the answer too long. Mr KERIN —I said on the night the Treasurer brought down the Budget that the Government had set in place a situation to get a lowering of interest rates-that is, we chopped the Budget deficit to $1 billion lower than the NFF had expected; we chopped the public sector borrowing requirement; and we took action in a range of economic areas that set the groundwork for a drop in interest rates over the coming year. The Treasurer did his work well. The Opposition fails to understand that we have a deteriorating balance of payments position, particularly with some commodities. We cannot simply get $1 billion less for our wheat and have as much money in our pockets. The Opposition must learn that. We cannot get billions of dollars less for coal, iron ore, and so on, and not have the situation that exists in this country today. The Opposition, in all its prognostications and big promises to the electorate, which would take the Budget deficit to $14 billion, fails to acknowledge our external position. There is no sense, as the NFF and other bodies have said, in flooding the money markets with money and getting interest rates down in the short term if that will lead inevitably to a run on the dollar, higher inflation and even higher interest rates. That is the situation. The Opposition should learn a few economic facts. It thinks that a man coming from the north will get a few simple solutions; he will wave his finger and say `Don't you worry about that', and that will be a policy. Some Opposition back bench members endorse such nonsense, such geriatric gibberish. There are no simple solutions. We are putting in place the correct policies. I had better quote the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on indirect taxation. Two or three weeks ago he said that the Opposition would introduce indirect taxes; now it will not. There is no sense in promising such things and-- Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, you said that you gave latitude to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party on matters of relevance. I pointed out the past rulings. You know the past rulings. The Minister, who is not in that category, is flouting past rulings. He should be told to abide by them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out that I have no control over how a Minister chooses to answer a question. The Minister will get round to answering the question, and be relevant to the question, as he goes. If he brings in some other problem on the way through, besides the one that he has been mentioned, that is how he chooses to answer. Mr KERIN —Madam Speaker, we are talking about general economic matters-- Mr MacKellar —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. If I heard you correctly, you said that you have no capacity to order a Minister as to the way in which he answers a question. Madam SPEAKER —Except in the matter of relevancy. Mr MacKellar —The point of order was on the matter of relevancy, and you have not ruled on that. Madam SPEAKER —I rule that the Minister will answer the question in his own way. I expect him to get around to the relevancy of the question. Mr MacKellar —Madam Speaker, you must ask him to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Perhaps in the Minister's opinion he is being relevant. In my opinion the Minister is being relevant; is that good enough? I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —We are talking about interest rates. What the Opposition does not seem to understand is that it is not a question of ticking a little cross and saying that we will have X percentage interest rates. This is at the heart of the most complex economic problem this country has. I was simply taking the opportunity to explain the reasons for the situation we have regarding interest rates, the farm debt problem, and the fact that many of the popular solutions being put forward by honourable members opposite are simply pie in the sky. Mr Burr —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member raising a new point of order? I have dealt with the last one. Mr Burr —I point out to you standing order 145 which states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. I put it to you, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled that the Minister is being relevant to the question. Mr Burr —I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that you have the authority to rule on relevance. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have made a ruling. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —Perhaps I can speak to the point of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will answer the question. Mr KERIN —I was pointing out some of the short term solutions that are being put forward. For instance, a flat tax would cost the average farmer an extra $1,200 a year, on this year's national farm income figures, with a total cost to the rural sector of $200m. The honourable member for Gwydir has said that interest rates are the biggest economic problem faced by many farmers. Fifty per cent of the farm sector has very little debt at all. The problem lobs at one end, particularly for wheat farmers. About 12 1/2 per cent of all wheat farmers have debts of over $200,000. That is the really big problem in the farm sector. About 80 per cent of the drop in farm income is because of the situation in the wheat and grain industries. It is that end of the industry on which we are concentrating in respect of the work we are doing on the farm debt and the interest rates problem. I cannot quite remember the dates, but I think that on 11 or 18 March I am having a meeting with all the States and the rural adjustment authorities; the Rural and Allied Industries Council is having a meeting on the question in March, and I am taking a Cabinet submission forward. We are talking to the banks all the time. This Government is actually doing something about the problem. We are not simply talking about holding meetings. I talked to the banks last night. Mr GORMAN —I ask the Treasurer whether he has seen or received any refutation or denial by the Leader of the Opposition of the costing of the Opposition's $14 billion worth of tax commitments documented by him yesterday in Question Time. What effect would the implementation of commitments of this order have on equity in the tax system and more generally on the macroeconomy? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The first part of the question is out of order; the second part of the question is in order. Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is the first part of the question ruled out of order? Madam SPEAKER —Yes. Mr Spender —Thank you, Madam Speaker. We seem to be getting on the same wavelength. Mr KEATING —The implementation of commitments of this order, that is, of $14 billion-which commitments, by the way, were not refuted by the Leader of the Opposition after the documentation I gave to the Opposition yesterday despite the blackguarding he gave me the day before-would, of course, have a disastrous effect upon the real economy. To have an addition to the Budget deficit of that order of magnitude would have a very accelerating effect upon demand; it would have the effect of sucking imports into the economy and exacerbating the current account deficit very rapidly; and with it we would see an enormous deterioration in our current account deficit, and hence very quickly a deterioration, through the exchange markets, in exchange rates and interest rates. I have said, and I will repeat, that such opportunist prescriptions would only drive Australia into a recession, rapidly, as the financial markets lift the interest rates in response to what they would see to be the unavoidable weakening of the exchange rate in the face of that kind of deficit outcome. In terms of equity in the tax system, it is almost beyond belief that the Leader of the Opposition-who masqueraded and campaigned as an economic dry, a rationalist, in the Australian political and economic debate and won his office on that platform-should not only propose that there should be addition to the lost revenue and hence the deficit of this order of magnitude, but at the same time should seek to strike blows against the equity of the tax changes which the Government has itself implemented. For instance, he has said that there should be a repeal of the fringe benefits tax on the basis that income taken other than as cash should continue to escape the tax net. This Government stood up and taxed it for the first time ever, and for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would repeal that tax so that people would no longer bear tax upon income other than cash is, in terms of tax equity, obscene. In terms of entertainment, there was the phoney claim that in some way legitimate business expenses ought to be allowed, when the Leader of the Opposition knows that there could be no basis for substantiation by the Taxation Commissioner sitting at every luncheon table in the country to ascertain whether a lunch, or no lunch, or what sort of lunch, was in fact a business lunch. With the growth of this provision there was nothing to do other than to disallow it from the tax system. This is another blow against equity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition who wishes, for the most shabby and paltry reasons, to dismantle it. On capital gains the Leader of the Opposition says that all gains in terms of value of stock held in the stock exchanges of this country, on the stock market, should go as untaxed income in the hands of the stock owners, while he says that low income earners should have their wages frozen. This is the equity and decency of the supposed Opposition. On the assets test, he says that what we should have-- Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I remind you that questions may be directed to a Minister in relation to his portfolio or to matters of public administration that are of his concern. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to a point of order that you took on 9 September 1981 in which you quoted to the then Speaker. I quote from Hansard: Mrs Child-I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you would give the same ruling that Speaker Snedden gave to you at that time. Madam SPEAKER —I point out that the honourable member for Greenway has asked a question about the implications of certain proposed tax cuts. The Treasurer is being quite relevant to the question. Mr KEATING —We hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we should cut down on money being paid through the transfer system of the Commonwealth to certain categories of social security recipients, but when we say that we will test their assets beside their means he says: `No, we will repeal the assets test'. Mr Nehl —And we will repeal it! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —This is not only an indication of the fact that there is no general understanding of the general laxity in fiscal terms of that sort of policy, but in terms of equity, in terms of tax decency, it is also an indication of the sheer indecency of these things from a party and a leader which espouses the cause of rationality and dry economics. Underpinning these tax losses to the revenue by the repeal of all of these laws was the consumption tax proposal of the Opposition, netting it $3.8 billion. Now that has been vetoed by the National Party, which has sworn allegiance to a leader outside this Parliament. Now we have a leader of the National Party-that effective leader of the National Party who does not reside in this Parliament-- Mr Spender —I raise-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for North Sydney not to move straight to the microphone and start speaking. It is normal to allow me to get the Treasurer seated and then call the next speaker. