Tuesday, 31 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to Australia's inflation rate. Is it a fact that Australia's annual inflation rate equalled or was lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average in four of the last five years of the Fraser Government? Is it also a fact that Australia's annual inflation rate has exceeded the OECD average in each and every year of the Hawke Government with the current differential the worst in over 25 years? How does the Prime Minister explain this severe deterioration in Australia's relative inflation performance under his Government? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition is a tiger for punishment. The facts again are quite simple. We remind the Leader of the Opposition of the performance of this Government in relation to the situation that was handed to us by him. I remind the House that his economic management, without the benefit of any adverse external economic circumstance, produced an inflation rate when he left the office of Treasurer of 11.2 per cent. We attacked that problem in the terms that I set out yesterday and reduced that to a rate of 5 per cent per annum, which brought the Australian inflation rate down to a position which was comparable with what was happening overseas. Certainly, we were entitled to expect, as a result of the policies that we brought in, that there would be a further improvement of the Australian inflation rate compared with that operating overseas. What the Leader of the Opposition, for reasons which quite escape me, refuses to understand is that this country has had imposed upon it externally a massive decline in the terms of trade with an associated very significant depreciation in the Australian dollar. I have given the House the dimension of that impact upon Australia. I put it in aggregate terms, in terms of a $6 billion loss of income. In terms of Australian families, that is equivalent to a loss per family of about $1,500 per annum. Whether the Leader of the Opposition understands these things or not, it is interesting to see-and it is a sad commentary upon the Leader of the Opposition that one has to say this-that the Premier of Queensland has a better understanding of the operation of economic forces than does the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Ronald Edwards —Oh, no! Mr HAWKE —The honourable member says: `Oh, no!'. I will quote from last week's Bulletin. It is fantastic that the Premier of Queensland should be showing a better understanding of basic economic forces than does the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is going on as though nothing has happened overseas. He thinks that we can just bring inflation down when we have lost the value in our Australian dollar by such a massive amount; that we can just automatically bring interest rates down. It is somewhat refreshing in this circumstance to remind the House of a passage in last week's issue of the Bulletin from a fascinating interview with the Premier of Queensland. The Premier said: There is no short cut to putting interest rates down . . . you have to stabilise the economy-- This comment was made of him: And despite the impression given to rallies in Canberra last year and Wagga this year, he now has this warning for the farmer: I ask honourable members to compare this quote from the Premier of Queensland with the nonsense from opposite. He said: You can't force interest rates down arbitrarily. You can't do that because it would be a disaster. There is the Premier of Queensland displaying an understanding of economics which shows up the Leader of the Opposition with all these nonsensical questions about inflation rates and interest rates which ignore what has been imposed upon us from overseas. It is no wonder that some people are still talking seriously about displacing this economic illiterate with the learned gentleman from Queensland-- Mr Beale —Learned gentleman? Mr HAWKE —That is by comparison, of course. Mr DUBOIS —Has the Minister for Community Services seen a report that medical rehabilitation services in New South Wales will suffer because of his Department's policy of regionalising rehabilitation services? Is there any truth in this report? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for St George that I did see a segment on this subject on the 7.30 Report last night and, to say the least, the segment was distorted. I understand the term used in the United Kingdom is `Pilgerised' and that term is now becoming increasingly used in Australia. I was not contacted for comment in spite of being the responsible Minister. I was given an assurance that my office was not contacted for any comment by me whatsoever. The whole segment, which was very poorly edited, left those who know the situation with the realisation that here was another occasion when a good story was not to be spoilt by the facts. The situation is this: Medical rehabilitation facilities are part of the health and hospital responsibilities of State governments. State government services will far better administer medical rehabilitation than will the Commonwealth. It will be far more efficient when it is part of total State health and hospital systems. Negotiations are taking place for that to happen. Already South Australia has purchased the St Margarets Rehabilitation Centre in Adelaide and will be continuing to operate the head injuries unit and the other vital parts of medical rehabilitation. In New South Wales the Government has purchased the Queen Elizabeth II centre at Camperdown and we are confidently expecting that the Government will follow what is happening in South Australia. Meantime, our Government has given an assurance-I repeat that assurance today-that no vacuum of services in this medical rehabilitation area will be allowed. We will make sure that adequate medical services are maintained until more satisfactory alternative arrangements are negotiated with the States. Our policy of handing over medical rehabilitation to the area where it can be better administered has allowed us to improve vastly the other vocational rehabilitation services across Australia. Our smaller regional units helping the disabled are being placed to provide services nearer to the people who need them. We are able to provide a wider range of services and to cater for many more people than have hitherto been catered for. This is part of our Government's improvements to the caring Australian society which the other side does not want to hear about. That caring Australian society is under terrible and vicious attack from the conservative parties of this country with their $15 billion cut in government spending credibility gap. Mr MILES —I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that during the last five years of the Fraser Government the dependent spouse rebate for families with dependent children almost doubled, from $555 to $1,030, a real increase of 16 per cent. Is it a fact that this Government has not increased this specific tax relief to families at all, resulting in a 23 per cent real decrease in the value of the family tax assistance? Is it also a fact that the Government has not increased the level of family allowances at all, resulting in a real decrease of over 20 per cent, and has restricted the eligibility for this family assistance? Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, this question from the honourable member for-where is he from? Madam SPEAKER —Braddon. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Braddon. Mr Howard —Aren't you clever! Mr HAWKE —One cannot say that he is a very prominent member of the House. He is an honourable member, but not a prominent one. The question from the honourable member relating to aspects of family policy is consistent with the sort of nonsense that has come from this Opposition for several years now. Opposition members bleat that they are the party that is concerned with the family. They operate upon the assumption that the Australian family lives in some vacuum, or lives on Mars. Let us consider the realities of the treatment of Australian families by the mob opposite and by the Australian Labor Party in government. Let us consider the factors which determine the welfare of Australian families. I suggest that predominantly what will affect the welfare of Australian families is whether they have a better chance of getting a job. What was the performance of the Opposition in government in terms of providing employment opportunities for members of Australian families? I will tell honourable members what it was. In their last 12 months in government they threw another quarter of a million Australians-honourable members must remember that they were members of families-on to the unemployment scrapheap. Let us contrast that contribution-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Allowing for the latitude that is given to the Prime Minister, the question is about tax. It is about families. It is not about employment. It is about the effect on families of the Government's tax policies or absence of them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is answering the question. Mr HAWKE —So that was the contribution of the former Government in the first major area affecting families-employment opportunities. Another quarter of a million people were thrown on the unemployment scrapheap. What have we done? We promised in February-March 1983 that we would provide another half a million jobs in three years. What did the Opposition do? It went around this country and it went overseas saying that was nonsense, that the Government could not do it. Opposition members know what the truth is. We provided more than half a million new jobs in well under three years. After four years in office, we have created three quarters of a million new jobs, which is more than double what the former Government provided in seven years. In terms of the welfare of Australian families let us look next at education, which is also significant. What did the former Government do? When it left office what was the retention rate for kids-the members of Australian families? It was one of the worst in the Western world. Only 36 per cent of Australian kids stayed on in school beyond the compulsory age. By the end of this year, under this Government, which has a real concern for the real issues which determine the welfare of families, that retention rate will be over 50 per cent. What has been the level of real increase in funding in the primary and secondary education areas? This is where Australian families have the fundamental welfare of their kids determined. What has happened in education? The record of this Government is a 4.5 per cent real increase per annum in funds for education in our four years in office, way in excess of what the former Government did. It talked about families but in the fundamental area which affected their welfare it did nothing. In the area of tertiary education what was the former Government's performance in its last four years in office? How many additional places did it provide in tertiary institutions for the kids of Australia? Mr MacKellar —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. As well as the point of relevance which has already been raised about the question being about family allowances and the dependent spouse rebate, I draw your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister has now been speaking for five minutes. I ask you to ask him to bring his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —The question was a fairly broad one taking in the family. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Either the Opposition takes the question of families seriously or it does not. What was its performance in the area of places in tertiary education? In its last four years in government it provided the grand additional total of another 8,000 places. That was the former Government's performance in its last four years. In our four years-against the former Government's 8,000-we have provided 37,000 additional places. We have talked about employment and education. What did the Opposition do in the other areas? In every area of fundamental importance for the families of this country our record is something of which we can be proud and against which we stand in stark contrast to the Opposition's neglect of Australian families. When this Government targets the limited resources of the Commonwealth Government into the areas of education and job creation, it cannot just keep dipping into a limitless exchequer-having created a job creation scheme and having had a 4.5 per cent per annum increase in real terms for education-and saying: `Oh, yes, we have another great stack of money here. We will pour all that in, in an undifferentiated way, into the family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate'. This Government has tackled the essentials which go to the welfare of Australian families. We have exercised responsible budgetary constraint. We have brought the Budget deficit down from 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 1 1/2 per cent. In doing that, we have created the circumstances where we have been able to do these things. If the Opposition wants to have an argument in this country about the relative performance of its parties on the real things that determine the welfare of Australia's families, against our performance, we will have that debate any time and we will wipe the floor with the Opposition. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: What has been the reaction of industry groups, banks and permanent building societies to the Government's housing package as announced by the Minister last night? Have they conveyed support of the package to the Government? Mr WEST —I am pleased to report to the House that the package has been very well received-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The Minister was asked about the reaction of banks and building societies. The Minister should be asked about matters of policy within his portfolio. That is the way in which the ruling has been in the past, Madam Speaker, and that is the way in which the ruling should be now. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will answer the question. I find the question in order. The Minister has been asked to comment on matters which come within his responsibility. Mr WEST —I am pleased to report to the House that the package as announced last night by the Treasurer and me has been extremely well received, and all significant industry organisations have conveyed their support to the Government. I am particularly encouraged by the attitude of two private savings banks-the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd-both of which said publicly that they should be able to maintain the 15 1/2 per cent deregulated housing industry rate and also sustain lending levels. I am encouraged by the support from permanent building societies across Australia and from organisations such as the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association. Prominent trade unions in the industry have offered their support and so have the State Ministers of at least three States. I am particularly encouraged by this reaction. The House will recall that the package ceases the subsidy to the banks and retains the 13.5 per cent ceiling on loans made before April 1986. There are also changes to the savings banks reserve asset ratio, which will allow them flexibility in lending up to $900m. This should support bank lending for housing and enable the banks to maintain very high levels of new loan approvals for 1987-88. The decision to lift the income limits for the first home owners scheme has been particularly well received. So too has been the decision to maintain funding of public housing to the extent of $700m in 1987-88, an offer which will continue for the following two years. The States are very supportive of the decision to nominate up to 60 per cent of the loan component of the State government borrowing program for public housing at the concessional interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent. Public housing funding at that level is exceptionally good news for the pensioners and low income earners of Australia. It is essential that funding continue for capital expenditure on public housing because 90 per cent of the current placements in public housing are eligible for the rental rebate. Of the total current placements, 20 per cent are going to pensioners, 40 per cent to single parent families and 40 per cent to low income families. Our commitment to public housing is extremely warranted and well timed because it gives the elements of continuity and certainty that the States desire for their programs. Compare this policy of continuity and certainty of funding to public housing with that put forward by the Opposition spokesman to terminate Federal Government public housing funding in this country. His is a heartless policy, a confused policy and a duplicitous policy because at the same time as honourable members opposite complain about the numbers on the public housing waiting lists they are talking about terminating the funding of public housing. The policy of this Government on public housing, and right across the whole housing area, offers stability. I want to give this message straight to the people of Australia-not to the non-members of the Opposition front bench, those stupefied people who just sit there and make comments about our policy when they have no policy themselves to offer but to terminate Federal Government public housing funding: This Opposition would terminate funding for public housing; but we will continue it. Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr WEST —Our policy offers stability, it offers encouragement to industry-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will resume his seat. I think he is getting carried away by his own eloquence. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. In accordance with the precedent you established on 12 February 1986 when you directed `The Prime Minister will finish his answer'-a precedent you fortified yesterday-I ask that you direct the Minister to come to the end of his answer because of its length. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. I was under the impression that the Minister had reached a crescendo. Mr WEST —This is a worthwhile crescendo to finish on: These people opposite would terminate public housing funding by the Federal Government. We have a commitment to continue it. So our policy offers stability and a humane response to those who suffer housing-related poverty in this country. Mr TUCKEY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I remind him that it is a question asked on behalf of Australia's 625,000 desperate small businesses, who are entitled to a rational answer. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that a typical small business which in 1983 required an overdraft facility of $100,000 to operate now requires an overdraft of $140,000 to accommodate the inflationary effect on the value of its stock. What is the Prime Minister's explanation to the thousands of such typical small business proprietors throughout Australia who have seen interest rates on their overdraft increase from 13.5 per cent to 19 per cent under this Government-which has, by the way, resulted in an increase in loan repayments of $1,250 a month, whilst competing overseas employers have seen their interest rates generally halved? Mr HAWKE —I refer again to the fact that it is surprising but unfortunately true that the level of ignorance on the Opposition side about economic forces is such that it exceeds the understanding of the Premier of Queensland. I repeat what the Premier of Queensland said-- Mr Ian Cameron —Oh! Mr HAWKE —Well, one has to say this about the Premier of Queensland: He knows more about economics than the Leader of the Opposition, certainly the honourable member for O'Connor and any of this mob opposite that the honourable member for Maranoa is so disillusioned with. I can understand why the honourable member for Maranoa wants to get rid of them and bring Sir Joh in. He knows more about economics than they do. It is amazing, but he does. I repeat to the honourable member what his friend the Premier of Queensland said. I suggest that when the Premier of Queensland goes over to Western Australia-as he is, to throw the honourable member for O'Connor out and replace him with a representative of the National Party so that we will have a National Party member for O'Connor and not this irrelevancy-he read out to the current member for O'Connor what he said in the Bulletin. I remind this House again of what he said: You cannot force interest rates down arbitrarily. You cannot do that because it would be a disaster. Will the honourable member for Maranoa tell the Premier of Queensland when he is campaigning against the honourable member for O'Connor to replace him with a member of the National Party just to give him a lesson in basic economics? The honourable member might also remind the Premier of Queensland to make the point, when he is throwing out the honourable member for O'Connor and replacing him with a National Party member, of the ignominious, inglorious economic performance of the coalition when it was in government. Under the coalition in government we had higher interest rates than have ever occurred under this Government. Tell Joh to tell that to the honourable member for O'Connor when he is campaigning against him. I give the honourable member for Maranoa the information to give to the Premier to use against the honourable member for O'Connor because Joh is right-they are losers, and they are losers because they understand nothing about economics. The honourable member should get the Premier to say this about what happened to interest rates under the coalition: I remind him that in April 1982 90-day bank bills reached 22 per cent. He should tell Joh to use that in O'Connor in his campaign against the present member. I also remind him to tell the Premier that that 22 per cent was 2 per cent higher than any point reached under this Government. That is why the Premier is right in saying that they are losers. Ninety day-bank bills reached 22 per cent, 2 per cent higher than under this Government. I remind the honourable member for Maranoa, when he takes the message to the Premier to use against the honourable member for O'Connor, that the 10-year long term Commonwealth bond rate hit 16.4 per cent, which was more than one percentage point higher than at any time under this Government. In other words, he should take to the Premier of Queensland for his campaign against the honourable member for O'Connor that under the failed coalition-the born losers John Howard and Ian Sinclair- interest rates were higher than at any time under this Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will-- Mr HAWKE —Yes, the Leader of the Opposition and-- Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will address the members by their-- Mr HAWKE —I said the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HAWKE —Under their failed leadership interest rates were higher than at any time under this Government. That is why the Premier is right. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor of the sorts of things that this Government has done as specific assistance for the financial and taxation problems of small business. The imputation legislation brought in by the Treasurer will be of very great significance to small business, as will the decision in regard to Division 7 tax. When one looks at the relative performance of these born losers opposite-the failed coalition and the record interest rates under it-I believe that, like the rest of Australia, the small business sector will be making the sensible decision and saying that not only can leaders of the coalition not keep themselves in order but they are also hopeless economic managers and the small business sector will never again trust the economic management of this country to such a mob of failures and born losers as the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is addressed to the Treasurer and it concerns the shopping list of proposals for reductions in government revenue. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the effect on Australia's economic performance of a reduction of Commonwealth revenues by $21.5 billion? Mr KEATING —As I have said on a number of occasions in this Parliament, it is a continuing requirement of Commonwealth policy that there should be a diminution of public sector demands upon financial markets to free up funds and resources to go into the import competing and export sectors of this country. If we are to deal with the problem of our current account imbalance, we have to lift our exports-and diminish our imports-and lift our import competing performance by putting more economic resources into those sectors. Hence, any grab for funds by the Commonwealth Government or an increase in its call upon Australian savings would only slow down that fundamental change which is now taking place in the economy. On a number of occasions, I have instanced the tax expenditure commitments of the Leader of the Opposition. The National Party Conference on the weekend carried resolutions from its agenda booklet which I have here that are quite interesting. These tax expenditure commitments are as follows: Increasing family assistance to the family by full income splitting-$2.85 billion; child care rebates costing $115m; repealing the assets test-$160m; repealing the tax on lump sum superannuation-$85m; freezing wages-a $500m cost to revenue; 25 per cent flat tax with a threshold-$7,500m; increasing the dependent spouse rebate from $830 to $4,000 and the dependent child rebate from $200 to $2,000-$2,500m; abolishing the capital gains tax-$25m; abolishing fringe benefits tax and substantiation-$900m; abolishing quarantining of negative gearing-$100m; abolishing the financial institutions duty-I presume it means the bank accounts debits tax-$300m; abolishing the prescribed payments system-$850m, even though it was introduced in the first place by a coalition government; and the removal of the indirect taxing cost on fuel instanced by the Deputy Leader of the National Party-$5.6 billion. That comes to $21 1/2 billion. We have seen the whole process of electoral bribes in this country being lifted to an art form by the Liberal Party and now by the National Party. But what is interesting about the National Party is that it obviously hopes to dominate a coalition government in the way in which Sir John McEwen was able to dominate coalition governments in the late 1960s and very early 1970s. When Sir Robert Sparkes decides to pull the plug on the 12 Queensland Nationals who will leave the National Party and the coalition, we will see a National Party presence in any coalition government. Sir Robert made it clear in his comments in the Press this week that he saw his role as lifting the power and influence of the National Party in any coalition government. These decisions are not from the extremists associated with Sir Joh because the moderates supposedly dominated this particular conference which proposed $21 billion worth of tax expenditure commitments. That is on top of the $16 billion which the Leader of the Opposition has paraded on his own commitments. What we are seeing from the Liberal Party is total fiscal irresponsibility. What we are now seeing from the National Party is even greater fiscal irresponsibility. If Sir Robert Sparkes get his clutch upon a coalition government he would wipe the floor with the honourable member for Bennelong and with the honourable member for Kooyong, if he were to displace him. He understands where the weakness is and he is determined-as he thinks the Queensland Nationals run a decent political machine-to put his stamp on a future coalition government. If that is the best we can expect-$21 billion on tax expenditure commitments and $16 billion from the former Treasurer-God help fiscal policy and this country. Mr Howard —Sit down, Goebbels. Mr Barry Jones —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I find the term of abuse-Goebbels-applied to the Treasurer quite unacceptable. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule it as unparliamentary and ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —I did not hear the comment. If the comment has been used I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr Howard —I withdraw the description of the Treasurer, but it happens to be true. Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member withdrawing that comment also? Mr Howard —I regret that lapse and I withdraw it. Mr KEATING —We excuse his lapses because he is under pressure. We understand. The Government is the only party in this country that looks to bring down an economic policy which is complementary to Australia's current economic conditions and that means reducing the call of public sector funds upon the budgets of this country. That is not the policy of the Opposition. It is a disgrace that parties not so long ago in government should be associated with policies of this dimension and impact. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer has been speaking for six minutes on a matter of irrelevance. I ask you to ask him to bring his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr KEATING —I conclude on this note: These kinds of electoral bribes would blow our interest rates into the 30 per cent category and damn Australia to a recession from which it would take a decade to emerge. Mr McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. I ask: Is the Minister aware that a company called Jaggard Coins (Aust) Pty Ltd had a contract to market mint coin sets? Is he also aware that Jaggard Coins was selling these sets, with a face value of $1.88, for $5.50? Is he further aware that the Government has allowed the contract to lapse and is now marketing the coins itself? Will the Minister confirm that their sale price has been marked up by 76 per cent and they are now marketed at $9.70 a set? In view of the Government's professed concern on prices, what is the Minister's explanation for this excessive price increase? Mr BARRY JONES —It may reflect the very notable and encouraging appreciation of the Australian coinage that has been picked up on the money markets overseas. I am not aware of the particular case to which the honourable member refers. I will seek some information and provide it to the honourable member as soon as I have it. Mr MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Are there any adverse effects for patients of nursing homes in the preferred package of new funding arrangements announced by the Minister today? Mr HURFORD —No, the preferred package of funding and other new arrangements I have announced today for discussion with the industry, the States and, indeed, all interested parties does not adversely affect patients. On the contrary, the package will, as I will show in a moment, benefit many patients. The patient's contribution to the total fee charged by nursing homes continues to be controlled by the Government. No patient will be required to pay more under this package than he or she is paying at present. The government benefit which is part of the nursing home fee will be altered gently over time. No longer will that government benefit be open-ended; no longer will it be on a cost plus basis, as it has been hitherto for one class of nursing home; and no longer will it be deficit funded as it has been hitherto for another class of nursing home. I will take the opportunity briefly to tell the House that our government benefit is being calculated with reference to two elements. One element relates to the cost of nursing and personal care staffing. The more intense staffing there is, the more reimbursement there will be from the Government, as hitherto. Until standards have been negotiated with the States, each nursing home will be reimbursed this coming year as it has been in the past on its own individual assessment by my Department. So there will be no change to that element. The other element relates to the other administrative costs, the infrastructure costs. In that package for discussion we have set a figure of $27.65 per resident day. That figure is equal to or greater than the infrastructure costs of 65 per cent of all nursing homes. With the other 35 per cent the phase-in or adjustment will be gentle. Only a handful of homes will get less in money terms in this coming financial year than they are receiving in this financial year. Among the other 65 per cent of homes which will get more in the coming financial year, the vast majority will be able to set about improving their standards of care. In summarising, the result of this package-- Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the second occasion during Question Time today that we have had a Minister stand up and read from prepared notes. In this particular example, the information was supplied to members this morning. This is an abuse of Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Mr HURFORD —Even if the honourable member for Flinders is not interested in this subject, there are many members who are interested in the subject. I have already said in this short answer-- Mr Reith —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If he would read my correspondence, he would know of my interest. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member did not even have the call. Mr HURFORD —I have already said in this short answer that I am summarising and I want to summarise the package as follows. Firstly, there will be greater opportunities for efficiency and flexibility on the part of proprietors and managers of nursing homes; secondly, less public-- Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The traditional practice of this place has been that when policy announcements are to be made, they should not be made by way of answers to questions without notice. This is demonstrably a policy statement. I suggest to you that the Minister is out of order and should be making the announcement he is now making by way of a ministerial statement. Madam SPEAKER —The question was in order and the answer is in order. Mr HURFORD —The second way of summarising this package is to say that there will be less public servant involvement in the books of individual homes. Last, but not least, there will be far more concentration on the standard of care for the many thousands of people who are in nursing homes. If the Opposition is not interested in a caring society, certainly we in the Government are. Mr Downer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order about relevance. What the Minister is doing, in his own words, is summarising the package. The question related to whether there would be any negative effects from this package. I would humbly submit that if answers are not to be relevant to the questions, Question Time will be reduced to a farce. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair found the Minister in order. Mr HURFORD —I am happy to explain to the honourable member for Mayo, because it is necessary to do so in single syllable words, for his edification, that what I have had to say so far goes to this: There are no adverse effects for patients in this package. That was the question asked by the honourable member for Macarthur, the question I am happy to answer. In summary, there are only benefits in the standard of care for many of the patients of nursing homes. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Groom. Mr Young —The Leader! Mr McVEIGH —Madam Speaker, I think you should protect me, otherwise I will report government members to Sir Robert and Sir Joh. My question without notice is directed to the friend of Sir Joh, the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the workfare program currently operating in 39 of the 50 American states, and which is under serious consideration by the Thatcher Government, whereby social security payments to the unemployed are cut if they refuse to undergo some form of community employment or training? Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the introduction of a similar program in the light of our increasing welfare bill? Mr HAWKE —I have noticed some discussion in the Press about programs in the United States. I must confess that I did not hear the precise title of the scheme. Mr McVeigh —Workfare. Mr HAWKE —I have seen reference to this in the Press. I have seen also some memoranda which refer to this scheme. But let me make it quite clear to the honourable member that we on this side of the House reject the concept of a compulsory work scheme. Mr Connolly —You wanted it last year. Mr HAWKE —I must say to the honourable member that he cannot have it both ways. The fact is that if we were to establish a compulsory work scheme we would require a totally new layer of bureaucracy to administer it and the calculations are that it would cost about $700m a year. The Government, through my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, has established a community volunteer program after very extensive consultations with voluntary organisations in the community. The idea, which I think the honourable member would agree with, is that we want to get as many voluntary organisations as possible in the community to provide opportunities for doing valuable community work which will be made available to the unemployed. That would make sense both from the community's point of view and, most significantly, from the point of view of the unemployed themselves because the survey that we have undertaken of attitudes, particularly of young people, has found that overwhelmingly the young unemployed say that they would prefer to be in a situation where they could do something of value for the community rather than having the totally negative relationship with the community of taking the dole cheque. We believe that that is an admir- able attitude on their part. We have certainly received from community organisations in Australia a great deal of positive, constructive co-operation. It is my belief that when this program gets under way it will encompass the idea that is in the honourable member's mind-that is, that there should be something done by the unemployed where there is not normal work available. That is what is in the honourable member's mind. That idea makes sense. It certainly makes sense from the point of view of the young unemployed themselves. What we are trying to do is match the desire of the young people themselves with the attitude of community organisations. We believe that what we are doing will be successful and that it makes more social and certainly more economic sense to approach this matter in that way. I do not believe that we can begin to justify the creation of a new bureaucratic framework costing $700m to do something that, in any event, would not work. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for Trade inform the House of the implications for Australia of the current trade dispute between the United States of America and Japan over semiconductor markets? Mr DAWKINS —Australia is concerned about the developing friction between the United States and Japan, the origin of which was the bringing into effect of an arrangement in September last year involving trade in semiconductors. The United States was concerned about the dumping of semiconductors in the United States and as a result of this arrangement Japan agreed to monitor not only the export prices of semiconductors but also a wide range of products in which they are used. The arrangement also involved monitoring the prices of semiconductors being exported to other nominated countries. As well, it provided that Japan should open its market up especially for semiconductors coming from the United States. The United States is now complaining that the Japanese have not been able to prevent the dumping of Japanese semiconductors in third markets. As a consequence, it has threatened that as from 17 April a wide range of new tariffs will be introduced on trade worth some $300m a year involving data processing machines and other equipment in which semiconductors are used. This question has been of some concern to a number of countries and it has been raised in the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-GATT. The major concern of other countries is that this arrangement seems to divide world markets between Japan and the United States of America in a way which would, of course, affect competition in those markets. There is also the suggestion that it would lead to price rises in other markets. This would be a matter of concern to Australia as well as to other countries because of our heavy reliance on imports of semiconductors and goods which contain semiconductors, and it would of course increase the costs for semiconductor consuming industries within Australia. There was also the fear that this arrangement could have led to preferential treatment being given to the United States in terms of access to the Japanese market. As I said, this would be of concern to Australian industry. We do rely on imports of these goods. The Prime Minister has been making a lot of allusions to the Premier of Queensland. I might just mention that at the time we decided sand mining at Shelburne Bay would not proceed, the Premier of Queensland said that this would prevent the development of a silica chip industry in Australia. He seems to think that making silica chips is rather like making potato chips. The other point is that this action has wide implications for the world trading system. Consultations are going on in the context of the GATT and Australia, with our Ambassador to the GATT, as Chairman of the GATT Council, involved in trying to bring the parties together in order to resolve the impasse. In the context of the reform of the world trading system, which Australia is pursuing along with other countries, this kind of deterioration in the trading system is of concern to us. I warn those who have a lingering attachment to bilateral deals as a solution to global trading problems that this incident shows how quickly matters can get out of hand. