Friday, 20 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 19 March, on the following papers presented by Mr Beazley: Defence of Australia-a policy information paper, March 1987 Defence of Australia-a policy information paper, Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1987. and on the motion by Mr Kerin: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia speaking for a period not exceeding 42 minutes. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —I assure the House that I do not intend to avail myself of the full 42 minutes, but I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for the opportunity afforded me. There is no doubt that Australia's defence is important. There is equally no doubt that the present situation regarding the availability of resources for the Department is just as significant. While commending the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for having at least matured from that early flight of fancy that was represented by the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities into presenting something more realistic in the assessment of Australia's defence needs-this multicoloured publication called the White Paper-there are elements within this paper to which I want to draw the House's attention and around which, obviously, I want to offer a few comments. I think the most important point about the White Paper is that it marks a significant defeat of the concept that Dibb advanced, that we could rely on another sort of fortress Australia. The old idea of having a maginot line a thousand miles out in the ocean surrounding Australia has gone, and so it should have. In its place is a far more realistic assessment of the need for Australia to have a defence capability to participate in our region and to participate meaningfully in accordance with our alliance responsibilities. However, there are, unfortunately, in the delivery of this policy, quite serious shortfalls. Let me first address within the report the strategic assessment that the Minister advanced, because it is from that that the conclusions are necessarily reached as to what sort of a defence force we should have and the degree to which financial and other efforts should be attributed to it. There is no doubt that in the strategic assessment of the report the concept that there is only a benign possibility of any Soviet intrusion in our area has been put in far better perspective. Indeed, I was delighted to hear only this morning that the retiring Chief of the Defence Force has expressly stated that there is a worry about the intrusion of the Soviet Union in the South Pacific. That is a concern that is based not on any feeling that the Soviet Union immediately intends to attack our country but on a recognition of the way in which the Soviet around the world has had a disruptive effect, both personally, through its own initiative, and through the initiatives of surrogate states. One need only look at the role, for example, of the Cubans in Angola and at the constant indications in Central America of the way in which the Soviet indirectly has tried to influence policies towards destabilising local regimes. One need only look towards Afghanistan or the situation in eastern Europe. In each of those areas the role of the Soviet Union has not been one of trying to proceed towards its own self-defence, but rather of taking advantage of either economic or social instability and, from that, promoting political instability and trying to seek political change. The Opposition does not see the Soviet Union immediately, as a result of her entry into the South Pacific, mounting a threat against Australia. But we believe that in any strategic assessment of the future there must be a recognition that the Soviet, both in its increased presence in Vietnam and in the enhancement of particularly the Pacific fleet of the Soviet armed services, is going way beyond what one would see as being realistically necessary to preserve its own defence requirements. In those circumstances any defence approach by Australia must recognise the degree to which that new factor is worrying at a time when there are elements of instability, some of which have been picked up in the White Paper. I refer for example to the problems that are now apparent in the Philippines. Though everybody would wish that President Aquino could achieve political and economic stability, the circumstances of the New People's Army and the degree to which there is constant disruption in the southern islands of that country give cause for concern. If there is outside assistance to the New People's Army and a threatening of President Aquino's Government, of course it must affect circumstances within our region. That is but one illustration which we feel must be in the Government's mind in determining the force structure and capability of Australia's defence. Within the strategic assessment in the White Paper there are a number of particular problems which I see as not being adequately addressed. Yet again they reflect the ideological prejudice of the Labor Party and the total inability of that Party in government to divorce its perspectives from an ideological commitment to defence or towards intrusions in our area which affect our security rather than look at matters realistically as Australians. First, with respect to New Zealand, the Opposition believes that the circumstances of New Zealand's withdrawal under Prime Minister Lange from ANZUS are far more serious than this Government has accepted. Indeed, I am appalled to read in the White Paper that the Minister says that Australia is not a party to the dispute. Australia is a member of ANZUS. Australia in a deteriorating military situation would look towards ANZUS as the ultimate basis by which we can add to our own security efforts. While self-sufficiency, reinstated in this document from the 1976 White Paper, is a doctrine to which we give wholehearted support, I cannot accept that Australia can just wipe its hands of New Zealand and say `It does not matter about the dispute between the United States of America and New Zealand over their ANZUS involvement, everything will be right' and hope, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up. I do not believe that is good enough. I believe that the section of the document on Australia and New Zealand ignores the realistic consequences for this country of being called on to replace almost entirely the involvement of the United States in regional security arrangements involving New Zealand. I do not believe that we can happily continue to maintain a full commitment to our defence arrangements with New Zealand on some type of bilateral basis when it means that resources are required for that purpose which otherwise would be directed to the wider regional responsibilities of importance to Australia but also of importance within the ANZUS context. Therefore, although in government we would look to maintaining a defence relationship with New Zealand, unless the New Zealand Government is prepared to change its stance towards ANZUS, and in particular towards port visits by the United States or other nuclear powers, we see extraordinary difficulties in Australia being able to maintain that preferred relationship which has existed for so long. New Zealand must accept the consequences of the political decision its Government has taken. It is no use turning a blind eye to the implications for Australia and every country in this region of the break-up of the tripartite arrangements within ANZUS simply because New Zealand has turned its back on its responsibilities. I regard it as deplorable that the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have not been prepared to take a stronger stance against the attitude taken by the New Zealand Government and that they believe the whole problem will just go away. In any realistic assessment of Australia's security there is no more significant or deleterious fact that has affected us than the change in attitude adopted by the New Zealand Government, for ANZUS itself has for so long provided an infrastructure behind all the economic and political developments in this region; it has been the ultimate source of security. I deplore the fact that the Government seems to treat its own attitude to New Zealand in such a way that the Minister says `Australia is not a party to the dispute'. Another area of concern to me is the problem of Papua New Guinea. Looking at the circumstances of Papua New Guinea, our former colonial relationship and the degree to which the financial constraints of that Government have tended to reduce the capability of the Papua New Guinea defence force, I do not think that anyone could believe that we could just turn our backs on that country. Nor does the White Paper say we are doing so. But regrettably the section on Papua New Guinea is far too brief. It is important that Australia undertakes a positive effort to try to maintain the quality and standard of training within the Papua New Guinea defence force and recognises that our relationship is far more than just doing as this White Paper says-providing for `formal consultations on matters affecting common security interests'. If there is anything in the idea of some threat to Australia coming through the archipelagos to the north, Papua New Guinea will be critical in that approach. After all, so many people from Australia served, and many lost their lives, during the Japanese campaign in the Second World War. A very important part of the direct attack to Australia came through that country. For us just benignly to treat the whole problem of Papua New Guinea in the way described in this paragraph in the White Paper-by having only `formal consultations on matters affecting common security interests'-seems to be inadequate. It is important that we enter into proper defence relations with Papua New Guinea. While I too commend the Treaty of Mutual Respect, Friendship and Co-operation entered into between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia in October 1986, I think that we must realistically understand that in that region, as indeed in the Philippines and other areas around the South Pacific and South East Asia, if we are not prepared to play a participating and continuing contributory role, the circumstances in strategic terms could deteriorate. Mr Charles —What would you do? Mr SINCLAIR —I will tell the House what I would not do. I would not withdraw without notice from a financial arrangement entered into between the Government of this country and the Government of Papua New Guinea. I regard it as absolutely disgraceful that the Australian Government, certainly in a bid to cut Australian Budget expenditure, was prepared to cut without prior notice to the Papua New Guinea Government the infrastructure financial support that has been provided to the Papua New Guinea Budget. It is important that we maintain stability in our relationships, financially and in every other way, with that country. It is illustrative of the shortsighted approach to management that this Government has adopted that it is prepared to treat Papua New Guinea in this typically high-handed, former colonial master way. The way in which the Government withdrew that financial support is despicable and it is not a basis on which to enter any continuing long term relationship. All that will do is force the Government of Papua New Guinea to turn to other countries and away from the stability that the conservative side of politics has provided for so long in our relationship. The third area of the strategic analysis that worries me is Antarctica. I do not intend to speak on that at any length but we need to understand that, with the introduction of the 200-mile economic zone and particularly with the increased interest in fishing developments around our island dependencies and territories in Antarctica, we cannot turn our eyes against the degree to which we need to have at least some ability to operate vessels, particularly naval vessels, in those southern waters. Not for one moment am I suggesting that we should do other than work towards the preservation of the Antarctic Treaty, but I suggest that it is important that, within the force structure of the Australian defence forces, we recognise that the southern approaches to Australia are areas to which Australia must give some recognition. In that respect I certainly understand that we need to recognise that the 200-mile fishing zone has added new responsibilities which did not exist before. In relation to the reaction of the Government to the Dibb concept of force denial I should say several things. The first is that I think the change from force denial to the three layers of defence is a marked return to sense and sensibility as far as Australia's approach to our defence requirements is concerned. I am delighted that both in the strategic assessment and in the reaction to that strategic assessment the Government seems to have accepted to a large degree the Opposition's approach which has been that we must be able to have a force structure designed to parti-cipate in events that might take place in our region of general strategic interest. To look at only low level exigencies, which essentially was the barb of the Dibb approach, is totally inadequate. However, within the approach of the Government again I am concerned about elements of the White Paper and the Minister's response to it. In terms of the intelligence developments, while commending the Minister for his recognition of the joint facilities and accepting entirely his proposal with respect to the new intelligence facility in Western Australia, I think the most important part of our being able to develop our intelligence capability-this being the first layer within the defence effort-is that we have the interpretative capability within Australia. Regrettably, given the nature of electronic warfare and the degree to which the ability to read satellite communications in the intelligence area has given enormous volumes of material to Australia, I do not believe our ability to interpret that material is adequate. One of the concerns that I would have about any further expansion of the intelligence area is that we give adequate resources to the interpretative side of that intelligence received by the Australian Government. Unless we are able to interpret that advice, regrettably much of the advantage that flows from those additional faci-lities will not be available for the government of the day to interpret what sort of a reaction is necessary to any developments that might be disclosed by those facilities. That aside, I believe the concepts and the statements of the Minister and this White Paper on the development of intelligence facilities is to be commended, and it is certainly again a marked change from some of those more prejudiced statements made by the left wing of the Australian Labor Party whose ideological bigotry in this matter is only too well known. However, in looking at intelligence surveillance, I am disappointed that the Government has not given higher priority to airborne early warning radar. While commending the general concept of developing the Jindalee idea-that is, over the horizon radar-we do not want for one moment to think that we will be able to provide any air cover for elements of the Australian Navy, or indeed for merchant vessels, if there is not some type of an airborne early warning and control aircraft in service in the Australian De-fence Force. At the moment Jindalee will provide an additional information base. That is well worth while, but to my mind, given the nature of possible operations and the degree to which we would need to be able to protect particularly our surface vessels from any approach that might be needed towards an element of instability in our region, unless there is an AEW and control capability within the Defence Force I cannot see how we would be able to direct land-based attack and strike or even fighter aircraft towards supporting those maritime elements. It is for that reason that I would have given a higher priority to them. While it is true that the Jindalee radar station needs to continue to be developed as a test bed for scientific engineering and operational developments, as the White Paper comments, it is not sufficient that we look only at Jindalee. I trust that the AEW and C systems will receive a higher priority than just being included in the five-year defence program, possibly to be deferred for other items because of budgetary constraints. I do not want to go into all the details of other elements of the intelligence area because in general I think it is a significant improvement on anything in the Dibb report, and it certainly seems to me to be a way in which, in government, this side of the House would be prepared to act, other than, as I have said, with respect to the priorities for AEW and C aircraft. With respect to the second layer-that is, the air-sea approaches-I have difficulties in relation to a number of the recommendations of the Minister and the Government. Let me identify a few of them. The first concerns the F111 aircraft. I regard it as ridiculous for Australia not to have tried to develop as soon as possible, in the same way as the United States, a modern refit from the analogue to digital avionics aboard those aircraft. Equally, I think it is regrettable that in the upgrading of the 707s for aerial refuelling at this stage they are to be equipped for refuelling only the F18 aircraft and not for F111s. It seems to me that the obvious advantage of the F111 was well illustrated in the nature of the American effort in the Mediterranean last year. To the degree to which these aircraft are still very much in the front line of technology, we are foolish not to maintain their technical capability to operate indefinitely. While that might well mean a terminal life of perhaps 15 or 20 years, I am critical that in the air-sea warfare stage of any defence of Australia in that second layer the F111 is a vital part of our response, and I am disappointed that the Government has not given a higher priority therefore to its refit. In the second part, as far as the maritime side of affairs is concerned, on this side of the House there has not been the enthusiasm for the eight new surface combatants to which this paper refers. I am concerned that we will have yet another type in service within the Navy. There are problems at the moment with manpower in the Navy. Every time we get another type of vessel we have to duplicate every area of facilities, such as the technicians who will be there repairing and maintaining the equipment on board the ship, the land facilities to back them up and the type of equipment on board. One thing that we must do wherever possible is try to establish, to the maximum, similarity between vessel types, equipment types, combat systems and so on. I accept the difficulty in trying to maintain and establish quite the right level of vessels. Indeed on this side of the House the FFG was never our favourite beast. As many will recall, we looked at a vessel called the DDL, thinking we might be able to get some design, development and shipbuilding capability in relation to that vessel, but in the event during the Whitlam days the initial contracts were let for the FFGs, and I confess that those who are operating and who have operated the FFGs believe them to be a very suitable and capable vessel. If that is so, as I have commented on other occasions, rather than going to yet another design it would be better to see whether some adaptation of the FFG design can be used to meet this patrol frigate requirement. It could be, as the Minister has contested, that the cost of doing so is too great and that we cannot have sufficient of the vessels to meet the requirement, but I am worried that we will have yet another type. In a moment I want to come to one of the principal defects of this report when it gets to personnel. Significant problems are emerging in trying to maintain adequate standards of technical competence to refit and maintain this sort of equipment in service. I am worried that, unless we do something to try to get greater similarity, the degree to which we could, for example, give senior sailors adequate leave when a vessel comes to port is restricted because each type of ship is different, we need different skills to maintain the equipment, and so we have to have more people. At a time when the supply of people is short we have to be able to utilise similarity and comparability of equipment in order to maximise the output from those who are available. That is the second area with respect to the second layer. The other field which worries me about the report is that as far as maritime operations are concerned the whole reference to amphibious forces is contained in one paragraph alone. I believe there could be a requirement for an amphibious capability in the Services. In particular, the ODF unit at Townsville needs to have that capability, and I am disappointed therefore that I believe nothing adequately addresses that particular field of defence requirement. Once again I make the point that, while Australia has no aggressive intent and while the general military purpose set down in this defence report has our support, I do not believe we can just turn a blind eye to the sorts of circumstances that might happen, perhaps in an island state in the Pacific-perhaps even in a territory of Australia, such as Christmas Island or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. For us not to have a greater amphibious capability than that provided now principally by HMAS Tobruk, and with other vessels being used largely for naval surveying or being laid up, I believe is not adequate. I believe that there is a need for us to maintain that capability to a greater degree than that indicated in this report. As far as the mine-sweeping capability is concerned there is little difference between the Government's policy and ours. I am delighted that the Government is proceeding with the catamaran minehunter that was developed during the coalition days. It seems to me to be an area where we have a serious deficiency and I commend both the Minister and the White Paper for their recognition of the consequences of our not having adequate mine counter-measure forces. With respect to land warfare, or the third layer of defence, I again have particular concerns. I am worried about the degree to which what seems to be an increased reliance on the reserves is not matched by an increased allocation of resources to the reserves. There is no doubt that the Minister's announced intention to change the call-out provisions is something that should have been done long ago. I must confess that I have always been totally in favour of it and I am delighted that the Minister has actually brought legislation to that effect into this House. However, within the operation of the land warfare arm, there seems to be an increased emphasis on the role of the reserves, in part because of the change of those call-out provisions, but without providing to those Army elements the training hours to develop the necessary skills that are an essential part of that change. If we are to give the reserves a greater role, which I believe is necessary, we must make sure that standards of efficiency can be obtained and we must make sure that the reduction in training hours, which in the last little while has affected so many within the reserves, is adequately addressed. I want to turn in a moment to the whole personnel problem. When we look at the reserves situation it is particularly worrying that we seem not to have enough recruits for the effort that has been put into the campaign by the Government to enlist more people. It also seems to me that there is no recognition of the fact that part of the shortfall problem lies in the degree of satisfaction given to people who serve in the reserves. That means that we have to have more training hours and a greater capability to be able to give those people in the reserves compensation for the work they do. There is no need for me to mention again that the changes introduced by this Government affecting the withdrawal of the tax concession available to service pay, while now corrected, unfortunately was one of those hiccups that certainly detracted from the incentives that people with skills in the civilian work force had to participate in the reserves. But I say to the Minister: Unless he is prepared to increase the training hours and the general opportunity for service in the reserves I doubt whether he will be able to meet his recruiting targets or whether those in the reserves will be able to play the role that will be asked of them. I certainly believe that there are other elements in the utilisation of civilian skills, which I will address in a moment, that we need to pick up. As far as the other services are concerned, the reserves should also have a far higher priority than this paper or the Minister's attitude suggests. I have a number of other concerns about the actual recommendations on land warfare. I notice that the 2nd Cavalry Regiment is to be deployed to Darwin. The only concern I have there is that part of the long term worry we have had about military facilities around Australia has been the extent to which any type of military commitment within a capital city is progressively enclosed by ordinary civilian suburban housing developments. I would be far more inclined to think for that reason that the 2nd Cavalry Regiment would be better placed somewhere near the Royal Australian Air Force facility in Katherine rather than in Darwin. However, I wait to be convinced by the Minister of where it should be relocated. I recognise that there needs to be some communication facility from Tindal to Darwin for the families of servicemen if the general satisfaction of service, which is an important element of morale, can be maintained for those who are posted there. As far as Army vehicles and equipment are concerned, I would like to address a number of developments within this report but I will not spend much time on them. I am delighted to see that project Waler apparently will be reinstated. It is being recognised that the unit's track M113 vehicles have serious shortcomings and I am delighted to see that, once again, apparently a selected range of vehicles is to be evaluated under northern conditions. The whole concept of project Waler, which was scrapped by this Minister and this Government, was to develop a light armoured vehicle designed for Australian conditions. Frankly, unless we do that, I do not believe that the military use of the M113 can be seen as satisfactory other than for training. I believe that it is necessary for us to develop a new light armoured vehicle and I am delighted to see that the White Paper is again going back to that field of forward planning by the coalition Government. The Blackhawk helicopters, about which I have spoken on earlier occasions, are an excellent selection but I am hoping that undue resources will not be wasted in diverting the training and repair and maintenance facilities of the Blackhawk from one service to another. I do not dispute that the absolute command of the personnel flying those helicopters must go to the land force commander. My only worry is that we cannot afford, with the fairly scarce resources available, to divert too many of those resources to yet another training and repair and maintenance facility. For that reason I feel that it is better to leave those who are operating the Blackhawk helicopters in the Air Force seconded to the Army and under Army control for the period that they are operating in that role and to make sure that repair and maintenance and logistic support remain within a service that already has the capability of providing that facility without a significant increase in financial commitment. There are a number of other areas in the report on which I want to spend a little time. The first obviously has to be looked at in terms of the defence infrastructure. I think some of the changes that the Minister has made are to be commended, but unless we are prepared to a greater degree to try to integrate Australia's industrial capability in the private sector with defence requirements we will have enormous difficulties. The chief defence scientists in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation have done a great deal of truly worthwhile work but, unfortunately, they seem so often to be operating on a shoestring. I believe that we need to look to a greater degree at our tender procedures and at the degree to which we can offer out to the private sector work in the development of new pieces of equipment for the Australian services. I understand that the size of our service and the degree to which we rely on fairly advanced and sophisticated technology inhibit that opportunity. For example, it would have been a lot better for us to have developed a new light rifle in Australia and to work with other countries in our region, in the Association of South East Asian Nations and in the South Pacific. I believe that we could have designed and developed such a piece of equipment within Australia instead of relying in this instance on an Austrian design. True, the weapon will be manufactured in Australia, but we should not just be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Surely to goodness in 1987 we can do at least as well as we did in 1943 and 1944. Yet this Government seems to turn its back on design in Australia while certainly accepting domestic manufacture. In the whole field of infrastructures and support systems for the defence forces I would like to see a far greater emphasis on the private sector, encouraging to the maximum that amount of money that must be spent on logistics to enable us to develop our civilian technological base. It has been done in countries such as Sweden, from which we are at the moment trying to buy a submarine, and it has been done elsewhere; and I can see no reason why it cannot be done in Australia. Of course, Australian industry is looking very kindly at what is happening in the design of the new submarine. I am still worried about the design selected by the Government. While I understand the degree to which the whole process has involved very significant expenditure by private sector companies in Australia, I am worried about a number of elements of the two preferred designs going now through the project definition study. It is true that when we come into government it will probably no longer be possible for us to look at the nuclear propelled alternative, which I said long ago to the Minister should at least have been examined, given the tremendous leap in technology in this area. We need to think about the two advantages of nuclear propulsion-speed under water and endurance under water. Regrettably, neither of those elements can be matched by the ordinary diesel-electric alternative. But if we are precluded from looking at that I think we will still need to be satisfied that either the German or the Swedish design, which seem at the moment to be on a course towards being the preferred vessels for construction by the Government, meet Australian defence requirements. For example, I was most concerned the other day in discussions with the Swedish Defence Minister not to have the assurance that we would not again have the problems that we had with the Karl Gustav missile gun during the Vietnam campaign. I can see no circumstances where we may well have difficulties. But many people will remember the difficulties we had during the Vietnam campaign when a Swedish company said that certain spare parts and equipment that were needed would not be provided because it disagreed with the commitment we had at that time. Given the uncertainty of the strategic situation in our region, we on this side of the House want the maximum possible flexibility for future Australian governments so that our defence assets can be used where the government of the day and the people of this country believe they should be used. So I was concerned that the Swedish Minister did not give me the assurance that there would not be the same problems with the Swedish submarine as there have been in the past with the Karl Gustav missile. In respect of the other elements of design and development, I can assure everybody in Australian industry that it is not our intention in government to move away from any firm contractual obligations that have been embarked upon. Equally, we will not just rush into the next stage-that is, proceeding beyond firm contracts without being totally convinced that the design and construction, be it of the submarine or any other piece of equipment, are within the best interests of Australia and the defence forces. But it is certainly our intention to maximise the use of Australian civilian resources. We would be looking at the tendering procedures to give greater opportunity than is now available for the design and development within Australian industry. We will also look at defence exports. One of the criticisms we have had of the defence co-operation program-the DCP-in the South Pacific islands and in South East Asia, but particularly in the South Pacific islands, is the undue emphasis this Government has given to the Pacific patrol boat. So much of our resources is in that area that we have not been able to provide the training or help the island nations to develop adequately the other skills that are needed. I am quite concerned that it is important for us to look at that wider field rather than just look at the narrow provisions of a particular piece of equipment as far as developing the skills and capability of the South Pacific nations are concerned. As for exports, I would hope that we can work with nations in our region to develop mutually a manufacture and design capability for our defence industry. Surely, with the overall demand for defence equipment right through the South Pacific and the South East Asian countries, we can jointly collaborate to produce many items of equipment and by so doing help to offset some of the problems of the order of market requirement. In other words, if producing 1,000 pieces of a particular type of equipment is inadequate to achieve economies of production, why can we not look at getting a larger demand by working with other countries? I think such an arrangement would be very much in our interests. I have two principal concerns with the White Paper. The first concerns personnel and the second money. As far as personnel is concerned, I think this White Paper deals very peremptorily with the fundamental problems caused by changes in circumstances within the Defence Force. There is a reference in the paper to women in the Defence Force. While we on this side of the House recognise totally the rights of women to take up whatever job or occupation they might wish to, I am concerned that the implications of the additional recruitment of women to the Defence Force at a time of personnel reduction have not been addressed. There are all sorts of problems. For example, I am told that senior sailors now have to spend significantly longer at sea. Because women are not allowed to go to sea, posts on shore are filled by women, which means that there are no posts ashore for senior sailors. There are difficulties in trying to integrate women into as many responsibilities and roles as I gather the Government is now intending. Beyond that, we are particularly concerned at the increase in resignations. Without going into the full statistics, there is no doubt that in the 12 months to January, the total loss from the Defence Force was 8 per cent greater than the total gain. Given that every time we recruit an individual to the Services it costs $3,000 in advertising and administrative expenses, we are getting into a very expensive area if we do not address the difficulties of trying to maintain the morale and capability of people in the Services. We would look to the private sector more in respect of housing. We would be prepared to try to give greater financial delegation to those within the Defence Force. For example, the force commander at Holsworthy should have far greater discretion in replacing the antiquated houses than he has at the moment in that establishment. With 15,000 of the 22,000 homes owned by the defence forces being below standard, I am not convinced that the Government saying that it is going to spend $750m over the next 10 years will do anything immediately to address the problem. Fundamentally, we have to understand that, apart from anything else, incentive should be provided to servicemen to own their own homes. There is no reference in this paper to the defence service homes scheme. We should be looking at providing financial incentives for servicemen to buy their own homes. I see no reason why they should not have an immediate entitlement to Defence Force retirement and death benefits and Defence Force retirement benefits money that is available to them. They should be able to draw from their defence service homes and DFRB entitlements. When they are transferred they should be able to sell their houses, pay the money back and have the right to another draw. We have to encourage private ownership in the Services in the same way as we do everywhere else. Equally, there has to be a recognition of the problems faced by the families of servicemen. It is ridiculous that so little has been done to understand that the wives of servicemen want to work just as much as the wives of so many others in our community. With two income families more predominant than they used to be, there has to be a recognition by the Government that it cannot ignore these problems. We have to look at providing career streams to avoid the problems that are created by people having moved every two years from one base to another and having to cross State borders and encounter the problems of re-registering their motor vehicles or finding that their qualifications as, for example, a teacher or a nurse, do not apply. These are fundamental problems. Unless adequate conditions are provided for defence personnel we can forget all these other grandiose schemes. Indeed, one of the fundamental problems in this report is the Minister's boast that there has been a significant increase in financial allocations for equipment without realising that pressure is being placed on personnel. If we cannot provide personnel, we have no base from which we can operate that equipment, nor have we any ability to be able to train future generations to operate and maintain it. Another deplorable issue is the treatment by this Government of service conditions. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal has not really picked up comparable pay and conditions for service personnel that exist outside. Within the last year, there has been a 2 per cent reduction in entitlements under the DFRDB and DFRB schemes. Service personnel have been treated in a way worse than employees around Australia would dream about. Frankly, it has to be changed. Economically and financially, this White Paper has failed miserably. The Government really has not given any figures. I am concerned that in 1984 John Moten, now a deputy secretary in the Department of Defence, told the Brisbane Defence Seminar that to maintain the current Defence Force infantry over the next 30 years would require 3 per cent real growth in the defence budget for the next 10 years and 2 per cent thereafter if the real cost of defence equipment did not grow. The real problem is that there is no financial resource to back this program. Of course, it will be difficult but it is no use creating an illusion that it can be delivered unless the money is there. We believe 3 per cent of gross domestic product is a base from which we should try to attain defence funding for Australia. This has fallen behind in recent years. The White Paper talks about 2.6 to 2.9 per cent of GDP. But unless the financial resources are there, the White Paper itself will be no more than a lot of rhetoric. The concepts are grand but I am afraid the ability to deliver is very short. I believe that much of the White Paper is to be commended but serious questions are raised within it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(10.44) —I thought the closing remarks of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) were particularly pertinent. In effect, he said that the framework of the White Paper was basically sound but that the financial commitment was insufficient. One would have imagined that that comment could have been made on the previous White Paper brought down in 1976 because the right honourable member agrees that the commitments were not kept because the previous Government did not provide the financial resources to meet those commitments. I have mentioned that this is the first White Paper since 1976. The background of the 1976 White Paper was that when the Whitlam Government came into office, because it was a considerable time since a comprehensive statement had been made on Australian defence, that paper was set in train. We were well down the track with it when the Whitlam Government went out of office at the end of 1975. A year or so later one recognised the drafts of our White Paper coming through in the White Paper that Mr Killen, as he was then, presented to the Parliament. This White Paper has taken a good deal of time to prepare. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the team that he gathered around him from the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force on the comprehensiveness and balance in this paper. I would also like to compliment Mr Paul Dibb, whose paper the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities-the so-called Dibb report-laid the basis for a more intelligent and informed discussion in the Australian community than has ever occurred previously. Much is being made in the media-and I might add that media reception of the White Paper has been extremely good-about the way this White Paper has departed from Dibb. People ought to read both these reports because the messages that came through in the Dibb report, which everybody who is interested in the defence of Australia should clearly understand, are here in the White Paper. The White Paper is realistic. It is based on the belief that in the present strategic situation there will be no real increase in defence spending in the foreseeable future. It is one thing for the shadow Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for New England, to say, as he did, that the Government has to provide more money for defence, but at page 100 in the White Paper where the graphs are set out-and even simple souls like me can understand them-we see a graph of defence outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product. We can see the increase to 4 1/2 per cent at the peak of the Vietnam war, the decline in defence expenditure as the Vietnam commitment wound down, the trough in that expenditure under the coalition Government in 1978 and 1979 and modest improvement under the Labor Government. On the following page where defence outlays are shown as a percentage of Commonwealth Budget outlays we can see a similar thing: The hump of the Vietnam war, the trough under the coalition Government and a modest increase under the Labor Government. The pertinent fact that comes through in that is that it is not much use having a pie in the sky approach and saying: `Well, we have to spend a vastly greater amount on defence than we have in the past'. The facts of life are that this country is experiencing severe economic problems arising out of the deterioration in the terms of trade and that the Minister for Defence has to compete with other Ministers for the available dollar. It is quite foolish, indeed irresponsible, to lay out an expectation to the Australian community that, at a time when money has to be spent to protect the disadvantaged in our community, to create jobs, to improve education and in so many other respects, all of a sudden a vast amount of new funding will be made available for defence. I congratulate the Minister on the realism in that approach. The second point is that the program spelled out in this paper is affordable. In the Minister's statement he makes the point that at the present rate of spending, $2.2 billion per annum on equipment and facilities indexed, there is probably $40 billion available over the next 15 years and that the equipment program in the White Paper would cost somewhere between $20 billion and $25 billion. That really means that the program can be carried out and that there will be money available to do the other things which are outlined in the paper but for which at present there are no detailed provisions. One has to remember, of course, that there is always a long lead time in the more sophisticated and significant items of defence equipment that a modern defence force needs. We take a long time to assess the aircraft, ship or platform that we propose to build-we build more these days in Australia than we did in the past-and it takes a long time to get it into production, but we have that item of equipment in place for 20 or 25 years. The White Paper points out the importance of our existing alliances-ANZUS, the five-power agreement for the protection of Malaysia and Singapore, our defence commitment to Papua New Guinea, our close defence association with New Zealand and our commitments in particular to the South West Pacific, where we are a significant regional power. So the suggestion made about the Dibb report, that it was an isolationist concept-which was untrue-ought to be destroyed by this White Paper, which spells out in a very clear way that our existing alliances are extremely important to us and that we adhere to them. The paper then says that against that background we need to foster the maximum self-reliance. That is the next message that the White Paper gives very clearly. Australia has a capacity to defend itself-much greater than most people in this country have believed. We have always been overly dependent on our allies. I am a strong supporter of our alliance commitments, particularly to ANZUS, but we have certain advantages. We have the asset of distance; we are a long way from any potential threat. We have friendly powers in our region. We also have particularly difficult terrain in the northern part of this country, where any invader presumably would land, a highly skilled Australian Defence Force, efficient industries and a sound economic backup for a defence force; so we have considerable advantages. The White Paper is a blueprint-if I can say that without mixing metaphors-for self-reliance by the Australian Defence Force. It is predicated on defence in depth. I have mentioned the significance of the sea lanes and airspace around this continent. Those people who criticised the part of the Dibb report which said that we should extend our capacity further afield ought to take into account the fact that our area of immediate strategic interest is larger than the continent of Europe, so that we, with a population of 16 million, are committed to an area of immediate strategic interest which is larger than the population of Europe, with hundreds of millions of people and very sophisticated industry to defend. Another area that the White Paper addresses is the significant improvement in force structure that has taken place under the Labor Government. The direction is pointed into the future. There is no doubt that, with the enhanced powers of the Chief of the Defence Force and the arrangements now in place, the force structure of the Australian Defence Force is much more capable of meeting any future contingency than it was in past days when, as honourable members know, we had individual service portfolios vying for the service dollar and for power and authority in the Australian Defence Force. Those problems are now in the past. Another element in the White Paper is the transfer of significant assets to the north and, in the case of the Royal Australian Navy, to the Indian Ocean. I was pleased that the shadow Minister for Defence supported those elements of the White Paper because I think they are significant. This goes back a long way in time. Lavarack was established in the early 1960s. Under the Whitlam Government we were looking at Tindal. That, like so many other things, was put in mothballs by the coalition Government. The Tindal air base is now being built. The Minister recently announced the transfer of significant Army assets to the Northern Territory in the future. All of that is as it should be, because most people who study the defence of Australia-and I was interested that the shadow Minister was talking about the threat from the south and would like to know to what extent he can substantiate that argument-think that, if we are to meet a threat at some time in the future, it will come from the north and that our forces ought to be in place and trained in the tropical environment to defend this country. An item of particular interest in the White Paper points to the increased efficiency of defence factories and the shipyards. One really would have to say that, when the Labor Government took over the defence factories and the shipyards from its predecessor, we took them over in a fairly disgraceful position. There were very substantial subsidies and featherbedding for various reasons; and they were not as efficient as they might be. One should pay tribute to the co-operation that this Government has received from the trade union movement for its understanding that if people are to be employed in the defence factories and shipyards in the long term, significant improvements in efficiency have to be made. Those improvements have been made. I am not suggesting everything is perfect. Of course significant improvement is needed in the shipyards area which has particular problems but a good deal of improvement has been made. Increased efficiency has meant, I think the Minister said, a one per cent increase in resources available to the Defence Force. The other aspect of the program spelt out in the White Paper-this has taken place in the days of the Hawke Labor Government-is the significant improvement in opportunities for Australian industry. We are now building the highest percentage of equipment in this country since World War II. The blueprint spells out-be it for submarines, the new patrol frigate, transport vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles and the like-substantial assistance to Australian industry. Finally, because my time is running out, I would like to deal with two matters that the shadow Minister raised. One is pay and conditions in the Australian Defence Force. I find it surprising that somebody in the Opposition should raise the matter of pay and conditions because when the Whitlam Government came into office it ordered a review of pay and conditions and at that time-in 1973-the Defence Force received its first pay review for eight years. That Government went out of office in 1975 and in 1980 the then Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, ordered a review of Defence Force pay and that report came down in 1981. The Government had not provided sufficient money in the Estimates so Defence Force pay was not increased until 1982. That meant that the Defence Force had gone nine years without a pay rise under the coalition Government. We have now set in train a Defence Force remuneration tribunal which, on a continuing basis, is reviewing Defence Force pay. Recently in a Press release the Minister stated that there would be a review of the Service allowance for submariners. This will roll through the system. People had unreal expectations; they thought that all the problems would be solved overnight. What will happen is that there will be a step-by-step improvement in Defence Force pay on the basis of sound industrial principles. Never again will the Australian Defence Force have to wait long periods-which it did under coalition governments-and be left falling behind the pay and conditions of people in the market-place. A similar position applies with housing. The point was made that there is a great deficiency in Defence Force housing and we do not disagree with that. More than two-thirds of its housing is substandard; more than two-thirds of its housing was substandard when we took over after the coalition government. What has happened-the legislation was introduced this week-is that a new Defence Force Housing Authority is being set up. It is already in place in an interim way and $67m-more than a 20 per cent increase over the funding of the previous year and infinitely more than that of last year of the coalition Government-has been provided. It will not be an easy task; it is a very great one but in these times of stringent financial restraint the Government has made a major commitment to improving Defence Force housing. I think that Service personnel will believe it only when it happens. I am pleased to see new houses are being built at Enoggera and Townsville and that very significant improvements will be carried out at Darwin, Tindal, Stirling and elsewhere. The program has started; it will cost $700m and it is extremely significant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.59) —The White Paper, as the shadow Minister for Defence and Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), indicated in the House earlier, is a welcome return to the perceptions put down in our-that is the Liberal and National Party Government-White Paper of 1976. But a government's defence strategy is intertwined with its conduct of foreign policy. The two are naturally interwoven. It is this interrelationship between the Government's defence and foreign policy on which I want to offer some preliminary thoughts. The contradictions between the White Paper's assumptions and policy prescriptions, and the foreign policy actually practised by the Government over the past four years, must be of concern. Put bluntly, it just does not add up. The White Paper states at paragraph 1.35: The Government is concerned to sustain the favourable regional strategic environment for Australia. Yet this Government has been totally incapable of maintaining even-keel relationships with countries of our region. How has the Government sustained such a `favourable regional environment' when, in the space of only three years, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has gone from describing our relations with our largest regional neighbour, Indonesia, from excellent to `a shambles' and `in tatters'; when the Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea is sufficiently provoked to publicly berate the Government for its absolute mishandling of this important bilateral relationship and bluntly said that Papua New Guinea has always done better out of a Liberal Government; or when our most basic defence treaty, ANZUS, is again, to quote the Prime Minister, `inoperable'? The White Paper states at paragraph 1.35 that `Australia is a major power in the South West Pacific' and paragraph 2.41 acknowledges the vital importance of the region to our security. Why then did it take the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) three years in his portfolio before he even visited the region? He judged visits to Vietnam, Nicaragua and Eastern Europe more of a priority of taxpayers' money and the Australian Labor Party's interests. If the South West Pacific is now acknowledged by the Government as being so strategically important for access to lines of communication with our major trading partners and allies, why did the Government initiate and flog a treaty that has, as one of its major purposes, clauses that legislatively constrain our ability to respond to what could be a drastically altered strategic environment? Mr Hodgman —That is a good point. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed it is a good point. It is a contradiction for the White Paper to claim that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is a gain for Australian and regional security-this is stated in paragraph 2.44-and that it protects Western strategic interests in the region. If it is so protective of these interests it is somewhat strange, is it not, that the Western powers have declined to sign it and that the Soviet Union was the first power to do so. The paper goes on to say that an unfriendly power in the area could inhibit our freedom of movement and place in doubt the supply of military equipment and other strategic material from the United States of America. This is precisely one of the ways in which the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty constrains us. The prohibitions of this Treaty in our freedom of action apply regardless of future shifts in the balance of military and strategic forces in the region, or indeed in the world, and regardless of how critical it may be to our survival that at some future time we should provide facilities, such as home porting, to allied forces. We would not be able to do this even if we were at war and our national survival were at stake, for legally the Treaty remains in force indefinitely. So much for its protecting Western security interests! At paragraph 2.16 the White Paper states that `our defence influence is substantial', referring to the South West Pacific. Yet the Foreign Minister, during his belated whip through the region, conveyed the Government's rejection to requests from the Tuvalu and Western Samoan governments for assistance in maintaining their patrol fleets. But contradictions abound. The paper states that the formation and consolidation of the Association of South East Asian Nations-ASEAN-has been of strategic benefit to Australia and has `fostered the development of a broad political and strategic consensus which supports Australia's long term security prospects'. Again, if this is Government policy, why has the Government sought to promote policies, such as its interference in Vietnam and the broader Indo-China region, in a manner that has antagonised and alienated ASEAN? At paragraph 1.23, the White Paper states: The Government is developing a more mature working relationship with the United States in technology transfer. It conspicuously makes no mention of the Government's refusal to allow Australian participation in the research work of the strategic defence initiative. What is so mature about refusing to participate in research that offers the world the possibility of a better, more stable deterrence based on defences that are survivable? It is not an act of maturity to refuse to participate in research that has the moral aim of substituting a non-nuclear defence system to combat a nuclear offensive system, research which is a necessary response to the Soviet Union's own intense research into similar technologies. Mr Hodgman —Whose side are they on? Mr PEACOCK —There are the contradictions and they inescapably lead to that sort of question by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The White Paper blandly states: A redistribution of power in favour of the Soviet Union or an extension of Soviet influence in our region would be a matter of fundamental concern to Australia, and would be contrary to our national interests. It is a worthwhile White Paper. Its warning and the contradictions I am pointing out contrast what the White Paper can reasonably be said to be putting on the one hand, and what the Government is practising on the other. Here the White Paper is warning us of a redistribution of power in favour of the Soviet Union, or an extension of Soviet influence in our region, and that this would be contrary to our national interest. Mr Hodgman —They have only just discovered that. Mr PEACOCK —Well, in fairness, this is at least what has been put down in the White Paper. But let us now contrast that with what has transpired, for we ought to be clear that in such scenarios what is at stake is much more vivid than, frankly, those bland words-they are rather bland words-convey. Our alliance with the United States is in fact much more than just a military pact. It was necessary in the White Paper to have explicitly stated that the alliance is the embodiment of ideals, ideas and values which are distinctly part of our own Australian character, and of America's-ideas of individualism, democracy and freedom under the law. These are not academic notions. The alliance is not just a military pact. It is an arrangement between two countries that espouse such ideals. We should not be so hesitant in proclaiming our belief in these values and rejecting those that threaten them. If extended Soviet influence is contrary to our national interest, what on earth is this Government doing promoting the Soviet Union's membership of an international body such as the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council? Would honourable members believe that so great was the Government's work in seeking to get the Soviets into the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council that the Japanese actually lodged a protest, a demarche, with our Department of Foreign Affairs? That is of great concern for the region. That is understandable when the Japanese have been able to contrast their interests and what they would assume to be our interests with the actual actions of the Government. The Government's White Paper minimises the dangers posed by recent Soviet inroads into the Asia-Pacific region. It fails to acknowledge that the maintenance of Western interests-as opposed to Soviet ones-in the South Pacific has been steadily eroding since 1983, not uncoincidental with the Government's election to office. As we are all too well aware, in recent times the Soviet Union has become increasingly vocal and strident in its claims that it has a right to play an active role in our region and to extend its military influence into South East Asia and the Pacific. Statements from the Soviet leadership have made this targeting of our region very clear indeed. It is also clearly recognisable from the intensification of Soviet diplomatic activities and propaganda, as well as from the buildup of Soviet military forces in these areas. General Secretary Gorbachev, in his now well known Vladivostok speech of 28 July 1986, gave the clearest indication that the Soviet Union now saw itself as a `Pacific power'. He left no doubt as to Moscow's intention to intensify its Asian and Pacific policy in the future. The new importance attached to South East Asia and the Pacific has also been reflected by the re-organisation of the Soviet Foreign Ministry. Three independent departments have now been created in place of the old Asia Department. They now have one responsible for China and other Asian communist countries, the second for non-communist states in South East Asia and the third for Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific islands. Moscow has been conspicuously active in recent times in conducting a series of high level international visits. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, and the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Kapitsa, between them have travelled extensively through South East Asia and the Pacific. We have seen a well targeted and increasingly well oiled Soviet public relations machine at work in our area. They have had some success, too. The December 1986 fishing agreement signed by the Soviet Union with Vanuatu is but one disturbing new piece of the puzzle and yet more may follow. These developments need to be explicitly recognised for the dangers that they pose. Instead, Labor has spent the past four years ignoring the danger signals and scoffing each time they were raised by myself and others. Indeed, the Foreign Minister became so excited following his first meeting with Mr Shevardnadze in New York last year that he is on record as saying that it was `highly desirable' for the Soviet Union to have a greater level of commercial activity in our region and that he would `welcome' increased involvement. Three months later, the Minister, in finally commenting on the Soviet-Vanuatu fishing accord, was forced to accept the argument that commercial activity can hide political interference and mask intelligence gathering activities. This Government has displayed hypocrisy, inconsistency and ostrich-like behaviour in the conduct of our foreign policy. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has himself acknowledged, the Soviet Pacific fleet is now the largest of its four navies. There is no doubt in the minds of so many experts-particularly United States military experts-that Cam Ranh Bay is a powerful, fully operational Soviet military base. The White Paper itself in paragraph 2.29 acknowledges that Cam Ranh Bay is now the largest Soviet military base outside the Warsaw Pact countries. The White Paper minimises, however, the significant military hardware at Cam Ranh Bay by claiming that in a global conflict this would be easily knocked out. This is, however, a contradiction of one of the major assumptions of the paper-namely that global conflict is highly unlikely in the next decade. Since the end of World War II most conflict has been regional and limited and, in these circumstances, the extent of Cam Ranh Bay's growth is significant and destabilising to the region's security. We cannot be sanguine about this development. I do not exaggerate it. It is there, it is growing and people should be taking even greater account of this than is taken in the White Paper itself. We have no reason to believe that Soviet intentions towards our region are as totally benign as the Soviets would want us to believe. The seven years of bloody war and occupation that the Soviets have been waging in Afghanistan-with their 110,000 troops-their support for the Vietnamese invasion and continued occupation of Cambodia, and the cold-blooded way in which they shot down Korean Airlines flight 007, are not so easily swept under the international carpet as this Government would wish. Soviet strategy in our part of the world is becoming increasingly clear: To establish good diplomatic relations with economically vulnerable island states and concurrently to establish some measure of economic dependency. At the same time, the Soviets are trying to create alienation and divisions within ANZUS and they are assisted indirectly in their endeavours by the Labor Government in New Zealand. The contradictions between the practice of this Government's foreign policy and what it may now want us to believe is its defence policy are many. I have highlighted but few. Until coherence, rationality and a genuine commitment to the Western alliance are restored, the so-called independence now trumpeted by this Government will remain phoney. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.14) —Probably the most significant thing about the speech by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was that when he rose to speak the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) came into the House and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) left the House. We have just heard the nonsense of a `reds on the horizon' speech from the honourable member for Kooyong and, to a lesser extent, we heard it from the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) earlier, although his contribution was much more wide-ranging. He concentrated more on defence and on the White Paper. This is a very good White Paper. It is the culmination of extensive work by this Government over the last few years under the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). The report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities has been presented to the Parliament. It was the first report of its kind for many years to look at the capabilities of Australia's defence, what we needed, what we had and where we were going, and because of that report the Minister ordered this White Paper which he presented yesterday. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), in a very thoughtful contribution to this debate, said earlier that one must read the Dibb report and the White Paper together, because they do not contradict each other, as some members of the Opposition are trying to suggest. They should be read together and they complement each other whilst, of course, there are slight differences. The White Paper states quite clearly that part of our defence is our relationship with ANZUS and with other alliances, such as the five-power defence arrangements, our relationship with Papua New Guinea and our bilateral relationship with New Zealand. Importantly, the Government has recognised that, not only in the White Paper, but continually since we came to government. The ANZUS alliance is still strong. It is interesting to note that comments from the United States of America over the last 12 months have suggested that the relationship between our countries is stronger than it has ever been, notwithstanding the fact that New Zealand has parted ways in regard to some aspects of the ANZUS alliance. We heard from the right honourable member for New England this morning that the Opposition's recipe would be to break all security arrangements with New Zealand. That is its answer. It would tell New Zealand in the nicest possible terms to go away, that it did not want to have anything to do with that country until it, shall we say, came to its senses. I do not believe the Australian people would take too kindly to that proposal. But that is in essence what the Opposition spokesman on defence said this morning. On the one hand he would break all security relationships with New Zealand while on the other hand doing the reverse with Papua New Guinea. The Opposition would tell Papua New Guinea that our formal relationships and agreements-we have defence personnel in Papua New Guinea now-would be formalised even further. The Opposition would make sure that security there was so watertight that one would not believe it. So the Opposition would up the ante in Papua New Guinea, but tell New Zealand to go away. It would not co-operate with that country in any way whatsoever. All this is absolute nonsense. I am glad in some respects that the honourable member for Denison was here earlier because he made a contribution to a defence debate only a few weeks ago which suggested that the incoming conservative government-when that happens in about 20 years time-will double the defence budget. On today's figures that represents $7.5 billion. That is his recipe. What lunatic nonsense that is. That is not serious. I do not think that many of his colleagues, particularly the honourable member for Mackellar, would agree with that. The honourable member for Mackellar is trying to put to his Party the cutting of expenditure, yet one of his colleagues, a former Minister in the previous Government, is saying: `We should double the defence budget'. Quite obviously, the Opposition is all over the place in regard to defence. It has no coherent strategy. It does not know whether it would increase defence expenditure or cut it. One interesting and very important aspect of this paper, as the honourable member for Brisbane pointed out quite succinctly, is that expenditure will remain relatively consistent, as it has done apart from a few bleeps. It was high during the Vietnam years, came down in the late 1970s under the previous Government, and then started to climb again in the late 1970s. But basically it stayed relatively the same. The last page of the White Paper, at paragraph 9.15, states: There is a need for realism in expectations of the resources that governments will be able to allocate to Defence. If we are to achieve the levels of defence capability and the priorities reflected in this Paper, there is a need, over the life of the program, for an allocation of resources generally within the order of 2.6 per cent to 3.0 per cent of GDP. Today's allocation is about 2.8 per cent, if my memory serves me correctly. If it varies between 2.8 and 3 per cent, we will have done very well. The Opposition knows that that is what will be expected, no matter which political party is in government. It is a quite significant contribution to the defence vote of this country. That is the planning behind this defence White Paper. It is realistic. For the first time, in conjunction with the Dibb report, we have a plan for defence. For 31 out of the 34 years prior to 1983, when this Government came to office, we had conservative governments. If there were deficiencies, and there certainly were, as the right honourable member for New England agreed this morning-in particular, the serious deficiency in minesweeping-whose fault was that? It was the fault of conservative governments. They were in power for three decades. What did they do? Nothing. Their main claim to fame was that, as happened in 1979-80 and in the early 1980s, when an election drew close they said they would buy an aircraft carrier. They were not quite sure what they would put on it. In the end, Jim Killen, the Minister at the time, decided not to put jump jets on it, but helicopters. The previous Government then decided it was all a bit stupid anyway, and it knew when it lost office in 1983 that it would not have gone ahead with that project. This is the first time that we have seen a planned situation. We are looking at the capabilities that we require and need. We are not adopting the replacement mentality of buying more and more tanks for the Army when we do not need the dashed things. That is the sort of mentality that grew up over three decades of conservative governments. The capabilities put forward by Dibb, illustrated again in the White Paper that the Minister presented yesterday, show quite clearly that we are looking at a three-layered defence situation. Intelligence gathering will increase with the advent of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar, the planned bases in the north of Australia and the airborne early warning system. Financially, that system will take some time to acquire because it is a rather expensive item. We have upgraded our intelligence system. We receive through our alliances, particularly the ANZUS alliance, intelligence that is not given to many countries in the world. Our second layer is the strike capability through the FA18s, the F111s and the new submarines. They will be the best conventional submarines in the world, with a very substantial strike capability. Clearly, they will be better than anything in this region. This morning the right honourable member for New England floated the idea of acquiring nuclear submarines. He knows that that is nonsense because the cost involved would mean that we would be able to obtain only about half the number. We will have a quite substantial strike capability-much more than any other state in the region. The third layer is the mobility of our ground forces and the flexibility of our Army. A mobile unit is to be transferred in the near future to the north, which will have air and naval support, and in particular by the Black- hawk helicopters up to 100 of which the Government will be obtaining in the next few years. It will be a significant advancement for the Army to have that substantial mobility and helicopter support, as will be the case with the Navy when we have acquired the Seahawk helicopter. Let me make a few comments on industry. Recently a reporter asked me: `What are some of the major achievements you have been involved with in this Government?'. I told him that I thought one of the major achievements was in industry, not only under the Minister for Defence but the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. That has been the case particularly in defence manufacturing. The right honourable member for New England said that more items should be constructed in Australia, but I would remind him that for over 30 years conservative governments let everything run down to nothing. They gave away ship building altogether so that it no longer existed. In the next few weeks the Government will announce the winner of the tender for the submarine project and construction will start, and not long after the light frigate program will commence and run in tandem. In the next 15 years or so we will have two projects which will command $8 billion worth of expenditure. That is the biggest program of defence manufacturing collectively that this country has ever seen. I am assuming that New Zealand will come into the light frigate program, as I am sure it will and as it has indicated. That expenditure of $8 billion will do amazing things for our defence and defence manufacturing. It will flow right through industry to thousands of shops throughout the country, to toolmakers and others who will be involved in this massive program. That would never have occurred under a conservative government. As chairman of the relevant government committee I took a part in ensuring that the submarine program was entirely completed here in Australia-as the light frigate program will be, too. That is a considerable achievement by the present Government. The Minister in his statement yesterday said: For Australia, defence self-reliance is set firmly within the framework of our alliances and regional associations. The support they give us makes self-reliance achieve- able. They, in turn, will draw added support from a self-reliant Australia which will be better able to discharge its responsibilities in the vast strategic region to which we belong. That summarises what this paper is all about, and what the Government has been doing in the last couple of years in guiding and planning Australia's defence and our defence manufacture. All this has culminated in this White Paper. Gone is the nonsense and the rhetoric, and the talk of reds coming over the horizon that we heard from the honourable member for Kooyong this morning. All that is claptrap and the Australian people see it as such. This is a blueprint that can and will be realised under this Government and the next Labor Government that will be elected later this year. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(11.29) —It was interesting to observe that the comments by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) were, as usual, heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. When the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was first tabled in 1986, it precipitated a debate on defence issues which rages to this day. For that, the initiatives of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) must be applauded. However, there is a distinct difference between playing at defence, which appears to be the Minister's wont, and tackling those issues which are fundamental to Australia's present and future defence position. The relationship between Australia, its allies and friends and its role in regional and other potential conflicts need to be considered. Force structure, command and control functions, organisation and the nation's overall defence position are all relevant to any rational analysis. These are the real issues and the Minister should be reminded constantly that defence is not a game to be played on the tables of chance in our casinos, but is of fundamental importance to this great nation now and in the foreseeable future. Typically, the Minister plays politics today in tabling a White Paper forwarded to the Opposition only minutes before this debate began. As this is the first White Paper tabled by the Hawke Government-the last was tabled by the Fraser Administration in 1976-it is a pity that insufficient time has been offered the Opposition to analyse and criticise constructively such an important document. While operating in an extremely challenging financial environment, 1987 and beyond promises to be a major watershed for Australian defence. There will be unprecedented demand on its capabilities and manpower. It will need all the guile and enterprise it can muster to command the political commitment and funding that it so richly deserves. Significant among the matters requiring immediate attention is the demand to stop the haemorrhaging in service manpower, a matter I shall discuss in detail a little later. Geopolitical considerations loom large. Australia's relations with the United States of America and New Zealand must be readdressed. Readoption of forward defence or defence in depth in favour of the concept of denial is now the mainspring of our new strategy-a welcome development indeed. Defending the Australian mainland and protecting our sea lanes of communication assume significant importance. Unfortunately, the concept of collective defence in conjunction with our Association of South East Asian Nations neighbours or Japan has also been abandoned or rejected. It appears that bilateral responsibilities entered into with the United States under the Radford-Collins agreement, which commits Australia to assist in the protection of our sea lanes, especially in the areas to the north east and the south west Pacific, have also been abandoned unilaterally. What price our reputation with our sole remaining ANZUS ally? In this regard a former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, Admiral William Crowe, has emphasised that the United States should not, and probably could not, go it alone in the Pacific and Indian oceans. From our point of view the message should be quite clear as it is for ASEAN and Japan. Japan of course has listened to the warning and has recently, for the first time in its post-war history, increased the level of its defence spending such that it now exceeds one per cent of its gross domestic product. Japanese defence spending can be expected to grow quite quickly and its already impressive `self-defence' forces will expand in scope, capability, size and professionalism. Such expansionism can be expected to send a tremor of apprehension into the minds of governments, not necessarily restricted to those of Australia or New Zealand. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, is already on record as having condemned Japan's defence buildup and has further warned of possible Soviet countermeasures. He warned Japan of `overstepping the threshold of responsible moderation' through its recent increases in military spending. These unusually strong comments would not have gone unnoticed in Japan, which monitored closely the Foreign Minister's recent visit to our part of the world. Mr Shevardnadze briefed Australian officials in Canberra that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wanted `stability and tranquillity' in the Pacific region and went on to claim that the buildup of United States and Japanese forces in the region threatened Soviet security. He further alleged that the USSR felt threatened by the American presence in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Micronesia. If the Minister believes that, he will believe anything. Perhaps our value to the United States is measured in bases such as those at Pine Gap and North West Cape. Perhaps it is convenient to refuel ships and aircraft of the United States Navy and the United States Air Force. Perhaps we are so strategically important that the United States will accept these tokens as a measure of our commitment and value as an ally. Perhaps! Whilst a reaffirmation of our close defence links with New Zealand is welcome, we on our side of the House deplore the New Zealand Government's policy on visits by nuclear warships and we further deplore the damage that has been done to both its ANZUS and American relationships. However, despite its nuclear objections, New Zealand appears to remain conscious of the contribution it can make to general regional stability. Given the constantly expanding Soviet presence in Vietnam since 1975-a position frequently denied by Soviet officialdom-the non-communist states in our region of interest have legitimate causes for concern for their security. Soviet military aircraft bases at Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam have the range to launch air attacks as far afield as Australia and New Zealand. Formidable naval surface and underwater craft are deployed from its excellent harbour. Russian forces have been deployed from the area since at least 1982 and at present its offensive aircraft are protected by locally based fighters and Soviet marines protect the military installations. Cam Ranh Bay allows the Soviet Union to monitor events in the whole of the South East Asian region and United States activities in the South Pacific. The base is ideally located to isolate and interdict sea traffic over a wide area and, in an emergency or in the event of hostilities, would be of immense value to the USSR. It also provides a check on Chinese naval and military aspirations, whilst allowing rapid deployment over a vast area in support of regional conflicts. Soviet ambitions in our area of interest cannot be underestimated. Adoption of any doctrine that isolates Australia from its regional friends and allies is fraught with incredible danger. I urge the Minister to review his strategy for Australia's sake and for the wonderful people who populate it. The Minister has been at pains to announce the creation and construction of a substantial new intelligence facility in Western Australia. Doubtless it will have the capacity to interrogate satellites. Whose satellites? Aussat? Satellites of our closest ally, the United States of America? I think not. Satellites of the Indians, the Chinese or the Russians? I think not. This major initiative looks more like a pie in the sky to me. While the gathering of intelligence is of paramount importance to a major regional power such as Australia, the best manner in which we can go about obtaining it is through our clearly and long established links with our allies, notably the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I fear that an order for submarines from either the West Germans or Sweden would see the provision of a great deal of useful intelligence dry up overnight as the whole of our naval training and operational doctrine developed a totally new emphasis, bias and direction. Insofar as the United States of America is concerned, whilst it would be possible to remain aligned with the West without the need for formal treaties as such, the implication is that we would increasingly need to become more, if not totally, reliant in defence in order to do so. Given our budgetary problems and the extent of our manufacturing capabilities, such a notion is impossible to sustain. ANZUS must remain a cornerstone of our defence and foreign affairs policies. Despite a small, vocal minority and a generally sympathetic Press, ANZUS-with or without New Zealand-is supported by a substantial majority of the Australian people. Consequently, the provision of essential intelligence exchanges between this nation and the United States should and must be continued. Honourable members will recall the major intelligence coup achieved last year by the Royal Australian Air Force when the newest of the Soviet capital ships was photographed in Pacific waters by Orion maritime patrol aircraft on routine reconnaissance missions from Australia. The exchange of intelligence is a two-way street and we consistently obtain the majority of the bargains from the basement. Additionally, Australia's capacity to gather and evaluate the growing capabilities of our regional neighbours would be seriously diminished, with the consequential implications for the reactionary forces at our disposal. Other significant implications for Australia of operating with powerful allies include both the cost and benefits associated with information on tactics, military doctrines generally, interoperability and standardisation, access to extensive advances in military technology and the ability to exercise regularly with large, well-equipped allied forces. These are but a few of the advantages that our New Zealand cousins have relinquished already. Australian technology, capabilities and intentions will not make the New Zealanders' problems all that much easier. New Zealand has made a stupid decision for all the wrong reasons and this Government has been too slow and too soft to recognise the unattractive implications for the Alliance generally. Not only is New Zealand now on its own, but in the process it has relegated itself outside the councils on which it has been dependent for so long. The recently tabled Cooksey report on the Review of Australia's Defence Co-operation Programs and Policy on Export of Defence Equipment has been well received in defence and industry circles. There are signs of a fresh and vibrant new attitude creeping into defence-related procurement activities and I commend the Government for its initiative in this regard. Whatever the final outcome, the major recommendations of this valuable report should not be placed in the too-hard basket or shelved, as has been the case far too often in the past. Any initiative that leads to Australian industry increasing defence-related exports from the present levels of $250m to $500m and beyond must be welcomed, especially during these sorry economic times. Whilst the report demands a significant attitudinal change within the Defence Department and among our bureaucracy, our own politicians and industry representatives, the major recommendations are achievable and can be accomplished without undue financial risk. Australian defence exports and the liberalisation of existing guidelines for gaining export approval for military equipment are significant pointers to what can and must be achieved. Anything that contributes to the elimination of the web of bureaucratic red tape that frustrates many of our prospects for defence sales would indeed be welcomed. Our friends and allies consequently become immediate beneficiaries of such initiatives. The report also recommends the establishment of a defence exports finance group and the existing 150 per cent tax write-off on individual research and development being extended to the defence environment. Additionally, there are prospects for much greater commercial use of the many unique and potentially successful developments emanating from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. An aggressive, dynamic and viable defence manufacturing base provides that vital fourth arm to defence and potentially places Australia as a major supplier of equipment to the region. I turn now to the question of personnel. Despite an uncertain economic outlook clouded by high interest rates, rising inflation, huge current account deficits and an enormous burden of national debt, the personnel of our armed forces continue to demonstrate their unhappiness in the Services by resorting to the one initiative left to them-they are leaving in droves, demonstrating with their feet the direction they believe it imperative to take. The situation is equally unacceptable in the reserves. During the period that this Government has been in power, Reserve Force numbers have fallen in excess of 10,000 personnel. Morale is low and, despite effective leadership, it is difficult to see the position improving until the flow of funds increases. This would ensure that their training programs become realistic and that personnel receive adequate practice in operating modern state-of-the-art technology. No major defence reorganisation has been undertaken since the Tange report of the early 1970s. In the light of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the tabling today of the White Paper, a new imperative of some urgency is for a major study to be conducted into the basic organisation of the Department of Defence and the command structure of the three Services. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.44) —This information paper titled `The Defence of Australia' which was released by the Government represents the Government's effort to give a degree of coherency and rationality to Australia's defence strategy, which has been sorely lacking until now. It also involves a recognition that, in putting together a defence force, there has to be acknowledgment that we have a finite Budget constraint and that one cannot simply go on acquiring a wish list of the service chiefs, including highly sophisticated weapon systems that would be usable only in relatively unlikely scenarios. We have to address the actual strategic circumstances that we face to look at the probable threats that may emerge realistically in the short term and also to have an appropriate expansion base to deal with more fundamental threats that may emerge in the long term. The recognition of Budget constraint is something which is singularly lacking from Opposition pronouncements on defence policy. Over the years we have seen emanating from the Opposition proposals for things such as nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. No clear account is given of how these assets might be utilised as part of Australia's defence strategy, but that does not seem to have particularly concerned the people involved. Even today, as we heard in the speech of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honour- able member for New England (Mr Sinclair), this syndrome of wanting to acquire all sorts of expensive toys, irrespective of their cost and irrespective of the effect on the balance of payments, has obviously not diminished. We heard the honourable member talking about the fact that we need to get airborne early warning and control aircraft in order to supplement the over the horizon radar systems which are being developed. It is obvious that the acquisition of such aircraft would enhance Australia's ability to carry out surveillance and to detect and target ships and aircraft in our sea-air approaches from the north. That has to be weighed against the enormous cost involved in such an acquisition. An airborne warning and control plane would involve an outlay of the order of $500m. Given our Budget constraints and given that that expenditure would overwhelmingly be going overseas, such a decision would have to be looked at with extreme care. The Government has committed itself to look very carefully at the need for and the possibility of acquiring AEW and C aircraft. The Leader of the National Party complains that a firm commitment is not given in that regard. He is obviously not worried about the Budget constraint at all, despite the Opposition's constant calls for deep cuts in government expenditure. That apparently does not apply to defence items. As a result of a lack of any coherent defence strategy we have continued to see over the years a number of glaring and major deficiencies in our Defence Force's capability to deal with credible, realistic contingencies that may arise in the short term. The one that is referred to in both the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the White Paper is the question of mine countermeasures. At present we lack any significant mine countermeasures capability. That is a deficiency which has been recognised for some time. The Auditor-General reported unfavourably on that state of affairs. Somehow it has never been remedied over a protracted period. The key reason for that is the emphasis being given to acquisition of major surface warships. Obviously in that we have had speculation about aircraft carriers and also the actual acquisition of other major surface warships. We have seen a neglect or a lack of priority being given to the question of mine countermeasures. We now have the absurd situation in which a potential adversary which wanted to carry out a campaign of economic disruption against Australia could easily close off a number of our major mineral exporting ports. Port Hedland is one that comes to mind. It is quite probable that the sinking of a major bulk ore carrier at a key point in that port could well close off that port for a considerable period, which would have great significance in terms of Australia's mineral exports. Also a large part of these enormously expensive assets that have been acquired over the years, such as naval surface ship assets, could be immobilised by a well directed mining campaign. That is obviously crazy. We have had an attempt to address long term contingencies but a failure to look properly at things which could happen in the very short term and which are consistent with the capacities of regional powers now. Another aspect of the lack of coherency in defence thinking is the lack of attention, for example, to mobility. If Australia is to defend adequately its vast land area, so far as its land forces are concerned mobility, range and endurance are key factors. How do we fit the Leopard tanks, these very heavy, non-air portable items, into such a strategy? It does not really seem to have been thought through. Both the Dibb report and the White Paper seem to favour a degree of de-emphasis on that, treating the armoured forces as part of an expansion base and partly incorporating them into the reserve forces. It seems that over the years no proper thought has been given to how those very expensive items might be effectively deployed. There is no doubt that both the Dibb report and this White Paper represent a major step forward in terms of Government thinking on how to spend money intelligently and wisely in the defence field, and as such obviously that is to be welcomed. I turn to the discussion of the strategy of denial that is set out by Dibb and the succour that the Leader of the National Party seems to have derived from what he sees as a rejection of that overall general approach in the White Paper. I think there are a number of misconceptions on the part of the Opposition. It is perhaps worth going to exactly what Dibb said about a strategy of denial and what that would imply in terms of Australian force structure and capabilities. I quote from the Dibb report on page 50: A strategy of denial would be essentially a defensive policy. The distant projection of military power would have low priority. Rather, such a strategy would seek to deny any putative enemy successful military operations in the sea and air gap surrounding Australia, and to prevent any successful landing of significant forces on Australian soil. To the extent that lesser enemy forces might land, it would aim to protect our vital population settlements and infrastructure and deny the enemy any prolonged operations on our territory. On the following page the report goes on to state what that implies for the sort of defence force that we would need to acquire. Under the heading `A layered defence' it mentions the various layers that would be required. Firstly, there would be a need for high quality and comprehensive intelligence about military developments in our region, as well as surveillance capabilities. That hopefully would preclude the possibility of surprise attack. Secondly, it mentions the need for Australia's air and naval forces to have the capacity to destroy enemy forces, at credible levels of threat, in the sea and air gap. This is said to be a priority requirement. It goes on to envisage the possibility that for higher levels of conflict it may be necessary to have forces capable of striking at an adversary's bases and interdicting his lines of supply. It then states: Third, closer to our shores, defensive capabilities are required to prevent enemy military operations in our focal areas or shipping lanes . . . These might include surface ships, mine countermeasures capabilities, air defence assets, and mobile land forces capable of being deployed rapidly and pre-emptively. Fourth, if a landing on Australian soil should occur we would need ground forces capable of denying the enemy our vital population centres and military infrastructure. In the following paragraph it states: A concept of denial involves recognising that long-range power projection must be considered in a rather more circumscribed way than has been traditionally the Australian view. I submit that that basic overall concept is essentially reflected in the Government's White Paper. We do not see a specific reference to a strategy of denial. We do see a reference to layered defence and defence in depth. However, as the quotations I have just given from the Dibb report indicate, the concept of layered defence is integral to that report. While we might have some change in terminology, the substance of what is put forward in the Dibb report in terms of Australia's Defence Force structuring capabilities remains essentially intact in the White Paper. The White Paper envisages that the need to operate jointly with the forces of another country and outside our area of direct military interest ought not to be a determining factor in setting the shape of our Defence Force structure. That is the essential point. Whether we use the term `strategy of denial' or whether we talk about layered defence or defence in depth, the key issue is: What considerations will determine our Defence Force structure? Both the Dibb report and the White Paper envisage the possibility of Australian forces operating jointly. Both imply that that should not be the determining factor but that the key factor should be our ability to operate and interdict in the sea-air gap, to carry out proper surveillance intelligence further afield and to carry out military operations by highly mobile land forces in order to defend the Australian mainland should a hostile force be lodged. Quite frankly, I welcome that development. I am not one of those who are terribly enamoured of our participation in an alliance relationship with the United States of America. I recognise that that is a minority opinion within the Government at present but it is certainly my personal view. I welcome any development which tends to place greater emphasis on what I regard as our legitimate defence interests-protecting the Australian mainland, protecting the sea-air approaches and being properly informed about developments in the region that may have some strategic significance. Another criticism that has been made about the Dibb report-I suppose that some would also make it about this report-concerns the question of warning time. We see a reference to the possibility of threats emerging unexpectedly and the implication that Dibb has been naive in not acknowledging the seriousness of Soviet penetration in the region and so forth. I think the stuff about Soviet penetration in the region is grossly overblown. We talk about Cam Ranh Bay and the capabilities of the aircraft there-obsolete Badger bombers which would be easily and very rapidly destroyed should any military conflict emanate. Certainly