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, my point of order is one I have made before. The Treasurer has been asked a particular question and he is entitled to answer relevantly that question. He is not entitled to go off and start talking about the politics-internal, external, or whatever-of any other party or about what is taking place outside this House. You know that, Madam Speaker, and everybody here knows that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The first part of the question was ruled out of order. The Treasurer is not answering the first part of the question; he is relevant to the second part of the question. Mr KEATING —The leader to whom the National Party has now sworn allegiance is in fact vetoing the current leadership of the Liberal Party. As surely as Sir John McEwen vetoed Sir William McMahon, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is vetoing John Howard. We have no coalition able to deliver any fiscal policy now. What we have as a leader of the National Party is a political carcass with a coat and tie on. There is no basis on which the coalition can deliver on any fiscal policy, on any tax policy, other than what we have in the form of a former dry who has abandoned dry economics and a pretender who has never embraced them. What we have got is a $14 billion prospective addition to the deficit. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 85 which indicates that it is within your capacity to ask a speaker to curtail his remarks because of tedious repetition. For two days we have had this diatribe from a bloke that has sent more businesses broke than any other-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer would have been finished if it had not been for so many interruptions. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you guide me on how we should approach this? I hear there are rumours circulating, and I ask you to investigate these rumours-- Opposition members interjecting-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear one word the honourable member is saying. There would be no necessity for the honourable member to speak up if honourable members heeded the Chair. Many points of order have been raised during this Question Time. I suggest that honourable members look at standing order 303(e) because the behaviour of the House is deteriorating rapidly. Mr MacKellar —Madam-- Mr Hand —I always let the honourable member put his point of order; he should let me put mine. My point of order is that I ask you, Madam Speaker, to investigate whether it is true that the honourable member for Maranoa has been barred from the House by his Party because he is a disruptive element? Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Melbourne that that is not a point of order. He knows that it is not a point of order. If he raises more frivolous points of order, I will deal with him. Mr KEATING —I conclude on this point: What we have now is a non-refutation of $14 billion worth of tax commitments by the former Treasurer-this supposed economic rationalist, the dry who would vandalise Australia's fiscal policy and leave it to the mercy of the international financial market to pay the penalty in terms of the interest rates and recession which such policies would bring. I look forward to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition about the documented commitments I referred to yesterday and where he stands on fiscal policy. Let him say whether he believes the coalition parties can deliver on any fiscal policy, any tax change, or any policy which in any way can buttress the kind of dry economics and political responsibility he once stood for. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm that his Government has persisted in pushing for Soviet involvement in the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council, against the known wishes of our allies, and will the Minister confirm that, as a result of his Government's intervention on behalf of the Soviet Union, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Kapitsa passed on through our Ambassador in Moscow his `profound gratitude' for Australia's support, and stated that such support `will not be forgotten'? Mr HAYDEN —An accolade like that is damaging enough, and to really cap it all I need is the honourable member for Kooyong to extend approbation to me. I am most grateful to the honourable member for this question, though. I am always grateful to the honourable member for a question at Question Time. Mind you, I do not have many opportunities to experience this sense of gratefulness. Last year he asked me three questions in the course of the full 12 months. Mr Carlton —We are sick of the Minister's clowning around. Get on with it. Mr HAYDEN —Rigor Mortis can move. I am extremely grateful to the honourable member for Kooyong; I am also grateful because he is one half of that celebrated duumvirate, the other half of which is the Premier of Queensland. The Premier of Queensland also has an interest-- Mr Carlton —You are the Foreign Minister, not the court jester. Mr HAYDEN —It is a matter of timing. I want to bring it to a sharp peak. Mr Young —What if we sent Joh to the General Assembly? That would straighten them out. Mr HAYDEN —If the Premier of Queensland went to the General Assembly of the United Nations, he would be the first English speaker for whom they would put on a translator. It sounds like I suddenly have the approval of the Liberal Party front benchers. I was saying that the Premier of Queensland also has an interest in foreign policy matters because last week when I was lazing on the beach at Heron Island listening to the radio I heard the Premier of Queensland being asked questions-- Mr Reith —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This may be great entertainment, but if the Minister for Foreign Affairs wishes to entertain us I suggest he book a committee room and send out invitations. In the meantime, I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Standing Orders be enforced and that he be asked to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the Minister for Foreign Affairs please be relevant to the question asked by the honourable member for Kooyong. Mr HAYDEN —It is highly relevant, and it is encouraging that the Leader of the Opposition is at least proposing an extension of time for me. I heard the Premier of the State of Queensland being asked questions at a Press conference, and a pressman said to him: `What about foreign policy, Mr Premier?'. The Premier replied: `Don't you worry about that; you are not going to catch me with any of those trick questions'. So it is a great duumvirate. The Premier of Queensland does not want to answer questions on foreign policy and the Opposition's spokesman, the honourable member for Kooyong, does not want to ask them. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Foreign Minister want to answer them? Mr HAYDEN —If I may come to the question, I say simply this: It was not a matter of proposing that the Soviets participate in the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council conference in Vancouver a few months ago against the wishes of our allies. The decision for the Soviet Union to participate was taken with consensual support. Soviet representatives were there as observers; their presence was welcomed by the delegates. I think it desirable to draw the Soviet Union out into productive relationships with the rest of the world rather than shun it, isolate it and have it react in a paranoiac fashion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Law Reform Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Family Law Council for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Institute of Criminology, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Criminology Research Council for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report by the Human Rights Commission on human rights, family migration, and disabled family members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Pork Promotion Committee, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Selection Committee for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Wine Research Institute for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 38 (3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Australian Special Rural Research Council for 1985-86. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the following annual reports for 1985-86: Chicken Meat Research Council; Cotton Research Council; Oilseeds Research Council; Pig Research Council; Poultry Research Council; and Tobacco Research Council. These reports were circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary adjournment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Dairy Research Council for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 60 (2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Research Council's Selection Committee for 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Dairy Corporation for 1985-86 together with the Auditor-General's report. The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present a subsidiary agreement between the governments of Australia and Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honour- able members, I present a report of the independent review of economic regulation of domestic aviation. I released this report publicly on 7 January 1987 and it has been widely circulated. A limited number of copies is available from the Table Office for perusal. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 57 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. This report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. I interpolate that the photographs in this report are magnificent. I commend the report to all honourable members, particularly the memorable pictures on page 16 of turtles mating, which ought to be an inspiration to all of us. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on export concessions. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present the following proposals for work within the Parliamentary Zone, namely: Construction of road works and landscaping north of the provisional Parliament House and lighting throughout the Zone; Construction of an additional car park and lighting in the vicinity of the Treasury Building; Construction of an additional car park and lighting at the National Library of Australia. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek the approval of the House for these works. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 117 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, I present a document on the veterans' children education scheme, together with a brief tabling statement. Motion by (Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —Yesterday in the program PM, the interviewer, Heather Ewart, said: The Opposition was clearly rattled after Mr Keating sat down. Abuse was being yelled across the floor from shadow front benchers Neil Brown and Jim Carlton as well as many of the back benchers. At one point it all became too much especially for the Tasmanian Liberal, Bruce Goodluck. Madam Speaker, firstly, I never become rattled and, secondly, I raised my point of clarification in response to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I said that I was sick of what was happening this week. In particular I was sick of all the flow about Bjelke-Petersen. While Rome is burning the Government is playing with emotions. But I was not rattled and my response did not come at the time reported. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member may proceed. Mr PUNCH —Last night in the Senate Senator Peter Baume rose in regard to a speech made by the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) on 9 October last year about the Delany Hall Nursing Home in my electorate. He was obviously more concerned with drawing an extremely long bow because I am in a marginal seat than defending the reputation of the nursing home involved, as he stated. In what was quite a sleazy action he reported to the Senate that `no action has been taken by Gary Punch'. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Senator Peter Baume is a member of the Senate. The Standing Orders state that imputations shall not be made against members of the House or the Senate. The words used, that it was a `sleazy action', are both unparliamentary and a breach of the Standing Orders and they should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barton might withdraw and continue to explain the misrepresentation. Mr PUNCH —I withdraw the term `sleazy'. In an action quite clearly not based on fact, Senator Peter Baume reported to the Senate that `no action has been taken by Gary Punch, the member for Barton, who has been contacted to set the record straight or to try to answer . . .'. This allegation is untrue. What is more, at no time did Senator Baume ask me or my office whether this was the case. He clearly was not interested and under the pretext of active interest in the matter he was simply concerned with scoring points. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, that has gone well beyond a personal explanation. It is getting to a debate involving Senator Baume. The honourable member should be restricted to making a personal explanation and to that alone. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is explaining where he was misrepresented by Senator Baume. Mr Spender —Let him come to it and deal with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney might listen but will not direct the Chair. Mr Spender —I might advise the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not sought the advice of the honourable member for North Sydney; I doubt that I will need to. Mr PUNCH —As I was saying, under the pretext of active interest in this matter, Senator Baume has been concerned simply with scoring points for a Liberal candidate, who obviously cannot do it for himself. The facts are that the matron of the nursing home came to see me on 10 December last after Parliament had risen. She has not been in contact with me since. I undertook to take the matter up personally with the honourable member for Fowler with a view to his correcting the record. I understand that the honourable member will do this in the near future. I was quite plainly misrepresented and place that on the record. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Call Us Again'-a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the Control over Manpower and Property of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia). I seek leave of the House to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr DUFFY —The efficiency audit was undertaken by the Australian Audit Office during the later part of 1982 and in 1983, with the report being presented to the Parliament by the Auditor-General on 4 September 1984. The Expenditure Committee undertook to review this efficiency audit in February 1985. The review was conducted mainly in 1986, with the Committee's report being tabled on 20 November 1986. Audit Results The Expenditure Committee identified 16 recommendations contained in the efficiency audit report and noted that action had been taken on all the recommendations-14 have been implemented, one partially implemented and one where further action rests with the Public Service Board. The Committee criticised the audit for the time taken from the start of the audit to the reporting date, a lack of awareness about markets, and the narrow scope of the audit, but overall considered the audit achieved worthwhile results. Recommendations The Committee made three recommendations. The first recommendation was: The Public Service Board expedite its current review of technical officer classifications so that a broader review of technical officer training that will take into account the length of the training period can be instigated. The Committee considered that reducing the training period by one year would result in significant cost savings. Audit had suggested that such a reduction would not affect the quality of trained officers. The Government accepts this recommendation that it is an appropriate area for consideration by the Public Service Board. Accordingly, I will be writing to the Public Service Board suggesting that it address this matter. I also note that, following the tabling of the Committee's report, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission again wrote to the Board requesting that the length of technical officer's training be varied. The second recommendation of the Committee was: The Government review the basis for determining the dividend that OTC pays to the Commonwealth and in so doing, take into account the requirements for capital reinvestment. The Committee noted the capital intensive nature of OTC's business, the demands of government for a substantial dividend and OTC's concern for a more equitable basis for dividends so that OTC would be less reliant on debt to fund capital investment. The Committee also noted the comments of Henry Ergas, in his report to the Department of Communications entitled `Telecommunications and the Australian Economy' that, due to the high level of payments to government and the restriction on borrowings, investment finance available to the telecommunications authorities had not allowed them to meet reasonable levels of network development. The Government is mindful of the need for OTC to retain sufficient of its future profits to enable it, in combination with commercial borrowings, to fund its capital requirements. This position was endorsed by the Government in December 1986 when it considered OTC's participation in the network of optical fibre submarine cables proposed for the Pacific region and subsequent interconnection to Europe. However, this does not obviate the need for the Government to set a dividend for OTC from time to time. The third recommendation of the Committee was: OTC's legislation should be amended to allow it to expand its activities in the field of telecommunications, particularly where they may lead to import replacement and generation of manufacturing activity. The Committee considered that OTC should take advantage of opportunities to diversify its activities into areas such as consultancies, design of equipment and joint ventures, but was presently constrained by legislation and limited capital. The Government is in agreement with this recommendation and had already initiated action to amend OTC's legislation prior to the tabling of the Committee's report. Legislation will be introduced in the autumn sittings to amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act to enable OTC to participate in telecommunications activities in Australia that do not have a direct international component and to remove the requirement under sections 34a and 34b for OTC to obtain Ministerial approval for its overseas activities. At present OTC undertakes a number of activities primarily relating to international telecommunications but which, because of their nature, could be developed profitably within the domestic market. An extension to OTC's powers to enable it to participate in Australia in telecommunications activities that do not have a direct international component would allow the Commission fully to utilise its wide range of technical and commercial expertise and to contribute to the development of the domestic telecommunications industry. The proposed amendment to section 34 of the Act would not enable OTC to compete with Telecom Australia and Aussat Pty Ltd in the provision of telecommunications carriage within Australia. It would, however, allow OTC to enter the Australian consultancy and equipment markets, for example, via joint ventures or by selling intellectual property rights for products developed in the Commission's research and development program. It could also enter the design and the supply of specific communications facilities markets in competition with-or perhaps in co-operation with-the private sector and, in some cases, with other government authorities, such as Telecom and Aussat. Ministerial approval would be required before OTC could exercise the new function. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —by leave-I congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure for producing this report on the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report of some aspects of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission's operations. It is a very clear and concise report and it identifies areas in which the Government and OTC must take action. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has said that the Government will respond positively to some of the recommendations, but it is very clear from the Committee's report that the audits are extremely useful if they are broad enough in scope and if they deal with the subject matter in a speedy fashion. I hope that the Minister will ensure that future audits are broader in scope and that they are also processed much more expeditiously, whether it is by OTC, Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd or other bodies within his portfolio. I would like the Minister to undertake to ensure that other organisations follow this practice, because it is extremely important that any bureaucratic inefficiency which exists be identified and eliminated. It is also clear, from the Green Paper produced by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), which has been discussed publicly by a number of bodies but not in this House, that further costs would be imposed on these organisations. The Minister is probably of the same mind. It is important that these instrumentalities be freed from many of the constraints now upon them, such as those by the Public Service Board, by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, sometimes by the Crown Solicitor and even, to some extent, by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. These sorts of obligations to report to so many departments, apart from the Minister's own Department, add to the costs and the bureaucratic inefficiency of these organisations. It is bad enough when the Government does not remove those, but what the Minister for Finance proposes would actually compound the problem and make these organisations even less efficient. All of that will, of course, lead to higher prices for phone calls, postal charges and the other services that these instrumentalities provide. I therefore hope that the Minister will continue to press his Cabinet colleagues for the rejection of the views of the Minister for Finance. It is also