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 30 March 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Australian Telecommunications Commission vehicle fleet management. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 30 March 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Australian Telecommunications Commission vehicle fleet management, and (2) That the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation report to Parliament for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Aboriginal Development Commission for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HUNT —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HUNT —The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in answer to a question, claimed that the cost of the policy commitment instanced by the Deputy Leader of the National Party to abandon fuel excise would be such and such. He was misquoting me from a speech I made over the weekend. I would like to demonstrate the point of misrepresentation by reading from the speech I delivered. I stated: Most of our competing nations have not intercepted the falls in world oil prices by raking off increased revenue and have passed the benefit on to their consumers and industry. The Industries Assistance Commission highlighted the idiocy of taxing fuel to the extent we do in its report on petroleum products. For example, the National Farmers Federation recently made the point that if fuel excise was dropped totally inflation would be reduced by 5 to 6 per cent . . . It would require an expenditure cut of $5.6 billion to compensate for the loss of revenue. I was instancing the idea of the National Farmers Federation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —In an otherwise excellent article by Anne Davies in the Australian Financial Review of Friday 27 March last, two statements appear which misrepresent me by purporting to cast doubt on the veracity and accuracy of my statements the previous day with respect to the criminal conspiracy to tape illegally the Kennett-Peacock telephone conversation. Firstly, Telecom Australia's claim that it would be possible to obtain a tape of the quality in this case by using a $299 Dick Smith scanner is contrary to the expert advice given to me by a senior officer of Telecom on Wednesday 25 March last. Secondly, the commencements of Telecom with respect to transmission areas are not consistent with the expert advice given to me by a senior officer of Telecom on Wednesday 25 March last. I have the utmost confidence in the expert opinion of Mr Richard Jennings. He served with Scotland Yard for 14 years, with British intelligence for three years, with the United States Federal Bureau of Intelligence on attachment for three years-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not need to give references. He should tell the House where he has been misrepresented. Mr HODGMAN —I am about to conclude, Madam Speaker. Mr Jennings now heads Websters Corporate Security, a company which has operated in Sydney for over 46 years. Finally, he and I are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal Kennett-Peacock tape was not obtained by means of a $299 Dick Smith scanner and the Australian Federal Police investigation will prove that we are correct. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Denison that that was not strictly a personal explanation. I gave him some indulgence. The Chair will not continue to give this type of indulgence to what is not a misrepresentation. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEALE —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BEALE —Twice in answer to a question today in the House the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) referred to the fact that I, as the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, had prepared the housing and construction policy of the Liberal and National parties. He said twice that `it would terminate public housing funding'. I read from that policy: Consistent with its view that the States are the most appropriate authorities to identify and manage public housing requirements, the next Liberal/National Party Government will terminate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and absorb the funds into the financial assistance grants to the States. It is quite clear from the policy that the Minister has grossly misrepresented me. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. He will now not debate the issue. Mr BEALE —He has grossly misrepresented me in that we would terminate the Agreement but we would not stop funding for public housing to the States. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not continue. He will resume his seat. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, Madam Speaker. I speak on behalf of all my Tasmanian colleagues-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will speak on his own behalf and on behalf of no one else. He will show the Chair how he personally has been misrepresented. Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly, Madam Speaker. A sticker is being circularised throughout Australia by a Federal candidate. One was received by me and I noted that it misses off Tasmania. I ask the Speaker to communicate with this candidate to make-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the consultations on the National Agenda for Women. I seek leave to make a brief statement on the report. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —In November 1985, I made a statement in the Parliament outlining the Government's preliminary thinking on the content of a national agenda for women. The Government decided to develop a national agenda to ensure that efforts made to improve the status of women during the United Nations Decade for Women, which ran from 1976 to 1985, were continued. The National Agenda will provide a basis for government action to further the status of women as we move towards the year 2000. In my statement, I put forward a number of proposals on ways in which the Government might help ensure the full and equal participation of women in Australian society. I announced some important policy initiatives, such as the introduction of affirmative action legislation to guarantee fair and equal opportunity for women in the paid work force and the development of a national women's health policy. I also pointed to areas where obstacles or prejudices still discourage or inhibit women from participating in society to the full, and where the Government believed that further action was warranted. At the same time, I invited Australian women to have a say in the development of the National Agenda for Women. An extensive series of consultations with women all around Australia and in all walks of life was conducted last year, led by the Minister Assisting me on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, with the assistance of the National Women's Consultative Council. It is with much pleasure that I today present to the Parliament the report on these consultations. Its title-`Setting the Agenda'-is evidence that the Government is committed to taking into account the views women in Australia have put forward in the development of the Agenda. I would first like to place on record my thanks to those women who took part in the consultations. It is estimated that more than 25,000 women participated in the process, through completing a questionnaire, taking part in meetings and conferences or making submissions themselves or on behalf of women's organisations. Substantial agreement on the importance of several issues, particularly the need for equality of opportunity, showed that many major concerns are common to a large number of women in Australia. I would now like to point to the major concerns and priorities identified during the consultations. The importance attributed to education for women and girls commonly centred on its role in providing choice about future vocations or occupations. In June last year, an interim national policy and plan of action for the education of women and girls was endorsed by all States and Territories, with the exception-would you believe-of Queensland. When finalised, the national policy will provide a focus and a framework for future action on the education of women and girls by Commonwealth and State authorities. The need for post-school transitional training to facilitate the entry of young women into the paid work force and for retraining opportunities for women to gain new skills or to update their vocational knowledge were identified as areas requiring further attention. Issues associated with women's participation in the paid work force were mentioned in most of the submissions or reports of meetings which were received, and women responding to the questionnaire identified work related matters as among the more important issues on the draft agenda. These issues included the continued prevalence of occupational segregation, employment conditions, such as working hours and leave provisions, and the particular difficulties faced by women who combine full time paid work with caring for a family. Now that the affirmative action legislation is in place, women can expect to face fewer obstacles to achieving their full potential in their working lives. As a result of that legislation, higher education institutions and the larger private sector organisations will systematically examine their employment practices to identify and remove explicit or hidden elements which can limit women's opportunities for employment or promotion. It was apparent that most women work in the home caring for their families from time to time throughout their lives, most often for periods when their children are young. The status and image of women who work full time in the home emerged as a significant area of concern. Many women felt that the value of the contribution made by them to the family and the community is not sufficiently recognised, and that they often suffer from poor self-esteem and isolation. The extent and importance of women's voluntary work in the community and in caring for the aged and disabled was also highlighted during the consultations. Not surprisingly, child care emerged as one of the most important issues for the agenda. Women commented on the availability of child care, the variety of care available and the costs of care. The Government is proud of its efforts to increase substantially the availability of child care places, which have more than doubled over the last four years. But clearly much still needs to be done. Questions related to income security were a primary focus of many submissions. Common concerns related to the number of families and women who live in poverty, the question of maintenance payments, the financial position of single and dual income families with children, family allowances and the discrimination against women evident in certain superannuation arrangements. The Government is now considering the findings of the Social Security Review, which has to date focused on financial assistance to families with children, including sole parent families. Last week, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) announced the Government's plans concerning the establishment of new arrangements for child support payments by non-custodial parents. These measures will improve the financial circumstances of many sole parent families. Violence against women and children emerged as a priority concern for women. The increased funding which the Government has provided for women's refuges since it has been in office has enabled more women to leave violent domestic situations and to go with the children to a safe place. Last year, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the Australian Capital Territory Domestic Violence Ordinance 1986 and related legislation to provide greater protection for the victims of domestic violence-who are women as well as children-in the Australian Capital Territory. Similar legislation has also been introduced in a number of the States. The way in which many advertisements continue to portray women in an unrealistic manner was highlighted, as was the still apparent tendency for women's achievements to be down-played or overlooked by the news media. A number of participants maintained that a preventive and holistic approach to women's health was a cornerstone to achieving overall improvement for women's health in their various stages of life. Much comment focused on aspects of women's reproductive health, on childbirth and on child nurturing. Other concerns included occupational health and safety and aspects of women's mental health. Access to appropriate and affordable housing was a priority concern for many women, particularly those who are sole parents, who are on low incomes and who are old. It is also a priority of this Government, which has provided an increased level of funding to enable State housing authorities to increase their stock of public housing. There was widespread recognition of the needs of groups of women who often face additional disadvantages in relation to their participation in society. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women from non-English speaking backgrounds, women with a disability, sole parents, young women, older women and women living in rural or remote areas have special needs and face additional difficulties in obtaining access to services or in participating to the full in all spheres of activity. Other issues raised included the importance of consultation and the level of women's participation in decision making in all spheres of activity. The National Agenda consultations have demonstrated the enormous contribution that women themselves can make to the development of appropriate policies and programs. Through the National Women's Consultative Council and other consultative processes, we will ensure that the effective communication channels between government and women in the community are maintained. It is clear from this very brief summary of the concerns raised during the consultations that Australian women are looking to government to continue and enhance its efforts to provide an environment in which their status and levels of participation can grow. The National Agenda for Women will be the foundation on which policies to realise these expectations will be planned and built up to the year 2000. When I made my parliamentary statement in November 1985, I was pleased to note that the Opposition substantially agreed with the direction of the Government's thinking for future action to advance the status of women in Australia. The vote in this House on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill last week, however, has obviously called into doubt the Opposition's commitment in this very important area. The Liberal Party, in casting off the work which its then spokesman, Senator Peter Baume, helped to initiate, shows how the dictates of political opportunities guide its actions. It is my sincere hope, however, and doubtless that of the majority of Australian women, that we can once again secure the high level of bipartisanship that the National Agenda for Women truly deserves. Work towards finalising the Agenda is well advanced, and I will be announcing it later this year. I commend the report on the consultations to the House. It is indeed a fair and detailed representation of the mainstream of views of many thousands of our fellow citizens and as such it stands in marked contrast to the extremism which on this and other issues threatens to engulf members opposite. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I would like to welcome the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and say that in very large measure the Opposition shares the analysis of the document that has been presented to the Parliament by him. I particularly welcome in his statement the identification of areas of concern that have emerged from the consultations involving some 25,000 women in relation to which the document he tabled contains a summary. I find it particularly interesting that on page 2 of his statement the Prime Minister says: Issues associated with women's participation in the paid work force were mentioned in most of the submissions or reports of meetings which were received, and women responding to the questionnaire identified work related matters as among the more important issues on the draft agenda. It does not surprise the Opposition that the Prime Minister should have identified that; nor, indeed, does it surprise the Opposition that later on the Prime Minister should have said: It was apparent that most women work in the home caring for their families from time to time throughout their lives, most often for periods when their children are young. The status and image of women who work full time in the home emerged as a significant area of concern. Many women felt that the value of the contribution made by them to the family and the community is not sufficiently recognised, and that they often suffer from poor self-esteem and isolation. The extent and importance of women's voluntary work in the community and in caring for the aged and disabled was also highlighted during the consultations. Those two excerpts from the Prime Minister's remarks, in my view, highlight the two major areas for action to improve in a pragmatic way, as distinct from a cosmetic or symbolic way, the status of women in our community. The most common complaint I and honourable members opposite have heard in relation to the opportunities available to women who want to re-enter the work force is about our antiquated industrial relations system. The Government can produce all the glossy reports under the sun and the Prime Minister can beat his chest as much as he likes about the commitment of his Party to the equality of the status of women, but until the Government improves massively the opportunities for permanent part time work it will not really strike a significant blow for women in our community who want to re-enter the work force and also do justice to their ongoing family obligations. That is the single most important practical step that can be taken towards helping women who want to do justice to their family obligations and who wish to resume some kind of career. I say with every good will towards the Government that a more modern, a more contemporary, a less regulated industrial relations system that provides greater opportunities for permanent part time work is the key because the great bulk of mainstream women who want to re-enter the work force, but who at the same time want to do the right thing by their families, complain repeatedly that opportunities for part time work are not available. I certainly share the Prime Minister's concern about women who from time to time feel that their efforts in the home are not properly recognised by the rest of the community and who suffer from low self-esteem and isolation. That gives me the opportunity to highlight the commitment of the Liberal and National parties to a taxation policy-more details of which will be available shortly-which contains a bias towards families with dependent children. This society needs a taxation system and an industrial relations system which give to Australian women no less than to Australian men a choice to remain, without any condemnation or loss of self-esteem, as full time permanent homemakers, to pursue a career, or to try to combine both elements. What is lacking in our industrial relations system and in our taxation system is sufficient incentive and encouragement for that to occur. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to all honourable members that if there were a little less chest beating with glossy reports, and a little more commitment to pragmatic action on those two fronts, we would do a great deal more to contribute in a practical way to meeting the aspirations of the mainstream of women in the Australian community. Frankly, they are not interested in these symbolic debates about whether the pace of change has been great enough or whether it has been too great; they are interested in intelligent, practical, helpful government policies which remove the obstacles that prevent them combining their obligations as homemakers and, on many occasions, as members of the work force. There are only two other things I would like to say about the Prime Minister's statement. The first is not to let pass without comment the Prime Minister's comments towards the end of his speech about the attitude of the Opposition to the legislation that was debated in this Parliament last week. I repeat what was said on that occasion by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown): We voted against the legislation because it significantly departed from the principles contained in the earlier legislation which attracted our support. It was the introduction of pseudo-quotas, the application of the legislation to independent contractors, and the departure in other respects from the principles that underlay the Bill that was passed last year that led us to take the attitude we did. I repeat to the House and to the public that when the Government indicates its willingness to accept our amendments we will be ready to vote for the legislation in its amended form. The Government has no credibility at all in asserting either here or anywhere else in the community that because we were unprepared to support the Bill in the form in which it passed this House that represents the Opposition of either the Liberal or National parties to the concept of equality of opportunity in the Australian community. The concept of equality of opportunity is demonstrated and supported by pragmatic action. It is not supported by high sounding phrases. I say to those opposite and I say in particular to the Prime Minister that if he believes that his credentials on equality of opportunity are as good as ours, let him examine his industrial relations policy, let him go and talk to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, let him get the ACTU to remove its historic objection to permanent part time work, let him get the ACTU to take a more innovative attitude to industrial practices, let him get the ACTU to remove some of the barriers that prevent women re-entering the part time work force and let him look at what his taxation policies have done to single income families in the time that he has been Prime Minister. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) at Question Time reminded him that under the Hawke-Keating stewardship he has the proud achievement that the principal form of assistance to what used to be called the typical Australian family-that is, one breadwinner with dependent children and the other breadwinner at home-has declined more sharply than any other section of the Australian community. I say to the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) that if he happens to be out on the campaign trail over the next couple of months and if any of his colleagues in marginal seats happen to be there I can promise him and his colleagues in all those other marginal seats around the country that they will be hearing a great deal from the Opposition about what their Prime Minister and their Treasurer (Mr Keating) have not done over the last four years to help the typical battling Australian family. They will hear a great deal from us about the fact that the Government has left the spouse rebate unadjusted-its real value has declined by 16 per cent; they will hear a great deal from us about how the real value of the family allowance has declined by 20 per cent; they will hear a great deal from us about that same family-there are tens of thousands of families in the electorates of Barton and Herbert-- Mr Lindsay —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 85. I foreshadow that a motion will be moved that the honourable member be not further heard if he is to continue with the tedious repetition in his statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Leave has been granted. Mr HOWARD —I know that holders of marginal seats on the Government side of the benches are very sensitive about the decline in family living standards under the leadership of their Prime Minister. We have had a very good demonstration. But we have just had a 10-minute speech from the Prime Minister in which he has carried on about the status of women. He has paraded himself as an Australian political leader who is interested in the lives and aspirations of ordinary Australian women and he is concerned about the contribution that they are making as members of families. I am saying to him that I share most of the stated aspirations set out in his statement. I have no argument with much of what he has said. I welcome his statement on behalf of the Opposition. I corrected his monstrous distortion of the Liberal Party's attitude towards equality of opportunity, but I also take the opportunity of saying to him, and I will say it again-the honourable member may feel that this is tedious, but he will hear a lot of it over the next few weeks and months until the end of the year-that what the Government and the Prime Minister have done through their tax and industrial relations policies to the living standards of ordinary Australian families is absolutely notorious. Those things are important. I say to those opposite that taxation issues and industrial relations issues are far more important to the aspirations of Australian women than any of these glossy publications. Whilst the exercise may have been worth while and whilst I support the Government soliciting and obtaining the views of some 25,000 women, much of this document is filled with self-congratulation on the Government's policies and programs and too little of the substance of the document is devoted to addressing pragmatically the concerns of women. I simply say again that if Government members are really serious about the aspirations of women in middle Australia, they should look at the impact of taxation policies on single income families over the past four years. They should look at the decline of $30 to $40 a week in the living standards and after tax take-home pay of a family with one breadwinner in the western suburbs of Sydney trying to support a wife at home with some young children. They should look at that and address the lack of opportunities for migrant and other women to get part time work and at the same time do the right thing by their children. A little less pious lecturing and chest-beating by honourable members opposite and glossy publications and a little more addressing of problems pragmatically through the taxation and industrial relations systems and they will strike far more realistic blows for the role and status of women in middle Australia than any of this nonsense. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott,Mr Staples and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation. (Electron beam, X-ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that 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 and 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 sheweth 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 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. by Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. 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,Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensions and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government. 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. 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 respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects 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 Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights. That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education. That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate. That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the assets test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The education funding cuts released in the 1986 Federal Budget will severely affect the standard of education in South Australia. 2. Computer education will suffer at a time when computers and technology have a high priority in our schools and the work force. 3. There will be reduced advisory services and resources in areas in which a large number of beginning teachers and staff in their first promotion position are employed. 4. There will be no improvement in class sizes. 5. Existing subject choices for students will not be guaranteed. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore all Federal education funding to the levels of funding existing prior to the 1986 Budget. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government determined in its budget of 1986/87 to close the Launceston office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and whereas the closure of that office has led to a diminution of the services available to the people of Northern Tasmania by the Department, the following residents of Australia urge the Federal Government to re-open the Launceston Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because of the valuable service provided to the community by the office prior to its closure. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully sheweth: That we Australian young people wish to grow up without the threat of nuclear war hanging over us, now and in the future. President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) which will have weapons systems in outer space, represents a new and most serious danger to the whole world. It will step up the arms race and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict at a time when the reduction of armaments is the most important thing for all of us. We believe that the `Star Wars' project will waste billions of dollars on the unnecessary militarisation of outer space which could be better used for the peaceful exploration of outer space and for the solution of humanity's pressing problems on earth. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House publicly condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. 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 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 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 US Government 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens respectfully requests that your Honourable House will: Ensure that, as well as continuing, at every opportunity, to protest to the Government of France against the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, most urgent protest is made against the proposed testing in French possessions to the south and west of Australia from which any escaped radioactive material would be carried over this continent by prevailing winds. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectively showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia deplore the decision by the Federal government to amalgamate the SBS with the ABC. At present there is no guarantee that the principles of multicultural broadcasting will be maintained at any level of the ABC administration. An independent and strong SBS should be retained. And we therefore humbly pray that the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS be opposed. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: According to the Senate Select Committee report 1 million sheep have died during export to the Middle East in the last 5 years. At least 2% die on each voyage, in addition to the large numbers which may die as a result of particularly adverse conditions, for example 40,000 due to fire, 15,000 due to cold at Portland and 15,000 recently due to humidity near Jedda. Beyond the mortality figures, all sheep endure the stress of the voyage and the cruelty of halal slaughter (which has recently been banned in Britain). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should accept the findings of the Senate Select Committee. In particular: 1. to phase out the live sheep export trade over 5 years and to substitute for it a refrigerated sheepmeat trade, 2. in the interim, to give the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the welfare of export sheep in Australia, including the power to stop abuses, 3. in the interim, to implement the Senate Select Committee's recommendations regarding the improvement of current conditions and husbandry practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. The Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 Administrative Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume 1, p. 98) is a regressive step for the education system; That the introduction of an Administrative Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administrative 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 1986-87, 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. Assent reported. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr E. C. Cameron be discharged from attendance on the House Committee, and that, in his place, Mr Halverson be appointed a member of the Committee. 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 total failure of the Government's economic policies, causing record interest rates, rising prices and falling living standards. 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)(3.32) —It is said time and time again by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the Opposition does not bring economic debate into this House. Like so much of the organised campaign of misrepresentation that has been used by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to cast a smokescreen over their own activities, that is absolute nonsense. Any look at Hansard over the last two or three years will show time and time again in matters of public importance, in Appropriation debates, in Budget debates and in questions that the basic economic issues that face this country have been raised by the Opposition in this chamber. Time and time again there has been an abject failure on the part of the Government through the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to meet those demands by the Opposition for satisfactory economic performance and to respond to the specific proposals that we have put forward. Today, again, we have the Treasurer failing to appear in the House to respond to this matter of economic importance: The total failure of the Government's economic policies, causing record interest rates, rising prices and falling living standards. This is at the very heart of economic debate. It is at the very heart of the issues the Treasurer says we do not raise. When we do raise them in the House he is not here to respond. He sends an assistant Minister to do so. Today that Minister is not the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones). It is the Minister for signing the fringe benefits tax letters to all those who continue to complain about the fringe benefits tax-the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford). I almost do not need to make the case that I was going to make today because the Prime Minister yesterday in the House admitted the main problem. On page 1669 of Hansard the Prime Minister of Australia, in response to a question from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), is reported as saying: Of course I acknowledge that there has been a fall in living standards. So, when questioned about the fall in living standards under this Government, the Prime Minister acknowledged that that was the case. We are not worried about all the complicated bits that make up economic policy. The test of any economic policy is whether or not it brings about an improvement in the living standards of all Australians. Therefore, we have a very clear idea, after four years of Hawke-Keating government, of how the Government's economic policies have affected the ordinary Australian family. One only has to apply that simple test. If we look at the indicators of living standards, it is quite clear that, by any examination, the results of the Hawke-Keating economic policies are disastrous for the average Australian family, which at the moment are facing higher prices, higher interest rates and higher taxes. Australian families are paying more in rent for houses and they are paying more for their health care. They are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Let us have a look at some specific examples of what is faced by the average family. A typical basket of food to feed the family cost $80 in 1983. The price of that basket of food has gone up to $105 now. That is an increase of 31 per cent. The price of a modest car-for this purpose I have taken the price of the bottom of the line model Ford Laser-was $7,500 in 1983. One could save this amount of money within a reasonable time. That cost has gone up from $7,500 to $12,200. Mr Hunt —How much? Mr CARLTON —It has gone up to $12,200. So there has been an increase of 63 per cent in the cost of a modest family car. The other day I pointed out in the House that the price of a haircut had gone up not 10 per cent, not 15 per cent, not 30 per cent but 54 per cent. The cost of a haircut in a saloon in Sydney has gone up from $6.50 in 1983 to $10 today. What about home interest rates? At the time of the last election home interest rates were 11 1/2 per cent. The standard rate on a savings bank loan now, if one can get a loan, is 15 1/2 per cent. Repayments have gone up from $508 a month to $660 a month. What family, without receiving major wage increases-which families have not had-can pay an extra $152 a month without it really hurting? And, by God, it is hurting. What about rents? Over the last 12 months alone, the rent for a home in Sydney-and it is jolly difficult to find a home to rent because of this Government's policies-has gone up from $214 to $267, an increase of $53 a week in one year. Of course, if one cannot buy or rent a home, one can apply to the Housing Commission. Under the Hawke Government the queues for Housing Commission homes have gone up from 124,000 to 158,000. What about health care? Many families want basic private health cover because they do not want to join the queues in public hospitals under Medicare. Before Medicare this cost them $9.66 a week after the tax rebate was taken into account. That amount is now $14.30 a week, an increase of 48 per cent since this Government came to power. What about taxation? I ask honourable members to look at the weekly tax bill for a family with two dependent children on average weekly earnings. This is a stunner. The weekly tax for that family in 1983 was $57.94. Do honourable members know what it is now? It is $106.19. The amount has gone up by over $50. That is unbelievable. Overall, families in Australia are $31 a week worse off, even after adjustments are made for inflation, as a result of Hawke-Keating policies. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister had to admit in the House yesterday that standards of living under his Government had fallen. The person who is mainly to blame for all this is the person who ought to be sitting in the dock on the other side of the table-not the assistant Minister but the Treasurer, the person who is fundamentally responsible for all of this, the person who has brought in four Budgets, the person who has nailed his colours to the mast of certain economic policies. This Government, in order to overcome the criticisms that it has had in respect of economic policy, in order to try to dodge the verdict of this House, has tried to bring into the House a whole pattern of misrepresentation. The Treasurer has come into the House with two big excuses, both of which I am going to tackle in depth here today. The first excuse of the Treasurer is: `We inherited a $9.6 billion deficit from the previous Government'. Mr Robert Brown —True. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Charlton says that this is true. Let us go through the facts. I ask the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, whether he can reply to these facts. Are these facts? The Prime Minister keeps repeating like a screeching white cockatoo, `$9.6 billion and 5 per cent of gross domestic product'. What was the $9.6 billion figure? It was the forward estimate of a deficit produced in February of 1983 for the financial year which would begin on 1 July 1983. Therefore it was an estimate of the difference between expected revenue and expected expenditure. The figure of $9.6 billion was the forward estimate of the deficit for that period. What actually happened? It is instructive to see what happened. The fact of the matter is that the last Howard Budget, the 1982-83 Budget, which was incidentally brought down in the middle of a recession, resulted in a deficit of $4.4 billion, not $9.6 billion-2.7 per cent of GDP, not 5 per cent. Let us go on. The Keating 1983 Budget had a deficit of $7.9 billion. But that was after the Treasurer had increased spending by $7.6 billion. In other words, after he had increased spending by $7.6 billion he still had a deficit, somehow, of only $7.9 billion. Where was the $9.6 billion? He said there was a $9.6 billion deficit, he spent an extra $7 billion odd and he still came in with a deficit of over $7 billion. All I can say is that if the Treasurer had not increased spending in that Budget he would have had virtually no deficit. That is the legacy he got from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He got a legacy of a capacity to reduce the deficit to zero. If he had had no real increase in spending in his 1983 Budget he could have brought the deficit down to zero. As it was he pushed it up to over $7 billion. That is where he made his major mistake. He did not inherit a spending problem; he created it. If the $9.6 billion was correct, the extra Keating spending of $7.6 billion would have left a deficit of $17.2 billion. If Keating had not spent $7.6 billion more the deficit would have been only $0.3 billion. That is the nonsense of this. The people in the Press gallery know it is nonsense but the Prime Minister was repeating this misrepresentation again only yesterday in this House. Let us look at the second excuse for this devastating effect on families; that is, the decline in the terms of trade. The Prime Minister trotted this out again yesterday and in the process brought in another gross misrepresentation. He said that there is a $6 billion decline in the terms of trade. We accept that. There is no doubt about that. But what the Prime Minister also said, referring to the period of the previous Treasurer, was this: in his five years of economic stewardship of this nation, no external crisis imposed upon him . . . He said that no external crisis was imposed upon the previous Treasurer in the last five years of the Fraser Government. Heaven forbid, does he know what happened? In the last two years of the Fraser Government the United States of America, West Germany, Italy, Canada and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries as a whole experienced negative growth. The OECD contraction overall in 1982 was the most severe ever recorded. Yet the Prime Minister said there was no external impact. What about the drought, which was one of the worst in living memory? Yet the Prime Minister said there were no external impacts, no external shocks. I must say that I was astonished that even the Prime Minister could come into this House and say something which is so patently untrue in two material respects. Do honourable members know what were the effects of the external recession and the drought? They decreased our export earnings by about $7 billion in 1980 prices. In current prices that is about $10 billion. We lost that amount in that period because of the world recession and the drought. It dwarfs the $6 billion that the present Government has had to worry about. What happened? We came out of that period, after sensible budgeting and a wage pause put in by us, and after two years in office this Government was able to put out a document called the `First Two years of the Accord'. It said: `Look what we did. All the graphs are going in the right direction'. In this document all the good points are derived from the end of the world recession, the end of the drought and the beneficial effects of the Fraser wage pause. Where is the second volume? Where is the report on the second two years of the accord? Why is the Government ashamed to publish it? It is because the second two years of the accord are the fruit of the Keating Budgets, not the Howard Budgets. These are the fruits of the Howard Budgets but the last two years are the fruits of the Keating Budgets. High taxes-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member might refer to honourable members by their electorates. Mr CARLTON —I have nearly finished, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do so if I have a moment to do it, thank you. The results have been high taxes, high inflation, prices going up and a decline in the living standards of the average family. The Prime Minister has admitted that there has been a decline. All those Labor members in marginal seats all over the country will have to front up to every Australian family to explain why under the Hawke-Keating policies their living standards have declined. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence and guidance on a procedural matter. I put it to you that surely just as it is permissible usage in this House to talk about the Hawke Government, the Fraser Government or the future Howard Government, it is equally permissible to talk about a Keating Budget or a Howard Budget. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would think that while we are talking about a person who is a member of the House who has a title-- Mr Howard —So I cannot say `the Hawke Government' any more? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think I recall the people on the honourable member's side of the House raising this question early in the week. They said that the Prime Minister should refer to people by their title. I think that if the Treasurer brings down the Budget, we might refer to him as the `Treasurer'. I did not draw-- Mr Howard —Am I not allowed to say `the Hawke Government' any more? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If you will let me finish, I did not draw your colleague's attention to the fact that he was referring to the Hawke-Keating Government or to the previous Fraser Government. If we are talking about a person who is a member of the House it probably helps to keep the spirit of what you and your colleagues raised earlier this week if we refer to people by their title. Mr Howard —I am very happy with that. I just wanted to clarify it and I will go away and work out whether it has been; thank you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do not take too long. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, is that a ruling? Is the McLeay report to be no longer? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Community Services. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.48) —This so-called matter of public importance is just another in the long list of irresponsible actions of this divided and crumbling coalition Opposition with which we are all inflicted in Australia at present. Opposition members play on two separate themes. One is a public theme and the other is a private theme. In private, when they are being responsible, when they are talking, for instance, to senior business leaders or academics, they admit that Australia has had a very difficult situation thrust upon it by the world market. The admit that the prices of so many of our exports-wheat, coal and iron ore-have collapsed. They admit that well over $6 billion, getting closer to $9 billion now, has been written off our export income. The day Opposition members come in here and admit this publicly instead of just being good fellows out in the private sector when they are talking to their senior business friends and their academics, or admit to the people generally that these are difficult times and that this amount has been written off our export income, that will be the day that they become credible and that will be the day that the country will start listening to them as having some responsible policies with which to address this problem. That responsible mood, however, does not come out in public. It comes from some of the Opposition front benchers all too rarely and only in private. In their heart of hearts some of them will even admit that thank goodness a cohesive, united Australian Labor Party is leading this country at present with its grave problems instead of the divided rabble opposite who could not possibly address the very serious problems this country has. More often Opposition members are in their public mood. They are playing to the gallery. They are being irresponsible populists. The so-called matter of public importance today is another in the long line of pathetic matters of public importance which the Opposition has put up purporting to criticise our Government's economic policy. As usual, the Opposition does not put forward any viable policy as an alternative because it has not faced the basic fact that we have had over $6 billion written off our exports. Opposition members are not being truthful in addressing these problems. They do not seek to engage in any constructive debate about the causes and effects of interest rates or the role they play in the overall economic mix. They just seek to be irresponsible populists, trying to gain another vote here, another vote there-and to hell with the truth. The day Opposition members become credible is the day the Australian people will start listening to them. But once again, all we have are a few cheap tears from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) about interest rates. He talks about a loss of disposable income because of high interest rates. He berates the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for being honest about the need to reduce the standard of living. I repeat: The day he comes into this House and recognises that such a reduction is necessary in the dire times we are facing is the day people will start listening to him. The Opposition has opposed every national wage increase that has been granted since this Government was first elected. When it was in government, it opposed national wage increases as well. What are these crocodile tears about living standards? Is there any better way to indicate that Opposition members shed only crocodile tears when they talk about living standards than by recognising how they behave when it comes to national wage cases? The honourable member for Mackellar has the gall to come into this House again today and talk about the income of households. He would slash the disposable income of households by not giving householders any increases in wages and salaries. The Opposition has also pledged to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority. What right does the Opposition have to talk about prices when it would do that? It would eliminate the measures this Government has implemented to restrain prices. In other words, it would hold down wages and let prices rise out of control. Honourable members should remember that the Prices Surveillance Authority works with the Trade Practices Commission to seek to ensure that there is real competition and that the market-place is operating properly in order to bring the lowest possible prices to the people. We should remember that it involves itself in greater work only where there is monopoly or oligopoly power in the market-place. That valuable work would be crushed by this Opposition in its elimination of the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Opposition's view of equity is no equity whatsoever. The complete disregard the Opposition has for the welfare of ordinary Australian families is manifest in the sorts of policies it is putting forward. I repeat: The discredited Opposition sheds mere crocodile tears for the disposal income of ordinary Australians. It goes further. The Opposition is set to dismember the Australian caring society. It would dismantle many of the important programs and reforms that this Government has introduced in my portfolio of community services. It would do the same in the social security area. These programs are there to protect people in need, such as the frail aged, the disabled and families in crisis. Yet the Opposition has a $16.2 billion credibility gap. It would slash government spending and be proud of it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is proud to say that he is the most conservative leader of the conservative parties of all time. What is the real truth behind what he is saying? Opposition members are afraid to come out and put it to the Australian people, but the real truth is that the programs of the caring Australian society will be slashed by the Opposition in the Ramboish set of policies it would bring in. Mr Carlton —He's choking because he doesn't normally tell lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will withdraw that remark. Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, it was a private remark to my friend. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, it was in the form of an interjection which was heard by the Chair. The Chair has brought your attention to this on a number of occasions. The honourable member will withdraw the remark. Mr Carlton —I withdraw, but it was flattering to the Minister. Mr HURFORD —I believe the honourable member, but thousands would not. I will now address the interest rate problem, which, of course, is an outcome of the facts I have put before the House concerning the great reduction in the export income of this country. It has been necessary to maintain a firm monetary policy while adjusting to the changing circumstances in the foreign exchange and financial markets. This policy has had the effect of maintaining interest rates at levels higher than they might otherwise have been. Let me state again, as I have stated before in this House, that no government wants interest rates to be one scrap higher than they need to be for responsible policies. Of course we do not want interest rates to be high. The present high interest rates are very much the result of the wiping away of over $6 billion of our export income. Any policy other than that which we are pursuing would be totally opportunistic and irresponsible. A less firm approach to monetary policy would put downward pressure on the exchange rate and thereby would add to inflationary pressures. Such a policy would completely ignore the medium to long term recovery of the Australian economy. It would risk a cycle of exchange rate depreciation and inflation which would add up to economic instability. That is what we are being asked to do by this Opposition. But that is what the Government firmly will not do. We will continue to act responsibly. Such a cycle of economic instability would occur under the Opposition's policies. It could not reduce interest rates in the situation that is faced by Australia now any more than it is possible for us to do so other than in the slow, secure and steady way in which we are doing it and will continue to do in it the forthcoming year. After a short time of the Opposition's irresponsible policies the need for a tight monetary policy would be far greater than it is at present. Interest rates would rise through the roof. We have had experience of that under the Opposition. This is not just rhetoric. We know that it would happen again. I remind the House that interest rates reached far greater heights in the time of the Fraser Government and that those policies were supported by the same people who are now lecturing us in this irresponsible way. Investment would decline under the Opposition's irresponsible policies. The balance of payments adjustments which are currently under way would be rudely halted. The process of economic adjustment and recovery which has now commenced as a result of the policies of this Government would be thrown out of the window. By contrast, our Government's policy is aimed at a sustainable reduction in interest rates, not at some half-baked, premature reduction, which the Opposition would implement. The Opposition has no credible alternatives to the comprehensive and effective economic strategy the Government has put into place and will continue to put into place. We have a viable policy. We have a viable policy for a sustained reduction of interest rates-not a temporary reduction. I repeat: No government wants interest rates to be one scrap higher than they need to be. As stated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 1986-87 Budget, the Government has taken some of the adjustment burden off monetary policy. The Government tightened fiscal policy in the 1986-87 Budget and has recently reaffirmed its commitment to fiscal restraint with the announcement of a May expenditure statement and with a repetition of that objective by the Prime Minister in Question Time yesterday. The Government has also announced that it will be taking a hard line with the States at the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council meeting to ensure that restraint in expenditure and borrowings occurs at all levels of government. Through the Government's prices and incomes policy, we have been able to secure wage moderation, thanks to a responsible attitude on the part of our trade union movement. There have been other matters of public importance and urgency debates in this House about the terrible effect that would result if we were to be inflicted in this country with the market labour policies of the Opposition. There would not be, resulting from that, the prices and incomes restraint from which this country has benefited and will benefit due to the close relationship between our Government and the trade union movement. The national wage case decision of March 1987 continues this moderation. The current account deficit is now improving. The policies about which I have spoken will enable sustainable reductions in interest rates and long term growth in the Australian economy will result. The Opposition, by contrast, has no answers to Australia's current economic challenges. I do not ask the House necessarily to rely on what I have said. I turn to some of the most recent writings in the very respected British periodical, the Economist. The Economist published a survey on Australia on 7 March. It made some telling comments about the disarray of the Opposition, but it had some very pertinent things to say about the Government. It described the Opposition as being in `a sorry state' and went on to say: First, it has lost credibility. It, after all, had seven years in Government from 1975 to 1983, with three big mandates, yet did damn all, other than pave the way for the current mess . . . 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. I am sorry that I do not have time to read further quotations. However, that should be compared with what the Economist had to say about the responsibility of the Labor Government. We do not have to rely only on the Economist. There are further recent examples of what others have had to say about the Australian economy. I refer to today's report by the United States Conference Board in New York which, once again, shows that the Australian economy, under responsible policies, is on the mend. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE —(Dawson) (4.03)-It is great to come into this chamber and be lectured by the economic giants of the Australian Labor Party. I might remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, who those economic giants are: The man who presided over the Bourke's store's failure and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the 1970s-- Mr Hurford —You're getting personal. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, I am not being personal. I am talking about the economic giants. After all, the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) made a similar comment a few moments ago. The economic giants include a person who cannot even lodge his own income tax return on time. Mr Hurford —You are being personal now. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am not being personal. This is the type of thing that we are addressing today-the standards of living of every Australian and why the Government fails to address itself to the problems of the person in the street, such as the school-children and the people who are in the gallery-whose standard of living is declining day by day as costs spiral above after-tax take home funds. The Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, has been described as a person who signs all the fringe benefits taxation letters. It must offend the professional ethics of any accountant to put his name to the fringe benefits tax, which I believe to be the most unfair, anti-business and inequitable tax. We are being asked to come to terms with the realisation that our problem is somehow imported because of the international competitive situation. At no time has the Opposition denied that that is a major cause of Australia's problem. However, we say that it is not the only cause. If the international situation cannot be changed, it is up to the Government to take in hand the elements of the economy that it can change. The Minister blamed our interest rates problem on international forces without having any realisation of what affects interest rates in this country. Interest rates in this country are not affected by international competition to the extent that he suggested. I shall compare interest rates later. This matter of public importance is about high interest rates, high inflation and high taxation, and how they affect every Australian-not the global lot of Australians about whom the Labor Government is so fond of talking, the vast number of families and workers, but the individual person and how he faces his day to day life. The effect of interest rates on the rental market has already been mentioned, as well as, more importantly, the effect on a person repaying a loan acquired through a bank. The interest rate comparisons are rather interesting. During the time the Labor Government has been in office, the past four years, the housing loan interest rate for savings banks has increased from 13.5 per cent in 1982-83, to 15.5 per cent, and for the permanent building societies, it has increased to 15.63 per cent. One might think that to be a modest change, but one must think in terms of a person having to service his debt with the declining pay packet that is rendered after the taxation and fiscal creep. In addition, that person must absorb an inflation rate of 10 per cent this year, as a result of rising prices. At the end of that list, he has to pay for rates and electricity. Prices of all such items are going up. Finally, he is asked to service a debt to which he did not agree at the beginning but which has been imposed on him by the Government's policies. How can the Labor Government say to us that it has a concern for the family when it does not even know, because it is in some ivory tower in Canberra, the feelings of the people out there? I turn now to the effect of high interest rates on business. During the term of the Labor Government, the rate has gone from about 14 per cent to 18.25 per cent today. We realise that the rate has shot over the barrier many times and that it is the highest, in real terms, since the Great Depression. I stress the words `in real terms'. I hope that those people who are listening in this afternoon-family people, people who are on a wage, people in business-will appreciate exactly what this Government is doing to their standards of living. I have two reports of today's date in front of me which are important in terms of this debate. An Australian Associated Press report states that the chief of the National Australia Bank Ltd said: Homeowners could still be in for a significant lift in monthly home loan interest repayments, despite Government moves yesterday to keep the lid on interest rate levels. It is significant that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is now at the table, did not mention the National Australia Bank's comments when he spoke about interest rates earlier today. The report continued: . . . Mr Clark said that there was a likelihood of banks lifting their mortgage rates on home loans taken out after April 2 last year to 16 per cent. What a great future there is for the home owner in Australia. The proud tradition of Australians being home owners has been smashed. The second report concerns the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: In its annual assessments of the Western World's major economies, the Paris-based organisation said the Australian economy had deteriorated considerably in the past 18 months and needed a major readjustment in the medium term. It warned Australians to expect a lengthy and relatively painful process with lower living standards and urged the Government to continue to make its overriding priority the reduction of the current account deficit and the external debt. Where was that mentioned in the speech by the Minister for Community Services when he replied to this matter of public importance? I infer that he knows nothing about the aspects of government and the manner in which they can control these things. Mr Hunt —They couldn't care less. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. The Minister read from a speech that I am sure I heard him deliver in an address to the Australia-Japan Society some time last year. That shows how much out of touch he is. The average decent Australian is concerned about how much money he can spend after he pays his tax. Interest rates and inflation are very important to the average person. We are told, at this stage, that that has nothing to do with us. I suggest that it has everything to do with the Government. I begin with the deficit, which members of the Government are so fond of talking about, but about which they are determined to do nothing. Since 1982-83 the Government's Budget expenditure has increased in real terms by nearly $6 billion. We can really say that that is the cost of the deficits that have been occasioned over the last four years of this Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) indicated this. What effect does this expenditure and our deficit have on interest rates? We have heard of the pathetic attempt by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to wipe $2 billion off the deficit in a May statement. I say it is pathetic because it will go nowhere near addressing the problem of the $5.9 billion increase I have just mentioned. Of course when expenditure is not matched with revenue it means that we have to borrow, so interest rates are pushed up. It is interesting to note in terms of international competition and the force on our dollar that under this Labor Administration our exchange rate has fallen considerably, from 82.4 on the trade weighted index to 54.1 in four years. The dollar was worth 204.68 yen in 1983, as against 100.61 yen today-a decrease of 50 per cent. That itself is a reflection of the state of the economy. That is how the rest of the world passes judgment on us on a daily basis. Who could be proud of the dollar's record? However, the value of the dollar should be lower. We know that this Government is deliberately using interest rates to keep up the dollar. One can only ask why when we bear in mind the international competition we have. I mentioned interest rates and the effect they are having in Australia on businessmen and on people with a housing loan. Japan presently has an interest rate of about 4.22 per cent. In the United Kingdom it is 11.1 per cent; in France, 7.98 per cent; and in West Germany, 4.54 per cent. Families in Australia face an inflation push of 10 per cent. If they lived in Japan it would be minus 0.2 per cent, and in West Germany minus 1.1 per cent. If we want to look at the middle of the road countries, Italy has an inflation rate of 4.7 per cent. All those are Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, countries with which we compete. Our interest rates and our inflation are things that the Australian businessperson and the Australian householder have to fight. I repeat that it is because the Government has not addressed these problems that we have raised this matter of public importance, and the manner in which the Government has responded gives me no hope that it will come within a bull's roar of getting these matters into trim, as it is required to do. I just mention this in connection with the expenditure cuts that are about to be made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.13) —The terms of the matter of public importance are indeed ironic for they suggest some notion on the part of the Opposition that in the comparative sense the policies of this Government are not as successful as those advocated and practised by the Liberal and National parties. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) waxed eloquent, in opposition, on the effects of high and increasing interest rates. I wish to quote from the West Australian of 27 May 1982 to show just how this Opposition fared when it was in government. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), then the Treasurer, told a Perth Chamber of Commerce luncheon that any attempt by the Fraser, Government to control or regulate interest rates would be doomed to failure. Mr Howard then told the Chamber: If there were a simple easy way of lowering interest rates without jeopardising our anti-inflationary fight, then this Government would have long since implemented that solution. He went on to say: The regrettable fact is that the sheer complexity of the Australian financial system and its linkages with those of other nations make it plain that any attempt to control or regulate all interest rates in Australia must be doomed to failure. Mr Howard said: This is not a state of affairs which we welcome in either an economic or a political sense. The Government and myself receive more flak on the subject of interest rates than on any other issue. This demonstrates the complete about-face that occurs when people such as those in the ranks opposite discuss economic affairs from the comfort of opposition. The honourable member for Dawson also decried any effect of external forces on the Australian economy; yet in 1982 Mr Howard said: In 1981 for the first time in 20 years world trade failed to grow . . . Such trends, if allowed to continue will naturally sap the strength of western nations in a social as well as an economic and political sense. Those trends have continued and I venture to say that if the Hawke Government had not, thank God, come into power at the time it did in March 1983, instead of looking at the peripherals of a push to get the economy back on the tracks again, Australians would indeed be facing the catastrophe of a full-blown economic depression. The United States Conference Board forecast on Australia, published today, adds to the irony of the Opposition putting forward this particular matter of public importance at this particular time. I quote from the Canberra Times: A US economic forecasting body has predicted that Australia's future economic performance will be equal to the strongest in the industrialised world. The US Conference Board, which uses data compiled by Australian economic researchers, has shown the Australian economy's leading index-the index of future economic conditions-as growing by 13 per cent. To approach this matter of public importance one must, therefore, ask: How does Australia compare today with the scenario which would have existed had the Hawke Government not put a brake on what was shaping up to the most catastrophic recession ever seen by the Australian people? Mr Robert Brown —We are way ahead. Mrs DARLING —As my colleague the honourable member for Charlton says, this Government is way ahead. The answer has to be that the Hawke Government's record in averting economic disaster and putting Australia back on the tracks is one of outstanding success. The success is all the more obvious when one asks whether the policies practised by the Leader of the Opposition during his unhappy term as Treasurer in any way stand up to the challenges facing our economy today. The answer must be a resounding no. No one doubts that this country is facing difficult economic circumstances but these difficulties have come largely from external forces and also from the adjustments made necessary by years of mismanagement and neglect by Liberal-National Party governments. Ordinary Australians recall all too well the days of the Fraser-Howard Government in which economic growth actually stopped. It stopped for the first time early in 1983, when massive unemployment not only denied thousands of Australians the chance to support their families but it did so with a virtual acquiescence of the then Treasurer and now Leader of the Liberal Party, whose Party in government did nothing to introduce practical programs such as job creation programs. In fact in papers put out recently the Opposition has claimed that within its first hundred days of government it would do away with the Commonwealth employment program, the highly successful job creation scheme which has been introduced by the Hawke Government. Treasurer Howard presided over an era when a new phase was, to the previous Government's shame, added to our vocabulary-the infamous and unfair title `dole bludger'. That is all it did to assist people who were out of jobs in those times. It presided over a time when tax rip-offs went unpunished and when the burden of tax fell on ordinary Australians. In all the time difficult decisions about our industries, wages, prices and taxation were avoided, neglected or forced on low income earners and the unemployed. These circumstances should be compared with the record of the Hawke Labor Government. Despite a loss of over $6 billion in our national income-a loss for which it cannot be held to blame-this Government has been able to create over 720,000 new jobs. It has consistently reduced the Budget deficit. It has slashed that deficit. It has halved the number of days lost through industrial disputes. Ordinary Australians will remember the times when day after day they would read of strikes in the daily newspapers. The Hawke Government, through a co-operative policy, has halved the number of days lost through industrial disputes. It has also lessened the tax burden on ordinary Australians through a comprehensive reform of our once archaic tax system. In addition, there has been considerable reforms and improvements in areas such as health, child care, youth services, education and the status of women. The essence of this matter of public importance, therefore, comes down to one point: The Australian people are given a choice between a government which overcomes economic difficulties through sensible policies and a loose collective of conservatives with an appalling track record of non-achievement. Let us just compare what the coalition is actually advocating to see whether what it offers comes anywhere near what this Government is achieving. Tax is one of the most vitally important aspects of our economy. It is not only the means by which government services are financed; it is also an instrument of equality and fairness in our society. This Government, having inherited a tax system riddled with loopholes, rip-offs and bottom of the harbour schemes, went to work on the most effective program of reform ever undertaken. The results of that reform have been beneficial to all sections of the community. Income tax cuts have been provided to ordinary Australians through revenue derived from the long term use of fringe benefits and other tax measures. There has been a complete overhaul of the imputation of dividends to provide investors, particularly the vitally important small business sector, with a fair tax system which injects much needed incentive into the private sector. From 1 July there will also be an easing of the income test limits for pensioners to free them from some of the taxation poverty traps which have limited their ability to earn extra income. All these reforms that have been introduced by the Hawke Government reflect the common principle of fairness and equity. But what does the Opposition have to offer? If one sifts amongst the confusing rhetoric of the deeply divided sections of the Liberal and National parties, one finds that we have been given two possible policies-a flat tax or a consumption tax. Honourable members hardly need reminding of the regressive and unfair nature of both these proposals. I feel that it is an abhorrence that the coalition should be considering such alternatives while also suggesting the abolition of the tax on fringe benefits and free lunches, and the abolition of other measures which relieve the tax burden of low and middle income families. A flat tax helps no one but the rich, and let no one say otherwise. Analysis has shown that under a flat tax system any worker who earns less than $27,000 would be worse off, while those above this level would pay less tax. For example, a person on an income of $12,500 would have to pay over $900 more a year in tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Before calling the Minister for Science, I point out that during the contribution of the honourable member for Mackellar in this debate I drew his attention to the fact that members should be referred to by their title or electorate, not their names. The House would seem to have come to the practice, however, that members refer to governments as the Fraser Government or the Hawke Government, and refer to Budgets as the Howard Budget or the Keating Budget and I would not want my remarks to be construed as being in conflict with that practice. Mr Carlton —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker: I took that to be the case because Madam Speaker has admitted a number of matter of public importance statements which had wording of that kind. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My recollection was that during the debate you referred to the Treasurer as Keating and I did not pull you up at that time. I call the Minister for Science. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.25) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1987). The proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1987) operative on and from 1 April 1987 decrease the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $14.43 to $5.02 per kilolitre. This change was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on 27 March 1987. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 269th report of the Committee, the response to the report on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance-Appropriation Acts 1984-85. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr PRICE —by leave-The Committee's 269th report details the Government's response to the Committee's 247th report on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance-Appropriation Acts 1984-85. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts. In this instance some $290m was made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriations and section 36a of the Audit Act. Each year the Committee examines expenditures from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Such expenditure should be confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional estimates. Among the matters covered in this report are the control over the aerodrome local ownership plan maintenance grant by the Department of Aviation and the reimbursement of the revenue shortfall in the Williamstown Dockyard trust account by the Department of Defence. I commend the report to honourable members. Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1986, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.28) —I am pleased to speak in this cognate debate. At the outset I commend the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for the fine contribution that he made to the debate in the House last evening. Whenever there is discussion of Kakadu National Park the debate inevitably centres upon whether or not it should be mined, in the national interest, of course. Should the Opposition-if that is what it can be called-ever get its way, its planned spending cuts would almost inevitably mean that this would happen for it proposes that the section of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service presently operating in Kakadu National Park be handed over to the Northern Territory Government. It is one of the great absurdities and illogicalities of the whole debate of the future of Kakadu National Park that so many people use the term `the national interest' as if our national interests can be measured only in terms of the revenue raised through mining activities. There are those who equate our national interest with the jingle of money and the exploitation of all our material resources. These people are the living dead. They are the people in whom the spark of human spirit has been extinguished. They have allowed themselves to become so obsessed with material gain that they can see the world only in terms of what can be cut down, bulldozed or dug up-all for the sake of making another few dollars. Such people are to be pitied for they walk through life and trample over life completely oblivious to the beauty and majesty of the natural environment and all the wonders that it contains. Being blind to the glory of the natural environment and because the spark of human spirit seems to have been extinguished within them, they do not realise how important it is that people, simply because they are people and not machines, have places to where they can go to enjoy the natural beauty of the environment and so restore and further develop within themselves this spark of human spirit. There are a number of places within Australia to which people can go to experience the wonder and the beauty of the natural environment. Of these, the most important are our wilderness areas, areas largely untouched by the harsh contact of our mechanised society and very often areas which for countless centuries have felt the gentle touch of the first Australians, the Aborigines. Of all such places, beyond all shadow of a doubt, Kakadu National Park is one of the most important-not only for Australians but for people throughout the world. It is essential to our own national interests and to international interests that this area be preserved and protected as it is. That is what this legislation aims to do. In recent centuries with the spread of European industrialisation, the world has witnessed the destruction of one wilderness area after another until very few remain. It has become increasingly important that Australians, in union with other concerned peoples, play their part before it is too late to preserve what little is left. There is no better place to start than Kakadu National Park. The concept of the national park was born over 100 years ago with the dedication of the Yellowstone National Park in the United States in 1872. At that time it was described as an adventure in the humanities based upon reverence for primitive landscape, beauty and all organic life. The words of Senator George Vest of Missouri, who did so much hard pioneering work to establish Yellowstone, are as true today as they were a century ago. He said: We should show the world that they are wrong when they say that Americans are interested only in the `almighty dollar'. These words, I suggest, serve as a timely reminder to Australians, including perhaps many sitting on the Opposition benches, who are quite happy to see their friend-if that is what he is-the Premier of Queensland quite happily selling off priceless parts of our national heritage to the white shoe brigade. No doubt it is part of the bargain which he hopes to catapult him to power so that he can sell off the rest of Australia. Lest I be accused of adopting an anti-mining stance, let me point out-the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) who is at the table will recognise this-that there are within my electorate of Throsby several coal mines, the presence of which I value. I also represent the interests of many coal miners who are my constituents and I do so gladly. The Minister also represents many constituents who are coal miners. It cannot be said that the Hawke Government is anti-mining. The proof of that lies in this package of legislation now under consideration. This legislation represents an attempt-a successful attempt at that-to accommodate the best interests of several very diverse groups of people. These are the Aboriginal owners and residents of Kakadu, the uranium miners and other mining interests, and the many Australians and overseas visitors who wish to enjoy the environmental charm of Kakadu. There are those who argue that the entire Kakadu area should be open to mineral exploration and mining. They tell us that by closing the area to all mining activity we are denying the Australian people valuable income and export dollars. In reply to this argument, it should be said that, first of all, it is the mining companies rather than the Australian people who stand to lose much of this potential mining revenue. This Labor Government has been elected to serve the best interests of the Australian public, not simply those of the mining industry. It is the responsibility of this Government, and indeed of every Australian Government, to look after the best interests of the mining industry only insofar as that industry is working in the best interests of the Australian public. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, purely in economic terms, it is in the best interests of the Australian public that Kakadu be used for long term revenue raising through the tourist industry rather than short term revenue raising through the mining industry. The figures speak for themselves. Tourist use of Kakadu National Park has been developing at a remarkable rate. In 1982, 46,000 people visited the Park. By comparison, the Park in 1986-when I visited it-was visited by 131,000 people; almost three times as many as in 1982. This year, it is estimated the Park will receive 177,000 visitors which represents a 35 per cent increase on last year's figures. Just as remarkable is the increase in the number of overseas visitors to Kakadu National Park. The figures here show a comparable increase. In 1982, the Park was visited by 5,200 overseas tourists; last year, by 14,000; and this year it is estimated that there will be 20,000 overseas visitors. This represents a 33 per cent increase on last year's figures. Kakadu National Park is most definitely on the list of places to be visited by international tourists, and we can expect the numbers to increase at the present rate for some time. As I have already said, Kakadu National Park is of the utmost importance to all Australians and to the international community by virtue of its unique environmental beauty and interest. It is a most important part of our national heritage and should be respected as such. It is of great importance to all Australians also because of its wealth of Aboriginal art sites and other sites of great significance to the Aboriginal people of the area. It was the Australian Heritage Commission, in its annual report of 1975, which suggested that, in the long term view, the Aboriginal heritage of our nation will prove to be of even greater significance and importance to all Australians than our European-style heritage, an opinion which I personally endorse. I would suggest that the people of this nation can only properly call themselves Australian, and rejoice in a uniquely Australian culture, when they come to fully appreciate the central significance of this nation's Aboriginal heritage and learn, insofar as it is possible, to view this ancient land and landscape through Aboriginal eyes. Perhaps more than any other part of Australia-other than Uluru, which I would put on a par with Kakadu-Kakadu National Park, precisely because it is so rich in Aboriginal sites and lore, offers us the chance to do just this and should be treasured as such. This can, of course, only happen to the extent to which the Aboriginal people of Kakadu are willing to share with us the riches of their culture and heritage. I am fully aware that there are limits beyond which they cannot go. I am delighted to say that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and, since it came to office, the Hawke Labor Government has at all times sought to work in full consultation and close co-operation with the Aboriginal people of the area, through the local Gagudju Association and the Northern Land Council. The Gagudju Association was originally formed as a means of receiving and disbursing royalty payments from the Ranger uranium mine, but since it is made up of traditional owners of the area it has proved to be a most suitable means of liaison between the Federal Government, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Aboriginal people of Kakadu. At present, three senior traditional owners are permanently employed at Kakadu by the Wildlife Service as consultants and guides. The Service also employs a number of Aboriginal rangers and senior rangers who have been trained locally under the Aboriginal ranger training program. Decisions involving capital works and all significant managerial decisions are made in consultation with the Gagudju Association, and in some cases with the Northern Land Council as well. Examples of such consultation are the siting of access roads and walking tracks, which must be located in such a way that they do not transgress areas of special significance to local Aborigines. Likewise, the opening up to visitors of the art sites at Obiri Rock and Nourlangie Rock has been done only after careful consultation with the Aboriginal owners. For some time now, considerable public attention has been focused on the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases which Judge Woodward recommended should become stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. Much of this attention has centred on the Coronation Hill area and the possible threat to Aboriginal sites from mineral exploration and mining. Under the legislation currently before the House, provision is made for part of the Gimbat and Goodparla leases to be included in Kakadu National Park, while the remaining area will be declared a conservation zone. Mineral exploration and mining will, under certain circumstances and conditions, be allowed to continue in the conservation zone only. These provisions are put forward in recognition of the legal rights of existing lease holders. The Government places special importance on the fact that Coronation Hill in particular is rich not only in gold but also in strategically important platinum group metals. Let me emphasise that any mining at Coronation Hill, or elsewhere in the conservation zone, will proceed only under strict arrangements for the protection of environmental and Aboriginal heritage values. The traditional owners of the Coronation Hill area are the Jawoyn people who have chosen to conduct their negotiations in large part through the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Protection Authority. I understand that every effort is being made to work in consultation with the Jawoyn people to ensure that no significant sites are damaged or destroyed. The Jawoyn people and other traditional owners of the Gimbat and Goodparla lease areas have the right under the legislation presently before the House of making claim to lands in these areas and no doubt will do so. It is expected that, in the course of land claim hearings, the location and significance of a number of sites will be dealt with, thus preparing the way for further discussions on how best to preserve and protect them. I will personally follow these developments with the greatest interest and concern. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.42) —I listened to the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) with some interest. I have no doubt that he is genuine in what he says, but I find it somewhat strange for a member who comes from a mining area, as he does, to take a big stick to mining in other parts of Australia. I wonder how he or the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, would react if the criticism he was making was directed against their electorates and the people who depend on mining for jobs. I wish to join the debate to say a few words about Kakadu National Park from the tourism aspect. We have heard a lot about mining during this debate. I will say a few words about that later on. There is a goldmine in Kakadu which centres on tourism. The great problem is that at the moment parts of Kakadu-despite the enormous and increasing number of people who go there-are being locked up. No one is more appreciative of the magnificence of Kakadu than I am, but it is silly to talk about declaring large areas of Australian land as national parks and then proceed to lock them up without sharing that magnificence and making it available to other Australians and overseas visitors who want to come and see it. The enormous tourist industry around Kakadu National Park could be better developed if we took a much more sensible approach. Tourism does not mean destruction. Tourism and conservation can go hand in hand as long as they are properly managed. We see this fight all the time between the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Territory Government which, it seems to me, on balance, has the right attitude towards Kakadu. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is very strong, conservationist and, I understand, very good but it is not good in the day to day management of the parks that it controls. It is particularly not interested in the tourist industry in those parks. It bows to tourist interests and tourist development with a great deal of reluctance. The town of Jabiru in Kakadu is a case in point. It is a modern town in the middle of this park. It is basically there for the Ranger uranium mine. It would be an ideal place to cater for the increasing numbers of tourists who go through Kakadu. Until recently it was closed to tourists. They could drive through it but they could not stay there. What happened? A lot of them headed off for the bush illegally and did a lot of damage instead of being catered for and properly looked after in tourist facilities and infrastructure. I am very pleased to see that there will be some relaxation at Jabiru. In conjunction with an Aboriginal group, a new hotel will be built there to cater for tourists, but it will be a drop in the ocean. The hotel will comprise 100 rooms. Approximately 100 rooms at South Alligator and 100 rooms at Cooinda make up the entire accommodation facilities in Kakadu. Of course, there are camping facilities as well. Enormous numbers of people are going through this great national park. The figures mentioned by the honourable member for Throsby I understand are fairly correct. In the last two years the number of tourists has increased from 100,000 to 170,000, an increase of more than 30,000 tourists a year. We must encourage people to enjoy the bush. There is enormous potential in Australia for rural tourism to be developed with proper encouragement. There is a great interest in the Australian bush not only by Australians but also by overseas visitors. We must encourage them. Australians should share what they have in this country. We must also create jobs and income, particularly overseas income. I find it strange as I read through the history of the development of Kakadu National Park that this Government, in what turned out to be a very rash election promise in 1983, went up there and promised it would spend some $70m over six years on its development. The best figures I have, some three to four years later, are that about $10m of that money has been spent. That brings me to the question of the controversial Professor Ovington. I have never met this man. He is regarded by some as a hero and by others as an obstructionist and a wrecker. It seems to me that this Government set out with the idea in 1983 of wanting to have conservation and tourism hand in hand but it has been beaten by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service which has the theory that it should virtually lock up Kakadu. How do we cope with the increasingly intransigent attitude on both sides of this argument? It seems to me that the best way to cope is to hand the day to day management of the Kakadu National Park back to the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. Most of the good work that is being done in Kakadu from a tourist point of view has been done by the Northern Territory Government-the good promotion of the area; the all weather roads; the very strong support for joint Aboriginal, government and private sector projects in the park. The Northern Territory Conservation Commission is excellent by any standards. I very much hope that we will see the day when both Uluru and the Kakadu National Park are handed back to this very fine organisation. The increase in tourism in Kakadu has been mainly due to the Northern Territory Government and to the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. Whatever fine work has been done by the National Parks and Wildlife Service-I think everyone will acknowledge that it has been good in certain areas-it has certainly not been good in the area of promoting tourism in Kakadu. We also have to question whether the National Parks and Wildlife Service is cost effective. On the figures I have it takes some $10m on an annual basis to run this service in the Kakadu National Park whereas the Northern Territory Conservation Commission controls some two and a half million tourists through its national parks for about the same amount of money and it does an excellent job. I noted with some interest that in a radio interview in the Northern Territory, Professor Ovington, stung by criticism of the work his group was doing, compared Kakadu with the Cobourg Peninsula. I find that a very strange comparison indeed. Whereas Kakadu is only a few hours from Darwin on an all-weather road and hundreds of thousands of people are enticed to visit the area, Cobourg is almost isolated and very remote. I suggest that we should take a new look at how this park is being managed. The first thing we should do is return the park to the Northern Territory Government. We should look at just what obstructions are being put in the way of the development of tourism in Kakadu. If those obstructions are sheer bloody-mindedness-not sensible or in the spirit of developing tourism and conservation at the same time, which could be done in that park-they should be done away with. We should encourage tourists to visit Kakadu, this magnificent part of Australia, instead of saying to them: `You can come if you want to, but there is nowhere to stay'. We should encourage projects to provide accommodation in that park; not only hotels and motels but also tent facilities, cabins and camping areas. It is stupid to say, as some do, that we cannot have a national park with people in it. Anyone who has visited national parks in America or Canada would know that millions of tourists every year visit parks of this size and smaller, and the parks are managed very well. For example, the Banff National Park has a whole city in the middle of it. They are some of the areas that I believe should be looked at. If we are to have a total obstructionist approach by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Government should step in and develop that park in the best interests of Australians and overseas visitors. On the subject of Kakadu, unfortunately there was a tragedy there recently when a fisherman was taken by a crocodile-and another person was taken in the East Kimberley area the other day. The Government or a Minister has put up the suggestion that the people be fined. Fined for what? This is the stupidity of these sorts of proposals that are put. Is the Government going to fine the person after he or she has been eaten? The Government may talk about fining people for going into these vast wilderness areas, but it would take an army of rangers to police them. This sort of silly suggestion, I note with some glee, has been taken up by most cartoonists in today's Press. While on the subject of camping and the obstructionist attitude in Kakadu, I want to mention that the last time I was there illegal camping was being carried on by members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Federation who were picketing the abattoir at Mudginberri. Nobody else in the Kakadu National Park was allowed to camp, except with permission, and only in certain areas. We had this filthy camp for months on end in the middle of Kakadu. The people were camping without permission and no one was allowed to go and move them, although they blocked the road to Mudginberri abattoir. The Government was too frightened to act to remove them, the National Parks and Wildlife Service was instructed to take no action, and, of course, the meat inspectors were not sent in. It is a matter of industrial relations history that the Mudginberri abattoir won through. The owner, Mr Pendarvis, has gone down in history as the man who took on and beat the unions through the courts-but without any help from this Government or the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which allowed that illegal camping to take place right in the middle of Kakadu. On the question of mining in this vast area, I am very critical of the attitude taken by the Government. I know that a lot of Government members share this feeling. No one is suggesting that fragile areas, areas of special significance or areas which could not assimilate mining activity should be subjected to mining operations. The fact is that there is a lot of country in the conservation areas of the Kakadu National Park that should be explored. It is the height of stupidity to lock up these vast areas without at least knowing what is there. Many honourable members have driven through or flown over stages 2 and 3 of Kakadu, which are nothing special. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) recently quite accurately described a lot of it as clapped out buffalo country. No one is going to go into those areas, dot them with mines and have them look like anthills. It would be sensible to establish just what is there and then, under controlled conditions and in suitable areas, allow mining to take place. It is gross hypocrisy on the part of this Government, in its efforts to attract the greenie votes, to just lock up these vast areas without establishing what is there. Certainly some mining over the years has been irresponsible. We have only to look at places such as Queenstown in Tasmania to see the ravages of uncontrolled mining. But miners have learnt to manage and to live with the environment. If we look at some of the better sand mining areas, which used to be disaster areas, we can appreciate the restoration which can take place. Government members, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), have an obsession to go out after the greenie vote. We see it with the Lemonthyme in Tasmania and we saw it with the Franklin. It is notable that the Government picks on the little boys-Tasmania or the Northern Territory-but it does not pick on New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland. The original plan for Kakadu was a multiple use plan, but suddenly the priorities have changed-not in the interests of the nation but in the very narrow and short term interests of the Australian Labor Party. In answer to questions, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has said that there are something like 150-as he described it-mineral occurrences in Kakadu, which could be worth anywhere between $32 billion and $400 billion. That would not be a bad sort of return for a country which owes $100 billion in foreign debt. Kakadu is one of the great treasures of this country. That does not mean that it should not be used productively and sensibly for the benefit of all Australians. Other obstructionist views have been put forward to try to block out this park for the benefit of Australians. I understand that placing some restrictions on flying over Kakadu is now being considered. The National Parks and Wildlife Service wants to restrict planes to a minimum height of about 4,000 feet. Anyone who has been in an aeroplane knows that very little can be seen from 4,000 feet. The tourist industry depends to a large extent on flying people over this magnificent country. We should let them see what is there. It is a vast area and one cannot see everything from the road, nor would one want to. Why would people be restricted from flying over this area at a reasonable height to see this magnificent national park? I hope that the Government will take note of some of the comments that have been made in the course of this debate by a whole range of people about the development of tourism in Kakadu, about sharing with all Australians this great asset that we have in this country, about enabling people to go and see the area in comfort and about encouraging tourists to go to and appreciate the great beauty of this area. We should not have what seems to me in many cases to be the bloody-mindedness of the National Parks and Wildlife Service supported for short term political expediency by this Government. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(5.01) —I support the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 but not without qualification. I believe this Bill is on the right track and is going to make things a lot more workable than that they have been in the past. Having listened to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who has just spoken for the Opposition, I find it a little depressing that this issue gets so polarised and that inaccuracies occur on both sides. It is my belief that in the long run we will have joint use of national parks. I think this will come to pass. It may not be that this is the appropriate time, but inevitably that will happen. It happens in other places in the world and I believe that such an outcome will ultimately be for the benefit of national parks. Throughout Australia we have a proliferation of national parks which in many cases are just lines on maps with no maintenance or work being carried out. In my own State of Western Australia we would be better served if we were to sell large portions of some State government parks and use the money to protect and enhance others. I have spoken about that sort of action in the past. Part of the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that mining occurs in Kakadu National Park. The Government had the wisdom to recognise that it is essential that the gold occurence and more particularly, I suppose, the platinum and platinum group mineral occurrences be exploited in the proposed stage 3 extension of Kakadu National Park. It is essential that this be done in view of Australia's immediate current account requirements and also for international reasons. I think it is important that Australia become a world supplier of platinum group metals, which are presently concentrated in the hands of South Africa and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am quite prepared to believe that those two countries will collude on supply and price fixing. So there would be a big advantage in allowing these metals to be mined. The legislation will also allow existing mines which are in place within the park, such as Ranger, to operate. There would have been some difficulties in this respect had we not included these amendments in the legislation. I want to deal with some of the myths that are promulgated about the environment. Without a doubt the most important environmental problem facing Australia today is soil erosion. In fact, it is more important than all the other conservation issues in total. It affects every single person in Australia. Soil erosion and the joint problem of soil salinity are overwhelming in their magnitude and have been ignored by governments. This Government has done something along those lines. We now make a contribution of $3m a year. This very small contribution could be significantly increased with very good beneficial results for the whole of Australia. It is sad that this has not been done. It is sad that this problem has not been taken up by many of the conservation groups that abound in society today. As I say, it is an issue that affects everyone. Unfortunately, people cannot go out at the weekend and commune with soil erosion; they cannot go and walk amongst salinity. It is just not conducive to the feeling of well-being that these people are obviously looking for. However, this is an issue which Australia will have to come to grips with because it affects people in the city and the country equally. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of salinity levels, the mineral contents and the radionuclide content of the waters of the Ranger containment areas. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF TYPICAL QUALITIES Parameter Units RP1 RP4 Adelaide Drinking Water Desirable NHMRC Drinking Standard Conductivity... uS/cm 42 250 656 - pH... 7.6 7.9 7.8 6.5-9.2 Turbidity... NTU 5 10 n.a. 25 Sodium... ppm 2.5 9 78 270 Potassium... ppm 1 2.1 5.5 - Magnesium... ppm 2.6 40 20 150 Calcium... ppm 0.7 3.8 23 200 Bicarbonate... ppm 10 75 95 - Chloride... ppm 1.5 9.4 145 600 Phosphate... ppm 0.02- 0.02- 0.08 0.2 Nitrate... ppm 0.05- 0.05- 0.46 10 Sulphate... ppm 5.3 62 28 400 Lead... ppb 1- 1- 5 50 Copper... ppb 1 3 320 1500 Manganese... ppb 14 57 36 500 Zinc... ppb 2 3 50 1500 Uranium... ppb 2 60 (*USA) 100 Radium... Bq/1 0.02- 0.19 0.4 Mr CAMPBELL —The table makes a comparison with Adelaide water. It is interesting to note that Adelaide water in most cases is far worse than the water in the retention ponds at Ranger. The other night I heard my good friend the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) talking about the danger of the release of water from the catchment areas and what a disaster that would be for the Kakadu National Park. Quite clearly, this is not the case. It is not the case for very good chemistry reasons. Since the early 1950s geochemistry has been a very important facet of exploration. We know quite a lot about this very advanced subject today. It is a little sad that the environmental groups, unfortunately, have never sought to use this expertise. The waters of the Magela Creek, when they leave the ranges, are quite rich in uranium and radium-these occur naturally-and they would probably have a very high content of these minerals. These heavy metals-in fact, all heavy metals-are precipitated by a process of what is called co-precipitation as they progress downstream towards the Ranger uranium plant. Co-precipitation occurs when the iron, which abounds in the water, and the manganese oxidise to form, say, iron oxide and manganese hydroxide. When these metals oxidise-which they do quite rapidly-they settle and take with them the heavy metals which are very readily attracted to them and which are therefore bound up within the structure of that deposit. They form very stable insoluble particles of grains of sand on the bottom of the creek. By the time Magela Creek gets to Ranger its level of uranium and radium is in fact far lower than the level set out in world health standards and far lower than the level in the drinking water of most capital cities. If a spill occurred from the Ranger containment areas, co-precipitation would take up this problem further down the track. The same process would happen. This phenomenon can be checked out. It is scientifically well validated. It is an indictment of the conservation foundation that it does not take into account and accept this scientific evidence in this discipline. I also think that what we read in the newspapers is an indictment of the Press in this country, which seems to be totally ignorant of the chemistry and the realities of what happens in respect of these minerals. I do not know why it is, but we find that journalists write the most utter bunk about the dangers. We saw this recently with the small accident that occurred at Lucas Heights, an accident which released into the atmosphere a minute, a minuscule, amount of radiation. The amount released was far less than that found in background levels. For all intents and purposes, the amount was totally imperceptible. Yet this was beaten up out of all proportions by the Press of this country. I might say that the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review were the only two papers that I saw that had anything like an accurate report of the dangers that were likely to occur. I think those papers put the position quite accurately. They held the view that there was in fact no danger. I would like to make a couple of other points in the time that I have left. The honourable member for McPherson talked about Mudginberri. I guess he brought Mudginberri into the argument for exactly the same reason that I do. He did so for politics because it is not germane to the subject under discussion. I just point out that Mudginberri, which he supports so vigorously, in reality makes very little contribution to Australia. I am in the process of producing some figures which will demonstrate without doubt that many abattoirs operating in my electorate and working on the tally system have far greater levels of productivity than that occurring at Mudginberri. Those figures will also indicate that people in my electorate with low skill levels are getting paid better than people at Mudginberri and that the conditions they enjoy are far better than those at Mudginberri. I think Jay Pendarvis is one of those foreigners who manage to foist a myth upon Australia, a myth that was readily gobbled up by the limited imagination and intellect of honourable members opposite. They saw the dispute simply as a stick to beat the Government with. They have not looked at the long term effects of Mudginberri which, in fact, are very hard to find. Access to national parks is vitally important in Australia, for if people cannot go to national parks in my opinion there is no point in having them. I do not have any desire to lock parts of Australia up into some pristine prison that cannot be visited by people because if national parks are not about people I do not believe they deserve to exist. Of course we must have access to parks and we must have better facilities and better road systems in them. We must have better communications generally. Some of the most beautiful spots in the world that I have visited are man made. Anyone who has visited Britain could not deny the beauty of that country. It has some glorious spots. Most of them have been made by man. I recently visited the New Forest, one of the most magnificent forests in the world, I believe. It was hand planted; in fact, that is why it is called the New Forest. We as a government and Australia as a nation must look to making national parks more accessible to all people, for when this occurs there will be a much greater acceptance in the society of the need for them and therefore a much greater readiness to accept the cost that goes with them. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.12) —It has become fashionable in Australia nowadays to criticise the achievements of the Fraser Government, to denigrate the work that that Government did over the seven and a half years it was in office. One of the great tributes to the Fraser Government that any member of this House should make is the work it did with stage 1 of Kakadu National Park. I think just about every member of this House would concede that the achievement of the Fraser Government in Kakadu National Park is one that future generations will thank that Government for. But what that Government did in the case of Kakadu stage 1 was really quite different from what is being proposed in the legislation before the House today. The Fraser Government opted for the multiple use plan so that Kakadu National Park stage 1 could be exploited-I use that word in a positive sense-for the benefit of Australian tourists. As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) pointed out, there is little point in having a national park if no one is able to visit it. There is little point in encouraging tourists to a national park if there are no facilities there for them. The Fraser Government recognised that and it allowed tourist development in the Kakadu National Park. It also allowed some mining development in the park. I want to make one or two points about that mining development. Of course, I do not take the view that mining in national parks should be allowed to proceed willy-nilly without any controls or regulation whatsoever. I think everyone in Australia would agree that that would be an irresponsible approach. But if mining is properly regulated and managed the benefits from mining that can accrue to ordinary working Australians as well as the benefits that can accrue to everybody else through the tourist potential of national parks can be reaped jointly. The Fraser Government set up the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The report of that inquiry outlines a plan for uranium mining in Kakadu. That has proceeded very fruitfully, as I am about to explain, to the benefit of all Australians. Honourable members on the other side may, for their present political convenience, deny that that mining has been beneficial to Australia but in 1982 the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) said of the Labor Party's then stance on uranium mining, which was to abolish it: `If the ALP does not change its uranium policy Australia will lose its AAA rating'. The tragedy is that the Australian Labor Party has not significantly changed its uranium policy and we all know that Australian has lost its AAA rating, although not only for that reason. It is for a number of other reasons as well, primarily caused by the policies of the Government. Uranium mining is very important to Australians because of its effect on the economy. At a time when our balance of payments is in a crisis that is the worst in Australia's history, it is important to remember that uranium exports generate some $400m of export revenue a year, money that frankly Australia just cannot afford at this stage to do without. Uranium mining in Kakadu stage 1 has been concentrated at the Ranger mine run by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. It is interesting to see how the Australian community as a whole has benefited from that activity over the past four years. In that time it has generated $1 billion of export income. It has generated for the Commonwealth Government $210m in income tax receipts. On top of that, the Commonwealth has received a further $60m in income tax receipt from the employees who work at the mine. The Ranger project has generated something like $220m profit for ERA and out of those profits it has been able to maintain a viable business which has employed 400 people. Finally, it is important to point out that the Northern Territory Government has benefited to the extent of $52m in royalties from this project. These have been paid to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account. Again, it is a clear benefit to the Aboriginal people from this mining activity and it is a benefit that the Aboriginal people well recognise. The tragedy of this legislation which has been brought before the House by the Government is that it opposes this sort of enterprise. It opposes intelligent mining in Kakadu stage 2. It opposes the enormous opportunities that ordinary Australians could gain from any mining in that area. In this debate we have heard it quoted ad nauseam that the value of minerals, particularly uranium, in Kakadu stage 2 is in the vicinity of $32 billion, a figure used by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Some say the value could be as high as $400 billion but let us stick with the lowest estimate. One can see, even with that figure, how very important it is to Australia that this kind of mining activity be allowed, giving due consideration to the importance of the environment. One can only wonder at a time of economic crisis, when our economy is in a state as serious as that of war, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps telling us, why the Government has stopped further mining activity in Kakadu stage 2. The answer is not rational. It is a cheap political answer. This has been pointed out by other speakers on this side of the House. The Government has been concerned about losing the votes of the so-called greenies, the environmentalists. In order to try to shore up their votes, and to placate the Left of the Australian Labor Party as well, the Government has decided to say no to a proper multiple use plan for Kakadu stage 2 and stage 3 even though it knows that a multiple use plan is the logical and rational solution. It knows this only too well. How much damage, after all, is mining doing in the Northern Territory today in Kakadu stage 1 compared with other activity? The words of Leslie Kemeny of Sydney University sum this up. He wrote recently: More than 10 years ago the Whitlam Government bulldozed through the Northern Territory one of the finest highways in Australia-the Arnhem Highway-right into the heart of the Kakadu National Park. . . . . . Its environmental impact is some 10,000 times greater in magnitude than all the mining activities of the Northern Territory put together. From this we can see that the argument about uranium mining and the enormous damage any other mining as well as uranium mining can do to the environment is vastly and deliberately overstated in order to achieve not rational objectives but simple political objectives. In intro- ducing this legislation the Government has not only pursued policies which, in economic and environmental terms, are frankly irrational but also it has done so in a way which is threatening the very integrity of Commonwealth governments in Australia. I take the instance of Peko EZ. It has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in what is now the Kakadu stage 2 area with a natural expectation that it would be able to mine the area but with sensitivity to the environment. The Government has said: `You may have spent all that money, but that is just too bad. We will give you no compensation for that. We will just ban your activities'. In a country such as Australia, where we have traditionally operated by the rule of law and with-again I use the word-rational policies, one cannot expect companies to invest in and build up our country if one is going to treat them in that rather despicable way. It is not only the companies which have been treated in a despicable way by this legislation but also the Government of the Northern Territory. Not all that long ago we had a great deal of rhetoric from the Government about consultation on World Heritage listings. We had the establishment of a group called CONCOM-the Commonwealth and State Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. As a result of a meeting of CONCOM a paper called `Australia and the World Heritage Convention' was prepared by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment in February of last year. In the paper the Department wrote: The Commonwealth Government writes to the State and Territory governments inviting them to submit suggestions. Any suggestions for world heritage listing brought forward by other than a State or Territory government to be referred with supporting information to the relevant State or Territory government for comment prior to examination by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Government has indicated, however, that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage Listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. It has done just that in this instance. On 16 September last year the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment wrote to Mr Coulter, the Minister for Mines and Energy in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment said in his letter: Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue world heritage listing of the former stage 2 area your Government will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement prior to any approach being made to the world heritage secretariat in Paris. That Government was not consulted at all. On the very same day, 16 September, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) were party to putting out a statement in their joint names which said that they would pursue the listing of stage 2 on the World Heritage List. No State or Territory government can take the Commonwealth Government seriously if it is treated in that contemptible way. The mining companies have been treated with contempt and so has the Northern Territory Government. It is not surprising that there is tremendous opposition to this legislation when it has been introduced in this extremely irresponsible way, and in a way which damages the reputation of the Commonwealth Government-at least for as long as the Australian Labor Party holds the reins of government, which may be for only another month. There is a further point I would like to make about this legislation, a point which has not been raised by other speakers. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill relates to the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I am surprised by this legislation, particularly as there has been some small controversy over the operations of the Office of the Supervising Scientist in recent weeks. This Bill amends the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 to confer on the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region the function of providing advice on environmental aspects of the exploration and resource assessment program, the adequacy of environmental control mechanisms in the conduct of exploration within the conservation zone and environmental aspects of mining at Coronation Hill or any other areas exercised from the conservation zone for the purpose of mining operations. Put simply, the Bill will expand enormously the role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist-a role that was rather narrowly defined by the Fraser Government. This concerns me because the Office of the Supervising Scientist is another example of a burgeoning bureaucracy for which Australian taxpayers and, as far as this office is concerned, Australian uranium exporters, are paying dearly. It is a bureaucracy which runs on a budget of about $5 1/2m, a budget which, in the 1984-85 financial year, leapt up by an additional 15 per cent. The Government said recently that it wanted to reduce the size of this bureaucracy and of expenditure. I am glad to have heard that, but the reductions the Government has announced are grossly inadequate and suddenly I have discovered that the Government is to expand the role of the Office anyway. So I suspect that the reductions will be short lived. The Office of the Supervising Scientist employs about 77 people. The Supervising Scientist asked for another six people in this financial year and for another four in 1987-88. It is a simple case of Parkinson's law working its way through a small bureaucracy for which ordinary Australians are being made to pay. These staff members do not all work in Jabiru where one would expect them to work. Twenty-seven of them are employed in Sydney. That is an extraordinary surprise, as the operation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is confined to the Alligator Rivers Region. It is to be expanded a little beyond that now by this legislation, but nevertheless it is confined to that region. As the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) recently pointed out, these 27 staff members are very cosily ensconced on the twenty-fourth floor of the Triple M Tower in Bondi Junction from where they doubtless get a beautiful view out over the ocean. Where cuts have been proposed, as they have by the Government-cuts of 12 in the number of staff-it is interesting to note that the cuts are not to take place in Sydney, which is outside the geographical operation of the office in any case, but at Jabiru where the operation is supposed to be concentrated. As I have made perfectly clear, the staff in Sydney are obviously geographically remote from Jabiru. Not surprisingly, they travel to and from Jabiru so they can conduct their work, yet at the same time they live in Sydney. This matter has really surprised me. One would expect the Office of the Supervising Scientist to be based at Jabiru where it operates, but it is not. This point was put by Senator Puplick in a Senate Estimates committee hearing fairly recently to the Supervising Scientist himself. In reply to Senator Puplick's question, the Supervising Scientist said: The implication in your question is that you would expect that the research institute would operate better if everybody was talking to each other and all were located in one place. That certainly is true. Why will those people not operate out of Jabiru? Why are so many of them concentrated in Sydney in luxury office suites? If it is too difficult to move them to Jabiru, why not contract out the work rather than get those people to fly, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, upwards and backwards to Jabiru from the luxury of Sydney? This sort of travel to Jabiru is small beer compared to the wide travel vote of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Its staff travel all over Australia. They travelled to every single capital city over the last financial year, including Hobart, which seems to me to be slightly removed from the problems of the Alligator Rivers Region. But they have not confined themselves to Australia. They have been to Greece, to Sweden, to France, to Singapore, to Australia, to the United Kingdom and so on, where apparently they have been presenting papers of one kind or another in order to advance the cause of scientific discussion. The simple fact is that, whilst that is nice for them to do-no doubt the scientists feel that there is some justification for travelling around the world at taxpayers' expense to tell the world what they are doing-- Mr McGauran —Self-indulgence. Mr DOWNER —As the honourable member for Gippsland points out, it is an indulgence. It is an indulgence which Australia can no longer afford, and it is the sort of indulgence that must be brought to an end. Some honourable members opposite will try to justify this sort of activity, this sort of extravagance. One can always make an argument in favour of some form of public expenditure. Some honourable members opposite will try to claim that I am opposed to the Office's existence. I am not opposed to the existence of the Office. What I am saying is that the Office should run on a shoestring at a time when we are suffering from what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calls the economic equivalent of war. We always hear justifications for such projects, but we never hear a word spoken in defence of the poor taxpayer who is suffering so severely at the moment. Farmers on the west coast of South Australia, who cannot make ends meet because of an economic crisis brought upon them by the Government, are now being told by me that scientists, at taxpayers' expense, are going to Greece, Sweden and France and that they are ensconced in comfortable offices at Bondi Junction at their expense. How can the Australian Labor Party justify that sort of extravagance to people on the west coast of South Australia who, frankly, cannot make ends meet because of the Government's policies? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(5.32) —I cannot speak to the legislation before responding to the wild statements made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). He was totally incorrect in a number of statements he made about the Office of the Supervising Scientist. He made a number of other accusations during his speech which were also unfounded. Firstly, it was the former Liberal Government that was responsible for locating the Office of the Supervising Scientist in Sydney; it was not our Government. The honourable member for Mayo shakes his head in agreement. Of course, I am right. Secondly, it is true that members of the Office of the Supervising Scientist travel around the world to attend conferences. However, mostly they go at the invitation of the conference organisers and their fares are paid for by the conference. Mr McGauran —Can you prove that? Mr MILTON —I am not saying that it happens in every case; I am saying that it happens in a large number of cases. The honourable member for Mayo misrepresented their case. Opposition members interjecting- Mr MILTON —Mr Deputy Speaker, would you mind asking honourable members opposite to stop their wild meanderings and allow me to continue with my speech? Mr Beale —Can't you take it? Mr MILTON —I can take it very well. Having dealt with the wild accusations made by the honourable member for Mayo, I will refer to the legislation. I must say that, in speaking to the package of environmental Bills before the House, I find myself with mixed feelings. I suppose, in some respects, government is the practice of the art of compromise between competing groups in society. We certainly have that concept enshrined in the proposed amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. The Bills before us will implement the proposed amendments. The competing interests are the mining industry, the conservation movement and the Aboriginal people of the Alligator Rivers region. Regrettably, the Northern Territory Government, which should be acting in the interests of all people of the Northern Territory, is only interested in development for development's sake and, in consequence, takes an entirely irresponsible attitude to protection of the natural environment. On the other hand, the Federal Government, with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) taking a leading role, has, in the introduction of the present Bills, attempted to balance the competing interests. I am firmly of the view that no mining should take place in national parks. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 prevents exploration and mining in Kakadu National Park. It follows, from what I have said, that I am disappointed that the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 specifies that 35 per cent of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases will be declared a conservation zone rather than totally being included in the park-although I am aware that, in the legislation, the Government is honouring its promise to declare the remaining 65 per cent of the lease area, totalling some 4,000 square kilometres, as part of Kakadu. The remaining Bills will extend the responsibilities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist to cover all minerals in the conservation zone section of the pastoral leases and will permit Aboriginal people to seek land claims in Gimbat and Goodparla for eventual lease-back to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as is the case with Aboriginal land within the present boundaries of Kakadu. As I mentioned earlier, the Government's decision to prevent exploration and mining for minerals and related operations in Kakadu National Park is a most commendable initiative. The operations of uranium mining companies in the Alligator Rivers region, particularly the Ranger uranium mine, have been of particular concern both to me and to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I am Chairman. Our report on the Ranger uranium water management system, which I presented to the House in October last year, indicated that ideally the water management system should be based on a non-release of contaminated water and that this system be maintained until it is shown that releases of contaminated water have to be made. The Committee concluded, unanimously, that it had not been established that releases of restricted release zone water to Magela Creek need to be made. For the information of honourable members, restricted release zone water includes all sub-catchments and storage units which are likely to generate or store contaminated run-off resulting from mine and process related activities. My view is that the operations of the Ranger mine conclusively prove that the original decision to allow the mine to operate in such a delicately balanced environment was both irresponsible and foolhardy. Let me make it clear that it was the Liberal-National Party coalition Government which made that decision. The Ranger uranium mine was called upon to conduct its mining operations in an area subjected to monsoonal floods over the period of the November to March wet season. Both the Ranger and the Nabarlek uranium mines operate in open woodland, close to seasonal water courses which flow into extensive flood plain systems, and are located on tributaries of the East Alligator River system. One common feature of all Kakadu landscapes is that they give visitors a feeling of natural wilderness and solitude. I have been there a number of times and I have experienced that feeling of peace. The intrusion of mining into such an area is a threat to the priceless wilderness values which the park represents. Of all tropical wilderness areas in the Southern Hemisphere, Kakadu National Park is the most outstanding sanctuary for a wide variety of plants and animals, which includes, at the latest count, 50 mammals, 275 birds, 75 reptiles, 25 frogs and 55 fish species. Over 4,500 species of insects, covering a wide range of diverse types, have also been recorded so far. Many more species will be found in future. It is small wonder that mining, and particularly uranium mining, is a controversial issue, especially when the mine is surrounded by a national park of World Heritage status. The conservation zone which the present legislation will establish in the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases will also pose similar problems if the mining exploration reveals that there are commercial mineral deposits in the zone. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has already established that the gold and other mineral deposits at Coronation Hill in the Gimbat pastoral lease are rich deposits which it will be seeking permission to mine. The mine site, which I and other members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation have visited, is very close to the upper reaches of the South Alligator River. Obviously, an environmental impact study will be necessary and it must include BHP's proposals to avoid possible contamination of the South Alligator River. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has spoken in detail on the proposal, so I will not dwell on the problems relating to mining in the area. I only point out that experience has shown that, while mining companies are very good at promising that mining operations will not damage the environment, their deeds often fail to match their promises. The Ranger uranium mine is a case in point, with its sulphur dump and bags of chemicals unprotected and exposed. Members of the Standing Committee also noticed during their inspection of the site a trial tailings dam plot, completely unfenced and with a trail of animal footprints across it. The Committee was also concerned to note the number of breaks in the tailings pipeline which had occurred during mining operations and which had resulted in spillages of contaminated water in the restricted release zone. Fortunately, none of these spillages caused any damage to the park, but they might well have done so. It must also not be forgotten that in 1982 the Ranger mine imported about one million cubic metres of water in excess of requirements when it was considered that there would be a shortage of water for its continued operation. The company subsequently asked the approval to release surplus contaminated water into Magela Creek, which is a tributary of the East Alligator River. Approval was not given, but in the event a fairly dry 1985-86 wet season, combined with spray irrigation within the mine site, enabled the company to dispose of the surplus water. Now, however, the company has once again proposed a water management system which requires the release of water from the restricted release zone into Magela Creek during two years of a five-year period. The technical working group on water management at the Ranger uranium mine, chaired by the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region and including representatives of the Ranger mine and the Northern Territory Government, made a submission to the Federal Government which stated that, on the basis of technical considerations alone, the working group supports a water management system which provides, under appropriate controls, for some release of excess water into Magela Creek. However, the technical working group did not consider the social factors which also need to be taken into account in determining the best practical technology for water management at Ranger. It has always been the clear understanding of the traditional Aboriginal owners that the Ranger mine would develop a `no release of contaminants' water management system. The best practical technology criteria required that, amongst other effects, the social effects-including possible adverse social impacts of introducing new technology-must be taken into account. Accordingly, I am rather puzzled as to why the working group did not take into account the views of the traditional owners when preparing its recommendations on the possible release of contaminated water into Magela Creek. In this respect I am also surprised that representatives of the Aboriginal people are not included on the technical working group. I would hope at this early stage of the new legislation that the Government could consider including Aboriginal representatives on the technical working group, as presumably in the event of mines being opened up in the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases the working group would be required to oversee the operations of any such new mines and the direct input of the representatives of the traditional owners would, in my view, be of crucial importance. At this point it is interesting to compare the views of the working group with those of the Northern Land Council regarding the proposed release of contaminated water from the Ranger mine. The Northern Land Council, which on this matter certainly represents the traditional owners, has engaged consultants to advise it in this respect. In its view, the working group exaggerated the impact of an additional storage pond which could be used for water run-off purposes. It placed unrealistic emphasis on the impact of the $15m cost to Ranger in constructing an additional pond. Bearing in mind the comments of the honourable member for Mayo, who preceded me in this debate, and who pointed out that many millions of dollars-I think he said $1,000m, which seems an awful lot to me-have been earned by the Ranger uranium mine, could not some of that money be used to tidy up the environmental consequences of the work in which it is engaged at that uranium mine? The Northern Land Council was also of the view, and I certainly share its view, that the company should be requested to commence immediately detailed studies with the object of arriving at the optimum mix of pit access requirements, land application with irrigation spraying and additional pond storage, so that an efficient water management system can be operational by 1988. As the Land Council has pointed out, it has a direction from the traditional owners to maintain the integrity of Magela Creek and therefore cannot accept a water management system which is based on regular water release. In my own view, the argument of the Ranger mine management that the construction of an additional storage pond will be environmentally disastrous does not make sense when we already have the impact of many other storage and tailing ponds, not to mention the huge quarry site of the open pit itself. It is important to insist that the Ranger uranium mine conduct its mine operations in a way that presents no possible danger to Kakadu National Park. If it is allowed to get away with a lesser degree of environmental protection, the mines which might be allowed to operate in the conservation zone of stage 3 might also provide less environmental protection. I consider that the Ranger mine has been particularly irresponsible as, despite repeated warnings in past years that a no release system was necessary, the management made no serious attempt to design a method of water disposal within the restricted release zone, apart from the introduction of some minor spray irrigation. I hope that Ranger will now take steps to expand the spray irrigation system, subject to the approval of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I was most pleased to note that a joint Press release made yesterday by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment stated: The Government is totally committed to ensuring the complete environmental protection of the Kakadu National Park and guaranteeing that it is not damaged in any way by the Ranger uranium mining operation. The statement went on to announce: The Government has decided: to refuse permission for the release of any water from the mine this year; to require Ranger to proceed immediately to deepen, by the end of 1987, the existing retention pond (RP2); and to instruct the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, in consultation with Ranger, to develop practicable and environmentally acceptable options aimed at ensuring that Ranger water management is fully consistent with protection of the environment. I congratulate the Ministers on their commitment and I know that all members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation will be particularly pleased that the Government, in making its decision, has taken into account the issues raised in our October report. Members of the Standing Committee, including me, have visited the Northern Territory on a number of occasions and I am particularly disappointed that after the last visit representatives of the mining industry sought, in a series of letters to the Press, to misrepresent our views on environmental matters. For example, Mr G. H. Sherrington, as well as other members of the council of the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines, misrepresented me by stating that I had said in discussions on 7 August 1986 with council members in Darwin that I would have no objection if the Ranger uranium mine was a gold mine. I wish to state quite categorically, as I did in a personal explanation in the House on 17 October, that I did not make that statement, that I am opposed to all mining in national parks and that the dishonesty and maliciousness which members of the Chamber of Mines had displayed in their letters does the organisation no credit. I have great pleasure in repeating that in this speech to the House today. The Northern Territory Government and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) are little better. There is a constant barrage of invective against the Federal Australian Labor Party Government and its representatives, and against the magnificent efforts we are making to protect the Kakadu National Park from the avariciousness of the mining industry and to promote the tourist industry. There is no recognition by that Government or by the honourable member for the Northern Territory of the tremendous work we are doing. Whilst the Northern Territory Government is about to declare two new and substantial national parks-I commend it for that-Litchfield, in the Talletop Range 100 kilometres south of Darwin, and Gregory National Park in the Victoria River Downs areas, many outstanding areas remain totally without proper protection, particularly in the Gulf country. For both the Territory Government and the Federal Government, degradation by feral animals and destructive plants remains a problem. Buffalo numbers are being drastically reduced by shooting programs. The weed, mimosa pigra, which I have seen in huge quantities from the air, forms dense impenetrable thorny thickets in the flood plains and paperbark swamps, and is an ever present and growing threat. Both the Northern Territory Government and the Federal Government are presented with a number of problems in relation to the protection of the environment of Kakadu National Park. I trust that, when the package of Bills before the House has been approved by this Parliament, the two governments can pool their resources to co-operate on environmental protection in one of the most beautiful areas of Australia. The Federal Government has made it clear that there will be no uranium mining in the conservation zone of stage 3 of Kakadu National Park and that there will be no uranium mines in Australia other than Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs. I would have preferred that there be no uranium mines in Australia, but in the circumstances I must at least applaud the Government for its decision not to allow uranium mining in the conservation zone, even though I understand that there is little indication that there is uranium ore in the area. In conclusion, I commend the package of environmental Bills to the House as I believe that the legislation will provide as wide a measure of environmental protection for Kakadu National Park as is possible at the present time. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.51) —The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill before this House raise fundamental questions about the need to maintain a balance between encouraging industry on the one hand and protecting the environment on the other. Sadly, I believe, as so many other members of this place do, that there are just too many examples of extremist conservationists being allowed to prevail over common sense. Should anyone have needed a reminder of the extremist positions that can be adopted, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who has just spoken, would have alleviated that need. I believe that the honourable member for La Trobe gives lie to his denial that he opposes any mining in Kakadu in the area under discussion merely on ideological grounds because he said at the conclusion of his contribution that he does not want any uranium mines anywhere in Australia. It seems to me that the accusation that he opposes Ranger simply on the grounds of his opposition to uranium mining per se holds great truth. What we have to be so very careful of in the debate on the measures before the House and in a wider scope is not to fall for the well intentioned and genuine feelings that the honourable member for La Trobe has or the complete and utter naivete with which he approaches this very delicate question of industry as opposed to the need to preserve the wilderness and beautiful areas of our great nation. There are many other elements that have to be taken into consideration other than a myopic desire to lock up an area of our country. We have to look at future economic growth, employment prospects and socio-economic factors, and we have to put to one side the purely emotional considerations by which extreme conservationists approach these difficult questions. In other words, what we need more than anything else is balanced land use so that recreation can exist alongside of and in harmony with industry. In my area of East Gippsland I, probably more than most members in this place, am aware of the need to maintain the balance. I more than most honourable members, I suspect, have seen the undue influence that extreme conservationists have on government decisions. Mr Milton —You live near the open cut mine, do you? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for La Trobe has interjected to ask whether I live near the open cut mine in the Latrobe Valley. I live three miles from the edge of the open cut mine. What is needed in East Gippsland, with all of the magnificent areas contained within that area, is a balanced view. Sadly, at present I am convinced. as are the residents of Gippsland, that the State Government has an improper approach-an approach that is characterised by blinkered ideology and extraordinary influence by four minority unrepresentative groups. This approach is very clearly revealed in the recently released timber industry strategy which rejects almost out of hand the possibility of integrated harvesting. Mr Milton —I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the honourable member's speech but, quite frankly, State matters and the timber industry have nothing to do with the package of Bills before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —The integrated harvesting concept put forward by the responsible elements of the timber industry of East Gippsland would allow the residue of the harvesting, which often amounts to 60 per cent of the logs, to be cut up as woodchips-or integrated harvesting, depending on one's point of view-and exported. Otherwise they merely lie on the ground and become a fire hazard. The legislation before the House deals specifically with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. There are several objectionable parts of this legislation which it does not behove me to repeat. The bottom line of it all is the Government's approach to conservation. I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen): I believe the Australian community accepts a commitment to ensure that this heritage is not jeopardised for short term gain by inappropriate development in national parks. No member of this place on either side would disagree with the sentiments of that if only those sentiments were not taken to the ridiculous extent where this Government is funding, almost willy-nilly, any number of strident minorities representing extremist conservationists. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you visit East Gippsland, as I suspect you have, you will know that it is a remarkably beautiful area which is largely dependent upon the timber industry for employment, indeed, for its very existence. Tragically, the very life of East Gippsland is being destroyed by the State Government together with the Federal Government to the exclusion of any rational argument. How much longer will we tolerate mindless ideologues determining the fate of whole communities? Areas such as Orbost, Combienbar, Cabbage Tree and Cann River are communities at risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member had better start addressing his remarks to the Bills. Mr McGAURAN —As the Minister said in his second reading speech, all Australians do not believe in inappropriate development in national parks. One of the major difficulties we have in this Parliament is coming to terms with the powers we have under the Constitution in determining what are national parks. One of the back door devices which are available, wrongly in my view, to conservation groups is that of the Australian Heritage Commission. Some conservation groups have sought to enter the East Gippsland forests on the Register of the National Estate. It is a familiar and well timed tactic-- Mr Milton —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The East Gippsland forests have nothing to do with the Bills before the House. Mr McGAURAN —Does the honourable member not care about East Gippsland? Mr Milton —Of course I care about East Gippsland, but it has nothing to do with the Bills before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will address his remarks to the Bills being debated. Mr McGAURAN —I seek to illustrate how the East Gippsland forests are being placed on the National Estate by the Australian Heritage Commission as a means of putting pressure on the State Government in the same way as the Bills before the House deal with environment protection and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. A number of comparisons have been drawn with the methodology of these Bills. The principle extends to that area of my specific concern, East Gippsland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has drawn the parallel and I ask that he get back to the subject matter of the Bills. Mr McGAURAN —The refusal of the Government to allow proper exploration and development of Kakadu National Park is evidenced-if evidence was needed-by this Government's capitulation to minority interest groups. I am not aware of any State or Territory government, let alone a Federal government, which acts irresponsibly in regard to the environment. There are a number of other considerations that the Government has overlooked and refused to acknowledge in this legislation. We have a terrible difficulty when conservation groups can have listed on the National Estate areas such as East Gippsland. It worries me that the criterion which the Australian Heritage Commission lays down for qualifying a place on the listing is simply that it must have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance. In the forests of East Gippsland, as in so many other parts of Australia, there are any number of major vegetation types including that rare and exotic fauna and flora that is also found within Kakadu National Park. That simply cannot be the only criterion. We have to identify as the Government has sought to identify-wrongly in my view-places of significance in this legislation. It must not be a willy-nilly, broad-based machine-gun approach to conservation. We must list, categorise and protect the areas of real significance. Those areas in Kakadu National Park that are quite worthless, on any criteria, simply cannot be protected to the exclusion of industry on emotional grounds. Industry and unions, which have vested interests in maintaining the industrial growth, always concede that there are many areas on the National Estate which should not be exploited for commercial purposes. Obviously, some areas are very significant. An open-ended criterion applied to any square inch of this great country is degrading the whole process. Moreover-you will be surprised to learn this, Mr Deputy Speaker-the Australian Heritage Commission in determining a National Estate listing has no obligation to consider the socio-economic implications of listing; none whatsoever. So the failure of the Heritage Commission to consider socio-economic factors only encourages some acceptance of huge tracts of land on its Register which simply do not warrant national estate status. Some conservation groups are portraying National Estate listings as being equivalent to national parks. This brings me to the point which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, wish me to be at. One should not confuse National Estate listings, which in themselves are meaningless, with national parks. Yet the conservation groups attempt to do so, so as to raise the status of these listings to apply the protection we all seek to impose upon national parks. Mr Hodgman —They are doing it in Tasmania. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Denison said, it is a common tactic used in Tasmania as it is in East Gippsland. Restrictions on land use in National Estate areas are quite different from those on national parks. I have touched on issues which are of tremendous concern to my electorate. I have a responsibility, as I know you appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, to raise these issues in this place at the appropriate time. My colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) touched a short while ago on the specific legislation. I again make a plea to the Government: In consideration of conservation matters, take account of the views of the people directly affected; take account of the views of their elected representatives in this place; and take account of the national interest. To slide into cliches is simply to deny the real responsibilities of government which are to take account of the different interests and reach a balanced point of view. So long as this Government continues to introduce legislation of this kind into this place we will know that it is unduly swayed by unrepresentative strident minority groups. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.06) —Before I deal with the substance of the point that I seek to make in the debate tonight I would like briefly to trace the substance of the legislation before the House. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills represent the implementation of the Government's landmark decision taken in the latter part of last year concerning Kakadu National Park and the adjoining Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. That decision is a very important one for the future of the environment of the Northern Territory and indeed Australia, because the Commonwealth decided to prohibit mining in the Kakadu National Park, to incorporate 65 per cent of the leased area into the park as soon as possible and to establish a conservation zone over the remainder of the lease areas so that a carefully controlled program of mineral exploration and resource assessment can be undertaken. We are dealing with five Bills. The first is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill which will enable some 4,000 square kilometres of pastoral reserves to be included in the Kakadu National Park and for a conservation zone to be declared over the remainder of the leased areas. The Bill will ensure that the mineral activities in the conservation zone will be managed in accordance with sound conservation principles. The second Bill to give effect to the Government's decision is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which, when passed, will prevent exploration and mining in Kakadu National Park. The third Bill is the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill which will enable the role of the Supervising Scientist to be extended to include the provision of advice to the Government on environmental aspects of exploration and mining in respect of all minerals in the conservation zone. The fourth Bill is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) which will ensure that the Gimbat and Goodparla areas are available for Aboriginal land claim and further that any part of those reserves which is successfully claimed and required for park purposes will be the subject of a lease-back arrangement with the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The fifth Bill is the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill. It will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim and it will also allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. I, together with, I think, just about all honourable members of the Government, will be vigilant in watching over what happens to stage 3 of the conservation zone area in particular to ensure that the environment of Kakadu is not harmed as a result of any activities that might occur in that region. I would have thought that such an important package of legislation would have commanded the support of all members of the House because the area is an important region. It is an area of outstanding beauty and grandeur and it is of great significance not to just Australia but to the world. I am very proud to have had the opportunity to have visited this region twice before I became a member of parliament. In 1975 and in 1979 I was deeply moved by what I was able to see on my visits to Kakadu. My own involvement in environmental issues and the concern of environmental protection is not a new-found discovery or a conversion on my part. It has been one that I have been proud to have all my political life. Therefore, when I speak on the issue I do so not as a result of any hasty conversion but because of a deep-seated and life long adult convictions. I wish to refer to the comments made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). He suggested that it was important that national parks be places for people and that these important areas of national heritage be accessible to people from all walks of life. I agree with the substance of the honourable member's comments. I believe that it is the responsibility of governments at all levels to facilitate the development of programs that will allow people from all walks of life to have access to those areas. They ought not to be the preserve of those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford interstate air tickets and Range Rovers. They ought to be parks for all the people of Australia and I encourage the Government to initiate programs to give effect to those sentiments. I welcome the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the package before the House and the legislation that came before the House last week concerning the forests of Tasmania. I particularly welcome them because they afford to this House and to the people of Australia an opportunity to compare the very deep divisions that exist between the Australia Labor Party Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the extremist, divided and increasingly discredited Opposition that we are confronted with. If there is any one issue that demonstrates to young Australians just what the Opposition parties are about, it is their stand on environmental issues. When we ask ourselves who speaks for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in relation to environmental issues, who speaks for all those Liberal Party candidates across Australia and who speaks for the back bench members of the Opposition on the environment, it is not even a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Their spokesman is a member of the National Party of Australia and not just any member of the National Party but Senator Collard, one of the members of the National Party who, all of Australia knows, acts at the behest of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Robert Sparkes of the Queensland National Party. It has been shown that when they tell Senator Collard to jump he complies willingly with that command. I do not seek to make any personal attack on Senator Collard because I have a polite and courteous relationship with the Senator, but I do seek to savage, in a very critical way, the role of the Opposition on environmental protection and that of Senator Collard, the Queensland National Party senator who speaks for all the Liberal Party in relation to environmental issues. If honourable members want to know where the Liberal Party stands on the environment, they have only to examine in detail what Senator Collard says because his political line on the environment is the line that the Opposition is putting forward in relation to this Bill. Essentially, that policy is a hands off approach by the Commonwealth of the Parliament of Australia. It is a total abdication of Federal Government responsibility for environmental protection-let us have no doubt about this-and not just on issues of peripheral relevance to this country. It is a hands off, total abdication of any Federal involvement in protecting the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, the forests of Tasmania or the rainforests of north Queensland. It is open season. What Sir Joh wants in Queensland or what Mr Gray wants in Tasmania is open for them to take; it is open season. The environment is up for grabs because of Senator Collard's policy statements on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and every Liberal Party member. If there is any fear that what I am saying is some exaggeration, let me turn to the damning documents themselves and to the pronouncements of Senator Collard on the environment and we will see precisely why the Opposition takes the view it has taken today in this debate supporting mining in Kakadu National Park, a world heritage area. Perhaps the gem of Senator Collard's contribution to debates about the environment is contained in a memorable speech which was delivered in north Queensland-how appropriate-called `The Environment in Perspective'. It was delivered to a seminar entitled `Nationals in the north' and was held on 20 September and 21 September last year. The National Party put forward the Liberal Party position on the environment. Senator Collard stated: . . . the Federal Government should not use powers it holds to override legitimate decisions of sovereign states. As a conservative politician I find such trampling of our political and social heritage totally insupportable. In relation to the Tasmanian forests that have been referred to in the course of this debate he said quite clearly that Cabinet should not worry about the issue and should spend its time attending to Australia's enormous economic difficulties and not pander to the anti-development section of the environment movement. He said it was up to Mr Gray to decide the future of those world heritage areas. I turn now to the issue of Fraser Island. Let me pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship because it was Malcolm Fraser who initiated the Commonwealth power using the export controls to stop sand mining on Fraser Island. Such is the turn of events in this country, such is the betrayal by the Liberal and National parties of environmental concern and protection, that Senator Collard has gone on public record opposing Mr Fraser's intervention and opposing any Federal Government restrictions over sand mining on Fraser Island. Those honourable members who want to see the processes of Senator Collard's mind at work ought to have regard to an article in the National Times of 14 to 20 February. It stated: Meanwhile, Queensland National Party Senator Stan Collard, Opposition spokesman on the environment, has pledged that a coalition government would go ahead with sand mining on Fraser Island. Senator Collard replied to that comment by making, I respectfully suggest, two rather bizarre points. First of all he stated: The Federal Opposition does not believe any Federal coalition government should be in the business of sand mining, as your paragraph would indicate! That is quite bizarre. He went on to say: . . . `we believe in the necessity to exercise Commonwealth export control powers only on the grounds of national security and where the industry as a whole seeks government assistance'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member will be aware that I had to ask the previous speaker, the honour- able member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), to address the Bills. I have allowed the honourable member to go on knowing that he could very well lead his remarks into the subject matter of the Bills. I hope the honourable member is doing that. I ask him to do so. Mr TICKNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your guidance. I assure you that I am about to do that. I will make one other point and I do so because I am setting the scene for what the Opposition is about. It is about the abdication of Federal Government involvement. In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, which I would have thought was a sacrosanct part of our National Estate, Senator Collard put out a statement on 23 March which stated: We in the Opposition take the view that land use decisions are the responsibility of State governments and it is for the States to justify them, not the Commonwealth. There are no mistakes, no ambiguity and no doubts. Senator Collard says that it is up to Sir Joh. All Australians ought to understand the enormity of what Senator Collard says on behalf of every single Liberal Party member who sits in this House. In relation to Kakadu National Park-I thank you again for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker-Senator Collard and Senator Durack, the shadow Minister for resources and energy, put out a joint statement. It is No. 82 of last year. It states: The Hawke Government's decision to legislate to prevent any mining or mineral exploration taking place in Stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park is a body blow to Australia's need for higher export earnings. They oppose that decision; they support mining in Kakadu National Park and they are consistently opposed to every single intervention by this Government in the interests of future generations to protect Australia's national parks. In relation to the issue of Kakadu, let there be no doubt that Australia has certain obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Under that Convention, Australia has an obligation to take appropriate measures for the identification, protection, conservation, preservation and transmission for future generations of areas of World Heritage; that is, those parts of our national and cultural heritage that have `outstanding universal value'. Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. I commend the Fraser Government for its initiative. It is a tragedy that the Opposition parties have become so conservative, so extreme and so dominated by outside forces-those forces of darkness in the New Right-that they are unable even to embrace the conservation policies of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser; but those are the brutal facts. They have denounced Mr Fraser's concern for the environment, in the same way that they denounced his stand in relation to South Africa. To the Opposition now, Malcolm Fraser is an extremist. That is the extent to which the Opposition has betrayed the policies of the Liberal Party that once was, at least in many respects, a small `l' Liberal Party, not a Tory conservative and extremist party which acts at the behest of the New Right influences outside this Parliament. When we talk about world heritage areas and about Kakadu, we are not talking about a local park or areas of local significance; we are talking about areas that the eyes of the world are upon. We are talking about places such as the Pyramids area in Egypt, the Grand Canyon in the United States of America and the Great Barrier Reef. These are the world heritage areas that Australia has committed itself, by international treaty, to protect. Although it is a fact that legal action last year caused the Kakadu stage 2 nomination to the World Heritage List to be deferred, there is no doubt that it has world heritage status. At the World Heritage Commission meeting the representative of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources said that stage 2 nomination would increase the viability and integrity of the Kakadu National Park. He considered the area to be superb and commended the Australian Government for adding it to the list. The Australian Government therefore has international obligations to protect stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. These Bills, in part, are intended to give effect to these international obligations. I conclude with an appeal, because it is not my role in this House to promote divisions. It is an appeal to the more moderate members of the Liberal Party, the ones who are prepared to distance themselves from the extremists, to bring their Party back into line, back to supporting at least a semblance of concern for the environment-a concern which at least Malcolm Fraser, in part, was proud to wear as a badge of honour. By their opposition, the Opposition parties have betrayed everything that the Liberal Party stands for. If it comes to a vote, a determination by the people of Australia at the next Federal election, and the Opposition goes to the polls representing the mining companies, the extreme forces of the New Right, and the Australian Labor Party goes representing the interests of the majority of the people and the future generations of young Australians, I have absolutely no doubt that the principles of idealism and integrity will override and triumph over the forces of darkness. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.24) —The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill reveal in the most glaring and spectacular manner the two-faced duplicity and the downright treachery of the Hawke socialist Government. It is only quite recently that other legislation dealing with similar matters was before the House. Both May and Pettifer say that it is appropriate, indeed proper in certain instances, in a second reading speech to compare two pieces of legislation and ask the question: Why has the Government acted this way in relation to legislation affecting Tasmania and why has it acted this way in relation to legislation affecting the Northern Territory? The best summary of this legislation is contained in the Hansard of yesterday, in the speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I would like to read into my speech the remarks he made, which can be found on page 1734 of Hansard. Speaking in the House of Representatives, he said: In summary, this is a package designed to shore up Labor's greenie vote, a legislative follow-up to the Prime Minister's much derided and taxpayer funded brief appearance before television cameras in Kakadu last November. The irony is, of course, that as recent polls and surveys have shown there are more votes to be won by a government that adopts a rational approach to Kakadu-one that acknowledges that a multiple land use policy is not just environmentally responsible but also the proper responsibility of a government concerned with the economic future of Australia and all Australians. More in sorrow than in anger I say to the Minister and this Government: Do your worst, and the next government, a coalition government, will try to pick up the pieces. It is curious, is it not? There are similarities between this package of five Bills relating to the Northern Territory and the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, which was forced through this House just two weeks ago by the Hawke socialist Government and which is a direct attack on the sovereign State of Tasmania. But in both packages of legislation the element is identical-to quote Mr Everingham, `a package designed to shore up Labor's greenie vote'. My colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the distinguished shadow Minister present in the chamber, will know that this legislation, as with the Tasmanian legislation, has nothing to do with the Northern Territory or Tasmania but has everything to do with those doubtful, metropolitan, trendy, middle-class seats in Melbourne and Sydney. The Hawke socialist Government is desperately trying to latch on to any populist theme that it can. This is greenie vote legislation and it is a con, because the intelligent conservationists see through it as a ploy, a hypocritical attempt by the Government to grab the votes of the greenie community. Mr Beale —In the marginal seats. Mr HODGMAN —In the marginal seats, as my colleague the shadow Minister said. We in Tasmania have had a gutful of the Hawke socialist Government trampling on Australia's tiniest State. Having only just been in the Northern Territory, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the people of the Northern Territory have had a gutful of the Hawke socialist Government too. They see this legislation as once again Big Brother in Canberra decreeing that there can be only one use for the land comprising Kakadu stages 1, 2 and 3. The Government does not speak with the same voice on Kakadu stage 3. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was almost in tears when he spoke in this chamber about the importance of Kakadu stage 3, yet across Kings' Hall in the Senate the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) described Kakadu stage 3 as `nothing more than clapped out buffalo country'. I wonder how many votes from the greenie community Senator Evans will pick up with that description of Kakadu stage 3, which this Government says must be protected. Senator Evans, perhaps the wisest of all the Hawke socialist Government senators in the other place, described Kakadu stage 3 as `nothing more than clapped out buffalo country'. Senator Evans, of course, is the man who organised the spy flights over Tasmania. Senator Evans-Biggles-is the person who thought it proper to use Commonwealth funds to send Royal Australian Air Force aircraft flying over Tasmania, spying, photographing and treating us like an alien enemy. We are a foundation, original State of the Commonwealth. Senator Evans, of the quick tongue and the slow mind, enthusiastically supports the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, which not only is an unjust attack on Tasmania but also threatens the basic, fundamental property rights of every Australian. As the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), said so well-I will quote him after the dinner adjournment-this bullying Government is prepared to attack Tasmania and the Northern Territory, but would it lift a finger against any of the more populous States? This Government hates the Federation and believes that all wisdom and all power resides in Canberra. The Hawke socialist, centralist Government is never satisfied unless it is standing over the State of Tasmania and the Northern Territory and telling us what to do. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HODGMAN —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was exposing the duplicity and treachery of the Hawke socialist Government. I was comparing the package of legislation before the House right now with similar legislation forced through this House just two weeks ago which related to an unprecedented attack on Tasmania-namely, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987. I would again like to quote the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who is a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. On page 1734 of Hansard the honourable member is reported as saying: In summary, this is a package designed to shore up Labor's greenie vote . . . This is precisely the same sort of motivation that was behind the legislation in relation to Tasmania. You see, Madam Speaker, this legislation has not been brought forward because the Government believes in a particular cause. It has not been brought forward because the Government has a commitment. The legislation has been introduced in an endeavour to pick up the greenie vote in the marginal metropolitan seats of Melbourne and Sydney. I am delighted that my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) is in the chamber because he knows that exactly what the Government is doing in this legislation in relation to the Northern Territory it is doing to substantial parts of his electorate of Braddon in respect of the forest industries. Under the Tasmanian legislation, the Hawke socialist Government is determined to close down Tasmania's forest industries with a loss of 7,000 jobs. In the legislation now before the House, it is closing down mining in all the areas-I repeat, not just the world heritage areas but the areas included in Kakadu in stage 3. I welcome back to the chamber the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and congratulate him on the excellent contribution he made in this debate tonight. The Government is closing down an area of land which one of the wisest senators in the Hawke socialist Government, Senator Gareth Evans, described in these terms-and I quote him verbatim: `Nothing more than clapped out buffalo country'. That is the way in which Senator Evans described stage 3 of Kakadu. Is it not interesting that the motivation behind both pieces of legislation has been the attempt by the Government to try to capture the greenie vote in metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney seats? But the greenies can see through the Government. They are not going to be conned by it. The rational conservationist sees the Government for what it is. My colleague the honourable member for Bradfield, who is the shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and whom I am delighted to see come into the chamber to hear me speak tonight, said in this House in very striking words that in many respects this package of legislation `demonstrates the perfidity, the duplicity, of this Hawke Government'. In what I thought was a most interesting analysis, the honourable member said: On any reasonable analysis of the legislation by anyone who wants to examine its history over the past year or so or by anyone who wants to bother reading of the Minister's activities regarding the manner in which he drew up the conservation package which was introduced into this Parliament in October last year, he would find it very difficult to conclude other than that it is the Government's intention to lock up this substantial area of land against any worthwhile minerals search in the foreseeable future. So what the Government is doing with mining in the Northern Territory is precisely what it is doing in relation to forest industries in Tasmania. It wants to close them up. The shadow Minister also had this to say-and I refer specifically to page 1728 of Hansard-in the course of his speech: The simple fact of the matter is that the Minister is, as usual, speaking through both sides of his mouth at the same time on this particular issue. The opportunity was there for the Government to carry out a legitimate investigation of all areas which it proposed would be included in the national parks and it ran away from it. I pause. Why is it that the Government is having yet another investigation in Tasmania and it had no investigation in the Northern Territory? We have had seven separate investigations in relation to forestry. Mr Miles —Nine. Mr HODGMAN —Nine-I stand corrected. One of those investigations cost $2m. Now this Government has legislated to stop all forest activity in an area, set out in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, of 260,000 hectares or more than a quarter of a million hectares of the State of Tasmania. That area does not just include world heritage; it includes National Estate and private property. Mr McGauran —National Estate; here we go again. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Gippsland was very right earlier tonight to point out what the Government is trying to do in relation to East Gippsland. Who will be next? The Government knocks off Tasmania first. The bully always picks on the smallest. The Hawke socialist Government has knocked off Tasmania. It has knocked off the Northern Territory. East Gippsland, be on your guard. Mr McGauran —They have underestimated us. Mr HODGMAN —It has underestimated the honourable member's fighting spirit. The people of East Gippsland will fight on this one. I would like to come back to what the shadow Minister said. The shadow Minister wanted to know why the Government had run away from an inquiry in the Northern Territory. It did not want an inquiry in the Northern Territory but, by heavens, it is going to have one in Tasmania. The forest industries in our State will be held up for 13 months while a commission of inquiry conducts its drawn out deliberations. Who is going to be on that commission? One of the tips that I have heard is Al Grassby. Mr Miles —They didn't take on Queensland. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Braddon is quite right; they did not take on Queensland. Mr McGauran —They didn't send Al up to Queensland. Mr HODGMAN —Exactly. Madam Speaker, I come back to the very sage remarks of the shadow Minister: Once again, it abrogated its responsibilities to the Australian people because at some stage in the future there will be enormous pressure on the governments of this country to find out what resources we have across the nation. I interjected: Different rules for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Mr Gear —Of course there are. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member admits it? Mr Gear —Yes. Mr HODGMAN —There we are-there is the admission. The Hawke socialist Government hates Tasmania. It has always hated Tasmania and it will continue to hate Tasmania. The Hawke socialist Government will not win a single House of Representatives seat in Tasmania at the next Federal election or the one after that. It will be struggling to get two Labor senators back at the next half Senate election and four Labor senators if there is a double dissolution. But it thinks it can pick up the seat of the Northern Territory and that is why this legislation in some ways is drafted so differently from the legislation which deals with Tasmania. I made the comment: Different rules for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, do you remember that on election night 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: `I will be a Prime Minister for all Australians'. Do you remember the slogan: `Bob Hawke-bringing Australia together'? He said he would be Prime Minister for all Australia. But time and time again, when the opportunity has arisen, the Government has belted Tasmania not just in relation to States rights, not just in relation to Commonwealth-State financial assistance but on every conceivable point. What did the shadow Minister say in response to my timely interjection? He said: The point is worth taking that the Hawke Labor Government . . . That was a minor slip from the honourable member for Bradfield. Although he was impeccable he really meant the Hawke socialist Government. He said: The point is worth taking that the Hawke Labor Government applies environmental controls to both the Northern Territory and Tasmania which it would not have the courage to apply to Queensland or to any other State in Australia. The bully is exposed; the fraud is exposed. The Government belts Tasmania and it belts the Northern Territory to try to pick up the greenie vote in Melbourne and Sydney. It is going to miss out because we will hold the seat of the Northern Territory. We will hold all five Tasmanian House of Representatives seats. The Government will get the thrashing of its life in Melbourne and Sydney when the election is held. Mr Connolly —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for his encouragement. I now want to come to the words of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1986. The Minister said-and these words should be engraved in the minds of every single Tasmanian and many other Australians right across the Commonwealth: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to prevent . . . I ask honourable members to note that word. In relation to an area in which we do not know what the resources are the Minister used the word `prevent'. The Minister continued: . . . exploration and mining for minerals, and related operations in Kakadu National Park. The Bill applies to all mineral interests including those interests which existed prior to the proclamation of the park. The Bill also provides that no compensation will be payable by the Commonwealth to any person, body politic or body corporate by reason of the enactment of the legislation. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon will confirm that this is exactly the same position as with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. There will be no compensation to those who will go bankrupt or whose business will be ruined by the freezing of forest operations in Tasmania as a result of the decision of the Hawke socialist Government. Anybody would think we had no unemployment in this country. The plain fact of the matter is that we have rampant unemployment, particularly in Tasmania and particularly with our young people. This rotten Government is proposing to put out of work 7,000 Tasmanians and I do not know how many thousand Northern Territorians in its pandering to the greenie conservationist vote. There will be no compensation. It is legislation of which Hitler would be ashamed. Under clause 5 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill no compensation is payable. It states: Notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth or of the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation to any person by reason of the enactment of this Act. There is the provision. It cuts right across section 51 of the Constitution. Is this Canberra or is this Moscow? There will be no compensation. Yet, as the shadow Minister pointed out and as the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out, this legislation cuts across existing leasehold rights and privileges and people will be put out of work. People will be deprived of their livelihood. They will be bankrupted. They will be put to the wall by this non-caring, cruel and thoroughly disgraceful Government with no compensation. Let us have a look at some of the other provisions which have bobbed up. Madam Speaker, you will remember the fundamental point in relation to the Lemonthyme legislation is that it is unconstitutional and it will be held to be so by the High Court of Australia when it is challenged. But that legislation permits forcible entry on private property by any member-- Mr Slipper —Moscow. Mr HODGMAN —Quite right, Moscow. It permits forcible entry on private property by any member of the Commission of Inquiry or by any other person authorised in writing. Could this be Jonathan West? Who will be picked? It gives the right to forcibly enter private property against the wishes of the owner where somebody says he thinks there may be forestry resources contained. This could be my father's property at Kingston or my home at 7 James Avenue, Kingston Beach. This is the sort of track we are heading down all for the sake of the greenie vote. Mr McGauran —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison can do without the help of the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr HODGMAN —My word, Madam Speaker, one must give him credit; he is fighting for the people of East Gippsland, who are the next cab off the rank-- Madam SPEAKER —The credit I am not interested in; I am just interested in his seeking to interject. Mr HODGMAN —He will make a very fine Deputy Prime Minister one day. I come back to the legislation. The plain fact of the matter is that this is an arbitrary government prepared to trample on individual rights, including the fundamental right to earn a living. It says there will be no compensation. Compensation-da or nyet? The answer is nyet. There will be no compensation notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth. I brand that as unconstitutional. Section 51 of the Constitution provides that acquisition shall be on just terms. This legislation is taking in areas that are not even world heritage areas. These two properties are suddenly included. This private property in Tasmania, in the one-quarter of a million hectares, is included. Where are we going? Who will be next? What next will this Prime Minister paranoid at the prospect of defeat do to try to grab the greenie vote in the trendy, leafy metropolitan seats of Melbourne and Sydney? Is it not a crying shame that the man who said he would bring Australia together has torn it apart. The man who said he would be a Prime Minister for all Australians has betrayed Tasmania-he starts with the little ones first-and now he has betrayed the Northern Territory. Which State will be the next cab off the rank? Mr Slipper —What about Queensland? Mr HODGMAN —He would not touch Queensland. He is scared stiff of Queenslanders. He would not take them on but he will pick the littlies. This Government stands condemned. I congratulate the shadow Minister on a magnificent exposition. I wish we had the numbers to defeat this rotten legislation in this chamber. However, I hope the Senate will show some sanity and throw it out neck and crop because this is just the sort of legislation that Australia does not want and should not have in 1987. Mr GEAR(Canning)(8.15) —We have just heard a typical contribution from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) helped on by his two dummies. They grew to three dummies after a while. Instead of lauding the fine efforts of this legislation, in his characteristic way he did not talk about it. He gave a very political bias to it. He accuses this Government of introducing this legislation solely to win seats in Sydney and Melbourne. I think that more than anything else gives away the game on the contribution of the honourable member for Denison. He is really not interested in conservation; he did not talk about conservation once. This is significant legislation to do with conservation of one of the most important national parks, if not the most important national park, in Australia. The honourable member talked about locking up resources. I will come back to that later. He talked about Tasmanian trees and the Lemonthyme. He posed the question: Why are we adopting different rules for Tasmania and Kakadu? The answer is very simple: They are two different parts of Australia with two different sets of conditions. All this Government is saying in relation to Tasmania is that we should wait for one year to hold an investigation into the Lemonthyme to make sure that we leave significant stands of trees. I remind the honourable member for Denison that those trees have taken thousands of years to grow. Whilst his favourite piece of music may be the chain saw melody, it is not this Government's favourite piece of music. We would rather tread warily and make sure that we do not destroy a significant part of our heritage just because we did not take the time to have a look at it. The situation at Kakadu is altogether different. There have been significant investigations of Kakadu. We know a lot about it and therefore the same conditions do not apply. The honourable member painted the picture of this Government belting Tasmania. It is a picture he likes to conjure up. He knows that conflict has always been the hallmark of his side of politics. It has always played Australian against Australian. Nothing is new. He is doing it again tonight. He is trying to say that this Government hates Tasmania. The fact is that it does not. Some Tasmanian members are quite reasonable. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), for instance, is a reasonable bloke when compared with the honourable member for Denison. If the honourable member for Braddon were to speak on this legislation he would speak about environmental matters. He would not talk about the greenie vote in Melbourne and Sydney. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation he at least knows a bit about it. We did not hear one word about conservation from the honourable member for Denison. All we got was the same old whingeing, whining contribution trying to paint this Government as the dark government that wants to put the heavy hand of whatever-- Mr Hodgman —Nazism. Mr GEAR —That is the honourable member's word. `Moscow' was the word of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). That is the sort of emotive language they use to paint this Government. The position this Government takes is actually quite different. The honourable member also spoke about unemployment. He said we had a terrible record. He should have a look at his Government's record and at the record of the Tasmanian Liberal Government compared with that of the rest of Australia. Tasmania is coming a distant last except for Queensland, which also has a conservative Government. So I am very surprised the honourable member brought up unemployment. In considering the legislation before us tonight we should be looking at the sort of arguments we always get-they came up again from the honourable member for Denison-about locking up resources. I will refer to the resources argument later. I think it is necessary to point out to the House that in many ways it is part of Australia's problem that we have always put a premium on our mineral resources. We have always taken it for granted that we could get Australia out of a recession or a hole it was in simply by digging another hole to extract mineral wealth. For a significant period Australia has got by on mineral wealth. Really, we have bludged on it. We have never taken the hard options and had a look at ways of getting away from relying on minerals or natural resources. Madam Speaker, is it not an indictment that after 30 years of conservative government we have an economy that is still reliant on minerals, wheat and wool? Is it any wonder, when commodity prices fall as they are doing now, that Australia gets belted the way it is being belted now? It is nothing new. When we bring up legislation that deals with national parks all we get from the conservatives is talk about minerals, because that is what they are hooked on. They seem to believe that that is where our future lies. Mr Saunderson —And Tasmania. Mr GEAR —As my colleague points out, and Tasmania. In Tasmania they seem to think that all they have to do is chop down trees. The future is not in chopping down trees. Anybody with half a brain who follows the trends in world trade will tell you that the future of world trade is not in commodities. It is not in chopping down trees. Let us look at one area where we are doing particularly well-in many ways that is thanks to this Government-tourism. Tourism is benefiting all parts of Australia, but those parts of Australia it is particularly benefiting are the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland. Of all the States and Territories of Australia, one would think that those three would say: `Yes, at least the Federal Government is helping us out this way. We cannot do it ourselves'. But they send members up to Canberra like the honourable member for Denison who still talks about chopping down trees. All I can say to honourable members like the honourable member for Denison is that they should get into the 1980s and get out of the 1950s mentality of chopping down trees and digging up resources. It will never get them anywhere. Mr McGauran —What about jobs? Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Gippsland, who never had a job before he became a member of this House, says: `What about jobs?'