there is no possibility of such aircraft being able to get through to mount a major threat to the Australian mainland. As I have said, in the event of serious military conflict they would be very quickly destroyed. The Soviet Union has other shorter range aircraft and some surface ships based at Cam Ranh Bay. However, despite the hysterical comments that emanate from members of the Opposition, I do not believe for a minute that, in a military sense, these assets represent a major threat to us or other countries in the region. I think it is a heap of hysterical nonsense. Getting back to the question of warning time, both the Dibb report and the White Paper take a pretty conservative approach to that. They do not rely on a continuation of favourable political conditions in neighbouring countries. They actually look at capabilities which are in existence and which may come into existence in future. They place appropriate priority on the need to deal with the currently existing capabilities of other powers in our region and, irrespective of what we might expect about political developments in those countries, to be able to handle any credible short term military contingency that may arise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.59) —The most basic and important function of any government is to ensure the adequate and proper defence of its people and its nation. If we do not do that there is no need to argue about the economy, social services, or whatever else we want to talk about, because they will be totally irrelevant. What we are talking about today in this Parliament is the most important debate any of us can engage in. We cannot overstate how important this debate is. As a member of the Opposition I will not make criticisms of the defence White Paper just for the sake of criticism; I will make criticisms of this White Paper for the purposes of constructive and, I hope, intelligent comment so that the Government can recognise and pick up the threads of that comment and criticism and act upon it. I am quite sure that the Government is not perfect and not right on every issue, and I am sure that some of the errors that members of the Opposition will highlight over the period of this debate will be acted upon. I am pleased that the Government has decided to reject some of the more ridiculous aspects of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. The Dibb report contains recommendations which we in the Opposition have criticised severely. It was not only the Opposition that criticised the Government and the Dibb report but also all sorts of observers who had an interest in our defence. I am pleased to see that the criticisms that the Opposition and those observers have made about the Dibb report have been recognised by the Government and acted upon. I congratulate the Government on picking up the thread of our criticisms on the Dibb report and making the adjustments that we believe are right and proper. I am pleased that this Government has canned the Fortress Australia notion. I believe that this nation has to have an ability to extend our forces' zone of interest outside this continent and into the region. There is a need for Australia to be able to help its friends and allies. We must be capable of meeting any threats to our shores in the foreseeable future. Whilst the Government claims that there are no forseeable threats to our shores for the next 10 years-I hope that it is right-one has only to look at history to see that a threat can be non-existent today and exist tomorrow. Things can change rapidly, and I hope that the Government is prepared to recognise that that can happen. In order to cater for that contingency we have to be prepared to defend this nation at all times-not just in 10 years time but today, tomorrow and in 10 years time. I hope that the Government is right in saying that there is no threat to our shores, but we certainly recognise that there are nations within our region that could pose a minor threat to our shores. We have to be capable immediately of repelling those threats and I hope that this White Paper will address that issue over the next few years. I am pleased that the Government has recognised the important role of our allies, particularly the United States of America. Mr McGauran —About time. Mr SHARP —It is about time; that is quite true. It is important that this nation realises that we cannot defend ourselves by ourselves. We have to have good allies. The United States is our best and most logical ally and I am pleased that the Government has given recognition to that fact in this White Paper. We need to have the facilities and the resources of the United States at our disposal. The sorts of things that the United States can provide for us are things that Australia cannot provide for itself, such as our intelligence gathering network. The United States, through its satellite network and so forth, can provide the sort of intelligence that we cannot afford. It can provide the hardware and the technology that, with our defence resources, we cannot provide-things such as the F111s, the FA18s, the Royal Australian Navy's new surface ships and the FFGs. They have all come from the United States. It is vital for us to maintain the flow of spare parts, not only to maintain those resources but also to upgrade them and to keep the technology within them up to the minute. We have to have good relations with the United States and those relations have to be maintained. I am pleased to see that the joint defence establishments operated by the United States and Australia are given due recognition in this White Paper. The establishments at Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape are vital not only to our own defence but also to the balance of power throughout the world and, indeed, to global peace. They are vital and they have to be maintained. I am pleased that the White Paper says that a new intelligence network needs to be built in Western Australia. I believe that is a good thing. At this stage I must be specifically critical for the first time about the defence White Paper. Our most important treaty with our allies is the ANZUS Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Unfortunately, one of the three partners in that treaty has virtually withdrawn itself from that relationship. That is a disgrace. The New Zealand people have withdrawn by refusing to allow United States vessels access to their ports. This Government has been soft in its criticism of New Zealand. It has hit the New Zealand Government over the head with a feather. It should be blasting New Zealand out of the water in its criticism. If we are properly to defend ourselves, we need to have a strong regional defence arrangement. The New Zealand people have virtually negated that possibility. We should be condemning them outright. We should be doing all that we can to urge them not only to maintain that defence relationship through ANZUS but also, indeed, to improve upon it. While New Zealand is doing less and less in the region, I am pleased to see that we are maintaining our presence at Butterworth in Malaysia. Mr McGauran —A modified presence. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Gippsland points out, it is a modified presence. However, it is certainly a presence which would not have existed if we had taken up the recommendations of the Dibb Review. It is very important for Australia to have that presence there. It gives us great value. I am very concerned about the ever increasing presence of the Russian people in our region. Whilst the honour- able member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) tried to downplay that presence and its importance, I think it is not right to do so. I think it is right to emphasise the threat that the Russian people are posing in our region. Cam Ranh Bay is a real problem for us all. Cam Ranh Bay is a launching pad of political and military activity for the Soviets in our region. It is for that reason that we can justify our own presence in the future in places like Malaysia. I am pleased to see that we are continuing our presence in Malaysia. I am pleased to see that the White Paper recognises that a number of things need improving. Our 20 or so Orion aircraft will be improved upon. I have no argument with moving our defence forces further to the north. But I question the common sense in putting our Army facilities into Darwin. Darwin is a rapidly growing city. I think we will find in the future that the Army will have no hope of extending its services in that area because of the urban sprawl that will choke any expansion. The Navy is finding that it can no longer expand its facility on the shores of Sydney Harbour because of that urban sprawl. Now it is looking at moving out of Sydney Harbour to Jervis Bay at great expense to the taxpayer. I think we are making the same mistake by moving the Army into Darwin. I am quite sure that in the decades ahead we will find that the Army will have to move out of Darwin and that will be an unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of the day. I believe the Government is being negligent in not properly and completely upgrading the F111 aircraft. The F111 is a great aircraft and it has a very long term future in our defence responsibilities. We need to upgrade those aircraft completely and in a proper way and this defence White Paper does not go far enough in that area. I believe it is a good thing that we are to give our FA18 fighter aircraft a long range refuelling capability. Once again the Government is negligent in not providing in this White Paper for a long range refuelling capability for F111 aircraft. The role of this aircraft in our defences would be greatly enhanced if they had that long range refuelling capability. I still have some reservations about the type of submarines that we are planning to purchase. However, I am pleased to see that some new surface craft for our Navy are coming forward. On the one hand I am pleased, but on the other hand I am concerned that what the Government is trying to do is put more and more equipment on our ships which are getting smaller and smaller. I know many people in the Navy today are concerned about the ability of these ships to perform adequately and properly when so many jobs and demands are placed upon them. Speaking of the Navy, I am pleased that the White Paper has at least confirmed that there is a need for new submarines; that there is a need for more ships for the Navy; and that there is an important role for helicopters on these new ships. I genuinely hope that the Navy will see fit to move to the Shoalhaven region, a region that I represent, because I believe it will be of great benefit not only to our Navy and to the defence of Australia but also to the people of the Shoalhaven district. The increased population will create new jobs. Indeed, 1,500 new jobs will be created to construct facilities in Jervis Bay and Shoalhaven districts. Mr Peter Fisher —One of the great harbours of the world. Mr SHARP —It is one of the greatest harbours of the world, as the honourable member for Mallee points out. Some 5,600 to 7,200 additional people will come to the Shoalhaven region as a result of the Navy's move. An extra $70m worth of wages will come into that district and an extra $70m worth of services will be demanded from the people of that district. All of these things are good not only for our Navy but for the region that I represent in this Parliament. I am pleased to see that the role of the Army Reserve has been enhanced. There are a number of Army Reserve units in the electorate of Gilmore-Cowra, Goulburn and Nowra. I am sure that these people will share with me my concern that whilst the role of the Reserve has been increased, there is not a sufficient increase in the number of training days and the resources that will be available to the Reserve. This will cause those people in my electorate, who are members of the Reserve, a great deal of concern. The Minister brags that he has got the capital expenditure component of the defence budget up to something like 25 to 30 per cent. But he has done this at the expense of conditions for the personnel in our defence forces. For example, I am quite sure steaming hours for the Navy will be trimmed in order to provide funding for capital expenditure. Housing conditions are just not up to scratch and the Government has done very little to overcome this. Wages that our Defence Force personnel are paid should be comparable with those received by people outside of our forces with relative skills. But, unfortunately, this defence White Paper does not address sufficiently the wages that are paid to Defence Force personnel. We have currently seen massive losses of skilled personnel from our defence forces-record high losses. This is causing us a great deal of concern. The reason those people are leaving our defence forces is the inadequate conditions and wages that they are getting. This Government has done nothing in this defence White Paper to overcome that problem. It is for that reason that I believe this paper is fatally flawed. It does not answer the question of where all the people who will fulfil the roles created by this defence White Paper will come from. The other question that all of us are asking is where is the commitment for the funding that is necessary to provide all of these things that this defence White Paper proposed. I believe that this Government has not adequately addressed the needs of our defence forces because it has not provided a whole range of things, particularly proper conditions and facilities for our Defence Force personnel. It has given no commitment of adequate funding for the future to fulfil this defence White Paper. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(12.14) —The Government's defence White Paper charts the course for the development of self-reliance in the defence and security of Australia. When we speak of self-reliance we speak of it in the context of our own circumstances and of our alliances and associations with other countries. Faced as we are with the task of defending around one-tenth of the earth's surface, we need to consider very carefully our own circumstances. We have a small population relative to our area and it is concentrated in the south-eastern corner of the country. We have limited resources. Given the current fiscal environment and the competing priorities facing the Government, it is clear that, while demands by some for spending on defence may be infinite, the resources to meet those demands are certainly limited. We have a unique geography, which is referred to in the White Paper. The most vulnerable parts of our country are our most remote and least hospitable. They pose problems both for defence planners and for potential invaders. Our geography gives us some enormous advantages. We have the good fortune to share land borders with nobody. The harsh environment of our north limits the potential for any major operation against us. We are fortunate too that our region is among the most stable in the world and that we enjoy good relations with our neighbours and with our friends in the Western alliance. Finally, we enjoy the advantage of an informed public, a public interested in and aware of defence issues. In fact, honourable members may have read part of a poll published in the newspapers yesterday-one of the continuing polls being produced in recent days to influence the leadership struggle in the Liberal Party of Australia. One of the questions that people were asked in this poll was: `Which Party would be more likely to provide Australia with a peaceful and secure future?' Overwhelmingly people in that poll responded in favour of the Australian Labor Party. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has said, the concept of defence self-reliance is set firmly in the framework of Australia's alliances. Paramount amongst these, of course, is our alliance with the United States of America. A high level of defence co-operation with the United States is vitally important to us and the benefits are recognised across the political parties and throughout the community. The latest public opinion poll on attitudes towards ANZUS was taken in June 1984. In response to a question on attitudes to the ANZUS alliance, 73 per cent of Australians believed that it was very or fairly important while only 7 per cent thought that it was not important or actually dangerous. Seventy-two per cent of Australians in that poll placed a great deal or a fair amount of trust in United States support in the event of a threat to Australia while only 4 per cent demonstrated no trust. Clearly, there is a great deal of continuing public support for this most important alliance. We ought to recognise that historically Australians have always regarded alliances as important to their security. It is important to note that it has been Labor governments that have given effect to those alliances and made them work. From the time of Andrew Fisher, who pledged support to Britain and the Empire to the last man and the last shilling, to Curtin, who turned to the United States in the darkest days of the Second World War, through to Hawke, it has been Labor Prime Ministers and Defence Ministers who have made alliances and made them work as genuine partnerships. The White Paper says in paragraph 1.26: Australia's alliance with the United States is and should remain a genuinely equal partnership. Benefits accrue to both of us from our enhancement of the general Western security position. Australia benefits from the deterrent effect of the alliance and our enhanced self-reliant military capacity. The United States benefits from the value of the joint facilities to the central balance, the intelligence exchange, and Australia's support for American military activities in our area. It is important that this partnership should be reaffirmed as it is in the White Paper. It is important too that the public perception of this alliance as a genuine partnership should continue to be enhanced because if it is to endure-and I believe it should-the benefits to Australia need to be made more apparent. In our immediate region, we are very fortunate to live in a relatively stable part of the world. It has not always been so. Since the Second World War we have seen in our immediate region the Vietnam war and before that periods of confrontation and the Malayan emergency. There are some current uncertainties highlighted by the White Paper, including some problems in the Philippines, the future of Cambodia, the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay and Soviet involvement in the Pacific. Speaking to the latter uncertainty, the White Paper makes it clear that future Soviet intentions in the Pacific are of concern to Australia. They need not necessarily, however, give rise to the hysteria that I have heard from some members of the Opposition. I repeat: We live in a relatively stable and benign environment. One can contrast our environment with those at the centres of world tension, in the Middle East and in Europe. One need only visit those historic centres of conflict to realise that we are indeed the lucky country. Late last year, as part of a visit by a parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions, a number of us had briefings both at the headquarters of British forces in Berlin and at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters in Brussels during what we would all regard as a relatively quiet and normal period, in European terms. But I can say on my own account and I believe on behalf of other members of the delegation that, despite the fact that the period was relatively calm in Europe, we nevertheless left these briefings with a profound sense of relief that we would soon be coming home to a country subject to less tension than Western Europe. The security that we enjoy in the region depends on maintaining good relations with our neighbours. We have a record of practical co-operation with the Association of South East Asian Nations in areas of common defence interests. We also have well-established combined land exercises in Australia with Malaysia and Thailand and scientific and industrial co-operation again with those two countries. We enjoy useful exchanges with the Singaporean forces, which also train in Australia. Our interest in South East Asia is also reflected in our participation in co-operative ventures under the five-power defence agreement. As has been announced previously, the Royal Australian Air Force will maintain a presence at Butterworth and Australia will continue to deploy an army rifle company in Malaysia. The surveillance patrols over the South China Sea and the north-east Indian Ocean will continue, contributing both to our own intelligence and to shared interests in the region. As the Minister announced a month ago, in the South West Pacific we are engaged in a number of initiatives designed to protect and extend the interests we share with our island neighbours. Those initiatives include the provision of 12 Pacific patrol boats, at a cost of $61.7m, to Papua New Guinea, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands, together with technical advisory support to assist in bringing those patrol boats into service. We will be doubling the number of RAAF long-range maritime patrol deployments. We will be increasing the number of Royal Australian Navy ship deployments to the island colonies and we will continue to assist the development of the island countries' national maritime surveillance systems through technical advice, training and the provision of equipment with the longer term objective of assisting in the development of co-operative maritime surveillance across the region. On page 17 of the White Paper reference is made to the serious damage to Western interests in the South West Pacific by continued French nuclear testing in the region and tension over the future of New Caledonia. The paper correctly points to the damage that these developments have caused and the contribution they have made to an increasingly complex political and strategic situation. I believe the problem is that the French perspective is very different from our own. The French perception of themselves as a major European power and a world power, with perhaps the greatest spread of colonies across the world, is an important factor that needs to be taken into account in trying to understand French behaviour. In this respect I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who is sitting at the table. I believe that he has made every effort to resolve those problems and to improve Australian-French relations and I wish him every success in his continuing efforts in that task. The military strategy is described in the White Paper as defence in-depth or layered defence. It means that an opponent would founder on successive layers of our defence assets deployed throughout, and to, our north. The first layer consists of intelligence and surveillance capabilities. In addition to the information we receive from the United States, the Government plans the installation of a network of over-the-horizon radars based on Jindalee to be supplemented by airborne early warning aircraft and the development of a national system of air defence and air space control to include the tactical fighter force, air bases and communications. The second layer consists of a capability to destroy enemy forces in our approaches. The key elements are the F111s, the FA18s and the submarines. Important measures are in hand to upgrade the second layer. As we learned from the White Paper, the Oberons will be replaced by six new submarines which will be built in Australia, and a number of measures are under consideration to maintain the effectiveness of the F111s. The third layer is that of a highly mobile ground force capable of rapid deployment anywhere within Australia, able to conduct dispersed and protracted tasks in harsh terrain. Again priority will be given to the north. The three-layered strategy is an important blueprint for the future and, most importantly, is an affordable blueprint. As the Minister pointed out in his tabling speech, at current levels the defence budget provides nearly $40 billion for capital expenditure over the next 15 years while the capital program outlined in this paper requires only a little over half of that sum. This allows the Government the flexibility that it needs. Important as that strategy is, and important as it is to have an affordable strategy, the most important element in any defence plan must continue to be the servicemen and women in the Australian Defence Force. Therefore, I was very pleased to read in chapter 7 of the White Paper of the many improvements that this Government has made to the conditions of service of the men and women who serve our country. I was pleased to read of the establishment of the independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the granting of a 9 per cent increase in Service pay in 1985 under the anomalies provisions and the creation of the position of Defence Force Advocate. I was also pleased to read of improvements in defence housing including a 17 per cent real increase in the last Budget and of an amount of $750m to be provided over the next 10 years for new housing. I was, of course, delighted to read of plans to implement the recommendations of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses because, apart from the human problems that face families in our defence forces, there is the cost involved in high separation rates. This morning Opposition speakers made much of the relatively high separation rate over the last financial year, 1985-86. They made no mention of separation rates in 1983-84 or 1984-85; and no wonder because the separation rates in those two years-the first two full years of the Hawke Government-were both well below the 10-year average. The separation rate for 1983-84 was the lowest in that 10-year period. I am pleased that the Government is taking a number of steps to improve conditions for Service families to encourage them to stay on because, as has been pointed out, training is very expensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.29) —Not even laryngitis would prevent my participating in this historic debate. Like the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) who preceded me, I too feel very honoured that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is present in the chamber while I am speaking. I commend to the Minister, who on many occasions I have said would have made a far better Prime Minister of Australia than the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), that he take the time to read in Hansard what I believe is one of the finest foreign affairs strategy speeches delivered in this Parliament for many years, namely, the speech of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) in this Parliament this morning. It was an excellent exposition. The defence White Paper is simply not good enough for Australia. It is a penny-pinching policy based on wishful thinking and pious hopes. As a member of the Opposition Defence Committee, I have no hesitation in saying that about the only good thing I can say about this White Paper is that the Hawke socialist Government should be given a medal for at long last discovering that Cam Ranh Bay actually exists and that a real and threatening Soviet presence is in the Pacific. I guess that that discovery is better late than never. For too long members of the Hawke socialist Government, particularly those who reside in Moscow corner, have been peddling the line that Cam Ranh Bay does not exist, that there is no Soviet base in Cam Ranh Bay and that there is no threat to Australia. That line has been peddled at the highest level from Moscow and was repeated, I am informed, only this morning by the Soviet Ambassador who, once again, claimed that there was no Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay. This Parliament, and indeed this nation, is greatly indebted to one man who almost single- handedly took on the Soviets on this issue and beat them. I refer to Major Peter Young, a former distinguished and gallant serving officer, defence editor of the Australian newspaper and, in my view, the most experienced and capable defence writer in this country today. This followed statements by the Soviet Embassy counsellor, Mr Valery Zenskov, in a letter to the Australian earlier this year that there has never been such a base at Cam Ranh Bay and never will one be established there. Major Young took on the Soviets on this issue and beat them. On 14 February this year the Australian published on its front page a very detailed photograph above which was the headline `The base the Soviets say isn't there'. I want to read out the article in full because I think it is appropriate that it be in the Hansard of this Parliament. Even today I worry as to why the Soviets sent such a high ranking Soviet diplomat-Soviet Ambassador Samoteikin is no novice; he is a very senior, experienced diplomat-to this country unless it underlines my firm and fundamental view that the Soviet Union regards Australia as the richest prize in the Pacific. Ambassador Samoteikin continues to deny the existence of a Soviet naval base at Cam Ranh Bay which threatens not only just the immediate region but also the security of Australia. Australians who do not want to believe that there is a Soviet presence, Australians who do not want to believe that Cam Ranh Bay exists, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. They are about as thick as the 600-plus members of the House of Commons who, in August 1938, jeered and scorned Winston Churchill when he warned of the threat of nazi Germany. On that day Churchill could muster only four supporters in the House of Commons-three of them being Duff Cooper, Bracken and his own son-in-law, Duncan Sandys. The report of that speech-it was made just after Berchtesgaden; I think it was delivered on 15 August 1938-shows that Churchill was consistently jeered by his conservative colleagues as he said to the House of Commons: `I am now going to tell you the ugly truth you do not want to hear'. Australians who do not believe there is a Soviet threat in our region are living again the ghosts of the mistakes of the past. One cannot dream away the Soviet threat; it is reality. So I want to read this article into the Hansard because I want it on record. I want Ambassador Samoteikin to know and I want the Soviet Embassy to report back to Moscow that, once again from this side of the House, there has been a member prepared to stand and nail the Soviets for the lie that they peddle, a lie which Australia will ignore at its peril. The article states: The release by United States sources yesterday of high-resolution satellite photographs of Cam Ranh Bay of a quality suitable for reproduction has provided conclusive proof that the Soviets maintain a permanent military base in Vietnam. The photographs show Soviet warships and planes deployed in the port and airfield areas and provide confirmation of claims in The Australian that Cam Ranh Bay is the largest Soviet naval base outside of the Soviet Union. I repeat: It is the largest Soviet naval base outside the Soviet Union. The article continues: They clearly show the presence of three Soviet Echo and Foxtrot submarines, one Grisha III-class fast guided-missile corvette and three Nanuchka-class guided-missile patrol combatants. The satellite photographs were checked for veracity by an independent air photographic interpretation analyst and declared genuine. They have been forwarded to the minister-counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, Mr Valery Zemskov, who recently claimed in a letter to The Australian that ``there never has been such a base and never will it be established there''. The 6200-tonne Echo II-class cruise missile submarine is powered by two nuclear reactors. Between 1961 and 1967, 29 vessels of this class were built and they are split between the Soviet Pacific and Northern fleets. They take 20 torpedoes and have been modified to carry the SS-N-12 nuclear missile, which has a range of 480km. The diesel-electric-powered Foxtrot-class patrol submarines have a range of 32,000km. The Foxtrots, which carry 22 torpedoes, were built between 1958 and 1971. Only 62 of the total program of 160 were completed as the change to nuclear boats took effect. The Grisha-class boats, which started production in 1970, are often used by the KGB, while the Nanuchka missile corvettes, which carry 20 missiles, are commonly deployed in coastal waters, or in groups of two or three in the Mediterranean and Pacific. The satellite photographs show the key development of port facilities during the past 10 years- it has been going on for 10 years- since the Soviets are believed to have taken over. The two piers left by the Americans in 1975 have grown to seven- so they have not been sitting on their hands- while there is evidence of new warehouses, fuel and other support facilities and ammunition dumps, which are believed to contain the latest cruise and surface-to-surface missiles. More important, the photographs confirm the permanent deployment of one squadron of the latest fourth-generation MiG 23 Flogger fighters, and a squadron each of Bear and Badger long-range strike bombers. Some of these bombers are used in an anti-submarine role and for long-range maritime reconnaissance. The strike versions are armed with long-range cruise missiles and are capable of reaching Australia. The Soviets lie, saying there is not even a base there; yet they have the capacity to hit Australia from Cam Ranh Bay and this sleeping Government has until recently pretended that Cam Ranh Bay did not exist. Where on earth are we going? The article continues: At a recent press conference in Sydney, the commander of the United States Pacific fleet, Admiral James Lyons, said that despite Soviet denials there was no doubt ``Cam Ranh Bay was a fully operating base''. He said that on any given day, ``you will find 20 to 25 surface combatants, three to five submarines, a squadron of fighter interceptor aircraft, strike bombers, and submarine and reconnaissance aircraft, naval infantry and surface-to-air missiles-all of them nuclear capable''. But the Soviet Union says it is not there. I note that my colleagues the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and others are in the chamber. We must pin the Soviet lie. The lie is repeated over and over again. Do people not realise the implications of the Gorbachev statement in Vladivostok last year when he said that the Soviet is now a Pacific power? It was not `will be'; he says it is now. How many in this Parliament have stopped on the way back from the United States and taken a CINPAC briefing in Hawaii? One is not allowed to say what one has been told, but it scares the pants off one to realise that the Soviet presence is so great, so threatening, and yet, with great respect to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is at the table, and others of the Hawke socialist Government, they have been saying for the last four years: `Don't worry about it. It does not exist. The reds under the beds people are screaming again'. In the White Paper one has to go to page 15 before Cam Ranh Bay even gets a damn mention. What does it get? It gets one line. It gets: The . . . Soviet naval and air . . . presence at Cam Ranh Bay . . . is a significant concern for Australian defence policy. `A significant concern'! My colleague the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who is at the table, is a master of the English language. I would think he would agree with me that this has to be the greatest understatement of the decade. It is written in Russell Hillese. That is the new language of defence in this country. It comes from the same people who propose a new flag for the Defence Department-all white. In Russell Hillese we are told that it is a significant concern. It is the greatest threat that Australia has been confronted with since World War II. That is what sort of a concern it is, and I am sick and tired of the way Australia sleeps. The proposition of Fortress Australia or `She'll be right, Jack' has been this Government's policy. It is: `Don't worry, mate. She'll be right. It's not a worry. It's not going to get to us'. The Soviets have nuclear missiles at Cam Ranh Bay right now with a capacity to land in Australia, and the best that the Defence Department can say is that it is a significant concern. It is the 1930s all over again. I thought policies of appeasement died with Neville Chamberlain. We have a situation today of a nation being lulled into a false sense of security. Time is running out for me but, more importantly, it is running out for Australia. The Tasman Sea, since ANZUS went, has become a Soviet maritime playground-no surveillance whatsoever. The Royal Australian Navy cannot carry out surveillance; the New Zealand Navy is too tiny; the United States Navy cannot do it because its ships cannot get in there as they cannot get port access in New Zealand. On a recent Antarctic expedition some 23 Soviet maritime vessels were sighted along the Antarctic coastline. The Soviets already have four Antarctic bases on Australian territory. We really are living in a marvellous world. We have a defence policy which virtually says as far as Northern Australia is concerned `Let's whack up two signs instructing the enemy to please invade between these two signs', and we are totally ignoring the threat from the south. Does the Defence Department not know that when the Soviet marine science vessel broke down some four to six years ago and came into Hobart for urgent repairs it was accompanied by a Soviet submarine? Half my ethnic community voters in Tasmania went out of their trees to see a Soviet submarine locked up at Prince's Wharf. Time has now almost run out for me, but it will run out for Australia if this Government does not wake up to the fact that Australia today is naked, defenceless. This White Paper is weak, penny-pinching and inadequate. If we want to defend Australia we should double defence expenditure for the next three years and give our men and women in uniform the chance to fight, and the equipment to fight with, to keep Australia free, as we should be, for future generations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 until 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I know that all members of the House will join me in my joy that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has recovered from his illness. He is absent today on official duty. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond to any questions relating to Mr Brown's portfolio. Mr McGauran —Is he overseas again? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr HOWARD —Is the Prime Minister aware that statistics released yesterday show that the number of loans for the construction of dwellings on a seasonally adjusted basis fell by 29 per cent in January to the lowest monthly level for the last four years, that total loans made by savings banks for housing fell by 15 per cent in January, and that investment in dwellings is now 9.2 per cent lower than it was a year ago? What action does the Prime Minister intend to take in view of the continued parlous outlook for the housing industry, as indicated by those figures released yesterday? Mr HAWKE —I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition is with us in terms of asking questions about the economy but, as usual, he is off beam. I preface my answer by reminding the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition generally or its various parts of the comparison between our performance on housing and their miserable performance. I will not spend a great deal of time on it because the fact is well known that we rescued the housing industry from the devastation which they wreaked upon it. Let me come to the current position. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures confirm that savings bank home finance is more plentiful than our best expectations a year ago. An amount of $6.8 billion has been lent to January 1987, compared with the commitment when the package was announced to lend $6 billion to March 1987. I repeat: When we organised the package last year there was a commitment by the banks to lend $6 billion to March 1987; by January this year $6.8 billion had been lent. In addition, the latest Indicative Planning Council forecast suggests that these trends will continue. The latest IPC forecast gives a figure of $8.8 billion for this financial year, 1986-87, and $9.5 billion for 1987-88. The IPC assumes that, whatever arrangements apply after this month, sufficient housing finance will be available at prevailing interest rates to meet demand. All I will say in regard to what the Government will do in this matter is that any action taken when the bank subsidy expires at the end of March will reflect, firstly, the economic and budgetary realities and, secondly, the priority that this Government has given to housing from the day we came to office. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that radio personality, Mr John Laws, of Sydney station 2GB, has been mounting attacks not only against government programs to help Aboriginals but also against Aboriginal people in general? Is the Minister prepared to take any action to deal with these allegations? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the statements made by Mr Laws on his program. Mr Cadman —Ring him up and talk to him. Mr HOLDING —I would be perfectly happy to appear on Mr Laws's program. However, I do not believe it would be appropriate for a responsible Minister of the Crown or a shadow Minister to lend himself to a program which has repeated on a five-minute basis a series of disparaging remarks directed against any group in Australian society and which has attributed to people-in this case Aboriginal people-concepts which are not only defamatory but with which no decent Australian would want to associate himself. If Mr Laws wants to query me on any aspect of a government program, that is perfectly appropriate. Having obtained a copy of the transcripts of the program over the last three days, I am perfectly happy to make them available to honourable members, who I think will agree with me that Mr Laws has virtually been indulging in a kick-a-black week. There is a fine line between the exercise of what we would all want to encourage, that is, the freedom of radio commentators to support or oppose any aspect of government policy, and the making of statements which are clearly designed to derogate any section of the Australian community on racial terms. Unfortunately, these remarks have caused grave distress to many members of the Aboriginal community. I understand that they are seeking legal advice as to their rights. I will certainly encourage that. I will also bring to the attention of the Minister for Communications what I believe to be a gross and irresponsible abuse of the rights attached to radio communication and the thoroughly irresponsible and disgraceful way in which Mr Laws has behaved. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Minister for Science in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Would the Minister be kind enough to describe to us the areas in relation to prices in which he is available to answer questions in this House? Mr BARRY JONES —I am flattered to have had as many questions from the Opposition in one week as I have had in four years as a Minister. It is a pity that so many of them have been misdirected. The policy responsibility for broad macro-economic issues must lie with the Treasurer and not with the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. The areas of my direct responsibility are the enlargement of the price watch network and the Prices Surveillance Authority. It is completely pointless for the Opposition to attempt to draw answers from me-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr Hawke —That is the measure of their intelligence. They deal in uncompleted sentences. Mr BARRY JONES —They deal in uncompleted sentences. It is a measure of their intelligence. It is pointless for the Opposition to attempt to draw answers from me on areas of the Treasurer's responsibility when the Treasurer is present in the chamber and able to answer. To do otherwise would be like inviting the honourable member for Kooyong to comment on the role of the Leader of the Opposition, inviting the honourable member for Groom to make a few well-chosen remarks about the Leader of the National Party, or inviting the honourable member for Boothby to comment on the shadow Treasurer. I do not propose to answer questions which fall in the Treasurer's direct responsibility. If the Treasurer was not here one day, that might be a different matter. I might be tempted. Mr Hurford —What about the Acting Treasurer? Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, of course, if the Acting Treasurer-and my distinguished predecessor in this operation, the Minister for Community Services-was not here. The inclusion of the word `price' in a question does not necessarily make it a pricing issue. The whole context needs to be examined. Some areas, such as motor pricing, are appropriately directed to me as Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. But other areas, for example, air fares, as I was about to say when I attempted to rise to my feet yesterday-- Mr Beale —Everybody got up. Mr BARRY JONES —Not everybody-two. Mr Hawke —They never could count. Mr BARRY JONES —It is the old way. They say: `One, two-a lot'. Mr Peter Morris —It was three. Mr BARRY JONES —I am sorry; it was three, because the Minister for Aviation quite correctly tried to get up. Other areas, such as air fares, are explicitly excluded from my responsibility and should be directed to the Minister for Aviation. Accordingly, when the central elements of the question-as the honourable member for North Sydney would say, a matter of characterisation-involve specific areas of activity such as health, aviation, communications and housing they ought to be directed to the appropriate Ministers. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a report in the Australian of 11 March stating that Australia has softened its opposition to the United States plans to broaden the interpretation of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, which limits testing of the strategic defence initiative, after the visit to Australia of President Reagan's adviser on arms control Mr Edward Rowny? Can the Minister inform the House whether there has been any shift in the Australian Government's position on the interpretation of the ABM treaty and whether there has been any change in the Australian Government's opposition to SDI? Mr HAYDEN —There has been no change in the Government's position in its concern about proposals to undertake the SDI program. Australia does not endorse that program. Nor should there be any suggestion that there should be a broader interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We oppose it. On 2 March this year Ambassador Rowny of the United States of America was here to discuss with Australian representatives, myself included, the proposal that the anti-ballistic missile treaty may be interpreted more broadly than had been the case in the past. He made it clear, however, that at that point-and I presume up until this point too-the United States had made no decision one way or the other as to whether it would retain the narrow definition or move to a broader definition. Nonetheless, Mr Peter Samuel was moved to report in the Australian that Australia had softened its views on the ABM treaty. This caused a State Department spokesman to respond to the article in Washington on 11 March, saying: The United States are under no illusion about Australia's attitude to the ABM treaty. Australia made its position eminently clear to Ambassador Rowny during his visit to Canberra. The spokesman also said that he could not imagine anyone dealing with the issue coming out with the line such as reported by Peter Samuel. I would agree with that, with the caveat that I could not imagine anyone except Peter Samuel coming out with such a line. Our position was made abundantly clear, and that was acknowledged by the United States. Australia believes that the successful conclusion of agreements providing for radical reductions in strategic nuclear forces will be largely dependent on both sides being confident that the ABM treaty remains a reliable barrier to the pursuit of wide scale ballistic missile defences. Testifying under the auspices of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate of 11 March, Senator Nunn was highly critical of the administration's legal justification for adopting any broad interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Nunn, who over the past few months has conducted a complete and thorough review of the treaty, the negotiating record and statements of interpretation, stated that the record demonstrated beyond doubt that the traditional, restrictive interpretation was correct. He was, I might add, scathing in his comments on the State Department's legal advice. We agree with the Nunn interpretation of the treaty and the justification for a continuation of the more restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty. Mr CARLTON —I address my question to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Is he aware that the price of a haircut has risen from $6.50 in March 1983 to $10 today, a rise of 54 per cent? Is he also aware that the price of a full beard trim has risen over the same period from $5 to $7, a rise of 40 per cent? Can the Minister explain why the hirsute have been so badly penalised under the Hawke Government? Mr BARRY JONES —The answers to the first and second parts of the question are yes and yes. As to the last matter, haircuts and beard trims are a matter for State governments. Mr GRACE —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's approach to budgetary management over the coming year? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I would remind him that we have announced that a May statement on a range of new spending cuts will be made as an instalment on this year's Budget. As the Australian people understand, this will continue the most demanding Federal Government fiscal discipline in the post-war era. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —The figures are there beyond dispute. The ums and ahs mean nothing. The fact is that we have reduced the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product from 5 per cent to around 1.5 per cent. I remind the House and the honourable member that the assets test, the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax and our removal of taxpayers' subsidies on businessmen's free lunches are important parts of the necessary restraint that will be exercised in this community. Together they contribute $1.4 billion to our success in reducing the Budget deficit. Yet the current Leader of the Opposition, who has attempted to peddle himself as a disciple of fiscal restraint, has promised to abolish all those reforms and hand $1,400m in privileges back to the rich. In fact, as I have pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition's long list of promises to the rich would yield a staggering deficit of $16 billion, because he has now succumbed to the pressure from the north on the question of a broad based consumption tax. I suggest that in today's environment it is relevant to ask ourselves who speaks for what and for whom in the Liberal Party. The name of the President of the Liberal Party has been intruded into this arena. He purports to speak for the Liberal Party, and certainly the Leader of the Opposition would embrace what is said by the President of the Liberal Party. Mr Spender —I rise on a point of order. This has no possible relevance to the question put to the Prime Minister, even given the very liberal interpretation we give to the word `relevance' in this House. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —Even the honourable member for North Sydney, with his limited capacity to understand economic matters, will understand the direct relevance of what I am about to say. He should listen to what his Federal President had to say on the subject of these taxes in 1985. I want to know, and I know that a lot of people behind the Leader of the Opposition want to know, whether the Federal President of the Liberal Party speaks with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition when he says these things. He said: If you are really going to make any big reduction in government spending I have got to say there is one area where it is going to be done in and that is social welfare. I remind the House that this is the Leader of the Opposition's friend, a man embraced by the Leader of the Opposition and who speaks for the Liberal Party. The President of the Liberal Party continued: I think that our party is very conscious of the need to do that. He then went on: But look what has happened over even the assets test, which if I can again be a little candid on your private program was a very small step in that direction. Those opposite should listen to what the Federal President said, though I know it hurts them to listen to these words. He said: I think again to reverse the whole disease, if you like to call it, of fringe benefits which again has developed over a decade or more . . . He then paid tribute to Paul Keating. He said: I've got to say I think that is a fair and just thing in this country. That was from the Federal President of the Liberal Party. He said that what Mr Keating did on behalf of the Labor Government on fringe benefits was `a fair and just thing'. Does the Federal Leader of the Opposition agree with the Federal President of the Liberal Party? No, of course he does not because when he is hurt, which is most of the time, he does not have the guts to face up to it. What did the Federal President of the Liberal Party go on to say? He said: It's going to take, I imagine, every bit of a decade to reverse the trends of the past, but the longer we leave doing it, the harder it is going to be. Then came this gem from the Federal President of the Liberal Party. I ask the people of Australia to listen to the man whom John Howard embraces as speaking with authority and representing the views of the Liberal Party. This is what the Federal President of the Liberal Party had to say when he was asked by a journalist why Labor had bitten the bullet on tax proposals. The journalist asked: What makes you think it is going to be any easier for you, the Liberals? What did the Federal President of the Liberal Party say? John Valder said this: Well, that is why I would like to see them do the very hard things that they are going to get into trouble about because electorally that is the fact of the matter. They are not easy to do, so I have said many times, you know, let the Labor Party get on implementing the more necessary but perhaps less popular parts of our policy and let's hope they get them into place and promptly lose office and I think that that would be a very good scenario. So there we have it. John Howard's friend, the President of the Liberal Party, is saying: `Let us be dishonest, let us be absolutely deceptive, let us get up and make noises against the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, let us make all these noises about Labor being wrong. Let the Labor Party implement these things and then we will embrace them'. We know that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the Federal President of the Liberal Party. He has branded himself as a partner in deceit in the most squalid of politics. We do not have to ask the present Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with Mr Valder and I guess we do not have to ask the putative Leader of the Opposition. Whichever way we look at it, we are faced with two people in this place who share with the Federal Leader of the Liberal Party a partnership in the most gross deception and squalid politicking on these fundamental matters ever seen in the history of this country. Mr LLOYD —My question is once again to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Is he aware that the price of interstate rail freight, including that of the Government's own Australian National, was increased yesterday by 5 per cent, the second 5 per cent increase in six months, making a 10 per cent increase so far this financial year with another 5 per cent to come in October? What action is the Minister taking to reduce the Australian National increase to 6 per cent and what pressure is he applying to his State colleagues to ensure that they conform similarly with the Prime Minister's edict? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member will be aware that the rates for interstate rail matters are discussed by the Railways of Australia Committee under arrangements which were set in place when the Opposition was in government and which have continued since. The difference in respect of Australian National is that it has been given greater freedom, independence and responsibility to operate in a commercial manner. It is operating in a businesslike way to reduce the impact on taxpayers that was burdened upon them in the time of the honourable member's Government. Overall the improvement in performance and productivity by Australian National has made it probably the best operating rail system in Australia today. If, on the one hand, the honourable member wants to interfere in the normal free market practice of which his Leader speaks so frequently, let him say that. Mr Lloyd —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The hypocrisy here is that the Government is saying that the commercial sector is not allowed to-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the Opposition and the honourable member's Leader desire that the Australian National Railways Commission should not operate in a businesslike and commercial manner, as they decree the whole economy should, let them say that. If they want to interfere in the operations of the Commission, let them also say that. In conclusion I wish to put on the record that Australian National is the best performing rail system in this country. It has achieved that performance under the guidance and legislation of this Government. If the Opposition wants to look to rail performance, it should look to its State colleagues, particularly in Queensland. Mr LEE —Can the Treasurer inform the House of any recent international assessments of Australia's economic performance? Mr Beale —He has read the Economist. Mr KEATING —I am glad that some people have seen the Economist, as I hear by way of interjection from the other side of the House. The Economist is one of the world's most prestigious financial and political affairs journals. It has done a 15-page summary on the Australian economy and Australian society as one of its continuing studies of various countries around the world. Its analysis is well read not only in Britain but in other parts of the world. It is certainly read in all the financial markets and by business. I might also say that its editorial policy record is basically one of sympathy for the policies of the present British Government. The analysis probes every area of Australian macroeconomic policy. There was only one reference to this analysis in the Australian Press-I think it was in the Australian-although it is interesting to note that when a stringer from the New York Times drops a story it makes all the broadsheets, but this apparently did not and I do not know why. Perhaps we can get someone in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Age interested in the answer. In contrasting the Government and the Opposition, the Economist had some interesting things to say. It said that this Government was `a government of exceptional talent driven by economic rationalists'. It went on to say: . . . think-tanks and spokesmen of the New Right, preaching unadulterated free-market theory. Somewhere in their slipstream is a lacklustre and unimpressive parliamentary Liberal . . . party, muddled but predominantly under the sway of Thatcherite ideas. In a perceptive commentary on the relative positions of the Opposition and the Government, it says: The fact that Australia is not in much more serious trouble than it is can largely be attributed to a remarkably successful relationship between the Labor government and the trade unions. Under the heading of `Hard Labor, soft Liberals' it describes the Liberal and National parties as having `a weak parliamentary team'. I suppose that we did not need any more evidence of that than the haircut question from the shadow Treasurer, when yesterday we had the national accounts published and heard not a word from him in the Parliament about it. The Economist went on to say under that heading `Hard Labor, soft Liberals': Part of the reason for that is the sorry state of the Opposition, the Liberal-National party coalition. It is dogged by three main problems. First, it has lost credibility. It, after all, had seven years in government from 1975 to 1983 with three big mandates, yet it did damn all, other than pave the way for the current mess . . . How perceptive. It goes on: Many of the things it wanted, but failed to do-such as floating the currency and deregulating the financial markets-have been done by Labor. And it will be seen as dishonest if it tries to exploit the voters' economic hardship without at the same time explaining that its own policies would either be irresponsible or offer much the same degree of pain. It goes on to say: Labor, by contrast-- Mr Downer —Forget the magazine; give us the facts. Mr KEATING —I know it hurts the honourable member, does it not? Well it might. The article continues: Labor, by contrast, is rather impressive. Indeed, the claim that this government is the most capable since the war is a strong one. This is in the British Economist. It went on to a conclusion in this way, perhaps best summarised by this passage: If the Opposition were credible in espousing that view- that is, in the unfettered free market economics- there would be a real choice at the next election. As it is, the choice is likely to be about management: who can best steer Australia through these hard times? To that question, Labor seems the obvious answer. It is yet again another ringing endorsement. If any honourable members on the other side of the House want to build upon the current level of gloom, on the gloom boom over there, they should read the 15 pages because there is quotation after quotation. The world has woken up to them. They think that because they are all carrying the conservative ticket in their pockets the conservative journals such as the British Economist will have some time for them. It has made an analysis of the 1970s and their policies in the 1980s, and they stand condemned by it as well as by most journals in this country. Mr Griffiths —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask the Treasurer to table the article from which he was quoting. Mr KEATING —I table the article. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Has the Minister for Trade investigated the matters that I raised with him yesterday? If so, did Mr Kelty overstate his hotel bills? Was Mr Kelty paid $1,471 on top of accommodation, despite undertakings that the Australian Council of Trade Unions would meet his expenses? Was the ACTU not charged full European air fares for four trade unionists, as agreed? Was anyone paid travel allowance for time away from the tour, or to which such person was not entitled? Does the Minister maintain that giving the ACTU up to $6,000 to which it is not entitled is `trifling'? Mr DAWKINS —If the honourable member for Dawson thinks I carry around in my head the detail of every account that is paid by my Department he has another think coming. It is just one of the many things he has to contemplate in the few days in which he remains as the Opposition spokesman in this area. As I said yesterday, the accounts relating to this matter are still to be resolved. I said that I would investigate the matter; I said that I would provide the honourable member with the information. If he wants to put the question on notice, which is the normal way for dealing with these matters, as he well knows-indeed he already has a question on the Notice Paper about this matter-I am perfectly happy to respond to his questions. The only point that I would make is that if, as a result of those investigations, as I expect will be the case, his allegations about the conduct of Mr Kelty and the other members of this delegation prove to be absolutely groundless I hope he will have the guts to apologise. Mr KEOGH —Has the Minister representing the Special Minister of State seen a media report in which the Queensland National Party State President, Sir Robert Sparkes, is quoted as saying that his Party, if elected to Federal government, would retrospectively change electoral laws requiring publication of the names of major election campaign donors? I ask the Minister: What impact would this have on the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Mr YOUNG —This is a matter in which I think all members of this Parliament would take some interest because one of the major reforms of this Government in 1983 was to amend the Electoral Act so that any person making a donation of over $200 to any candidate or over $1,000 to any political party must have his or her name put on a register so that everybody in Australia could see who was making the donations to those standing for Parliament or to the political parties. At that time the Opposition opposed it because it said that there was insufficient evidence of corruption in our political scene that would warrant such an amendment. Our view at the time was that we should take precautions to see that that sort of corruption did not grow in our electoral system and our political system, so we were amending the Act accordingly. Of course, the 1984 elections were subject to those laws, and people complied with them to a very large extent although the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has had a look at some aspects of it. By and large it worked, and it worked in the interests of the Australian people. It raises the question as to why Sir Robert Sparkes, the State President of the National Party in Queensland and the campaign director for the push for Petersen for Prime Minister, would now want to bring in retrospective legislation that would repeal those laws so that the identity of anybody making a donation to the Petersen campaign between now and the next election would never have to be known to the people of Australia. Some people may say that this is not all that serious, but I draw the attention of members to the fact that we have seen some aspects of this expenditure. Two weeks ago we saw the insertion in every Sunday newspaper around Australia of bumper stickers which called on people to support Petersen for Prime Minister. I may inform the Parliament that that little exercise cost $315,000. One would not have thought they got very much value for their money. It gives honourable members some idea of the sort of finance that may be available to this push. I draw the attention of honourable members to the claims of Mr Gore from the Gold Coast, who said that he could raise and had promised to him $25m to back this campaign. Mr Gore made these claims late last year in an interview, prior to its becoming known that the Queensland Government, by an Executive minute, made a decision that was never to be disclosed to the Queensland or Australian people-a loan of $10m to Mr Gore's company on the Gold Coast. So obvious questions are to be asked about the relationship between Mr Gore and the Queensland Government which can make a decision which it is ashamed to make public about the $10m loan at a time when Mr Gore is running around Australia saying that he has $25m to back the Premier. Mr Gore is a very interesting fellow. Fourteen years ago he arrived on the Gold Coast with $400. He now claims he is worth $35m but that he is not selling out because in five years he expects to be worth half a billion. Mr Nehl —Why do you hate people who do well at work? Mr YOUNG —We can look at some of the claims of these people and what they expect. All I can say is that if Mr Gore has made that sort of money he must have paid a lot of tax, too. His taxation record must be interesting. He is just one of the people who say that $25m is available. Sir Robert Sparkes says he has $20m to add to it. They expect to spend $45m. That is an incomprehensible sum to the average Australian when we talk about spending money on an election campaign. We are dealing with people. It is all right for the Queensland Premier to say how much better he will run things, but today he got in his new car worth $135,000. If every Minister in Australia were to do that it would cost an extra $15m. It is a $135,000 car. One wonders where the practice matches up with the rhetoric of the Queensland Premier. He stayed in Tokyo at a hotel for $2,800 a night. That is not bad for a person who wants to be Prime Minister. He is setting an example on restraint. The laws brought in by this Government coincide with the laws that have been brought in by almost every country in the Western world. People are entitled to see who is making major donations to political parties so that there is a certain amount of honesty in the political system. If people are to make donations which total up to $45m to make Bjelke-Petersen Prime Minister, the Australian people are entitled to know who the backers are. I think they should demand to know. When people such as Sir Robert Sparkes say `We will go through this campaign and, if we are successful, no one will know', what are they trying to hide? What are they ashamed of? Are there some more $10m loans hanging around for the use of the Queensland Government? Why did Sir Joh get $400,000 out of a television company for a libel suit when the highest amount paid out in Queensland previously was less than $30,000? The company said: `We have to operate in Queensland and it is in our interests that we pay Sir Joh $400,000'. The people of Australia ought to be made aware that there is a vast difference between the rhetoric of Sir Joh and his practices, his lifestyle and the operations of the Queensland Government. If I were Sir Robert Sparkes and I was collecting the $45m from all those sorts of quarters I would probably be saying the same thing he is saying. I would not want the Australian people to know who was kicking in and why. Can honourable members imagine handing over this institution-the national Parliament and the national government of Australia-to that bunch, knowing the way that it operates? Can honourable members imagine the patronage that would go hand in glove with any such group operating in Canberra? A lot of people in Australia expect everyone to be sharing in the restraint that has been called for by this Government. The Queensland Government is the worst offender in the way it throws its money around. Sir Robert Sparkes may continue on his campaign of saying that he will repeal the laws but we will make sure that everybody in Australia knows about the laws and complies with them, and sees the affiliation between this push from those few in Queensland and some of the business houses. The average family does not want Joh in government. We do not notice any of the average families in Queensland getting behind Joh to make him Prime Minister. It is members of the white-shoe brigade and all their mates that want Joh as Prime Minister so that they can manipulate him and get governments to make these executive minute decisions that will not be made public and will be in the best interests of their own companies. I do not think Australia wants too much of that sort of government. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is also addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer the Minister to the highly publicised case of an Irish citizen, Margaret Connelly, who was recently asked to leave Australia because she had breached her working visa guidelines. How does the Minister reconcile this decision with that of Mr Adjei, a citizen of Ghana, who was deported from Australia on 19 October 1977 and has ended up back in Australia and who has been convicted of a number of criminal charges including two crimes of assault of police, dismissed from the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd for assaulting fellow workers, and fined for resisting arrest and indecent language? Will the Minister ensure that the immigration guidelines he administers are administered without discrimination? Mr YOUNG —I am not totally conversant with the cases that the honourable member has raised. I did read about the Irish lady from Tasmania. But I will certainly make inquiries about the other case which the honourable member has raised. The issue of people being deported from Australia is a very sensitive and highly controversial one. Members of parliament, together with other members of the community and community groups, become involved with specific cases. It is an area that has to be administered not only along total bureaucratic lines but also with a fair amount of compassion because that is what the Australian people would expect of this or any other government. A lot of people in this country are here illegally. The vast majority of people who get temporary entry visas to this country abide by the law and leave before their visas terminate. But there are some who use the privilege of getting hold of a visitor visa to overstay and try to gain permanent residence illegally. The Government must remain in charge of the integrity of our migration intake. We cannot allow people from other countries to circumvent the laws we have laid down. There are problems. As honourable members will know, quite recently the Australian Citizenship Act was changed because people were gaining entry into this country, staying illegally and having families and the children who were being born here then became Australian citizens. There are many cases in which I and Ministers before me have had to face some very difficult decisions in relation to these people. In the areas where people are affected we become deeply involved. About 400 cases of people claiming refugee status go before the Determination of Refugee Status Committee every year in Australia. It is not a simple matter-- Mr Spender —Where is that? Mr YOUNG —That is within Australia and it concerns people who are here. It is not an easy matter for the Committee simply to recognise people as being refugees because we act very much in accordance with the recommendations and the advice given to us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and we cannot just go round declaring that, from Australia's point of view, there are other groups besides those designated by the United Nations as refugees. If there is an element of risk about any person being returned to a country, that is something on which the Australian Government, or I as Minister, will have to make a decision. I can assure honourable members that the administration of this area of our migration policy, like every other area under my administration, will be dealt with as methodically as possible, but if compassion is required that will be applied. I will look at the cases that the honourable member has raised. He has pointed to an area that is particularly sensitive and important. If government handled all cases with the willy-nilly attitude that everybody could stay here, I do not believe that the Australian people would endorse the migration decisions which have been taken by governments from both sides. I think we have to be particularly careful about those things. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —by leave-Honourable members will be interested to learn that the Government has reviewed the progress being made on the new Parliament House project during the six-month period to September 1986. Despite cuts made to the project's funding in the 1986 Budget satisfactory progress is being made. The building budget updated for inflation to August 1986 dollars now stands at $811.1m while the budget for non-building items is $171.3m. The total project budget is therefore $982.4m at August 1986 prices. The updating of the budgets reflects the adjustment of the uncompleted portion of the project for the effects of inflation in the six months period. This procedure has been applied throughout the life of the project. The only additional component has been an allowance of $13.9m to cover the cost of industrial disputes, exchange rate fluctuations and insolvencies of contractors-costs outside the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority. Every effort is being made to keep the costs of the project within budget and, while reductions in the quality of some finishes and the scope of landscaping planned are unfortunate, economic circumstances demand this discipline to contain costs. Honourable members should note that, with the exception of the 14-week closure in 1984, the new Parliament House project has been remarkably free of industrial disputation-a record better in fact than most comparable projects. The building is one of great importance to all Australians and will be an enduring monument to Australian materials and skills. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-Quite obviously the extent to which the new Parliament House dominates the Canberra skyline means that everybody in this place knows that it is being constructed. I think most people in Australia know that it is being constructed. However, at a time of economic distress in thousands of households around Australia and on just about every farm in Australia where the prospect of survival for many is bleak, I think the general character of the expenditure on the new Parliament House has taken on a new dimension. While all of us in this place have been privy to resolutions that have detailed the day by day progress of the project, there have recently been elements of expenditure about which we on this side of the House have had reservations. For example, the wholesale removal of Camp Hill behind this Parliament House seems to me to have been one of those projects which could have been deferred until a later time. Landscaping of that character is not essential to the completion of the new Parliament House. In no way will it affect the suitability of the new building for those of us who are going to use it. Indeed, the removal of Camp Hill could have been deferred to some future year when funds could be made available in the Budget. The second and very real concern that many of us have is the degree to which an extraordinarily lavish amount of money has been spent on the road approaches to the new Parliament House. One can see this work when driving around the building. The roads around the new Parliament House are of a standard and order of which people living and working in ordinary Australia could only be jealous. There are magnificent bridges. There is a wonderful tunnel. I think it is the best lit automotive tunnel in Australia. Mr Carlton —In the world. Mr SINCLAIR —In the world, I suspect. While I accept that at some future time it might be desirable to have the biggest and best road access, frankly, I do not find it necessary, desirable or acceptable that that amount of money should be spent at this time. Thirdly, all of us would know that not far to the east of this building, stone walls have recently been built around a number of magnificent pine trees that over the years have lined the approach to Capital Hill. We are now seeing earth being filled in around them. I do not know how on earth that type of expenditure can be justified on the road approaches. This work has nothing to do with the function of the building. As far as I can see the money is being spent to construct bigger and better road access that would make every ordinary Australian green with envy. Indeed, many people in my electorate have pot-holes in their roads or do not have bitumen. There are thousands and thousands of miles around Australia in every State that do not have bitumen. If the people in these areas saw how much money was being spent on providing access roads for a few tourists and a few parliamentarians, they would really understand how mad this Government has gone in terms of expenditure. Fourthly, I understand that a number of expenditure cuts have been made within the building. I am not aware of the detail of how those cuts will affect the efficiency of the end design. But to me it would seem desirable that if there are to be cuts, those cuts should be made in respect of the fittings and the appurtenances rather than the building itself. I hope that in the supervision of this project maximum care will be taken to ensure that work that is not required for the completion of the building can be added at a later date. I refer to items such as murals and art collections. I frankly suggest that such work could well be deferred until a later time. The priorities at this time have to be to try to ensure that the building itself is completed according to the required standards and not that money is just spent on the general project. The fifth matter of concern to me is that in the nature of the whole building there has been without doubt a tendency to require everything to meet the original 1988 schedule. I believe that at a time of economic distress we have to marry the need for contracts to be completed with the availability of money and the alternative demands on the public purse. I am not sure that in the character of the economic decay in Australia at present it is desirable for that rigid adherence to the 1988 schedule to be maintained. Were we on this side of the House in government, there would be at least a $4 billion cut in Federal sector spending in the mini-Budget which is to be presented on 14 May. One cannot accommodate that sort of cut without starting to affect the benefits that are available to ordinary Australians. As far as I am concerned, parliamentarians in the new Parliament House should be included within that category. Certainly there are difficulties in aborting contracts which have been let. But a forward schedule with an understanding of the effect of these expenditures should have been formulated at a time when it was possible to determine that the 1988 schedule could have been extended and perhaps in this way some economies could have been achieved. While I note that the Minister said in the statement he delivered today that the completion date is still on schedule, I believe that that is an area in which the Government could have used greater flexibility than it has. Sixthly, I notice from the statement that a sum of nearly $14m has been provided to cover the cost of industrial disputes, exchange rate fluctuations and insolvencies of contractors. The Minister went on to commend the industrial record of the Parliament House project. Frankly, that can only make me concerned. From what I see and know of that project, many of the people working there seem to have been dealt with far more generously than has any farmer in my electorate, far more generously than any small businessman around Australia and far more generously than any person trying to raise a bit of money to buy or build a house. They have been treated far more generously than ordinary Australians. One matter that is increasingly apparent is the arrogance of the man who is Treasurer and the arrogance of members of the Government in approaching areas of ordinary expenditure-that is, the areas which affect the ordinary men and women of this country are matters of no concern. Frankly, we are highly suspicious when an amount of nearly $14m is set aside predominantly to try to ensure that the industrial record of the new Parliament House is sound. For my money it would be a lot better if that money were set aside for ordinary people instead of being wasted in trying to ensure that the conditions of the work force on the new Parliament House are better than those anywhere else in Australia. The project is of importance. Everyone in this place recognises that the facilities in the present Parliament House are not as good as they should be but the amount of money that is being spent and the time in which the project is being completed must be measured against the other demands on the public sector purse. I am concerned that far more has been omitted than included in this brief report that has been presented by the Minister this afternoon. For our part, we believe that at a time when there is to be a mini-Budget, when major cuts are essential in the spending program of the Government, excess expenditure of any kind cannot be condoned. On that basis, I hope that the Government ensures that when the project is completed it brings to this place a full accounting of all of those areas in which there perhaps has been unnecessary expenditure or where unnecessarily generous provisions have been made to the work force involved in the construction of the new Parliament House. Mr Scholes —I will not reply to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He should have thought of those things when his Government commenced the project. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the Minister seeking leave-- Mr Scholes —No, I want to inform the House that the statement which the right honourable gentleman said that he had not received was delivered to his office at midday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the Minister wants to contribute something he has to either seek leave or take a point of order. He cannot just stand up and speak. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —In his response to a question today on Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) attacked Mr John Laws under parliamentary privilege. He also referred to my involvement as a shadow Minister in recent programs on radio station 2GB on the subject of waste on Aboriginal programs funded by the Commonwealth. I was invited to comment on these matters by Mr Laws last Friday and again today. I endeavoured to give a balanced response to examples of waste and maladministration of Aboriginal programs. As I was concerned that the program not be seen as biased against Aborigines, last Wednesday I suggested to the Minister that he should ring Mr Laws and go on the program. It is a regret to me that he did not do so, thus failing to defend in public the policies that he now claims to attack. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member can go to where he has been misrepresented, not the affairs of other members. Mr CONNOLLY —I have been most seriously misrepresented by virtue of the fact that the Minister, in his response to that question during Question Time today, deliberately linked me with what he believed were excessive remarks made on the program. Mr Holding —I think you will find that the Hansard record does not support you. Mr CONNOLLY —Precisely. But I am simply saying-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will complete his explanation. Mr CONNOLLY —The point I am very simply making is that the comments made by Mr Laws, which have now been the subject of attack under parliamentary privilege, were simply saying what many Australians, including Aborigines, are generally concerned about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield knows that he must say where he was misrepresented. It is neither up to him, nor is he able to make any-- Mr CONNOLLY —Basically what the Minister is implying is that I am a racist. I simply object to that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member can discuss that, but he cannot make any comment on whether or not Mr Laws was attacked. That is not within his purview. 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,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens call upon 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, antihistamines, 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 ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Lionel Bowen and Mr Carlton. 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 employer and employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of their 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 control with adequate security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. 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- (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 Staples. 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 and Mr Staples. 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 taxpayer's 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. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to- (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of- (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 Griffiths. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we regard the term ``Greek'' as being a derogatory remark. That we are offended by reference to the country called ``Greece''. That that country is officially known as the republic of the Hellenes or as Hellas, and its citizens and descendants as Hellenes. And that we wish that the Parliament take note of the wishes of the Hellenic people to be known as Hellenes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Griffiths. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 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 nor 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 Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing national recycling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils. (c) Developing national employment programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: In this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we ask the Government to renew the agreement with the USA on the facilities at Pine Gap only on receiving from the US Government a written guarantee that it will take up whole-heartedly and in good faith the phased nuclear disarmament plan put forward by the Soviets earlier this year, for complete nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of the City of Whyalla, in the State of South Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government and humbly showeth that: The voting public of the Grey Electorate did in March 1983 and again in December 1984, vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who claimed to stand for a Multicultural Australia. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement multicultural television in the city of Whyalla and other country areas, without any further delays. We declare that the implementation could become possible by: 1. Broadcasting Multicultural Television in the ABC, at morning times or; 2. SBS Transmitter to be connected to the Australian Satellite-thus providing a Multicultural Television service all over our Nation. Both of these options have been proposed to the ABC Advisory Council (SA) at a recently held Whyalla Public Meeting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education student in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the administration charge is a form of tuition fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The farce and confusion surrounding the Government's publicity stunt on prices. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.05) —May I make it absolutely clear from the start of this debate that the Opposition regards rising prices, rising as they are in Australia at a rate four times the average of overseas countries, as no joke. We are very serious about rising prices. We regard it as no joke and that is why we are drawing the attention of this House and the Australian people to the absolute farce surrounding the Government's handling of this question of rising prices. That is what we are talking about. We are not saying that price rises of 10 per cent, when they are 2 per cent everywhere else in the world, are a joke. We are not saying that interest rates of 15 or 20 per cent in Australia are a joke when elsewhere they are rising at half that rate. We do not think this is a joke, but the Government appears to think it is a joke. The Government has made an absolute farce of the whole matter with the appointment of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) as the Minister assisting everybody around the place on prices but with no authority even to answer a question on the subject in the House. We think that it is disgraceful that this has come about and we intend to protest up and down the land until this farcical appointment is ended. Just to show what the Australian people think about this we looked at the Mackay report, which is a report on how Australian families feel about family life. The latest edition of that report came out in September last year. In it people are quoted as making a number of significant comments about their feelings about the current situation-how they feel about their families and how they are coping. These are some of the quotations: Money is becoming a really big point in our house. We are supposed to be comfortably off, but even the necessities are costing more and luxuries are out of the question. Another quote: We reckoned that when we had built the house we would be able to lie back and enjoy it. But we are flat out keeping up the repayments and just maintaining a decent lifestyle. Another quote: The way things are going, I really will have to win Lotto. That's my only hope! I'm paid fortnightly, and it's getting harder to make it stretch for the two weeks. These are quotations in the Mackay Report from ordinary families and ordinary people-a scientific report not produced by the Opposition and available to the Government. It is one of the reasons why those opposite became dead scared about public reaction to prices. Also, from some of these quotes it is clear that people understand where the blame lies for prices going up. Another respondent says: Our standard of living is dropping, even though people don't really accept it yet. You would think that, with all the experts around, we would never have got into this situation. Keating hasn't got a clue-he was supposed to be the world's greatest Treasurer and then he told us we were in a banana republic . . . that tells us how much he knew about what was really going on. That is the sort of information that is coming through to the Government as well as to the Opposition showing that people are fed to the teeth of living in a country which is supposed to be a resource-rich country. It is supposed to be a well-off country, yet people find that prices in this country are going up at four times the rate of everywhere else-and they are fed to the teeth. Quite rightly, the Government is scared as hell about this because it is frightened that it will pay the price at the polls. But there is another reason for the appointment of this Minister to this farcical position. I will just quote from an article in the Australian newspaper on 3 February. It is headed: `Keating faces the price of unions' co-operation'. Here we have it. This is where the real pressure is coming from. It states: Confronted by union demands for price restraint, the federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, yesterday agreed to look at ways to limit price inflation. The President of the ACTU- again calling the shots- Mr Simon Crean, has said that unless the Government can control prices the trade union movement will not be able to guarantee a continuing commitment to wage restraint. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) knows jolly well that the Government cannot control prices with a magic wand after it has made them go up over a period of three or four years. The Government knows that all the mistakes it made in its Bud- gets in its first two years of office cannot suddenly be reversed by the appointment of a single Minister or the setting up of new statutory machinery. It knew from the very start that it was unable, in the short term, to undo the havoc it had caused with its profligate Budgets of 1983 and 1984. It knew that it was locked in to high prices and high interest rates because of its economic policy failures. Therefore, the only thing it could do was a bit of window dressing to make it look good. The Age newspaper puts its finger on this matter in an editorial on St Patrick's Day when it stated: Union officials and some MPs have spoken of controlling prices as if it were possible for the economy to be legislated back to health and stability. Prices have been looked at in isolation from wages, manufacturing costs, currency fluctuations, government charges, excises and taxes. The article may have added interest rates. It continued: The view has been put around that workers are doing their bit by accepting wage moderation but that employers are not sharing the load. These are potentially dangerous beliefs which misrepresent the function of prices. All that is perfectly well known to the Government; it is perfectly well known to the Treasurer and it is also perfectly well known to the Minister for Science. However the Government had this difficulty. It was trying to get some sort of settlement in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission following the collapse of the accord and, typically, it kowtowed to union pressure by putting up this sham, this nonsense, of pretending to have some effect on prices when the horse had truly bolted from the stable. Let us follow the progress of this mess. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in a speech to the National Press Club on 13 March, said what he was going to do about prices. He stated: The Government's initiative on prices and consumer affairs comprises four main elements: enlargement of the Price Watch network, expansion of the task of the Prices Surveillance Authority- it has no substance yet- establishment of a new Bureau of Consumer Affairs- a new government body- and assignment of a minister to spearhead these new efforts to achieve the lowest possible prices and better consumer protection. What humbug! It is a whole speech with four main initiatives but what do they add up to? They add up to the enlargement of price watch networks-heaven forbid, that is the granny network; expansion of the task of the Prices Surveillance Authority, which has no authority; the establishment of a new Bureau of Consumer Affairs, which will mean more public servants; and the assignment of a Minister assisting everybody else to spearhead, heaven forbid-what a spear; what a head!-these new efforts to achieve the lowest possible prices and better consumer protection. The Prime Minister went on to say, and this is the priceless bit: The final element of today's initiative is the assignment of a minister to supervise these new arrangements. I have decided that Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science, should take on this vital task. Bear in mind that this is economic wartime and here is our new Churchill. The Prime Minister continued: Barry Jones is to be appointed Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices- splendid- and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs. This will give him direct political and public responsibility for the issues covered by the Prices Surveillance Authority and the new Bureau of Consumer Affairs. In effect, Barry will be the Prices Minister, charged with the oversight of the measures I have just announced, to renew the fight for the lowest possible prices and ensure a fair go for consumers. Those were the bold words of the Prime Minister. Only a few days down the line in the Sydney Morning Herald was a headline `Minister for rising prices checks out the supermarkets'. On the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald is a brilliant picture of the Minister and the headline `Meet the Minister for Puffed Wheat'. This is the Minister who is the spearhead of this fight against prices. I had the opportunity of looking at the video tape. If any honourable members missed this opportunity they really ought to go to the Parliamentary Library and look at it. Owing to the wonders of science that have been put forward by this Minister in the past, one is able to view again the spectacle of the Minister on the Sunday program and it was splendid. Let me quote it. Jim Waley, in his introduction, stated: On the surface you couldn't imagine a stranger appointment-a man with one of the country's finest brains, a scientific whiz, a walking encyclopaedia, a man with, I think it's fair to say, little of the common touch, assigned the mundane task of controlling supermarket prices. But that's perhaps the genius of Barry Jones appointment as Minister with responsibility for prices surveillance. The genius of it-heavens above! We know that Dr Frankenstein was thought of as a genius and look at what he produced. Let me continue. The well known Mr Laurie Oakes stated: Well, we're very pleased. Mr Jones, I guess the obvious question is why you. I suggested to the Prime Minister on Friday that your main qualification for this, perhaps, was your well-known ability to talk under wet cement. That's a bit unkind, but isn't there a fair bit of truth in it? The Minister replied: No, not at all. He continued: I have been very impressed by the-I was going to say the Waste Watch Committee, I've got to be careful not to say that-the Price Watch Committee- Mr Downer —It is a great committee. Mr CARLTON —As the honourable member for Mayo says, the Waste Watch Committee is a great committee. Had that Committee not been established one of the pressures for the setting up of this monstrous nonsense would not have been there. That is why the Minister, in a Freudian slip-he had the Waste Watch Committee on his mind; the Government is scared stiff of it, terrorised by Senator Michael Baume, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and his colleagues-- Mr Howard —And the honourable member for Parkes. Mr CARLTON —And the honourable member for Parkes and that is why the Minister made that slip. The Minister continued: . . . if you give somebody $100 and then send them out to get a particular basket of goodies from 300 different outlets in Perth . . . this is where you get the best value. He was explaining the wondrous ways of price watch committees. Laurie Oakes said: Well, that's all very well, but you're going to use pensioners for these price watch committees. The Minister replied: You're going to use citizens. Mr Laurie Oakes stated: I bet the average pensioner would love to see $100, Mr Jones. The Minister replied: No, no, it's not that you give them, it's not that you give them $100 and say: Go away and spend it. It's a matter of saying: If you have $100 to get a particular set of goods, where do you get change out of that $100. Apparently that is what one says to the pensioners. However, Mr Oakes was not to be put off. He stated: But isn't there something just a bit unsavoury about using pensioners to monitor the prices of things that they can't afford to buy? The transcript continues: BARRY JONES: Well I think, first of all, I think it's wrong to target pensioners per se. LAURIE OAKES: Well Mr Hawke did. He specifically mentioned them. BARRY JONES: Well, I didn't write his speech. Helpfully, he then advised the Prime Minister: It might have been better to refer to members of the community as well. I could go on, but what happened? This week day after day in the Parliament, the Opposition has asked questions about rising prices. I asked about the increasing prices of motor cars. I happen to have a copy of Modern Motor from 1983 and the other day I bought another one which gave the current prices. In 1983 the magazine cost me $2 and it cost me $3 this week, a 50 per cent increase. I did not mention that fact out of kindness to the Minister; all I mentioned was the fact that a Ford Laser 1.3L was about $7,000 when we left office and it is about $12,000 now. It has gone up 53 per cent. I ask the Minister: What is he going to do about this increase which is a very basic cost for the average family? A 1.3L Laser is not a Rolls Royce, and the Minister could not answer my question about it. This situation happened two or three times. The next time he was asked a question the Treasurer jumped up like a ferret out of a hole, pushed him aside-the Minister for Science was monumentally embarrassed-and gave us a serve of his usual contemptible and contemptuous abuse. That is all we will get out of this Minister for not being able to answer questions on prices. Every time we ask a question on prices, two Ministers jump up-the Minister for Science and somebody else. Today the Minister miserably explained that he can answer questions on things that really do not matter. It is the other things for which the other Ministers are responsible that he will not be allowed to answer questions on. This Government has a lot to answer for on prices. We want to know and we ask the Minister why prices in Australia have gone up at four times the rate that they have overseas. If it is as a result of the failure of Government economic policy, then what is it the result of? What has caused prices in Australia to go up at 10 per cent, as opposed to 2 per cent everywhere else? Can the Minister answer that question? If he cannot he should not be holding this farcical position and he should resign. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs)(3.20) —This makes two matters of public importance in a single week. I can hardly believe it. As many have been directed towards me this week as over the past four years. But this one was a real featherweight attack. I can understand the sympathy that is being expressed for the shadow Treasurer. It was very hard to regard the attack seriously. It was a bit of personal denigration and a bit of funny play acting. I do not propose to reply in kind. I think the issue is a serious one and I think it is a misuse of the forms of the House to present a completely trivial approach to an important subject. I must say that the last week, since the announcement of my appointment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has been one of the more interesting weeks in my political career but, on balance, I would say one with far more gains than losses. I have had valuable discussions today with the Executive of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations and Mr Jim Priest, and the President of the Australian Pensioners Federation, who have pledged their support for the proposed price watch network. This community-based operation is well on the way. I have also had discussions with all State Ministers for prices matters and/or consumer affairs-Mrs Deirdre Grusovin in New South Wales, Steve Crabb in Victoria, Vince Lester in Queensland, Ian Taylor in Western Australia, Chris Sumner in South Australia and John Beswick from Tasmania. All of them have offered personal co-operation and I will be seeing each of them as soon as possible when I visit all States. I thank them for their courtesy. The only Minister I have not had a chance to speak to yet is Mr Dale from the Northern Territory. Of course, I have had consultations with my colleague the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) who has responsibility for prices in Canberra. I place this stress on the States to underline the fact that the States have constitutional responsibility for prices. The Commonwealth can intervene on prices only in very limited areas. Shopping, of course, is obviously organised on regional or metropolitan bases; it is not organised nationally. I take this opportunity to commend the success of Mr Steve Crabb, the Victorian Minister for Labour, for securing the passage this week of his Grocery Prices Bill, in which he had the support of the National Party of Australia in Victoria. The National Party in Victoria was very happy to do its Liberal colleagues in the eye over this matter and it is particularly interesting that it should do this to its Liberal colleagues in the week of the Central Highlands by-election. The Leader of the Liberal Party Opposition in Victoria, Mr Jeff Kennett, has referred to the National Party as `free enterprise socialists'. So there we are. I hope I can count on the support of the National Party here in the chamber. I have also talked with the Chairperson of the Prices Surveillance Authority, Ms Rolfe; the Trade Practices Commissioner, Mr McComas; and I will meet Mr Justice Paul Stein, the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, on Monday. Mr Reith —What's the relevance of this? Mr BARRY JONES —The relevance of this, of course, is that this is a serious task; it is being addressed with integrity, and I believe it deserves the support and the sympathy of the Opposition. I think the Opposition's capacity to trivialise issues is really beyond all contemplation. But, despite the efforts of the Opposition to reduce the exercise to a level of low farce, I believe that we ought to take it seriously and I believe it can succeed. It is certainly essential to maintaining fairness in the prices and incomes accord. The Opposition needs to lift its game in this area. The new Consumer Affairs Bureau is a sensible consolidation of activities that, until now, have been spread across a number of portfolios. I think it is a great improvement to have the Prices Surveillance Authority and the price watch network under the one umbrella. Because of my long association with consumer affairs, I am looking forward to making a useful contribution in this obviously politically sensitive area. The whole area of prices and consumer affairs, including labelling, packaging and safety, is essential to consumers-the people whom this apology of an Opposition treats with such contempt. Curiously, the Opposition and the people who influence the Opposition in policy simply cannot address the significant issues of pricing. Indeed, I should point out that there is some confusion even within the ranks of the Opposition. The shadow Treasurer complained that price levels in Australia were increasing at a rate four times higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. He complained about it very vigorously. The curious thing, of course, is that, if he had listened to the matter of public importance on Wednesday when the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) spoke, he would have found that the honourable member was at some pains to incorporate in Hansard a table indicating that between 1966 and 1986 the cost of rump steak, eggs, laundry detergent and so on had actually fallen. So the argument made by the shadow Treasurer of prices rising at a uniquely high rate in Australia is obviously something that has been lost on the honourable member for Parkes, who was at some pains to make the following point: Business today is probably more highly competitive and cut throat than it ever was. Profits have been cut to the bone in order to survive. Further, he said: I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows how much prices have dropped, in real terms, in the last 20 years. Mr Reith —Does that mean you deny the relativity of our inflation rate compared with overseas? Mr BARRY JONES —That view is not consistent with what the shadow Minister has been saying. The honourable member also confuses, of course, the matter of price rises and price levels. Although there are certainly disturbing indications of increases in rate-particularly over the last 12 or 18 months, especially since the impact of devaluation has hit-the honourable member does not point out that, while price rises are occurring at a disturbing rate, in a number of areas price levels in Australia are significantly lower than in most OECD countries. Food, fuel, clothing and building materials are lower in price here than in most OECD countries; certainly they are much lower than in West Germany and Japan. Mr Reith —So the rate of inflation is irrelevant, is it? Mr BARRY JONES —The rate is certainly significant, but one would have to say that in a number of areas the base rate of goods is certainly significantly lower than in a number of countries such as Japan where, although one either has a very small rate of increase or, as in the case of West Germany, a negative rate of increase, the actual base price is enormously higher than in Australia. It is very curious to note how anxious some of the conservative forces behind this Opposition are to ignore the question of prices. If one goes through an interesting manual entitled `Mandate to Govern: A Handbook for the next Australian Government', produced by the Australian Institute for Public Policy, it is, I think, impossible to find any reference at all to the word `prices'. Its authors have been so anxious to avoid any reference to prices that this work fails to give the prices and incomes accord its correct name. It is simply called the accord. Under the heading the `Accord and Wages Policy' on pages 8 and 9 there is no reference to the word `price' anywhere. It is as if prices do not come into the matter. But there is no secret of the weight that this Government, and certainly the trade union movement, puts on the need to maintain a level of equity and fairness. Over the last four years the trade unions in this country have shown an extraordinary degree of restraint. I think it would be ridiculous and unfair if that restraint were met with an unacceptably high level of price rise. In my interview with Laurie Oakes last Sunday-I repeat something that I said during the discussion of the matter of public importance on Wednesday-when Laurie Oakes asked me about price levels I started to make a comment but was diverted and did not complete what I meant to say. I remarked that the total percentage of household income devoted to food prices had remained remarkably stable, that over an eight-year period from 1978 to the present the proportion of household income devoted to food had fallen from 14.7 per cent to 14.5 per cent. While that statistic, of course, was correct, I neglected to take the opportunity to point out that what that meant, in effect, was that, while the same proportion of income was spent, the basket of goods that was taken home by the consumer was lighter. Instead of being able to pay for five loaves of bread, one could pay for three loaves of bread; instead of buying five litres of milk, one could buy three litres of milk, and so on. I think that that point, which seemed to feature very heavily in the newspapers on Monday, needed to be made. It is clear that because we lack constitutional power over prices-a power which was refused by the Australian voters twice, in 1946 and 1973-we can rely on our powers to co-ordinate, to work with the States in the area of responsibility that is primarily theirs, and we can inform. I think that this has been the most important role of the Prices Surveillance Authority. The establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority was promised in the prices and incomes accord in 1983. It was enacted in 1984. Since then it has conducted a number of inquiries. Of course, it has the power under the Act, by its use of the corporations power, to freeze prices pending an inquiry. I said the other day that I thought the inquiry into the price of biscuits which was being undertaken could perhaps be postponed as it was not one of the most important areas. I find now that because of the nature of the Act, once a direction has been given and the price freeze mechanism operates, the Minister no longer has any control; it has been passed over to the PSA and the Minister has no responsibility to tell it to change its work program until it has discharged its responsibility. I hope that it can consider the matter of biscuit prices fairly speedily and then consider areas that I regard as being of higher significance, namely, children's clothing and footwear, non-prescription pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, which are areas which, certainly, the consumer organisations have indicated are areas of considerable concern. I think that the information provided through the PSA-the price news information that it circulates-has been important in bringing about a proper recognition of consumer sovereignty. I refer to the time when I brought Ralph Nader to Australia in 1972 with the support of the present Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). The first time I met the Minister was when we brought Nader out on that occasion. Since that time I have always been concerned that the consumer ought to be able to exercise sovereignty, that the consumer should be able to look at what is available and then make a decision based on his or her best judgment. To some extent-I am not sure whether I would necessarily include the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) in this-we in this chamber are all disciples of Adam Smith. Adam Smith, of course, said that market forces ought to determine price, but he was also very careful to say that the proper operation of market forces depended on perfect information. If one does not have perfect information, the consumer lacks the consumer sovereignty and the capacity to make the appropriate decision. What we are attempting to do, and what I believe we will do with the collaboration of the States, the continued work of the Prices Surveillance Authority and the work of the revamped and reorganised Consumer Affairs Bureau, is to restore consumer sovereignty. We will give the consumer the opportunity to find the best place at the best price to exercise his or her purchasing power. This is of particular significance to the people at the lower end of the socioeconomic pyramid-the people to whom, unlike members of this House, a $5 difference in price makes a great deal of difference in terms of their quality of life. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. The time for the debate has also expired. Debate resumed. Mr KENT(Hotham)(3.36) —The Defence White Paper that is presently before the House is the Government's response to the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, known as the Dibb report. The Dibb report was one of the most thorough and intelligent analyses of our defence capabilities ever undertaken. It is now more than 10 years since the 1976 strategic analysis was published. That document also, by the way, recommended in line with the Dibb report and now this White Paper, that Australia should move towards a policy and capability for defence self-reliance. The principal Opposition speaker on defence, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), rejected the Dibb report. He was also critical of the White Paper. This attitude is interesting, particularly in view of the fact that the Dibb Review and the White Paper are based on the need for defence self-reliance for Australia-a need which was expressed in the 1976 strategic analysis, as well as the strategic basis document, and endorsed by all our defence chiefs. The report and the White Paper based on it do not recommend a defence posture which can be described as `fortress Australia'-a description used by the Opposition. Rather, they propose a defence force equipped to deal with threats and emergencies in a radius of well over 2,000 kilometres from our shores. Honourable members opposite have tried in various ways to portray the central objectives of the Dibb report and the White Paper as conflicting with the interest of our allies and our treaty obligations. What utter nonsense and rubbish. The objective of an independent defence capability was clearly accentuated in the Guam Doctrine, which stressed the need for self-reliance for America's allies. There is clearly a continuity of thinking by all our defence experts, and it is a goal which is endorsed by our allies, that is, that self-reliance should be at the centre of Australia's defence force planning. For the first time we have a serious and intelligent report and the Government's decision as expressed in the White Paper is consistent with this goal, but the members of the Opposition reject it. They are still back in the old days when they were in government and when defence planning was non-existent. They remembered defence only at election times and used it as a vote-catching exercise. It was always just before an election that conservative governments announced new defence equipment purchases. It was only at election times that they suddenly realised that our Defence Force existed. They made sabre-rattling speeches which were soon forgotten, not only by the electorate but also by the conservative Government itself. In short, they left Australia's defences nude and exposed. The best example of this is the neglect by the conservatives of our mine-sweeping capacity. I will come back to that point. Let me remind those opposite that we brought forward the Dibb report for debate and discussion not just before an election, as they used to do, but in a climate of calmness last year. Now we as a government are following this with measures which will facilitate the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Dibb report. The report took into account the longstanding and accepted assessment by our strategic analysts that there is no immediate large scale threat to Australia, nor is such a threat likely to develop in the foreseeable future without prior detection by our intelligence giving adequate time for a subsequent preparation of an appropriate defence response. Conservative members, however, often disagree with this assessment of Australia's defence capability and quote the example of Pearl Harbour and the sudden Japanese military expansion in the Second World War. They want us to believe that we would be unable to prepare ourselves in the case of a military threat. They would like us to think that circumstances could develop so quickly that we would not be able to prepare a defence, well, nothing is further from the truth. The military aggression of the Japanese was foreseeable years before it eventuated. All of the signs of war preparation were there, only the conservative government then lacked the political will to do something about it. Thanks to the people of Australia, we now have a Labor Government in office-a Government which has accepted recommendations contained in the Dibb report and which will subsequently be in a position to act and to meet any regional threat which may arise. We will not wait, like the conservatives did, for an enemy to knock on our door. The main recommendations in the Dibb report and those to which the White Paper will give effect include the following: The expansion and acceleration of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar program, which will enable us to obtain intelligence of any impending threat; the establishment of a top secret defence signal directorate, another signal base from which we can receive intelligence which will be located in Western Australia; the establishment of Cockburn Sound as our major submarine base; the retention and modification of our F111 strike force and the use of B707s for in-flight refuelling of FA18s; the improvement of the Army's mobility and the addition of air mobility to our expanded operational deployment force-ODF-which was so sadly neglected under the conservative government. This will require a significant expansion of the Army's helicopter force, a task which we will also undertake. In addition, the report recommended the more efficient use and expansion of our reserve forces as well as the establishment of a regular army unit in the Darwin-Tindal area. These are some of the ways in which we will improve Australia's defence capability and readiness and they are also the recommendations which the right honourable member for New England so hastily rejected. In response all I can say is that under this Labor Government-for the first time in our history-the people living in the north of Australia will be able to feel safe because we will finally have both the will and the forces with which to defend this continent and our region. There will be no more Brisbane lines under our Labor Government. In addition to recommending the construction of eight light patrol frigates in Australia which will be equipped with helicopters and guided missiles, the Dibb report proposed as a matter of priority the development of a mine-clearing capability. This area was so neglected by our conservative predecessors opposite, who concentrated on confrontations with the Russians and the Chinese, who are some 20,000 kilometres away, that they left us without the capacity to clear Sydney Harbour if an enemy decided to mine it. That would wipe out our navy as it is at present, quicker than Sinclair can finish his speech against the Russians. As I said before, the conservative Opposition, which so hastily rejected the Dibb report, has also failed to lend its support to the White Paper which sets out a strategy which will increase our defence self-reliance and independence while at the same time allowing us to have a better equipped and more modern Defence Force. The Indonesian armed forces newspaper, AB, in an article published on 29 April last year, supposedly based on information on the Dibb report, stated: Australia predicts that in the next 10 years Indonesia will have the capability to conduct an invasion of Australia. That is why Australia will develop a new defence system to face the possibility. So Sinclair is not alone. Strange bedfellows! There are two sources of criticism of the Dibb report-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.45) —I wish to relate an unfortunate story of two constituents in my electorate who I believe have been treated very badly by the head office of the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney. The people I am referring to are Mr and Mrs Robert Senior, of `Rusmar', Forbes. In addition to running their Forbes property, this couple some time ago took over the management of a family property at Brewarrina. To be able to finance the upgrading of the property with improved stock, fencing and so on they took out a loan of $170,000 with the local bank there. It was a farm development loan over a term of 15 years. The interest rate of the loan was to be adjusted on a yearly basis and for the first year of this loan was set at 19 per cent. However, last year the bank increased that rate to 20 1/4 per cent, which meant an annual interest repayment, excluding bank charges, of $34,425. Robert Senior happened to be talking to the manager of the State Bank in Forbes one day who said he could finance the same loan for 17 1/4 per cent, some 3 per cent less. Naturally, Mr Senior was grateful to find that competition apparently does exist between banks in this country and he accepted the offer. His annual interest bill would drop to $29,325, a saving of $5,100 a year or almost $100 a week. As the Senior family had been living on only $100 a week themselves, they were grateful for this windfall. The State Bank paid out the original loan to the Commonwealth Bank and all seemed well. However, in the fine print accompanying the terms and conditions of the original loan that the farmer signed with the Commonwealth Bank is a clause which states: In the event of prepayment or partial prepayment of principal to the Bank, the Bank shall at its option be entitled to an early repayment fee not exceeding the equivalent of 3 months interest on the sum so paid . . . I do not have to tell honourable members that the bank applied this full penalty of $8,463, which I believe is a draconian and outrageous impost. Let me stress the point that the bank should be entitled to charge some penalty if it so chooses, as it now has the expense of reallocating that money elsewhere. Possibly $500 or $1,000 would have been a reasonable charge. Alternatively, it could ask for three months notice. However, to hit this struggling farming couple with the full force of the small print clause penalty of almost $8,500 is bordering on being vindictive. All banks and finance companies have penalty clauses in their contracts, but in a ring-around in my electorate I have yet to find one other bank that has ever applied the penalty. The banks usually waive the penalty because of the bad public relations it would cause to apply it. However, all approaches to head office in Sydney to have this case treated in a similar manner have met with stony refusals. I believe that the three-month penalty clause is outdated. It would have been put in contracts years ago when interest rates were only a quarter of what they are now. Today with 20 per cent interest rates the penalty is magnified beyond all reasonable bounds. The practice is clearly outdated and should be amended. In fact, I doubt that such a usury charge would stand up in a court of law. When the penalty is set at this high level it also has the effect of virtually eliminating any competition between banks for clients. More than ever before healthy competition is necessary and desirable. To remove this competition by the use of such a clause in a contract almost borders on collusion. A letter to me from the bank's Sydney head office stated: The option is exercised invariably in cases such as this one where a term loan is being retired from finance from other institutions. Apparently, if a person can pay the loan off himself because he has won Lotto or something the bank will be lenient, but if he has someone else pay it off because he can get a better deal elsewhere, it will invariably screw that person to the limit. From this unpleasant experience, I would advise everyone taking out a loan to discuss very carefully the full implications of such clauses and possibly to insist on having the interpretations delivered in writing. It is of course common for banks to come in for criticism for the high interest rates they charge. They are also criticised for making excess profits. I believe those criticisms are unfair. It is government policy, not the banks, that sets the high interest rates, so it is the Government which should get the blame. Nor are the profits excessive. The main banking groups in Australia such as Westpac Banking Corporation, National Australia Bank Ltd, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation all make annual profits in the order of $300m. That may sound a lot, but it translates into a return on assets of only around one per cent, hardly what I would call a rip-off. We should not be worried that the banks are making profits. Rather we should worry when they do not make profits. People do not realise that, if the banks lent out money and made no profits at all, interest rates would drop only a couple of per cent or so. Squeezing bank profits will not solve the high interest rate problem, but changing government policy, and better still changing the Government, would. In fact, it could be said the banks would make roughly the same profit whether the interest rates were 5 per cent or 25 per cent. From that point of view it is only their margin that we should be concerned about here, and I do not believe that that is excessive. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(3.50) —Late in January one of my constituents received an interesting letter from the Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd-AAMI-which said: Dear Policyholder, In a few weeks your car insurance is due for renewal and regrettably, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are unable to renew your policy with AAMI. Because the rate of theft and volume of claims and repairs have increased to such an extent in certain metropolitan areas of Sydney we can no longer continue to provide the service or competitive rates you expect. Unfortunately, we have no alternative but to recommend that you contact other insurers to arrange cover. The letter adds: We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause and trust you will find an insurer to meet your requirements soon. In short, this company is refusing to write new policies or renew existing ones for drivers residing in the western suburbs of Sydney. I have written to AAMI accusing it of an appalling act of discrimination and one that I believe is unfair and illogical. It is unfair because this company has robbed its existing clients of no claim bonuses of up to 65 per cent and it is illogical because to discriminate on purely geographical grounds-that is, where the vehicle is garaged-takes no account of where the vehicle might be parked during the day or the evening. Even if thefts or accidents occur at a greater rate in the western suburbs of Sydney, the policy is still defective because this company will not cover people who live in the region but drive cars out to work during the day but it will cover people who live outside the area but drive into it to work during the day. Suppose we apply the AAMI logic to some other aspects of the insurance industry-for example, to the insurance of the contents of a home. There was an interesting article on this in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 February of this year which quoted Constable Rick Simpson of the police Crime Prevention Unit who said: Anyone that is known to the community through their success in business is obviously going to be more at risk than one who isn't. Similarly, a high social profile means a person's business is known to a wider circle of people and usually, but not always, a better suburb is going to be a magnet for those seeking to commit a robbery. Clearly the policy holders in the less fashionable west of Sydney are subsidising the premiums of those who live in the north and east, but I have yet to hear of any company refusing to insure home contents on the north shore of Sydney. Let me turn to a second aspect of insurance-that of driver safety. Again I turn to the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 February, in which there is an article headed `Westies beat Double Bay when it comes to belting up'. That article tells us that fewer motorists are bothering to buckle their seat-belts in the suburban centres of Double Bay, Chatswood and Warringah, according to a survey by the National Roads and Motorists Association which found that motorists in the outer western suburb of Blacktown are much more inclined to wear seat-belts than those in Double Bay. I have yet to hear of any proposal to refuse to insure Double Bay drivers or to charge lower premiums to drivers living in Blacktown. Let me go beyond these comparisons to the wider commercial field. Suppose that a bank discovers that its operations have led to a greater incidence of white collar crime in the more fashionable eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney. Using the AAMI logic, it would deny its responsibilities to the entire community and close its eastern and northern branches. Quite clearly this logic is being applied in a very selective way by the company. It is an appalling act of discrimination which has been criticised by the NRMA and by the New South Wales Treasurer and I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to add my condemnation this afternoon. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(3.57) —During the last week the Brisbane Telegraph, in an edi- torial, supported the idea of a `dob in a dole cheat' campaign to help in the fight against social security abuse. The paper threw its weight behind my suggestion that we should look closely at implementing a program along similar lines to the highly successful anti-drug phone-in campaign, Operation Noah. People should now realise that the Federal Government unemployment review teams have uncovered fraud or overpayment in one in every four cases examined. Surely, the Government does not need any further proof that there exists a very clear need for this type of program. In January I stated that I believed that millions of dollars could be saved through such a move. I stand by these comments. The 1,000 payments that have so far been cancelled by the review teams as a result of their investigations have saved the Australian community $34m. This money can now be redirected towards areas of real need. Judging from the backing I have received since first making the suggestion, I am sure that the public would welcome and support the concept. Typical of the response to my suggestion is that of a woman known only as Mrs X. After contacting my office this week she indicated that she would be prepared to name a considerable number of people who were abusing the system if such a scheme were implemented. This lady is only one of a growing number of Australians who are fed up with people abusing the system. The Brisbane Telegraph editorial commented: It is a sign of the change in public outlook that, far from attracting criticism . . . the telephone tale-telling plan has met with widespread support. Mr Tim Fischer —A brilliant Blunt-Slipper idea. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member. The editorial continued: The reaction indicates that there is widespread disenchantment with the amount of tax raised revenue spent on social security pay-outs. I believe that the Government should look immediately at implementing a program along the lines of the Operation Noah exercise. People would be encouraged to report instances of fraud directly to a special hot line number, where trained departmental officers could then investigate on the basis of the information received. The fact is that Labor has failed to adequately come to terms with this rapidly escalating problem. Last year the Department of Social Security paid its 2.8 million clients more than $15 billion. The estimate of fraud and overpayment has been more than $1 billion per annum. Since Labor came to power, it has been estimated, at least $2 billion in fraud and overpayment has gone to social security cheats. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is in the best interests of all taxpayers for the welfare dollar to be spent on those genuinely in need. The problem is that far too much money goes to the greedy and not to the needy. As the newspaper editorial said: The public know that high expenditure on welfare means high taxes. They will welcome a move which can help to cut the number of beneficiaries. I believe that the proposal which I outlined in January and which has received such widespread support from Australians in all walks of life is an efficient, cost-effective method of dealing with an ever-increasing problem. This country is broke. One only has to look at the way in which this Government is spending infinitely more than it is raising and, at what we now owe the world-more than $100 billion-to see that this country is now virtually a Third World country. Many people who have noted my earlier calls for this Operation Noah style phone-in program to be implemented have already contacted my office to convey their support. I have publicised this idea and people are supporting it, but as yet there has not been any positive reaction from the Government. I pledge to this Parliament that I will continue my efforts to have the Federal Labor Government recognise the need to implement a `dob in a dole cheat' campaign to ensure that the problem, which is ever-increasing, is improved and that this country is not paying out money which it cannot afford to people who are not entitled to it. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.59) —Last November I had the honour of leading a delegation of young Australians to the People's Republic of China. The delegation's members were chosen by the Australian Political Exchange Committee on the nomination of the major political parties. The other members of the delegation were: My colleague the honourable member for Bass, Mr Warwick Smith, who very ably performed the duties of deputy leader of the delegation; Ms Cheryl Davenport of the Australian Labor Party; Lynton Crosby of the Liberal Party of Australia; Julian Anderson of the National Party of Australia; Meg Lees of the Australian Democrats; and Sue Whisker from the Australian Political Exchange Committee secretariat. During our 10 days in China the members of the delegation were the guests of the All China Youth Federation. On the evening of our first day in Beijing the President of the All China Youth Federation, Mrs Liu Yandong, hosted a banquet to welcome the Australians, and Mr Li Keqiang, Vice-President of the All China Youth Federation, gave our group a detailed briefing on the Federation's role as the parent body for all youth organisations in China, including the Communist Youth League, the All China Students Federation, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Young Women's Christian Association and the Young Managers Federation. The All China Youth Federation represents 300 million young people and has helped establish new enterprises run by young people and also runs training classes to encourage the use of new and up to date technology. Members of the Federation at the national and provincial levels fill important political roles and have raised issues such as industrial pollution, reafforestation and other important environmental issues. One of the highlights of our visit to China was a meeting with Mr Huang Hua, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, at the Great Hall of the People on 24 November. The delegation received many detailed and informative briefings during its visits to Beijing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, and Shenzen. I wish to place on record this afternoon the gratitude of all members of the Australian delegation to the All China Youth Federation for hosting our visit, to the officials from the government and political bodies, educational institutions, business enterprises and the many other Chinese citizens who were so generous with their time, and also to several staff members of the Australian Embassy who gave assistance to the delegation. I wish to pay particular tribute to the two escorts from the All China Youth Federation who accompanied the delegation during its visit to China-Mr Zhao Fu-cheng and Madam Xia Jihui. I wish to thank them for their friendship and frankness in answering our many questions and for having introduced the Australians to delicacies such as chicken claws and the best bean curd I have ever tasted. On our last evening in China I thanked our hosts for having given the Australians an opportunity to see with their own eyes the impact of one of the greatest historical events of our time. Incredible changes have already been implemented in China since October 1978, such as the introduction of the responsibility system in agriculture, the restructuring of China's economic administration through the open door policy and special economic zones and the modernisation programs. It is one thing to read about these policies, but it is quite another thing to see the impact that they have had-to see a farm on which the responsibility system has been implemented and to see the quality and style of the clothes which people are wearing in the busy streets of a modern Chinese city. Two impressions of China will remain with me for many years. Firstly, I envy the commitment of ordinary Chinese citizens to their country and their willingness to put the national interest first. Secondly, I will not forget a visit to a temple in Guandong Province on a Sunday afternoon. We were approached by young high school students who, on their one day of weekend rest, asked whether they could practise English with the Australians during their tour of the temple. Their keenness is a credit and a tribute to Chinese students and their teachers. I recently had the pleasure again of meeting our host in Guandong Province, Mr Feng Wei Jin, General Manager of the Guandong Youth Travel Service, and I am pleased to see that he is still in good health. Lastly, I wish to thank the other members of the delegation for their personal friendship, sense of humour and dedication during our visit to China. I will certainly count them as close friends for many years to come. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.04) —It is a pleasure to follow my close friend, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). Mr McGauran —Good heavens. Come on. Speak for yourself. Mr SMITH —At this hour of the day I think we can be generous to each other. The honourable member for Dobell led the second only delegation to China, sponsored by the political exchange program. He did it exceptionally well and I know that all members of the delegation would want to thank him for the generous remarks that he has just made about them. He certainly did a good job. We would all be of the opinion that, provided that political fortune continues to smile upon him, he will have a very bright future in this place. Mr Tim Fischer —Is it true that there were seven on the delegation? Mr SMITH —There were seven on the delegation. Before giving a few impressions about China I must join with the honourable member for Dobell in thanking the China Youth Federation and the many people who were involved in putting the program together. It is an exceptionally valuable program. Many honourable members probably do not realise that the program exists. The political exchange program is funded jointly by Parliament, the unions and business. It is a very good, co-operative program which aims to give young parliamentarians such as I the opportunity to consider in depth problems overseas in the hope that we bring back the things we learn, apply them to our everyday political life and hopefully come up with better decisions. That is a commendable aim. The program must be commendable if all major segments of the community fund it. I commend the group's escort officer, Susan Whisker, whom we all found to be exceptionally helpful and efficient in everything she did. She suffered some rather heated political arguments and exchanges at times but it was all taken in good humour. We all benefited very much from her stability in keeping us up to scratch and making sure that we kept to the schedule. The pre-eminent impression with which I walked away from China was one of change, both economic and political. China, led by Mr Deng-who I think is about 82, so old politicians do survive-embarked some years ago on the policy of the four modernisations, the theory being that China should seek economic development consistent with sufficient regard to socialist thought. The policy marked an acceptance that Mao's cultural revolution had failed. The new policy sought a massive modernisation of agriculture, industry, science and defence, accepting that the material well-being and advancement of the people is a good thing. This has meant that the previous strict adherence to socialist dogma has taken second place to the new pragmatism holding sway which reflects a vigorous new emphasis on material well-being. So from a rigid, centrally planned economy based on the Soviet model China, when I was there, was changing direction completely. China wants to catch up and learn and it wants to do that now rather than later. The honourable member for Dobell mentioned the responsibility system so I will not go into it, but it was certainly interesting to see how the Chinese agricultural system had benefited dramatically from the new incentive system and how the system is now being applied to urban businesses. The national productivity figures show that there have been dramatic productivity rises. So, as I said, China is changing. It is moving away from a strict and dogmatic socialist approach, giving way to what China described as a democratic socialist approach, which is certainly interesting. Since we left China there have been student demonstrations. Those who have been following events in China will know that things have changed. One article out of the many I have read recently described this as China `putting on the brakes', the theory being that the reforms which are now taking place are likely to continue and that, provided the reformers can, if you like, survive the winter of discontent which is now being expressed about the reforms which have taken place, China will continue to go down that road. Many lessons for Australia are to be learned. There will also be many opportunities but also long term concerns for Australia because in time we will be competing with China in the Pacific rim markets, which is something we all ought to be aware of. So China is an interesting place to visit. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.09) —Tomorrow, Saturday 21 March, is the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. In 1960 thousands of people who were protesting against the pass law system in South Africa were fired upon by the police. Sixty-nine Africans were killed and 180 were wounded. Among them were women and children. Most of the dead were shot in the back. Since 1916 over 17,745,000 Africans have been arrested or prosecuted under the battery of pass laws and influx control regulations in South Africa. The pass laws have been the main instrument used by the South African Government to police the African population and direct it into places dictated by the whites. It is ironic that the Government has used the pass laws for two almost contradictory needs-firstly, to gain political security by controlling Africans in, or excluding them from, white areas, and secondly, to ensure a supply of cheap labour within those same areas. This apparent contradiction has led to many twists and turns in the complex legislation necessary to balance the white needs for security and labour. Pass laws are at the centre of the legal control system, which includes poll taxes, trespass laws, housing control and citizenship control. Increasing administrative controls are being used, thus effectively bypassing the courts which may have exercised some leniency in the operation of the laws. The network of influx control has caused a widening poverty gap between the urban and rural areas, with poverty and unemployment being exported into the Bantustans which are already grossly overcrowded and poverty stricken. People living in the so-called Bantustan homelands are then forced to look for work in the central economic areas in order to survive which, in turn, leads to new influx control measures. In the words of one black worker: When you are out of a job, you realise that the boss and the government have the power to condemn you to death. If they send you back home (and back home now there's a drought) and you realise you can't get any new job, it's a death sentence. The countryside is pushing you into the cities to survive; the cities are pushing you into the countryside to die. For those honourable members who are interested in the inhumane and savagely repressive effects of the pass laws I recommend a paper entitled `The Imposition of Pass Laws on the African Population in South Africa 1916-1984' by Professor Michael Savage of the University of Capetown, from which I have gathered some of the information that I have given the House in this speech. Of course, it is now being argued that the South African Government is initiating reforms. It is not possible to reform apartheid, which is a system which rejects all the basic principles of freedoms and justice which govern the relationship between human beings. Archbishop Tutu of Capetown said during his recent visit to Australia: Apartheid is a vicious, cruel, immoral, unchristian monster, a Frankenstein. You don't reform a Frankenstein, you destroy it. We want apartheid dismantled. The South African Government has claimed to have abolished the pass laws which, as I have already indicated, were used by the police as a weapon of oppression because, for a black South African, to be without a pass constituted an offence. The so-called abolition of the pass laws does not affect the black people who live in the Bantustans. In consequence, at least nine million blacks will be treated as aliens in their country of birth. The plain fact is that while the Group Areas Act, which provides for racially segregated residential and business areas, continues to exist the system of apartheid will not be seen to have been dismantled. The contravention of this Act is punishable by law. This Act has caused Archbishop Tutu, on his recent visit to La Trobe University, to state: The fundamental policy of our government has been to denationalise black South Africans, to deprive them of their South African citizenship, turning them into aliens in the land of their birth, giving them the spurious citizenship of Bantustan `Homelands', whose independence is recognised only by South Africa and her satellites. Meanwhile, the violence against black people in South Africa continues. In a statement to the South African Parliament earlier this month, Mr Adriaan Vlok, the Law and Order Minister, admitted that 83 people died in police custody. Right wing whites have also been carrying out their own reign of terror against the black people in a series of violent attacks which frequently result in death for innocent black bystanders. In many cases the police have failed to act promptly or effectively when complaints have been laid. The fiftieth annual survey of the South African Institute of Race Relations paints a grim picture of a nation isolated and a society deeply divided. The survey for 1985 contains a significant section devoted to security force action. Let me give a sample: 763 adults and juveniles were killed by the security forces in both civil and political disturbances, 16 policemen were killed in political violence, 2,571 civilians were injured in security force actions and 7,966 people were detained under emergency powers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.14) —I rise to pay tribute to a great Australian, the late William Adolphus Chaffey, who died a fortnight ago. Mr Chaffey was a member of the New South Wales Parliament for 33 years. Prior to his being elected to parliament, his father, the late Captain Frank Chaffey, was a member of the New South Wales Parliament for 27 years. This means that the Chaffey family has given 60 years of service to the New South Wales Parliament. Both father and son represented the Tamworth electorate. It was my privilege to serve with Bill Chaffey in the Parliament for approximately 10 years. He resigned in 1973 and Mr Noel Park became the member for Tamworth. I want to speak about Mr Chaffey because he was a great Australian who was greatly respected by not only the population of his electorate but also the people of New South Wales, particularly the farming community. Bill Chaffey served the electorate not only as its member but also as Minister for Agriculture from 1965 to 1968. Over time he will be renowned for the progress he brought to the State, particularly to the dairying industry and in the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales, and for the many issues upon which he made decisions. Bill Chaffey was a man who had great respect for God, Queen and country. I can recall many instances over the years when he talked to the younger generation who came along to see the Parliament in operation. The Country Party, as it was then called, resided in what was known as the `Old Richmond Cottage'. We lived there as a family. William Charles Wentworth, I believe, was born in Old Richmond Cottage. Many times I have seen Bill Chaffey take not only the children but also adults around the cottage to point out the various aspects of the place. He served Australia during the last World War. He served in Papua New Guinea. He was twice mentioned in the despatches and was awarded the American Bronze Medal. I believe that he was a member of the Z special task force that served in the South East Asia area during the War. Bill Chaffey is a person who I feel possessed a great sense of humour. He was able to get along with people very well and he always impressed me with how easily he was able to sum up a situation. On many occasions I asked Bill to pass an opinion about certain problems. I succeeded him later on as the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales and, the day after I was sworn in, he came to see me to congratulate me and offer assistance. I sought his advice on many occasions. He could sum up a situation in a simple way with very few words. On many occasions he spoke about the first farm in Australia which was at Sydney Harbour. A monument exists today to the first establishment that Governor Phillip established. Bill Chaffey spoke to children about this with great faith in the agricultural scene in Australia. He was trusted by the people of Australia. He remarked to me: `If I can walk the main streets of the town and can look people in the eye when I complete my parliamentary service, I will be a very happy person'. I am sure that he succeeded in doing that after such a long and outstanding service to the people of his elec- torate. I convey to Mrs Chaffey and the family my sincere respects. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.19) —I join my colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) in his tribute to the former member for Tamworth, Bill Chaffey. I too served with him for a period in the New South Wales Parliament. He used to have a fair bit to say about Lloyd George on occasions, and about things of which he dreamed. He also made a very effective contribution to the community, as did his successor, Mr Noel Park, the current member for Tamworth. I had not expected to speak in the adjournment debate today, but a vacancy occurred on the adjournment debate list. I apologise to the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) as I will be referring to his grievance debate speech of yesterday. I sent a message to him a few minutes ago in order that he will be aware of this fact. He is not in the House at the moment. He may have left for the airport, so I will tailor my remarks according to the customs of this House. I have to point out to the House that the honourable member for Hunter made a rambling contribution of some 10 minutes when he spoke during the grievance day debate. He talked about the current political situation. He talked about some of his delineated concerns and reflected on the factionalism in the Opposition and elsewhere. He failed to refer at any stage to some of the more fundamental problems which I think ought to worry him as the member representing the marginal seat of Hunter. He failed to refer to such problems as the high burden of interest rates, the impact of those interest rates on small business and on primary producers and the impact of Australia's massive gross overseas debt which has now built up to $101 billion. It is a chilling fact that a large proportion of that build-up has occurred over the last four years under the Hawke Labor Government when the Federal Government component of that $101 billion debt figure has jumped from $14 billion to some $41 billion. I would have thought that in these tremendously difficult economic times, especially in the electorate of Hunter and the rural sector of the economy, some more important matters such as these might have been referred to. Rather, the honourable member made a speech in which he chose to invent a whole lot of names relating to various factions in the Opposition. I am pleased that the honourable member for Hunter did get my message to come into the chamber because now that he is here I am able to proceed under full throttle. In all of his references to factions and the like, he forgot to dwell on the series of meetings that have been going on around the corridors of this Parliament all week trying to retrieve the situation of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) who is seeking retrospective preselection. The honourable member for Bowman sits quite near the honourable member for Hunter. The honourable member for Hunter has been aware of these meetings. He has been aware of the veiled threats that the honourable member for Bowman might resign from the House if his request for retrospective preselection is not granted. With this in mind, one would have thought that he might in fact have been more evenhanded in his approach to this issue of factions because clearly the three key factions of the Government are absolutely at each other's throats in relation to the preselection associated with the honourable member for Bowman. The honourable member for Hunter referred in particular to a number of my visits to the electorate of Hunter. I have made a number of visits. I make no apology for the fact that I am a particularly active shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I like to meet veterans around Australia as much as possible and to discuss with them their problems and concerns. I have only to draw the attention of the honourable member for Hunter to the fact that no less an authority than the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) acknowledged in the Senate earlier this session that I am a very active shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The honourable member's criticisms of that activity tend to reflect on his own Minister. Of course, I do not remain silent on veterans' issues such as cutbacks and changes. I moved quickly to highlight a number of concerns over the Australian War Memorial. I highlighted the fact that the Liberal and National parties set up the modern Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are very proud of the creation of that Department and the work that is being done by it. It follows that we would not support any move which would cut across the proper structure of government for veterans who fought for their country in time of war. So I think the whole contribution of the honourable member for Hunter should be placed in perspective. I know that he is terrified of John Turner, the National Party candidate for the seat of Hunter. The honourable member referred to him a couple of times directly in the speech he made yesterday. Of course, he is terrified because in fact that same John Turner will be the next member for Hunter in this Parliament. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.24) —I am delighted that I have the opportunity to come into the House to reply to some of the nonsense which has been spoken by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I remember that when I spoke yesterday I said that the honourable member for Farrer had constantly in this chamber-and particularly when he had visited my electorate-`spewed spurious nonsense'. This afternoon he elected to come here and do what he is well known for-spewing spurious nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that within my electorate I am highly regarded as a very conscientious and hardworking member. I know each part of my electorate intimately. I get sick and tired of people coming to me and informing me of their very great fears caused by the one penchant of the honourable member for Farrer-his delight in trying to scare the pants off people and causing unnecessary worry and concern. Any man who would want to do this to veterans who have served their country so magnificently is deserving of nothing but contempt. When representatives of the National Party of Australia and Liberal leaders come to my electorate all they can do is run around talking doom and gloom. Interestingly enough, when I go and talk to some of the rural producers, I say to them: `I imagine that you are greatly perturbed about high interest rates'. This might surprise the honourable member for Farrer, but they say to me: `Well, we are not. We have total equity in our property. My great-grandfather or grandfather started this farm and, because we are lenders rather than borrowers, interest rates are not affecting us'. That surprises me. Some people have problems with interest rates because they do not have a high equity in their properties or because they have over-borrowed to acquire or expand the property, but there are not a great number of them. Whenever I have spoken in this chamber I have always been very courteous and cordial. I elect to follow the example of a man whom the honourable member for Farrer could take some example from. I know that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) is a rag-tag type who believes in abuse and in trying to pour scorn on everyone, but his Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), comes into the electorate and speaks very kindly of the Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin). The honourable member for Gwydir is fair and recognises some of the difficulties that have been encountered in the Hunter electorate. In the uppermost region of my electorate, around Merriwa, where people grow wheat, there are serious problems. But the truth about the rural economy is that the dairying, beef and horticultural product industries are doing very well in the Hunter electorate. All the rural producers are doing reasonably well, except those who grow wheat in the Merriwa region, and I have considerable sympathy for them. It astounded me to go to a meeting of the Cessnock sub-branch of the Returned Services League and read an absolutely nonsensical letter from the honourable member for Farrer which stated that people should be most concerned at this Hawke socialist Government because we intend to make the Department of Veterans' Affairs disappear. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.29 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 20 March 1987: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Proposals for collection of information-1987- No. 1-Services industries surveys. No. 2-Survey of wholesale trade, 1986-87. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4836) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) How many overseas academics were appointed as (a) contract or (b) tenured academic staff by universities in Australia in each year since 1980 and to which faculties were they appointed. (2) Are the salaries paid to overseas appointees comparable to those paid to Australian appointees. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Data on the number of overseas academics taking up contract appointments in Australia are not currently collected by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (b) The table below shows appointments by previous position held on full-time university teaching-and- research staff at Australian universities during the years ending 30 April 1982-86. Comparable data for 1980-81 are not available. The data do not include appointments of research only academic staff. About 22 per cent of the total new appointments for the past five years have involved people from overseas: 7 per cent were Australian citizens returning to Australia and 15 per cent were citizens of other countries. CTEC does not currently collect data on the citizenship of academics already working in Australia who were appointed to full-time tenured positions and I am unable to inform the House on the proportion of these who are not Australian citizens. CTEC is giving consideration to collecting such data. Data is not readily available on an annual basis with respect to the faculties to which overseas academics were appointed. UNIVERSITY FULL-TIME TENURED TEACHING-AND-RESEARCH STAFF APPOINTMENTS, 1982 TO 1986 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Appointments by previous position held in: Australia- Academic- Tenured- Other Australian University ... 30 16 28 37 73 College of Advanced Education ... 13 3 9 16 18 Untenured- Same University ... 67 69 152 118 129 Other Australian University ... 18 13 37 46 48 College of Advanced Education ... 2 2 1 4 4 Other- Same University ... . . . . . . . . 21 Commonwealth, State or Local government instrumentality ... 16 12 19 41 29 Private industry ... 10 11 19 18 13 Other ... 44 30 22 22 16 Overseas- Australian citizenship ... 16 22 26 24 31 Other citizenship ... 51 34 40 54 66 Overseas appointments of other nationals as a % of total appointments ... 19% 16% 11% 14% 15% Total Appointments ... 267 212 353 380 448 (2) Salary scales for all academic staff in universities and colleges of advanced education are recommended or determined by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Commonwealth funding for institutions is provided on the basis that all institutions abide by these recommendations or determinations. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the salaries paid to overseas appointees are not comparable to those paid to Australian appointees. (Question No. 5038) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: How many instances of (a) spondylosis, (b) spondylolises, (c) spondylolisthesis, (d) haemorrhoids, (e) vericocele, (f) degenerative condition of spine and (g) strain of lumbo sacral spine have been accepted as service related disabilities in World War II veterans. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: Unfortunately the information you have requested is not readily accessible from the Department's records. All the disabilities accepted as war-caused in World War II veterans are not recorded on the Department's computer files. Further, where war-caused disabilities are recorded on the Department's computerised Client Data Base, these are in narrative form on an individual client basis. With the exception of Vietnam Veterans, the disabilities are not encoded to enable automatic analysis of the type you have requested. (Question No. 5132) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) Is he able to say how many drug raids have been made in Queensland by: (a) Australian Federal Police; and (b) Queensland Police. (2) How many of the successful drug operations involved: (a) marihuana; and (b) heroin, cocaine or other hard drugs. Mr Young —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) There is uncertainty as to the specific meaning of the term `drug raid'. Information on drug seizures in Queensland held by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) includes all seizures made under Commonwealth law, including those by the Australian Customs Service. The AFP does not hold information relating to the number of Queensland Police drug seizures. This is a matter which should be raised with the Queensland Minister for Police. AFP records show: 174 seizures in 1985, 116 seizures in 1986. (2) (a) 120 seizures in 1985, 77 seizures in 1986. These figures include seizures of cannabis, cannabis resin, cannabis seeds and cannabis oil. (b)- 1985 1986 Heroin... 42 20 Cocaine... 4 3 Other prohibited substances... 10 *14 Total... 56 37 * Two of these seizures are awaiting analysis. There is a difference between the total number of seizures of various drugs and the total number of seizures for the year. This is due to the fact that some seizures comprised more than one type of drug and, on analysis, some substances seized were found not to be prohibited.