very important that we look at the major proposal in this report, because the Minister for Communications clearly did not persuade his Cabinet colleagues to respond to the recommendation as positively as he should have. Recommendation 2 of this report states: The Government review the basis for determining the dividend that OTC pays to the Commonwealth and in so doing, take into account the requirements for capital reinvestment. I believe that the Committee makes out a very good case in support of that recommendation. It says: . . . OTC has suggested that a more equitable basis would be an agreed percentage of after-tax profits and suggests 40 per cent as appropriate . . . Because dividend payments to the Commonwealth form part of OTC's cost structure, the effect of this will be to increase OTC's prices unless there are compensating reductions in other costs. A very important statement of the Committee appears on page 11. It states: Under the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, dividend payments are determined by the Minister for Communications with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, having considered the advice of the Commission. that is, the OTC- It is OCT's view that: the Commonwealth's present method of determining a dividend target is unsatisfactory. Decisions are, in practice, made by the Government on a year-to-year basis and the long term needs of the business become subordinate to the Commonwealth's budgetary demands . . . In 1983, the Government agreed to set a dividend target for the five-year period to 1987-88 of 10% of Capital and Reserves in order that the Commission could plan its capital expenditure programme and utilise a combination of debt and equity to finance large submarine cable projects. The 1985-86 target was altered to 12.5% of Capital and Reserves. The 1986-87 target has been set at 15%. I point out that that alteration was quite arbitrary. Here we have a very important instrumentality of the Commonwealth which is charged by this Parliament with a number of social and economic objectives, one of which is to provide telecommunications via submarine cables. It does so with very expensive equipment which takes years and years of planning. It strikes an arrangement with the Government for a 10 per cent of capital and reserves dividend and, arbitrarily, to try to reduce the Government's deficit, it is asked to increase that in spite of the agreement and regardless of the consequences either to the long term program of laying cables or to the charges that it then has to pass on to the consumers of its services. We find that, in response to that recommendation, the Minister was able a few minutes ago to say only this: This position was endorsed by the Government in December 1986 when it considered OTC's participation in the network of optical fibre submarine cables proposed for the Pacific region and subsequent interconnection to Europe. However, this does not obviate the need for the Government to set a dividend for OTC from time to time. That is not only equivocal but also begs the entire recommendation of this Committee. Of course the Government should fix a dividend. The OTC has recommended a formula. If it is not the best formula, the Government has an obligation to say so. The Government has not given a formula. It gives no certainty to this organisation or to any of the others with similar difficulties. What that means is that not only in this year's Budget but also perhaps in the May statement that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will introduce-the mini-Budget in May-this organisation will be milked again to try to make the deficit look a little less than it really is. But who will bear the burden for that? It will be the people who need to use telephones organised by OTC, whether by satellite or by submarine cable. It will also put in jeopardy the very things that the Minister has said are worth while. That includes the prospect for local manufacture of these cables-and the employment that goes with that, they being private sector activities-as well as the important long term telecommunications links between Australia and the rest of the world. Under the OTC proposals, Australia would become the third largest owner of submarine cables, after the United States of America and Great Britain. It is terribly important that OTC knows where it stands regarding dividends. I congratulate the Committee. I understand that the Chairman of the sub-committee wishes to say a few words. The Committee's recommendations are sound. The Government owes it to the organisation, and to all of those who benefit from its services, to adopt the report of the Committee. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-As Chairman of the sub-committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, it was my honour to chair the inquiry. Very briefly, I want to say a few words on the response from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Firstly, I commend the Minister and the Government for their prompt response. It is exactly three months to the day since this report was tabled in the House. Considering that we have had the Christmas break, the Government and the Minister in particular are to be commended on the speed with which they have responded. I hope that the Minister has set a precedent and an example for other Ministers in the Government. Also, on behalf of all members of the sub-committee, and the Expenditure Committee, I thank the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) for his complimentary words a few minutes ago on the efforts of the Committee. As honourable members can see, it is very much a bipartisan committee. Certainly, its members appreciate the support of both sides of the House. The Committee is also very appreciative of the fact that the Minister's response has been positive. The Minister has taken up the recommendations. In the first case, the Public Service Board review of technical officer classifications, the Minister has said that he has taken this up with the Public Service Board. For that we are grateful and we look forward to further action in this area. The Committee is also pleased to see that the Minister has made a positive response to the second recommendation of the Expenditure Committee, albeit that at this stage the response is a little bit vague. The Committee is very keen to see the Government follow up these points. All I want to add at this stage is to say that, despite the Government's response, the Committee may consider studying that response on this point in more detail at a later stage; but obviously that decision has not yet been taken. On the third recommendation, that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Act should be amended to allow it to expand its activities into the field of telecommunications, particularly internally in Australia, again we are very pleased to note the Government's response. Members of the Committee look forward to seeing the legislation that the Minister has foreshadowed to see how this will be put into practice. On behalf of the members of the sub-committee and the members of the Expenditure Committee, I again thank the Minister for his prompt response to the report and I also commend the Government for the positive nature of the response to that report. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore 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 Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Downer,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Aldred,Mr Kent and 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 Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Hawker and Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 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 Hawker,Mr Lloyd and Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That 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 Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. 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 assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (1) Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. (2) Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. (3) Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:- That there is widespread community concern about the proposal of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use''. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:- (1) Block the introduction of the above said Bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use'' and (2) Continue to allow the free availability of vitamins, minerals, homoeopathic remedies, bio- chemic remedies and herbal remedies to the general public through the present distribution outlets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation to- (1) Give financial relief from our present hardship by way of:- (a) one off Government Grant of $170,000.00; or (b) interest free loan of the above amount. To finalise a bank overdraft implemented to purchase said property from the Salvation Army after expiration of the leasing agreement. (2) In six years of effective operation we have been in receipt of one grant of $2,300.00 for repairs of motor and gearbox of our much needed 22 seater bus (which we make available to community groups free of charge). We have treated and accommodated 620 people (including families) rendered homeless by chronic chemical abuse. This has been cost effective to the Government of N.S.W., saving up to $600.00 per week per person in alternative Government facilities of hospitals/gaols. This has been cost free to the Government of approximately $6 1/2 million in six years of operation. (3) Lyndon House fills a gap in existing services of N.S.W. by accommodating families and maintaining the family as a unit. This is in accordance with existing religious and political philosophies of the family being the foundation of our social structure. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia object to the proposal to close the Bridgewater Railway Station and remove staff. This will result in local, Interstate passengers and tourists being disadvantaged resulting from a lack of ticket information and parcel deposit and collection facilities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take action to ensure that the Bridgewater Railway Station remains open with improved facilities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: We strongly condemn the Australian Government's reversal of its electoral policy to restore land rights, dignity and economic security to the Aboriginal people. We call on the Australian Government to immediately set about negotiating a treaty with the Aboriginal Sovereign Nation, and that this treaty with full land rights, be implemented under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, before 1988. We call on the Australian Government to adequately fund and support the negotiating process of the Aboriginal nation. Should the Government fail in this resolve, we call on the Australian people to demonstrate their solidarity with the Aboriginal people by boycotting the bicentennial celebrations and sharing a national year of mourning in 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the leader and members of the House of Representatives of Australia: the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, eg petitions by some action, eg referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr Hand. 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. 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 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable or responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumours suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government determined in its budget of 1986/87 to close the Launceston office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and whereas the closure of that office has led to a diminution of the services available to the people of Northern Tasmania by the Department, the following residents of Australia urge the Federal Government to re-open the Launceston Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because of the valuable service provided to the community by the office prior to its closure. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The decision of the Government to introduce an administration fee of $250.00 for students undertaking tertiary education be amended to reflect the study load of each student. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house amend the regulation to ensure: That tertiary students pay the full $250.00 administration fee when undertaking 100% of the faculty load; students undertaking less than 100% but more than 75% pay three-quarters of that fee (i.e. $187.50); students undertaking in excess of 50% but less an 75% pay one-half of that fee (i.e. $125.00); students undertaking less than 50% pay one-quarter of that fee (i.e. $62.00); and That mature age students on a scholarship who fall below the means test level for undergraduate students who have no other means of income be exempt from the administration fee, and that external students be subject to pro-rata administration fees as proposed for part-time students. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Represenatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for compulsory unionism to be brought to an end. 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 N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.21) —The decision yesterday by the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board in the case concerning Mr Franz Hein against Jaques Ltd must surely be one of the most important decisions ever handed down by a tribunal in this country in the field of industrial relations. Not only is that decision important in its own right, but it is doubly important because it forms the third part of a trilogy of extremely important decisions in industrial relations that have been handed down by courts and tribunals in this country in the lifetime of this Parliament. Not only is the decision important in double sense, because it forms the third leg of that trilogy; it is equally important because it vindicates the very substantial industrial relations policy promoted by the Federal coalition Opposition. Let me return to the second point for a moment. It should not go without notice that, as I said, not only does the decision yesterday stand by itself but also it forms one of three very significant decisions made in the course of this Parliament in the field of industrial relations. That trilogy commenced with the decision in the Mudginberri case, which held that there was a right for employees to get together with their own employers to determine the terms and conditions of employment that should apply to them rather than having every term and condition and their material well-being determined solely by arbitration commissions and arbitration tribunals and solely by the terms and conditions of an industrial award. As is now well known, as a result of employers and their employees getting together in that case, the employees were much better off. We have said it before and we will say it time and again: It should not be forgotten that three very important things emerged as a result of the Mudginberri decision. The first was that the workers were paid more than they would have been under the award. Secondly, productivity at the establishment increased as a result of the arrangement that was entered into. Thirdly, instead of the abattoir closing down and putting people out of employment, it was able to remain open and develop and expand an export trade. The decision, therefore, was extremely important and was the first of three important industrial relations decisions handed down in the lifetime of this Parliament. What is also significant about the decision in the Mudginberri case is that, from the very beginning, the Government set its face against the interests of the workers at Mudginberri. Not only did it continually set its face against the interests of the workers at Mudginberri, but also it enabled and encouraged-indeed it changed the law so that it could come about-a situation whereby meat inspectors, employees of the Commonwealth, of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, could be pushed around and directed as to what they would do at the behest of a trade union. We say that that decision was particularly important and a major step towards introducing much needed flexibility into our industrial relations system. The second of these three important decisions was the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd case which was determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. That decision was extremely important because it established that trade unions are and must remain subject to the same law as everyone else, and that if there is to be a law for the rest of the community, that law must apply to trade unions as well. It established further, to anyone who gave even the most passing attention to the case, that if pickets are imposed around a factory, a small family business, to drive it into bankruptcy, the people who work for the firm and the people who own the firm would get no relief or comfort from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The point that emerges from that case was that those people, both the employees and the employer, got some relief and respite only when they proceeded under the ordinary law of this land and had that law applied in the Victorian Supreme Court. Thirdly, we have had the decision that was handed down yesterday by the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board in the case of Mr Franz Hein. Mr Hein claimed that he was dismissed by his employer because he refused to join the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. We all know what happens in these sorts of cases. It happened in this case, too. The union, which is an extreme left wing union, put pressure on the employer and said to the employer: `You dismiss that man who will not join our organisation. If you do not dismiss him, you will have one heap of industrial trouble after the other'. The man was dismissed. Mr Downer —Disgraceful. Mr N.A. Brown —The man was dismissed in what the honourable member who has just interjected calls a disgraceful situation. He eventually got relief because the Tribunal found, after considering the matter, that firstly, he had been dismissed; secondly, he had been dismissed because he refused to join the Metal Workers Union; and thirdly, the reason why he had been discriminated against under the Victorian legislation was that he refused to engage in the political activity the union wanted him to engage in. Mr Downer —A great decision. Mr N.A. Brown —The decision in that case was a great decision, as the honourable member for Mayo has said. I would go further and say that it was a landmark decision. Quite apart from that decision being important, in the course of its decision the Equal Opportunity Board said two things of very great interest. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in view of some of the answers he has given in the House on this matter, to pay particular attention to the first point, because the Minister, like his inglorious leader, has stood up in this House before and said: `There is no compulsory unionism in Australia'. He is still presumably saying it today. He should listen to what the Equal Opportunity Board said about Mr Hein's position as an employee in that firm: `It was a condition of Mr Hein retaining his employment that he should join the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union'. In other words, it was made perfectly plain in the decision on that case that if Mr Hein refused to join the union, as he did, he had no job. It is perfectly plain that he was dismissed from his employment at the behest of a left wing trade union for one reason and one reason only: He refused to join that left wing union. The second thing the Equal Opportunity Board decided in that case was equally interesting, and it bears close examination. The Equal Opportunity Board drew attention to the fact that what the union was on about was to get its numbers up, to increase its enrolment, to increase the number of its members. It wanted to increase the number of its members for two reasons. One reason was that the size of its membership would determine the number of votes the union had at the State conferences of the union, and the second was that the union would then be paying affiliation fees to the Australian Labor Party. So no wonder the Government has a vested interest in supporting compulsory unionism. The reason is perfectly clear. The Government is not concerned with the lofty industrial principles it parades in this place. It actively supports and maintains compulsory unionism because it is in the pay of the trade unions. The Australian Labor Party, therefore, must stand condemned because purely and simply in return for money it is maintaining a situation where trade unions have a guaranteed source of income and a guaranteed flow of members. They are the two particularly interesting things that the Equal Opportunity Board said in Victoria yesterday. I have said before and I will say it again that this is a landmark decision. It is a landmark decision because, in the first place, it was a victory for freedom. Here is a decision which can be held out as a light on the hill because people are now able to say that at least in Victoria, and one hopes elsewhere, there is law which will be enforced which will prevent people from being discriminated against simply because they want to exercise their freedom and do not want to be dragooned or forced into joining a trade union that they would not otherwise join or want to join. It was a landmark decision because it was a victory for freedom. It is important because secondly-this is what the Opposition draws attention to time and time again-at the root of our rigid industrial relations system stands as one of its foundations the power of trade unions, a power which has grown too great and a power which restricts those flexible arrangements which both employers and employees want to introduce. It is important, therefore, for that reason. But the decision is also important because it highlights the reaction of both sides of this Parliament and both sides of the political debate in this country. Both the Opposition and the Government responded to the decision yesterday. Let us look for a moment at how both sides responded to this landmark decision for freedom yesterday. We on the Opposition side welcomed the decision; we supported it. We continue to support it and welcome it, and we always will. Not only do we support it and welcome it but we say further that it is an endorsement of our industrial relations policy because we have said that we will legislate-the Labor Party will oppose it-for voluntary unionism. We will legislate to ban the closed shop and we will legislate to prevent the power of preference to unions being put into Federal awards. As further evidence of the Opposition's commitment to this cause, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) has given notice that he will introduce-in fact, he has prepared-a Bill which will guarantee voluntary unionism in this country. He deserves every credit and recognition for that. That is the reaction of the Opposition. But how has this Government responded? The Minister could not even raise himself from his somnambulant state to make a response. He had one of his offsiders issue a statement which the Daily Telegraph newspaper in Sydney paid him the decency of reporting today. The earth shattering statement made by the spokesman for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was that no one was forced to join a union anyway, despite the fact that we all know that there is compulsory unionism in this country and despite the fact that in the very case he was asked to comment on the tribunal had found that the man did not have a job for one reason and one reason only, and that was that he refused to join the union. That is the first thing the spokesman said. The second thing he said was that there was provision under the Act for people to make a case of conscientious objection. The Daily Telegraph put in more eloquent language than I could what it thinks about that pathetic response. It said: While the spokesman may be factually correct, he is totally overlooking the fact that it takes bravery of an unusual calibre for a worker to use that law. Indeed, anybody threatening to do so is likely to feel the full weight of harassment and vilification-for merely seeking to use a right under the law. One can say `hear, hear' to the Daily Telegraph for that eloquent remark which we endorse. That is a pathetic response of the Government. It is a pathetic response that is no more than a reflection of what it always maintained. I remind honourable members of the debate we had in this Parliament on the Bill of Rights, which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) handled on behalf of the Opposition. Honourable members will recall that on that occasion the Government put forward a Bill of Rights in which it said that one cherished right was the right to join a trade union. The honourable member for North Sydney moved an amendment to the effect that another cherished right was the right not to join a trade union. The Labor Party voted against that amendment. We can say to the Labor Party that whether it has the election in March, April, May, December, on Fathers Day or at any other time, between now and then we will remind it that within the division lists of this Hansard are recorded the names of the Labor Party members-all of them-who said no to voluntary unionism. We have proposed a charter for freedom which the Government has rejected. Let me end on this point. In this debate we have the people on our side. The results of a gallup poll show that 83 per cent of the people are opposed to compulsory unionism and want voluntary unionism and that, indeed, 77 per cent of trade unionists want voluntary trade unionism. The people are against the Government on this issue. We are against it on this issue. We stand for freedom and voluntary unionism. The Government stands for the compulsory nature of everything it does and if it persists with this attitude it will do so at its loss. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.27) —As usual, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) has massively distorted the facts in presenting his case. Of course, we have come to expect that to be standard presentation from him. I am interested to see that he has now latched on to the concept of the trilogy and wishes to have his own trilogy in respect of industrial relations. Of course, he misrepresents all three aspects of his supposed trilogy. Let me briefly refer to that. Firstly, he talked about Mudginberri as the first leg of his trilogy. He said that that decision showed that employees had a right to determine their wages and conditions. The importance of Mudginberri was that that was the first case under the Trade Practices Act that went through to penalties being imposed and damages being applied. In fact, the ability of the employer and the employees at Mudginberri to reach agreement on their conditions of employment stemmed from a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in setting an award which had that provision in it. It came to be in the award because the Commission put it in the award when that area of employment came under Federal jurisdiction. That is what Mudginberri was about. The ability for there to be some bargaining about wages and conditions between employees and the employer stemmed from a clause in the award put in by the Arbitration Commission. All this nonsense that we hear time and time again about the supposed importance of Mudginberri in letting a thousand flowers bloom is just absolutely ridiculous because it totally distorts what was the reality of that situation. The Commission simply did what it had done in many cases; when it sets a first award, unless there is some very good reason not to, it puts into the award the conditions that previously applied. Therefore, there is no reason to regard this as being something absolutely spectacular. The spectacular nature of Mudginberri was the use of the Trade Practices Act through to the point, for the first time, of the imposition of penalties and damages. Mr N.A. Brown —It was the first, was it? Mr WILLIS —But not in the way that the honourable member said at all. Secondly, the Dollar Sweets dispute was again supposed to be a landmark case because the common law was used. Common law has been used in industrial relations, admittedly on a fairly rare basis-two or three cases a year-for most of the time that we have had industrial law in this country. It is not the first time that common law has been used in industrial relations. There have been many previous occasions on which that has been used. So this supposed landmark decision is only one of many decisions in which the common law has been involved in industrial relations. In respect of the third leg of the trilogy, the Equal Opportunity Board case, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as is his wont, tried to beat this up into some massively important decision. It is an interesting decision; I concede that, but it does not have the kind of landmark importance that he attributed to it. He is not alone in this. There has been some Press beat-up as well. Rather than being a landmark decision, we should see this, firstly, as a decision by a majority of two members to one. Secondly, this decision may be subject to appeal; so we are not sure what will come out of it. The important thing to note is that, although it is true, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned, that the Board found that it was a condition of Mr Hein retaining his employment that he be a member of the union, it also found-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition somehow forgot to mention this point-that it could find no agreement or arrangement between the employer and the union that that should be the case. Mr Cadman —You are living in fairyland. Mr Carlton —Surprise, surprise! Mr WILLIS —But that was the decision. The employer argued in the case that there was such an agreement or arrangement, but the Board said that it could find no evidence that that agreement or arrangement existed. Therefore, it was a condition that was being imposed by the employer. It was not a condition which would have been exempt from the operation of the Act if it had been the subject of agreement or arrangement for industrial relations purposes. Therefore, the employer was found to be guilty and damages were given to Mr Hein. To extract from that decision the kind of landmark importance that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tried to give it is an absolute absurdity, because if it had been the subject of agreement between the union and the employer, the employer would have been exempt and there would have been no penalty. That is the situation. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a lawyer, would have latched on to that point. If he did, he forgot to mention it in the course of the debate. To ascribe to this case some landmark importance is absurd. The reality is that, firstly, it is not the Government's policy to have compulsory unionism. It is quite clear that the Australian Labor Party policy is that we support preference but not compulsory unionism. Secondly, it is quite clear that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has no power to award or endorse compulsory unionism. The Commission is bound only to provide for preference. In doing so, it has to acknowledge the rights of individuals, and properly so, not to be a member of a union if that individual has a conscientious objection. That conscientious objection provision is not dormant; it is in the Act and it is utilised every year by people who do not wish to be members of a union. Those people who make use of that provision in a preference situation have all the rights as though they were members of a union. It is a nonsense to say that there is some compulsion to be a member or that the law provides some compulsion on people to be members of a union. That is not the case at all and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be fully aware of that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has continually made statements which assert that such a situation exists. In a Press statement issued yesterday he said: The Government would do well to heed the equal opportunity employment decision, given its support for the abhorrent practice of compulsory unionism and union preference clauses in Federal awards. There are union preference provisions in Federal awards but there are no compulsory unionism provisions. Of course, there are closed shops in various places of employment around the country. Some closed shops are in places which one might find somewhat unusual. They apply for various reasons. Of course, they usually apply because it suits the union and the employer to have such a situation. Discussion interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Discussion resumed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.46) —One place of employment where such a situation applies is in the Queensland Public Service. It applies there presumably because the Queensland Government finds this to be a satisfactory arrangement to have with its employees. That indicates that people who are generally regarded as being very much to the right of the political spectrum are not averse to compulsory unionism in situations in which they think-for whatever reason-it might be useful to them. That is an example of compulsory unionism and closed shops applying when there is a requirement. I understand that in Queensland there is a requirement that one must sign a document agreeing to become a member of the union before one can be employed. That is apparently permissible under Queensland industrial law, and that is something which the Queensland Government clearly endorses. Clearly, the situation is that, where such arrangements apply, they apply by arrangement between the parties. They do not have the backing of the law in the sense that they can be enforced, nor should they be enforceable under the law. They do have the backing of the parties but, where conscientious objection applies, such arrangements would take account of the conscientious objection of the people involved. In considering union membership we have the assertion from the Opposition that we should try to do as much as possible to ensure that we weaken unions by trying to limit their membership. That is quite clearly what Opposition members are on about. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act tries to strengthen union membership in the sense of ensuring that there is a body of people who are capable of representing the interests of the employees on the employer-employee relationship which is part and parcel of industrial relations. One cannot have a conciliation and arbitration system or a collective bargaining system without having parties with whom to bargain. If we are to have an organised industrial relations system, it is important that there are trade unions. It is important that those trade unions are representative of the people whom they claim to represent and that therefore they have substantial membership among those people. Therefore, it is important that we have provisions which give some encouragement to joining trade unions, such as preference. I believe that preference provisions are sensible. They apply in about one-third of Federal awards-which means that two-thirds do not have them-and mostly they are there by agreement between the parties although they can be there by a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Their importance is that they give some encouragement to union membership, and rightly so, because the system depends on there being trade unions which represent their members. The same applies to a collective bargaining system. That is not something which is peculiar to a conciliation and arbitration system. One cannot have organised industrial relations without having a system of trade unions to represent the interests of their members. It is also important that those interests are responsibly represented. That is a totally different issue from trying to ensure that we throw away preference, give no encouragement whatever to trade union membership and create a situation in which people are encouraged to get out of trade unions. That would mean that unions would become less representative. They would become more in control of people who might be perhaps unrepresentative of the work force as a whole. That would mean that we would have a worse industrial relations system. It is obviously desirable, and it is very much the Government's view, to encourage membership of trade unions. We do not make it compulsory, but we encourage it. We encourage it by providing for preference in Federal awards. That is what applies at the State level as well. Virtually every State has similar provisions encouraging preferences because the same rationale applies, and has applied across the last century, for encouraging membership of trade unions. A tremendous amount of nonsense has developed in the whole area of supposed compulsory unionism. There is massive confusion in the minds of the Opposition-it is trying to create that confusion in the minds of the public-about what exists in this country. We do not have a system of compulsory unionism; we have a system of preference, at best, and most awards do not have preference. We have conscientious objection and some closed shop arrangements. Where those apply they apply because employers and employees find them to be the appropriate way to organise their affairs. Mr N.A. Brown —Is it not compulsory unionism? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. He should listen to the Minister. Mr WILLIS —It is appropriate that we have a system which encourages union membership. The Opposition is parading its policies and is trying to make a great thing of compulsory unionism. When I was in Japan a year or two ago leading a tripartite delegation, I visited a number of work places. In each work place I asked about the union arrangements. I was told in every one that everyone-I repeat `everyone'-was a member of a trade union. I have not noticed that those closed shop arrangements in Japan have greatly impeded the economy of Japan. It seems to me to have gone rather well despite the closed shop arrangements that apply in the various areas of employment, particularly in manufacturing industry. It is a nonsense to say that compulsory unionism, so-called, is at the heart of the issues which concern this country. It is essentially a distraction which the Opposition likes for ideological purposes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(3.52) —I raise a matter on which I took a point of order in Question Time. I am extremely concerned about it. If I was out of order at that point, I apologise to the Chair. I learnt during Question Time, and I became quite concerned, that a rumour is circulating in the Parliament that a member of this House has been barred from attending the House because he is an embarrassment to the Opposition. That is an extremely difficult situation to have. The matter should be taken to the Privileges Committee. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Is the honourable member raising a matter of privilege or a point of order? He said that he was raising a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne was apologising for something he said in Question Time and was proceeding to make an adjournment debate speech. Mr HAND —If the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, stopped talking and listened, it would be of advantage to him. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr HAND —Hello! I thought that the right honourable member for New England would run in here at 100 miles an hour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order. Under our Standing Orders, it is improper to make an inference against any member of this place. What the honourable member is suggesting goes very close to my raising with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a matter of parliamentary privilege. The honourable member for Melbourne has implied in his remarks that pressure has been applied to a properly elected member of the House of Representatives to deny him the right to come into this place and exercise his proper responsibility. I suggest that any motion of that sort can be raised only on a substantive motion. The inferences that are drawn are objectionable to me and every member of my Party. I ask the honourable gentleman to desist from making any further implication of that sort. I ask that you require him to cease making such a slur on that member and others who he implies are imposing a discipline on him. If he wishes to proceed, I suggest that it must be by way of substantive motion; otherwise, the matter cannot be heard by the Parliament. Mr HAND —I appreciate the speed with which the Leader of the National Party came into the chamber. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will listen. I took on board the point raised by the right honourable member and I am sure that the honourable member for Melbourne has taken it on board as well. Mr HAND —I take the point. I will make some remarks that honourable members might find surprising. Mr Sinclair —On the point of order, I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw the remarks that were made implying a slur on an honourable member who, I am advised, has official leave from the Parliament and who, I understand, is paired. In those circumstances I ask that the honourable member for Melbourne withdraw the inference against the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne-to my mind-until the Leader of the National Party raised somebody's name, had been speaking in a general form. I have not heard the honourable member for Melbourne raise any honourable member's name. If he comes to do something like that I will not allow it but if the honourable member wants to speak in a general way, the Chair has some trouble. The Chair also has trouble with the Leader of the National Party because he has joined the honourable member for Maranoa with the remarks that the honourable member for Melbourne was making. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the opening remarks by the honourable member for Melbourne. You will recall that he said in those remarks that he wished to continue the remarks he made during Question Time. I suggest that the introductory remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne referred specifically to the remarks he made during Question Time. Those remarks designated the honourable member for Maranoa who, I stress again, has leave from this House. Mr HAND —What the right honourable member is doing by taking points of order is trying to prevent me raising some differences that exist in his National Party of Australia and differences between the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. I have a lot of respect for the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) because he has the guts to say in this place what he believes in. I say that it is wrong that those opposite are treating him in this way. Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that the honourable member for Melbourne should direct his speech to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not across the chamber in the direction of another honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAND —This pathetic imbecile comes in to make accusations. (Quorum formed) Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.00) —For most working people the sound of the telephone-- Motion (by Mr Holding) agreed to: That the question be now put. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I put it to you that at no stage have you put to the House the question that the question be now put. Therefore, we have had no opportunity to call for a division on the fundamental first question that the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs moved that the question be put. I then put the question and it was carried. One honourable member asked for a division but it requires two honourable members. Mr Tim Fischer —We did. We were sitting on the front bench. We asked for a division from the front bench. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. Question put: That the House do now adjourn. In division- The House divided- (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes ... 70 Noes ... 43 Majority ... 27 AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, Allan Dubois, S. G. Morris, Peter Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. NOES Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I, McC. Halverson, R. G. Slipper, P. N. Hawker, P. D. M. Smith, W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. PAIRS Dawkins, J. S. Cameron, Ian Cohen, B. Andrew, J. N. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that there is some argument about whether the things that honourable members say whilst a division is being conducted attract parliamentary privilege. Honourable members might take that on board. Question so resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.09 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3459) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to comments made by the Head of the US SDI program, General Abrahamson, concerning the Australian research capability in the area of SDI, that (a) in the railgun, one of the ways to power that particular device, is something called a homo polar generator which was an Australian invention, (b) with NASA, he had worked with some Australian industry and was aware of an Australian capability in this regard and (c) Australia's capability may be fully committed or political considerations may have prevented involvement and General Abrahamson felt this was a shame. (2) If so, does he support the comments by General Abrahamson. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In the absence of more complete information it has not been possible to identify the particular comments referred to by the honourable member. Nevertheless, I draw to his attention some Government statements on Australian involvement in research on electromagnetic propulsion, the homopolar generator, and on the Government's attitude to the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). On 4 September 1984 the then Minister for Defence Mr Scholes responded to question on notice no. 1486 (Hansard p. 554) concerning electromagnetic launchers and further details were provided on 11 February 1986 in response to question on notice no. 620 from Senator Vallentine (Hansard p. 116). The ANU development of a novel form of homopolar generator stimulated interest in the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) where a research program on electromagnetic propulsion was initiated to investigate its potential for replacing conventional propellant systems in tactical weapons. This DSTO work has now ceased because it became evident that its objective was not attainable in the near term. The research work on electromagnetic propulsion was not terminated because of political considerations. As with all research work performed by the DSTO, the prospective military applications of the technology being investigated related only to solving problems for the Australian Defence Force in tactical conventional war- fare. I explained on 8 April 1986 (Hansard, p. 1797) that the Government will not be entering into negotiations to establish an umbrella agreement for SDI research, and that this will preclude Australian participation in research funded under the SDI program. This is entirely consistent with the Government's clearly stated position of not endorsing the SDI concept, believing instead in the importance of preserving and protecting the integrity of the existing regime of arms control and disarmament agreements. (Question No. 4946) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: Does Radio Australia broadcast to the former French territories in West Africa; if so, what was the cost of these broadcasts in 1985-86. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The French Language Service of Radio Australia does not broadcast specifically to the former French Territories in West Africa. However, its transmissions to the Indian Ocean can be monitored in Africa. During 1985-86, the French Language Service received 259 letters from Africa, emanating mainly from listeners in Algeria (177), Zaire (33), Morocco (19), Mozambique (17) and Togo (13). The French Language Service broadcasts one hour a day from 0500 to 0600 UTC (Universal Time Coordinated) to the Indian and Pacific Oceans at a yearly cost of $96,863. (Question No. 4981) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Will he lift the 3 month quarantine period for imported orchid plants; if so, what steps will be taken to ensure that imported orchids will be disease-free. (2) Has he considered allowing the importation of flasks only, unless a plant was specifically imported for breeding purposes; if not, why not. (3) What action will be taken to ensure large quantities of subsidised orchids are not dumped on the Australian market if quarantine restrictions are lifted. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no plans to lift the 3 month post entry quarantine period for orchids. (2) Quarantine officials in my Department have considered proposals to limit importations to flasks only and have rejected them as being unnecessarily restrictive. Unless flask orchids are produced under special high health conditions they do not afford significantly higher levels of quarantine security than imported conventional plants grown in post-entry quarantine. (3) As post-entry quarantine requirements will not be lifted the question of dumping as a consequence will not arise. (Question No. 4934) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1986: (1) Is he able to provide details of royalties and other payments made by mining companies to Aborigines in each State and Territory, including what sum each mining company has paid (a) each year since it commenced making payments, and (b) in total. (2) What is the level of each royalty and how is it determined. (3) To whom is each royalty paid. (4) What rules or regulations determine the purposes for which royalties may be used. (5) Is he able to provide details on how each royalty has been used. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Royalty payments are paid by mining companies to Governments rather than to individuals or groups. Royalty equivalent payments may be paid by the Government to Aboriginal people for mining which has taken place on their land. Mining companies may also enter into agreements directly with Aboriginal communities which provide for additional payments; details of such arrangements are a matter for the parties involved. There are no legislative payment provisions for mining on Aboriginal land in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT. Details of royalty payments to the other State Governments in respect of mining on Aboriginal land are as follows: (a) New South Wales, nil. South Australia, nil. Western Australia, amounts paid by each company not available. Queensland, details not available. Northern Territory, see Table A. (b) New South Wales, nil. South Australia, nil. Western Australia- $ 1982 ... 50,000 1983 ... 34,000 1984 ... 94,000 1985 ... 83,000 Total ... 261,000 Queensland, details not available. Northern Territory, $95,338,579.59. For yearly totals see Table A. (2) New South Wales, not applicable. South Australia, not applicable. Western Australia, details not available. Queensland. Royalty payments paid by Comalco to the State Government are based on export tonnages. Northern Territory. The level of each royalty is as follows: Energy Resources of Australia Ltd-a royalty of 5.50% of gross sales of yellowcake is paid to the Commonwealth which pays 1.25% to the Northern Territory and 4.25% to the ABTA; Queensland Mines Ltd-a royalty of 2.5% of the gross sales of yellowcake is paid to the Commonwealth; Mereenie Joint Venturers-royalty of 10% of the well head value of oil is paid to the Northern Territory; Palm Valley Joint Venturers-royalty of 10% of the well head value of gas is paid to the Northern Territory; Groote Eylandt Mining Co Pty Ltd-a royalty of 2.5% of the gross sales of manganese is paid to the Northern Territory; Swiss Aluminium Australia Ltd and Gove Aluminium Ltd-a royalty of 50 cents per long tonne of untreated bauxite and 40 cents per long tonne of treated bauxite is paid to the Northern Territory. (3) New South Wales, provision exists for fees and moneys received from royalties obtained for mining specific minerals on Aboriginal owned land, to be paid to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. South Australia, provisions exist under the Pitjantjatjara and the Maralinga Acts for royalties to be paid into a separate fund held by the Minister of Mines and Energy. Western Australia, amounts equivalent to the relevant royalty are paid to the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Queensland, an undisclosed amount is paid to the Aborigines Welfare Fund by the State Government. Northern Territory, amounts equivalent to or a proportion of the relevant royalty received by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Government are paid by the Commonwealth to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account (ABTA). (4) New South Wales, under relevant legislation, the royalty equivalents would be distributed as follows: 30% to New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council; 40% to Regional Aboriginal Land Councils; 30% to Regional or Local Aboriginal Land Councils for mining or their land; no prescribed purposes for use apply, however, budgets must be submitted to the relevant State Minister and the Land Council for approval. South Australia, under relevant legislation, royalty equivalents would be distributed as follows: one-third to either Pitjantjatjara or Maralinga executive bodies; one-third to Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for advancement of Aboriginals; one-third to State revenue; no prescribed purposes for use of funds are included in the Acts. Western Australia, under relevant legislation, royalty equivalents are distributed as follows: 30% to resident communities; 30% to local consultative group; 40% for distribution within the State on a needs basis; no prescribed purposes for use of funds are included in the Act. Queensland, under Queensland legislation, non-specified amounts are paid to the Aboriginal Welfare Fund. Amounts distributed to various Aboriginal communities are not disclosed. Northern Territory, under relevant legislation, royalty equivalents are distributed as follows: 40% to Land Councils for administrative expenses; 30% to areas on Aboriginal land affected by resource development projects; 30% for grants and supplementary funding of Land Councils as necessary. (5) Northern Territory, grants made by the ABTA have been paid to or for the benefit of over 600 grantee communities, organisations and groups for a broad range of Aboriginal advancement purposes, which include assistance to homelands, construction of buildings, cultural preservation and enterprise establishment. States: No details available. Table A NORTHERN TERRITORY EQUIVALENTS-PAYMENTS TO ABORIGINAL BENEFITS TRUST ACCOUNT Mining Company Year Amount $ Energy Resources of Aust. Ltd (uranium)... 1981-82... 1982-83... 1983-84... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 1,784,701.01 10,276,308.77 11,981,471.76 11,454,176.86 11,424,483.70 5,025,522.36 Total... 51,946,664.46 Queensland Mines Ltd (uranium)... 1980-81... 1981-82... 1982-83... 1983-84... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 1,834,807.63 1,099,122.02 1,409,581.43 1,559,990.65 1,696,487.39 2,378,266.15 555,758.94 Total... 10,534,014.21 Groote Eylandt Mining Co. P/L (manganese)... 1978-79... 1979-80... 1980-81... 1981-82... 1982-83... 1983-84... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 570,618.86 1,186,932.13 1,183,675.27 1,102,481.77 1,189,368.06 11,281,043.15 1,835,633.76 2,335,442.02 1,030,445.80 Total... 11,715,660.82 Swiss Aluminium Aust. Ltd (bauxite)... 1978-79... 1979-80... 1980-81... 1981-82... 1982-83... 1983-84... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 132,627.25 180,569.17 202,267.06 684,907.81 2,020,755.86 851,005.04 884,371.34 846,138.72 453,862.53 Total... 6,256,504.78 Gove Aluminium Ltd (bauxite)... 1978-79... 1979-80... 1980-81... 1981-82... 1982-83... 1983-84... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 432,573.53 716,571.00 877,202.85 1,113,865.30 2,715,508.30 1,390,489.40 1,493,587.50 1,474,734.30 357,342.00 Total... 10,571,874.18 Mereenie Joint Venturers (oil)... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 431,413.09 2,945,021.54 424,778.47 Total... 3,801,213.10 Palm Valley Joint Venturers (gas)... 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87 (to 30/11)... 311,498.65 141.059.50 60,089.89 Total... 512,648.04