. What about jobs? He should compare our record to the record of his side. The benefits of tourism are immense. This Government is trying to make sure that the significant cultural and natural areas of Australia are preserved, not only for future generations but also as tourist attractions. Not many tourists will travel 12,000 miles to see a big hole in the ground or a tree stump. Tourism is a real growth industry in Australia. It is an industry which does not need protection. Thank goodness that we have learnt our lesson from going down that road. It is a non-polluting industry. As the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) says, when tourists come to Australia, enjoy themselves down here-the Minister, right on cue, has just walked into the chamber-and see the natural beauties this Government is preserving for them we are all richer for the experience. In support of this Bill I remind the House of the first piece of environmental legislation introduced by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in the Hawke Government-the Franklin Dam legislation. We all remember the arguments about the Franklin Dam. Four years on it is instructive to look back and see who was right in the arguments about the Franklin Dam. The argument put up at the time was that the dam was needed to produce the electricity for all the growth that was going to go on in Tasmania. Tasmania still has a surplus of electricity, but thanks to this Government it also has an area of natural beauty which tourists will come a long way to see. We even had Dr David Bellamy out here from England. He is renowned throughout the world as one who takes conservation very seriously and who is to be respected. I have touched on tourism. I would like to read out to the House the number of tourists who have visited Kakadu over a five-year span. In 1982 there were 45,800 visitors. In 1983 that figure went up by 24 per cent to 57,850 visitors. In 1984 it increased by 30 per cent again to 75,200. In 1985 it increased by another 35 per cent to 101,600. In 1986 the figures went up to 131,000, an increase of 29 per cent. Over that five-year period the number of tourists visiting Kakadu increased by 300 per cent. I go back to the fact that if we are talking about resources in this country we should not overlook tourism because it is the world's fastest growth industry. This Government and the Minister at the table have recognised from day one that if we are to attract tourists to this country we have to preserve its natural beauty. Yet we have the honourable member for Denison saying: `Cut down the trees that took thousands of years to grow'. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. You ruled last night, that another speaker should not mislead the House. I did not say what the honourable member alleges I said, or anything like it. I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Saunderson —Yes, you did. Mr Hodgman —I did not advocate the cutting down of trees that are a thousand years old. I ask for the remark to be withdrawn as the honourable member is misleading the House-again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning will not repeat the comments he made about the honourable member for Denison concerning chopping down trees. Mr GEAR —It seems that I have touched a nerve in the honourable member for Denison. (Quorum formed) The quorum has once again had the effect of bringing into this place the people with real talent and keeping out the dopes. Opposition members can call a quorum on me at any time. I do not mind being surrounded by all this talent. Before the quorum was called on me, I was talking about the absolute destruction the honourable member for Denison has talked about in advocating the cutting down of those magnificent stands of trees in Tasmania. One of the things we always hear from the conservatives in this place when we talk about legislation-- Mr Kerin —He's lost the greenie vote. Mr GEAR —The Minister points out that the honourable member has lost the greenie vote. He has. He never had it. One of the things Opposition members always bring up in these debates is the issue of States' rights. We hear the cry of `States' rights' from the conservatives all the time. I have never believed that States have rights. I have always believed that people have rights. One thing this Government will never walk away from is our belief that we are charged with the responsibility of looking after this country's cultural heritage and environment. We are doing so. I spoke about the proposed Franklin Dam. Before the quorum was called on me, I was saying that history has shown that this Government's arguments were correct. It is due to this Government's efforts that in Tasmania we now have an area which is still of significant beauty, an area which tourists will come a long way to see. They are doing so in increasing numbers. We are talking about mineral resources. I would like to read out to the House the amounts of resources estimated by the Bureau of Mineral Resources to be present in not only stages 1 and 2 but also in proposed stage 3 of the park. The present park area, that is, stages 1 and 2, have been assessed by the BMR as being very highly prospective for uranium and moderately prospective for gold, platinum and base metals. It would not take an Einstein to work out that uranium is not in great demand nowadays and that, for all intents and purposes, stages 1 and 2 are safe from mineral exploration. The estimate states that, by contrast, the BMR's assessment in relation to the Gimbat and Goodparla area is one of high potential for gold and platinum, and moderate prospectivity for uranium. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation looked at Coronation Hill. I can report to the House, from first-hand experience, that Coronation Hill is an area that has been mined for uranium in the past and has been decimated. If anybody wants to see the effect of mining in the Northern Territory, he should go to Coronation Hill and see how that part of the country has been destroyed. The BMR's estimate goes on to say that exploration at Coronation Hill has revealed demonstrated resources of between 350,000 and 380,000 ounces of gold within an area of 18,000 square metres. The deposit is only partly tested and the joint venturers estimate the potential resources to be one million ounces of gold, 170,000 ounces of palladium and 80,000 ounces of platinum. The legislation does not exclude that area from the mining of those minerals, but it does look after stages 1 and 2. The estimate continues that, based on the results of exploration, the joint venturers' April 1986 estimate of the potential mineral resources of Coronation Hill and five other prospects in the South Alligator Valley was 2.65 million ounce of gold, 200,000 ounces of platinum, 410,000 ounces of palladium and 475,000 ounces of silver. As has been pointed out in earlier debates, the Government is mindful of those resources, although I do not believe that Australia's long term future lies in mining. Certainly, mineral deposits of that size do influence the Government's thinking. The Committee, when it investigated the Coronation Hill area, was mindful of the very large deposits that are in the area. I am sure that the Government can balance the competing interests of conservation and mining in the proposed stage 3. I have already said that stages 1 and 2 do not, for all intents and purposes, have significant deposits of minerals that are in great demand. Therefore, I do not believe that they should enter into the argument. The Australian Government has the final responsibility. The legislation before the House tonight continues this Government's efforts. It is not shirking that responsibility of making sure that, when an issue of environmental significance arises, we will not be put off by the States righters. We will not be put off by the emotive language used by speakers such as the honourable member for Denison in trying to denigrate the Government. We will do what is right for the generations of Australians now and in the future. I support the Bills. I believe that the Government has a very fine record in protecting this country's environment. The Bills before us continue that fine record. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.33) —It is a pleasure to speak to the package of Bills before the House tonight. Before doing so, I must tell the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who seems to be very concerned about trees, that it always amazes me how the conservationists do not seem to want to eat or to get shelter. Three parts of the houses in Australia are built from timber. We have to clear land and grow crops, which we have done. There are five Bills before the House. The first is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, which seeks to prevent the exploration for and recovery of minerals within Kakadu. It is an absolute farce to think that a government should set out to stop the exploration for and mining of minerals in these areas. I believe that we now have the technology to do so. The mines existing have shown-- Mr Saunderson —What about Ranger? Mr IAN CAMERON —There is nothing wrong with Ranger. Uranium has been mined there successfully for a number of years. Very little damage is being done. When the mining is finished, the land can be rehabilitated. That has been done in many areas. It has been done in relation to mineral sands and for all sorts of mines. We have been mining minerals for the past 5,000 years. We will continue to do so. It is an absolute farce to think that we should close up these areas when we are already mining them. The area which we are discussing has never been properly explored. It is one of the biggest uranium provinces in the world. Government members do not seem to want to use the natural resources which we are very lucky to have. Once the Bill goes through, we will not be able to mine and search for minerals at all. I have had talks with Aborigines in the area. They wish to mine it. They wish to get some income and to have some sort of a living out of the area, and why should they not? The Aborigines in the Territory are as keen as anybody to get a mining lease and to get into the areas in question. With the strict controls that apply today, we are able to do the mining, take the uranium out, and clean up the area once the mineral has been extracted. The minerals are not finite. There is only a limited amount of metal in most mines. Most mines eventually run out. That has happened throughout Australia's history. Old gold mines are scattered right across this country. Most of those which have been worked out have reverted back to the bush. One would not even know where the mines had been, except for a few old rusty jam tins and equipment lying around. These days, with proper controls, we can force mining companies to clean up and put the area back to its natural state. That is happening with the coal mining industry in Queensland. I am a great believer in mining our mineral sands. I do not believe that we should be locking up that resource forever. Mr John Brown —What about that bit of beach you own at Noosa? Do you want that mined. Mr IAN CAMERON —It has already been mined. The bit of beach up at Noosa that I happen to control has already been mined for mineral sand. If the honourable member has observed what has been happening, he will be aware that I have been asked to remove the ilmenite tailings on the land, which are alleged to be radioactive-which is a lot of nonsense, but that is the story. The whole beach frontage there has been mined for mineral sands. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was there the other day. I asked him what he noticed a bit different about it, and he did not pick that it had been mined. The area has been revegetated and one would not know that it had ever been mined. In many cases, the beach can be put back and made better than it was before nature had it. It can be built up higher and more sand can be placed there. It is a nonsense to say that such areas cannot be mined. It has been done on Fraser Island. One would not know that there had been a mining company on Fraser Island. It is being done already on Stradbroke Island. Plenty of mineral sand is being mined on Stradbroke Island. The whole area will be sifted through, put back and revegetated. After 10 years, one would not even know that there had been a mine there. The same applies to the area which we are discussing. I worked there many years ago on the Mary River and the South Alligator River. We used to tranquillise buffaloes. The whole place is covered in wild animals. I might ask what honourable members think those animals have been doing over this period. Enormous herds of buffaloes have been introduced into the area. There are wild pigs, brumbies and wild scrubber cattle there. The whole area is inundated with livestock. Mr Saunderson —Destroying the environment; that is what they have been doing. Mr IAN CAMERON —They have been there for hundreds of years. The Aborigines themselves have continually fired the area. Parts of that country go up in smoke every year, although it can be argued that it is part of the process of the Aborigines; but they burn everything to trap the animals and so on that they are after. If one flies over that country or drives through it in the summer time, one cannot see more than 100 yards ahead for smoke. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill is a nonsense. It ties up the land. Gimbat and Goodparla are being purchased with taxpayers' money, handed back to the Aborigines in a land claim situation, and then the Aborigines will lease the land back to the Federal Government, which again is the taxpayer. So all in all, it is a tidy old deal for a few people which we, the taxpayers of Australia have to pay. We will continue to pay for it, and this area will continue to be leased back, the same as Uluru is. I believe that national parks are what the name says they are, and if that is the way the Australian Labor Party wants them to be why is it that we have to lease them back off the Aborigines? Why should they not be national parks for all Australians? I do not believe that either Kakadu or Uluru, the national park at Ayers Rock, should be given back to the Aborigines; they should be kept for all Australians. If Kakadu National Park is so wondrous and so worthy of being placed on the World Heritage List, why should we not all have a piece of the action? We are all paying for it, as taxpayers; we put the money in to buy these two cattle stations and we are going to put the money in to continually pay the Aboriginal land council there a certain lease payment each year. Why they should be the people who own this area is beyond my comprehension. There is plenty of land in Arnhem Land-millions of square kilometres of it. Past generations of Aborigines have not been wandering around there; there have been cattle stations there for a hundred years. Mount Bundey and such places-the whole area-are overrun with wild buffalo. As Gareth Evans says, it is just clapped out buffalo country. He is 100 per cent correct. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) creates stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. As I have said, 65 per cent of that area involves the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases, and mining will be allowed in the other 35 per cent of that zone. There will be controlled exploration, which I believe is the way it should be. Apparently at Corporation Hill the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has discovered quite a large deposit of gold. Of course there are many other minerals in the area. Mr Saunderson —How do you know? It has never been explored. Mr IAN CAMERON —The area has only been explored over the past 10 or 15 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! If the honourable member for Aston continues to interject I will deal with him. Mr Tim Fischer —Hear, hear! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Members on my left do not assist, either. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Australian Mining Industry Council has found that the drafts and regulations are not workable, and of course the Council does not seem to have had any input into this; the Government has just gone ahead and drawn up this legislation. The Government wants to retain the right to choose who should explore the area. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill extends the jurisdiction of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region to cover the inclusion of stage 3 of Kakadu in the conservation zone. Here we have a public servant, the Supervising Scientist, who will close down any mining inside the park if he so chooses. Mr McGauran —He has 76 in that office. Mr IAN CAMERON —There we are-more public servants which the taxpayers of this country have to pay for. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) is retrospective legislation. The Goodparla pastoral lease is owned by the Gunn rural company, and Ian Lewis is going up there. The Government is presently negotiating with this company to purchase these two pastoral leases. So far negotiations seems to be proceeding at a reasonable pace. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services controls the purchase of all land in Australia, and that Department is carrying out negotiations with these people for the sale of the lease. I imagine the same thing applies to Gimbat. One wonders how many more pastoral leases the socialists in the Labor Party will buy up across Australia. If land is not being bought up for national parks, it is being bought up for Aboriginal land leases. We have an allotment of money put down every year-it is now $90m-to buy up leases across Australia. One wonders where it will stop; one wonders why we do not want a cattle industry. This whole area has been grazed by thousands of head of cattle over the last 100 or so years, and I do not see why it should not continue to do that. The Kakadu area is not unique in Australia. I refer to three areas in this category-the Blue Mountains area, the Carnarvon area in my electorate, which I would argue is even more spectacular than the Kakadu area, and Kakadu. There is nothing unique about Kakadu. It is nonsense to say that it should be entered on the World Heritage List. What is the World Heritage List, anyway? It is a lot of nonsense. The Blue Mountains, the Carnarvon area and Kakadu are all similar sandstone escarpment areas. The Blue Mountains are more spectacular than Kakadu; it is a nonsense to say anything else. All the valleys around Carnarvon, covering hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, are just as spectacular, just as full of Aboriginal caves and have just as many waterholes and things as the Kakadu area, but because Kakadu happens to be controlled by the Commonwealth Government the Government does not seem to be satisfied until it has ripped most of the area off the people of the Northern Territory. It is high time it stopped. The park itself is really beyond any sort of manageable size, as it covers 17,000 square kilometres. One wonders why the Aborigines need that amount of land in that area. It is beyond me. Most of it is no good. I think there is quite a deal of escarpment area around Oenpelli, and of course the wetlands probably should be preserved. I reckon the rest of it should be turned back to grazing cattle, as it has been used for years past. The Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill will prevent the Aboriginal veto of exploration and mining. That is the 35 per cent of the two pastoral leases that I spoke about. The national parks Bill and the land rights Bill are retrospective. One wonders why that is necessary, but it seems that it is. It was the Labor Party that howled and cried at us when we introduced retrospective legislation into this House, and here it is doing exactly the same thing. Property rights are effectively null and void. The package creates a precedent for confiscating property while significantly denying compensation. That is a terrible state of affairs in this country of ours because we have always had a system whereby adequate compensation is paid. I just hope that the people who presently own these pastoral leases will get adequate and proper compensation. They have been up there for years running their cattle stations, trying to earn export income for this country while the Labor Party down here in Canberra just continues to borrow funds and spend them on unnecessary things. The Hawke Government is the greatest borrowing and greatest spending government we have seen since Federation. No government has borrowed more money or has spent more money than the Hawke socialist Government. The Hawke Government has borrowed $16 billion a year, and it is continuing to borrow huge amounts of money in order to do things like buying up land and locking up more and more of Australia in national parks. Obviously the Government is out to capture the vote. There must be an election coming on. There is no rational conservation reason for the way the boundaries have been drawn up. Straight lines have merely been drawn around the pastoral lease boundaries. There is nothing scientific about that. Of course Harry Butler says the same thing about this area. He says it is not worth preserving an acre of it. Most of it is just whipstick and low ridgy country which is only good for grazing cattle. I do not know what the Aborigines think they are going to do there, but I guarantee that they will not be sitting out there among the whipsticks; they will all be in town. Mr Saunderson —Come on; you can't say that. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. Mr Saunderson —They do not. Mr IAN CAMERON —We supply food for them; we give them this land but they do not use it. That is the sad thing about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Aston will cease interjecting. He might also bear in mind that as he is the next speaker he will obviously be expecting the Chair to allow him to be heard in silence. His behaviour at present does not set much of an example. Mr IAN CAMERON —Obviously most of the original or natural owners do not spend any time on these land grants; they basically live in town. Mr Saunderson —Come on! Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. Aborigines do live on some areas permanently but they do not live on most of the areas for which they have claimed land rights. There are very few Aborigines living in this area. If the honourable member cares to go there and have a look, he will see that that is true. Not only have I been there as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs of this House but also I worked through the area as a young fellow, capturing buffaloes and shooting crocodiles. My mate the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment says that that is fairly true. Years ago I did spend quite a deal of time on the South Alligator River. Of course, the original plan for Kakadu was to have multiple land use with significant sites being protected. I wonder where those sites are. I never saw any when I was there, but I believe there are some quite good rock drawings up in the caves on the escarpment. The escarpment is nowhere near this area, but there might still be a few rock paintings about. I certainly never saw any. Much of stages 2 and 3 is of very doubtful value as a national park. Many conservationists have said that these areas are not worth preserving. I wish the Government would lash around in the Carnarvon Gorge area the sort of Commonwealth funds that it is lashing around in the Territory. I would be very happy to have additional funding in my electorate to look after the Carnarvon National Park. It is a very beautiful area and I recommend to anybody listening tonight and to the members in the House that, if they have time, I would be only too happy to show them around. Both the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) have stayed at the lodge at the Carnarvon Gorge. They had a most enjoyable time. There is no doubt that it is a very spectacular area to visit. There are no crocodiles there, so that is something that visitors do not have to worry about. There are a few black snakes but no crocodiles. I invite all Australians who might be getting ready for the school holidays and Easter, if they enjoy camping holidays, to head up to the Carnarvon Gorge in the electorate of Maranoa. Mr McGauran —And drop into your office. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, and drop into Dalby on the way through. Much of stages 2 and 3 is of very doubtful value. There is no commitment in the future for mining operations outside of Kakadu. Stage 3 includes gold and platinum deposits. I have mentioned the deposits at Coronation Hill. Obviously there is no need to continue the administrative stage. These Bills will damage the mining industry by locking this area up forever. Once a national park is created, that is it. It seems terribly difficult for people to then get into a national park and take out some of the resources that should be available to all Australians. That is the other thing about mining: Royalties are paid, resources are taken out and the wealth obtained is spread throughout Australia. If we are to continue to grow and expand as a nation, we ought to be sensible enough to have the proper management controls in place so that we can go into these areas and mine them. I thank the House. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(8.52) —I must say that the contributions of the last two honourable members from the Opposition to some extent fired my degree of interjections during their speeches. This legislation will look after the environment of Kakadu National Park, an area recognised by everybody throughout the world-other than apparently the members of the Opposition in this House-as a natural wonder that needs to be protected absolutely. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill will ensure the preservation of the area. It annoys me to listen to contributions such as that made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who stood up and denigrated the Aboriginal people in the sense that he said that they do not look after the land they are given. Anybody who has been to Kakadu can see what the Aboriginal people looking after the place there have done in ensuring that visitors who go around can see what it is that gives them such a close attachment to the land that they own and belong to. But he did not talk about that or how well the area has developed since they have had control of the land, since they have been looking after it and since proper conservation techniques have been applied. He did not talk about that; he just tried to denigrate them. It is the typical sort of attitude one would expect from the National Party of Australia. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a very serious point of order. I would not think that there would be any more serious charge that an honourable member could level against another member in this place than that he is denigrating one or another sector of the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr SAUNDERSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise your judgment. I was only telling the truth about how others have spoken in a debate. I am sure that all the people in Australia have heard what was said, so they know that it was nothing more than a direct denigration of some people in Australia that is quite unjustified. We are talking about an area that was recognised by the previous Government as an area that needs to be preserved. It has already been placed on the World Heritage List. Stages 1 and 2 were part of the area when it was considered for world heritage listing. All we have done with stage 2 is to formalise that arrangement and we are now proceeding to list it. The acquisition of pastoral leases for stage 3 is a necessary step to complete the catchment areas to ensure that the whole environment around Kakadu has a buffer zone and a protective area. The honourable member for Maranoa talked about the fact that the acquisitions follow straight lines. He well knows that that is simply because we are acquiring pastoral leases and that that is the way that those boundaries are drawn. He tried to make out that the acquisition of the pastoral leases has really no relevance to the environment of Kakadu. He knows that that is an absolute falsehood. He knows that in reality the reason the Government is buying the pastoral leases is that within those pastoral leases are the catchment areas and the areas that we need to acquire to ensure the absolute protection of Kakadu as a total environment area. I really must say that I was put out by the contribution of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) because he stood up and deliberately lied to the community because he said that there would be a loss of jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Aston will withdraw that remark. Mr SAUNDERSON —I withdraw the comment that he lied. A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the Serjeant-at-Arms please bring back the honourable member for Maranoa, who just left the chamber. (Quorum formed) Mr Ian Cameron —I must apologise for my departure from the House. Mr SAUNDERSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, I withdrew my comment that the honourable member for Denison had lied, but I must say that he deliberately told mistruths in this House about what our legislation did to the Lemonthyme in Tasmania. He said that our legislation would create unemployment for 7,000 people. He knew that statement to be totally untrue and without foundation. He deliberately attempted to use scaremongering tactics in the hope that Tasmanians would continue to support him. He avoided talking about the Opposition's policy on the environment because he knows that it does not have any. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I suggest that the honourable member be brought back to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. This legislation has nothing to do with the Lemonthyme. It has nothing to do with Tasmania, either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The debate has been a wide-ranging debate. Many issues have been canvassed on both sides. I call the honourable member for Aston. Mr SAUNDERSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I knew that you would have been listening to the debate and that you would have known that the honourable member for Denison was allowed to talk at length about the Bill on the Lemonthyme when he was addressing himself to this Bill. The honourable member for Denison knows that what he was saying was totally untrue. The legislation was introduced to protect the Lemonthyme forest because the State Government was incapable of addressing the environment in a correct manner. We had to act in order to preserve the environment. He used a typical tactic of attempting to create division within the community-that is all he does. It is all right for him; he stands up in here and calls us Moscow corner; he calls us socialists. That is okay, but if we start addressing Opposition members as fascists, Hitlerites and use those sorts of denigrating terms, they get upset. But we do not do that. We know that the people understand what we are talking about. They understand the difference between proper economic policies and airy-fairy, witch-doctor voodoo medicine type cures. They know when people are truly concerned about the environment. They know those who are prepared to bring forward responsible legislation to protect areas such as Kakadu-one of the world's greatest environment areas to which people are flocking from all over the world-certain areas of Tasmania and the Great Barrier Reef. When we came to office only 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef was declared. We have declared 98 per cent of it. We have protected the whole area. Tourists come to see the natural wonders in one of the last frontiers of the world. We protected the reef; we have looked after it. There is a need to declare and acquire stage 3, not just because of the catchment area but because of the fact that there are wild buffalo and other wild animals wandering around creating havoc. There is a need for proper conservation management in that area in order to eradicate some of those problems. The environment must have an opportunity to recover and to return to its true and natural beauty. That will happen once we have acquired the land. Within the conservation zone we will allow some exploration to see whether there are large deposits of gold and other minerals as some people claim. We are prepared to consider whether there is a need to allow mining. If that does happen it will be very much with conservation in mind; conservation and the protection of the area are the key. We heard the honourable member for Maranoa say that mining has taken place in that area and that there are no problems, but as any honourable member on this side of the House would know-- Mr Milton —It is not true. Mr SAUNDERSON —Absolutely; as the honourable member for La Trobe says, it is not true. It is another untruth from Opposition members. They are full of them when they talk about these issues. We only have to look at the Ranger uranium mine to see that it has had nothing but problems. Only in the last few days the Government has had to take another firm stand in relation to the release of slightly polluted water from the Ranger uranium mine. The company came to us and said: `We've got a problem; we've got too much water'. Mrs Darling —Where's that? Mr SAUNDERSON —At the Ranger uranium mine which is within the Kakadu National Park area. It came to see us and we found out that it has problems because of poor management and poor planning. We said: `We will not contemplate the release of water. We want you to take further steps to ensure that you will not put at risk the environment within Kakadu'. I find it pretty disheartening that Opposition members still come in here with a Luddite mentality, which one would have hoped would have disappeared after four years of our Government. In that time they would have seen that it is possible to take measures to protect the environment and at the same time look after jobs, to create more jobs with the exploitation of the tourist trade and actually to do more than we have in the past. Rather than concentrate on dying industries in some areas we have been able to say that there are better things that we can do. We can build an industry, we can create jobs by looking after the environment and creating a tourist industry. I commend the Bills to the House. I know that they will be carried by this House because fortunately for us, the sane and rational attitude which the Government possesses is a majority attitude. The irrational and the irresponsible attitudes we find in the Opposition benches are minority attitudes. When this legislation goes to the Senate it will have the same result. Rational, free-thinking people will support these Bills because they preserve what is a wonderful treasure, a natural beauty. This area will be preserved not just for us, for tourism or for people overseas, but for the generations to come. I know that the majority view in this House and in the Senate will carry that through. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.07) —I am pleased to support the comments made by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) in this debate. Mr Milton —And the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, there are other colleagues on this side of the House who I am pleased to support as well. The honourable member for Aston has indicated that the Opposition has come to a sorry circumstance when it looks at the inheritance that Malcolm Fraser left it with. In recognition of the fact that national parks are important and that they play an important role in the development of Australia as a mature community, the contributions we have had from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) can only be described as being prompted by the extreme group of the New Right. It would bode ill for the future of Australia if they were to exercise any decision making authority. Mr Kent —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for two honourable members from the Government side of the House to speak one after the other? Is not the Opposition interested in this debate? Is it not interested in protecting the environment or our heritage? Where are they? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order arises. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. Before I call the honourable member for Stirling, I remind the House that the Speaker normally recognises heads of State and foreign dignitaries who are present in the chamber. I point out to honourable members that we have a person in the chamber who often masquerades on the television as a dignitary, as Sir James Hacker. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I think that Australians would be delighted to know that we have another Prime Minister here who adds dignity and lustre to his office in the same way that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) adds dignity and lustre to his office-the Rt Hon. Sir James Hacker, otherwise known as Paul Eddington (Quorum formed) I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues here to contribute to this debate. They would be interested to know, as would the Australian community, that members of the Opposition are counting heads again tonight. They have to do it twice a day because they change their position and some of them even change their minds. They have difficulty finding any conscience or soul so they do not count consciences or souls, all they do is count heads. I remind the people of Australia that members of the Opposition are staggering and struggling around the lobbies of Parliament tonight seeking yet again to restore their lost authority. But we, on this side of the House, are quite comfortable. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) came in and disrupted the proceedings of the chamber yet again. We are disturbed about this. Obviously, the people of Australia are disturbed about it, but we have become used to the fact that members of the Opposition have resorted to being a rabble. They cannot contribute to policy or to the Australian community, they are merely disruptive. That is their inheritance. The Australian community will reward them appropriately in the next election. However, we on this side of the House have a lot of work to do. As I was saying before I was interrupted, we have the presence of another Prime Minister with us tonight. We are pleased to see him here. The Australian people are always pleased to see him here and will certainly see the work that he contributes to the culture of Australia. I also note the presence of Mr Graeme Kelleher of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I have been pleased to work with him on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The people of Australia probably wonder where Kakadu National Park is. Not only were we fortunate enough to have the film Crocodile Dundee, which took part of its action there, but in order to describe precisely where Kakadu National Park lies-- Mr Milton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my friend. I draw attention to the fact that there is not a member on the Opposition front bench. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Opposition front bench is trying to find itself at the moment, that is why it is not here. When it does find itself, which we expect will be some time in mid-1988, we will advise the Australian people. I suggest they go out with a geiger counter to try to find it. However, let me return to what I was saying. The Kakadu National Park is located between 132 degrees and 133 degrees east and between 12 degrees and 14 degrees south-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will stop calling out to each other across the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I am persisting under some difficulty but I thank you for your help, Madam Deputy Speaker. It lies approximately 150 kilometres to the east of Darwin and approximately 150 kilometres to the north of Katherine. In order for the Australian community to understand the circumstances we are debating here, I point out that stage 1 of Kakadu National Park contains approximately 6,144 square kilometres within the Alligator River region. Stage 1 was proclaimed on 5 April 1979. Stage 2 was proclaimed on 28 February 1984. It encompasses an area of 6,929 square kilometres. The Australian people will appreciate that we are talking about a park of some substance and some importance, both in terms of its quality and quantity. On 13 March 1984 public notice was given of an intention to submit a report recommending that stage 3, which in other terms is known as the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases, be submitted for incorporation within a national park. The area of Gimbat and Goodparla in stage 3 comprises 6,726 square kilometres. So when we are talking about the Kakadu National Park, we are talking about three stages which are significant both in terms of their diversity and also in terms of their World Heritage status. I will talk about that in a moment. So that people understand the significance of decisions about national parks it is important to know that in 1872 in the United States of America, Yellowstone National Park, the world's first national park, was declared. Some seven years later in Australia the Royal National Park in Sydney was declared. In that sense that made us a world leader in terms of the declaration of national parks. That is why I think it is sad to hear members of the Opposition decrying national parks as they have in this debate. They do not recognise the inheritance that we have been given in this land of enlightenment and they seek to act in a negative way. Mr Chynoweth —Vandals. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley says, they are vandals. There is no doubt about that when we hear the contributions of the honourable member for Maranoa and the honourable member for Denison. However, we must not give up when looking for enlightenment. I also add that much is to be said of the work that has been done on the assessment of this national park. For example, in terms of topographic features six basic regions can be discerned within the Kakadu National Park. They range from tidal flats through flood plains to lowlands which are really quite significant. This essentially covers stages 1 and 2 through to lowlands which consist mostly of undulating plains with rocky hills and ridges. The fourth feature is the escarpment and its outlines. Those honourable members who have visited Kakadu National Park, as have many members of the Government, will be struck by the starkness of the escarpment alongside the other tropical features of the area. The fifth topographic feature is the plateau. This is the western margin of the Arnhem Land plateau. It comprises ancient sedimentary rocks. The sixth feature-this essentially is within the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases-is the southern hills and basins. But I make the point, because members of the Opposition have spoken about this matter in a most uninformed way, that stage 3 of Kakadu National Park comprises a significant water catchment area for stages 1 and 2. When the honourable member for Maranoa comes in here and says that it is simply scrub country, he is ignoring one important feature; that is, that if we interfere with the catchment area in stage 3, we interfere with stages 1 and 2. I remind members of the Opposition that Prime Minister Fraser recognised the significance of Kakadu National Park. There has also been criticism of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I remind those opposite that that Office was set up following the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry by the Fraser Government. Those opposite should see that in their search for the dogma of the New Right they are turning their backs on an inheritance which had some principles. That inheritance was provided by the former Prime Minister. They are throwing that away. Members of the Australian community understand that. I think they will also judge those opposite very harshly because of that. We on this side of the House have no doubt of our role in relation to our inheritance. Our role is to ensure that we protect that inheritance. That is not a mindless preservation, that is an active plan of management recognising that Aboriginals will play a very substantial part. It also recognises that there are mineral claims within that area. I will make an observation about the mineral claims. It is significant that when the tide of the New Right began to rise last year, as all dogmatists do, at a certain stage some of those spokespersons of the New Right began to talk about making claims in stage 3. I remind the Australian community that many other mineral claims, which lie right outside of stage 3, in an a priori sense may well be just as valuable as those claims within stage 3. We can only be left with the conclusion that those claims within stage 3 are being pressed because, in effect, the members of the New Right are seeking, where they can, to downgrade or somehow interfere with the authority of national parks. We can come to no other conclusion. If we look at the mineral prospectivity studies that have been done within stage 3, which is the area of the Gimbat and Goodparla leases, and also look at the mineral activity in those areas adjacent to but outside of stage 3, we see that the claims in stage 3 are being pressed because the New Right is out to establish a situation in which national parks will no longer be safe from mining activity. That is not good enough for us in this Parliament, who have some duty of care towards our natural inheritance. Let the Australian people remember that, with the Opposition's flirtation with the New Right, in effect it is saying that national parks can be subject to this sort of attack. There is no other way to read the arguments put forward by Mr Copeman and others who said that they want to advance those claims. Those claims are in the area of the South Alligator River region, which is a significant water catchment area. Mr Hodgman —Come off it; don't lecture. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I spoke earlier about dogmatists and I am sad to hear the honourable member for Denison sounding like one. We normally expect better from him, but something has happened to the company he keeps. The South Alligator River region is a significant area in terms of water catchment. It is also subject to many mining claims. Under this legislation 65 per cent of stage 3 will be kept as a national park. The remaining portion will be subject to mineral prospectivity. I give an assurance to the Australian community that this Government is opposed to mining in Kakadu. I take up another point that is of current relevance. Some people are concerned about the release of contaminated water from the Ranger uranium mine. I was pleased to note the announcement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) which, in effect, says to the miners that they must retain that water. The members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation have looked at the water quality within RP2-retention pond 2-which lies within the restricted release zone of the mine site. The conclusion we have reached is that we will not look at the question of water release until there is the best practicable technology. I make the observation that we are very concerned about our responsibility to the environment within the Kakadu National Park. We recognise that we have an inheritance and in properly carrying out our responsibility towards that inheritance we will not allow some of the more reckless claims being made by the Opposition to stand unchallenged. There are five pieces of legislation here and what we are about fundamentally is protecting stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu-I have already referred to their dimensions-and protecting stage 3, while recognising that there are some existing mineral claims that need to be tested. The Australian community is being given an assurance that this Government is responsible in terms of its environment and conservation responsibilities and also recognises some mineral claims-not the mindless thumping of dogma that we get from those opposite, but a sensitive and sensible response to the public need. The thing that comes out of this debate is that the Opposition has not contributed one iota to it, except to continue its dogmatic sounds, which merely reflect the more extreme claims of the New Right. The Opposition will be judged-`Don't you worry about that'-and judged very harshly. That judgment will be very severe. The members of the Opposition have very short memories. Prime Minister Fraser had a much better understanding of his national responsibilities on matters of the environment. Mr Moore —Not me; I have a long memory. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member speaks about having a long memory; he certainly does in relation to the Joh Nationals. He will come to see that the Joh Nationals do not offer salvation for him, either. Speakers on this side have said some significant things in this debate. This debate is about our national responsibilities to Kakadu National Park. Kakadu stages 1 and 2 are significant. In relation to the Aboriginal claims, the honourable member for Maranoa sought to disparage the Aborigines in relation to their claims. In fact, studies indicate that the Aboriginal claims go back some 25,000 years in this area. It is really very shallow and absurd for those opposite to disparage the Aboriginal relationship. As one who has visited the area, I would say that, aside from its geographic beauty, the other striking characteristic of Kakadu is the Aboriginal relationship to the area. When one has seen the importance of that area for Aborigines and the way the Aborigines have tended to relate to the area, it takes on extra meaning. I do not think that anyone here, if they were sensible about it, could deny that or deny the substance of what we are saying. We are talking about an area which has striking qualities in terms of its geographic inheritance, cultural qualities in terms of the relationship of the Aborigines in the community, and other qualities in relation to the rest of the community. We recognise the mineral claims and also recognise the tourism claims. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his reaction to all of these issues, is aware that there will always be pressure between tourism and the environment. I am pleased to say that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is aware of that important responsibility. How do we ensure that a tourism area such as this is managed properly, so that it is not downgraded, and how do we ensure at the same time that its conservation values are retained? I am sure that many honourable members on this side could add to this debate. I think I reflect the views of everyone on this side in saying that we regard Kakadu as very significant; we regard this legislation as fundamental; and we regard our responsibilities as substantial. I am sad to say that the members of the Opposition do not, but we can never expect anything better from them. In terms of the inheritance, this Government is aware of its responsibilities and I am sure that the Australian community understands that. Accordingly, I am pleased to commend this legislation to the House. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Before proceeding, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Lance Barnard, is in the House. Debate resumed. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(9.28) —in reply-Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad that you drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Hon. Lance Barnard is in the House. I am delighted to see him here. He is a friend, a colleague of long-standing and a great Australian. I would first like to thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate. We have heard some excellent speeches. I was not able to listen to all the speakers, but I heard some excellent contributions. I was not able to hear the speech of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), but I had the pleasure of reading it and it was sheer poetry. I recommend to all honourable members that they read the speech, if they did not get the chance to listen to it. There were some excellent contributions, from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), and there were even some fine performances from the Opposition side. I particularly mention the speech made by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). All of those who were in the House last night when he spoke were not only impressed by the quality of the speech but deeply moved by the sentiments expressed in it. It shows that those of us who have had the good fortune to serve as Ministers for the Environment have probably been significantly influenced by our experience. I had three years as shadow Minister for the Environment, and I have been a Minister for four years, and I know that that experience is a very rich one. I am eternally grateful for the fact that the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), appointed me shadow Minister, because he made me go out and look at the environment in a way that I had never done before. I was forced to go out and tramp around Fraser Island, the Daintree, Kakadu National Park and the outback. I saw these areas on television and I read about them but it is another thing to experience it. I think what we saw from the honourable member for Groom last night was a reflection of those sorts of experiences. It is very clear to me that a man from the National Party of Australia probably has a different view on the environment from what we on this side of the House have. But he was changed by his experience as Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I was delighted, as we all were, with his speech. He showed a comprehension, an understanding and a love for the environment and Kakadu National Park in particular. I also want to support him in what he said about Professor Derrick Ovington, who is the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service of Australia. As I said the other night when I was referring to Graeme Kelleher, the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, they are two great Australians, two outstanding public servants and two men whom I am proud to say I have worked with over the last four years. I agree completely with the sentiments that the honourable member for Groom expressed last night. I regret to say that Opposition members generally have shown no understanding of what constitutes an ecosystem and what is required to protect it. Last night the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) repeated what he said in a speech some time ago. He said that the Opposition, if in government, would put up fences-I do not know whether I am adequately describing what he said-to protect those areas in the Kakadu National Park that were of value. He was talking about the rock art of Aboriginal people, the wetlands, the escarpment and so on. I tried to explain it last time, but it seems to me that he and other members on the Opposition side have totally failed to understand how an ecosystem works. We cannot just isolate one part of a national park, one part of an ecosystem and say: `We will protect that'. A good example of how an ecosystem functions and how parts of that system are interdependent upon other parts is what happened recently in Europe when an accidental release of chemicals from a factory in Switzerland polluted the Rhine River and killed virtually everything in the river for hundreds and hundreds of miles. It was not just what happened in Switzerland; it was what happened all the way down the Rhine River until it reached the sea. That is the point we are making about Kakadu National Park. We cannot put a fence around the wetlands and say: `We will protect that'. We have to protect the headwaters. We have to protect the whole ecosystem that makes up part of the Alligator Rivers system, the Magela Creek system and Kakadu National Park. It is that basic lack of comprehension on the part of the Opposition that makes its argument in this case quite absurd. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to protect areas of national and international importance. We are not about getting involved in every national park, as they are so-called. The term `national park' is a misnomer because in most cases national parks are in fact State parks. But we are not about getting in and protecting every forest and park in this country. We are about protecting-- Mr Hodgman —You are, in Tasmania. Mr Connolly —How does this lie with your Tasmanian policy? Mr COHEN —If honourable members will just wait, I will tell them what I believe to be our obligations. It is obvious that this Government, the Fraser Government and the Whitlam Government before that saw that they had obligations to protect certain great national and international treasures. Is there any question in this Parliament or in this nation that it is not a Federal responsibility to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? There has never been any argument about that. There are six areas now on the World Heritage List. They are Lord Howe Island, Willandra Lakes, the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, the South West world heritage area in Tasmania and the New South Wales rainforests. It is our moral obligation as a Federal government to protect those areas when they are under threat. In most cases they are not under threat. Certainly, Lord Howe Island, Willandra Lakes and the New South Wales rainforests are adequately protected by the State Government of New South Wales. We are in the process of nominating the Uluru National Park, which is Ayers Rock, for that World Heritage List. Successive governments, not just this Government-look at the record of the Fraser Government of which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was a member, God help us-- Mr Milton —A Minister, too-surprisingly. Mr COHEN —A Minister, nonetheless. When he was a Minister, the Fraser Government, to its great credit, acknowledged the fact that it had a responsibility to protect the Uluru National Park, Kakadu National Park and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Mr Hodgman —We did not declare war on Tasmania like you have. Mr COHEN —We are discussing the Kakadu package of Bills. I know that it is hard for the honourable member to get across Bass Strait. But for God's sake, he should try to concentrate his mind on some part of Australia other than Tasmania. I wish to God he would recognise that his first responsibility is as an Australian. He should join the rest of this Parliament and become an Australian first, and not a Tasmanian. The Opposition now says that it wants to return Kakadu National Park and, of course, Uluru National Park to the Northern Territory. I ask the simple question: Why did honourable members opposite not do it during the 7 1/2 years that they were in government? I will tell them why they did not do it. They did not do it for the very obvious reason that they did not trust the cowboys up there who run the Northern Territory. They knew that they had a moral obligation to protect one of the great environmental treasures of the world. They would not let the Northern Territory take it over for that reason. They knew what the people up there would do to it. They would mine it from one end to the other. They would mine the gold in their grandmothers' teeth if they got the opportunity to do it. So we are following on the great traditions of the Fraser Government in protecting Kakadu National Park from the vandals that would destroy it if they had the opportunity to do so. The Northern Territory was invited to participate in the management of Uluru National Park but it declined. This does not give us much confidence in the continuing commitment of the present Northern Territory Government to major national parks. Co-operation has been more positive in respect of Kakadu in that seconded Northern Territory officers have helped to manage the park. The honourable member for Bradfield asserted that land rights legislation will be applied retrospectively to mineral interests in the conservation zone. That is simply not correct. The Bills will enable the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be claimed by traditional owners. Mineral interests which exist at the time an area becomes Aboriginal land will not be subject to an Aboriginal veto on mining. However, new mining ventures on Aboriginal land will require a terms and conditions agreement with the relevant land council as applies elsewhere in the Northern Territory. Land council consent will be required for new exploration licences over Aboriginal land in the conservation zone except for the Coronation Hill project area. Contrary to what was said by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth granted the Aboriginals only 7 per cent of Kakadu stage 2. Last night the honourable member for the Northern Territory made some extraordinary statements. But still, that comes as no great shock to us. We have learned to live with his view of the facts, and I will be dealing with that later in my concluding remarks. As I said, contrary to what he said, the Commonwealth granted to Aboriginals only 7 per cent of Kakadu stage 2. This was the area recommended by the Land Rights Commission. Private companies will be invited to apply to explore in the conservation zone on titles to be granted by the Commonwealth. Northern Territory authorities will be invited to assist in considering exploration applications and the day to day management of the exploration program. I understand that already considerable interest has been shown by mining companies in taking part in the exploration program. There have been extravagant claims about the value of minerals said to be locked up. The Opposition seems completely confused about which parts of the region it is talking about and the basis for its claims. The figures of $32 billion and $400 billion are both used by the honourable member for Bradfield, which just indicates how confused he is. Let us examine the proposition that if we do not permit mining right across the board in Kakadu National Park we are locking the area up. Under the previous Government three areas were excised from the park. They were the Ranger uranium mine, Jabiluka and Koongarra. Nabarlek was outside the area. Two mines proceeded-Nabarlek and Ranger. Why did honourable members opposite not permit Jabiluka and Koongarra to go ahead? They had the opportunity to do so. They were in government for 7 1/2 years. They did not do so for the very simple reason that they knew that if they let these mines proceed the world markets would be flooded with uranium and we would not be able to sell what we mined. Honourable members opposite talked about, logically, sequential development, not because of any feeling for the environment but because they did not want to flood the world market with uranium. Now this Government has agreed to proceed with Roxby Downs, which is believed to be the largest uranium mine in the world. So we have Ranger, Nabarlek and Roxby. There is enough uranium in this country outside the national park, outside this valuable world heritage area, to provide the rest of the world with uranium for years to come. There are plenty more areas in Australia which could be mined for uranium which are outside one of the most valuable ecosystems in the world. Yet honourable members opposite have talked about locking the area up. It is like saying that if we mined all the coal in Australia today we could get hundreds of millions of dollars worth of coal. But if we mined it we could not sell it tomorrow. The same sort of nonsense has been talked about Kakadu National Park. Uranium is available outside the area. It may be that 20 or 30 years down the track uranium will be so valuable that a government in the future-the first Gary Punch Ministry or the second Ron Edwards Ministry, or whatever it is-will see a need to mine uranium in that area. But it is not necessary now because there is a finite demand for uranium in the world. Because the resource is maintained for years to come in a national park does not mean that it is forever lost. This Government and I believe that at this stage there is no earthly reason to mine that area. If some future government in 20, 30 or 50 years wants to do it, let it make the decision and put that decision to the people. It is certainly not needed now. To talk about $300 billion, $400 billion or whatever figure one plucks out of the air and to say that that is being locked up now is sheer nonsense because if we mined the whole lot tomorrow we could not sell a fraction of it. Honourable members opposite know it and when they were in government they did not mine it for the same reason. I remind honourable members opposite that 35 per cent of the conservation zone in Kakadu stage 3 is highly prospective for platinum and gold. The mining companies will be able to explore that area and if it is found to be a valuable national resource they may proceed to mine it. Mr Milton —Subject to-- Mr COHEN —Exactly, providing they meet the environmental standards. I thank the honourable member for La Trobe. That is quite different from what the Opposition wants to do, which is not only to permit the existing mines of Ranger and Nabarlek, and no doubt Roxby, to proceed; it wants Jabiluka and Koongarra and then Kakadu stage 2 to be mined. It keeps saying that this is only 1, 2 or 3 per cent of the whole area, or whatever it is the Opposition likes to give. This is like saying: `Don't worry, we are only going to take about 3 per cent of your brain'. In the case of the honourable member for Denison that is a lot. The honourable member for Bradfield knows that he was talking nonsense. He knows that if the opportunity were available to mine all these so-called locked up resources we could not sell the uranium. The Government has made information available which indicates that the arrangements for stages 1, 2 and 3 and the conservation zone are a reasonable balance between potential mining values and conservation values. Mr Hodgman —Claptrap. Mr COHEN —Has the honourable member ever been there? Mr Hodgman —I have indeed. Mr COHEN —That is a great shock to me. Mr Hodgman —I am looking at Senator Evans's words. `Nothing more than clapped out buffalo country'-that is what he called Kakadu stage 3. Mr COHEN —On most things I agree with the honourable senator. I do not happen to agree with his definition of the area as clapped out buffalo country or anything like it. I turn to the question of tourism in the area. If there is one aspect of Kakadu National Park that is extremely exciting for the Government it is the enormous increase in tourism to that area. When we came to office there were 42,000 visitors a year going to Kakadu National Park. In 1985 there were 101,000 visitors. Last year there were 131,000. Surveys have shown that tourism to the park this year is up around 150 per cent. We are now in the last stages of the wet. Normally at this stage there is nobody to speak of in Kakadu National Park. Already there are vast crowds of people there. Bookings at the hotels are 60 per cent up on previous years. I am hoping to go there in August-September. I have been told that if I as the Minister do not hurry up I will not be able to get into Kakadu National Park. The two reasons for this are obvious: Firstly, there is the enormous publicity Kakadu National Park has had over the past six months, partly through this controversy. Secondly, we have to pay tribute once again to Paul Hogan; Crocodile Dundee has been one of the major reasons for the increase, which has only just started. The one problem I am concerned about at the moment is that we were not able to foresee this enormous boom in tourism and I am concerned that we will not have the accommodation available for people if they go there. I am asking my Department to see what we can do about emergency accommodation over the coming dry. Some Opposition speakers have made quite unfounded statements about the absence of natural values in Gimbat and Goodparla. I refer now to the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —I never mentioned it. Mr COHEN —The honourable member just talked about it being clapped out buffalo country. I know he cannot remember what he said 30 seconds ago. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr COHEN —I hope this is not a frivolous point of order. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister is misleading the House. I did not say it; Senator `Biggles' Evans said it, not me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -That is not a point of order. Mr COHEN —Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison knows that he quoted Senator Evans to make a point. He knows full well that that is a cheap debating point he was trying to make. Honourable members opposite should know that this area contains major scenic places such as the UDP Falls, the Koolpin Gorge and the South Alligator River. The most important aspect of stage 3 is that it is the headwaters of the whole of the Alligator Rivers region. Unless we can protect those headwaters what happens downstream is unimportant. We have to protect those headwaters from pollution, environmental degradation and so on. Sixty per cent of the area is of land types either not found in or poorly represented in Kakadu. It contains extensive areas of habitat of rare species of animals and birds. The Aboriginal rock art provides a significant added dimension. (Quorum formed) (Extension of time granted) If I were to look back on the four years of this Government and its record on the environment I would say that its proudest achievement is what it has done in Kakadu National Park. There is a lot I could say. I thank everybody for the contribution he has made. I repeat what I said about the honourable member for Groom and the speech he made. It was an excellent contribution and even more excellent because it came from a National Party member. I thank the honourable member for La Trobe, the honourable member for Stirling, the honourable member for Throsby and even a member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bradfield, for the contributions they have made. It is a shame and a tragedy that we cannot all unite and carry on the tradition of the work done by the Fraser Government in preserving this area and making it one of the great national parks, not only of Australia but of the whole world. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(10.00) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 2, page 1, insert the following clauses: Interpretation ``2a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by inserting after the definition of `interest' in subsection (1) the following definition: ` ``Kakadu National Park'' means the area for the time being declared under section 7 to be the park of that name;'; (b) by omitting from subsection (1) the definition of `operations for the recovery of minerals'. ``2b. After section 3 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Operations for the recovery of minerals `3a. (1) In this Act, subject to subsection (2), ``operations for the recovery of minerals'' means any operations or activities for or in connection with, or incidental to, the mining (whether by underground or surface working) or recovery of minerals or the production of material from minerals and, in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes: (a) prospecting and exploration for minerals, the milling, refining, treatment and processing of minerals and the handling, transportation, storage and disposal of minerals and of material produced from minerals; and (b) the construction and use of towns, camps, dams, pipelines, power lines or other structures, and the performance of any other work, for the purposes of any such operations or activities. `(2) In this Act, ``operations for the recovery of minerals'' does not include: (a) anything done for the purposes of building or construction, or the supply of water, in a park or reserve, unless those purposes are connected with, or incidental to, operations for the recovery of minerals; (b) the transportation of anything in the Kakadu National Park along routes (including air routes) prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; (c) the construction and use of pipelines and power lines in Kakadu National Park along routes prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or (d) prescribed activities carried on in Kakadu National Park in connection with, or incidental to, operations for the recovery of minerals carried on outside Kakadu National Park.'.''. (2) Clause 4, page 2, line 12, omit ``8d''. The purpose of the amendments is to correct a minor technical error in the drafting of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and to exclude certain activities from application of the `no mining' provisions. The main activities which will be excluded are the recovery of water and gravel essential for management of the park; transportation of minerals, goods and people through Kakadu National Park, and other activities in the park related to mining outside the park. Transport routes and activities related to mining will be prescribed by regulations to come into effect at the same time as the amended legislation. This is essentially the same provision as that in the current National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, which requires the approval of the Governor-General for mineral related activities in the National Park. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.02) —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen) has moved amendments to the legislation, which the Opposition supports because it is simple common sense that there should be no provision in the Act which in any way inhibits miners from carrying out their normal bona fide activities in the context of mines contained in areas which have previously been excised from Kakadu National Park. The point needs to be made that the very fact that the Minister has had to move the amendments, which, among other things, permit the transportation of anything in the Kakadu National Park along routes, including air routes and roads, which may be prescribed for the purpose of the Act-namely, for mining-and also the construction and use of pipelines and power lines in Kakadu National Park, also along routes prescribed for the purposes of the paragraph, makes a nonsense of his suggestion at the end of the second reading stage that he believed there was a case for single-use plans of management. The point that the Opposition has tried to make in this debate is that the original plan of management for Kakadu stage 1, which was introduced during the period of the Fraser Government, specified that we were looking at a multiple-use plan; in other words, we were trying to achieve the best of both worlds-firstly, the protection of those areas of the National Estate contained in Kakadu which are now part of the World Heritage, which obviously deserve to be protected, and, secondly, at the same time, enabling the resources of the region to be developed under conditions which also protected the fundamental importance of the environmental factors of the region. Mr Nehl —Can't hear, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Mr Nehl —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I sincerely hope that it is not a frivolous one. I was merely attempting to draw your attention to the very high level of noise in the chamber. I could not hear the speaker. I was endeavouring to be of assistance to you, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Cowper is of assistance to nobody if he makes unseemly noise such as that. The honourable member knows the way to draw the attention of the Chair to a matter and he does not help by doing it in the way he did. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister is well aware of the fact that all around the world, particularly in the United States of America and in some of the great national parks of that region, multiple land use policies have been effectively introduced. He should be well aware of the fact that in parts of the United States, for example, oil extraction, mining and a whole range of activities are allowed to be conducted provided that they do not militate against the primary environmental protection. For example, in the non-breeding periods of bird life and so forth mining, oil extraction and other forms of economic development are allowed to be carried out. Those things have been done overseas and they can be achieved in a sensible and straightforward manner. The Minister also drew attention to the fact that we have been drawing some extraordinary statistics in relation to allegations as to what the mineralised wealth of the Kakadu region may well be. As I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate, on 10 October 1986 I asked a question of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). His response on that occasion was quite straightforward. He said: `My Department is aware of about 150 mineral occurrences, prospects and deposits in the Kakadu region . . . He made it abundantly clear, as the industry has made it clear on so many occasions-this Government and the Minister in particular prefer to totally ignore this-that the mineralisation of this region, although such a limited degree of exploration has been carried out, is extremely high, irrespective of whether it is viewed by Australian standards or by world standards. The Minister went on to say, in his answer to my question, that the figure of $32 billion was an estimate-that was all-of what the values of the region may be. As I also said in my speech at the second reading stage, some estimates have gone as high as $400 billion. Whatever the figure may be, the fact of the matter is that we will never know it. This Minister has permitted the introduction of an arrangement, which he has put before the Committee in legislative form, which, for all time, will ensure that no-one will ever know what the real values of the region are. It will be very difficult in future to defend purely ecological values side by side with the fact that the Australian people must be supported in their ability to trade with the outside world in commodities which are obviously necessary. I now refer to the specifics of the geological environments in this region. On the basis of the little intelligence that we have, we know that there are similarities here with Saskatchewan, Canada, which has uranium types; Zambian copper; Kalgoorlie gold, and, of course, Mount Isa Hilton lead zinc. The occurrence of platinum and palladium associated with gold and uranium at Coronation Hill may well prove to be an environmental circumstance not previously recognised elsewhere. The realities, therefore, are that the whole basis of the Kakadu region is, as I said previously, without doubt the richest environment for mineralisation known on the Australian continent. Despite that fact, we have seen in this legislation tonight, as we saw in October last year, a total inability and unwillingness on the part of this Government to live up to the fact that, although it has a responsibility to protect the environment, it does not have a responsibility to protect the environment in a manner which totally militates against any other multiple land use policy whatsoever. In this region we have a mineral exploration in its infancy. As my colleagues and I have repeated, we do not know what is in the region because of the short period during which exploration has been carried through. Nevertheless, in that limited period which was available for systematic follow-up testing of favourable beds, the results have been extremely encouraging. For example, the Ranger 34 copper prospect has revealed a new mineral environment similar to the Zambian copper belt. The Coronation Hill polymetallic deposit of gold, platinum, palladium and uranium may also prove to be a new environmental development. The success rate of mineral discoveries in the short exploration period that was available was extremely high. Surely three in the three years makes that point more than clearcut. The discoveries were a major breakthrough in the understanding of the formation of a new type of uranium deposit-the unconformity type, similar to the prolific Canadian deposits known in Saskatchewan. The geological environment of the initial discoveries of uranium in the Alligator Rivers and the South Alligator River mineral provinces has also shown to be favourable for the formation of gold, PGE and copper, but little exploration has been devoted to testing for those minerals. New technology is now available to systematically explore the soil and the sandstone covered areas that occupy the majority of the park, away from the near surface or exposed initial mineral discoveries. The most important point is this: The old days when one had to do shot lines across the country and despoil everything in one's path as a means of determining what was below the surface are gone. We now have the capacity, through science and physical development, to be able to carry out research into potential mineral discoveries which cause no effective change at all on the surface and which certainly will not in any way influence the so-called values which the Minister apparently claims are to be found in the entire region of the Alligator River catchment area. He knows, as I know, that an area as vast as that, which is larger than many of the nations of Western Europe, cannot possibly be seen as being uniform in terms of its environmental and ecological significance. As I have said before, it is certainly the view of the Opposition parties that we must do all that is practicable and all that is necessary to ensure that we protect those pristine elements of our ecological environment for future generations of Australians. But at the same time we have the responsibility to seek environmental protection which is balanced-balanced between the need for conservation and for protection, on the one hand, and the equal need and responsibility of governments to enable the development of Australian resources in a manner which is not inconsistent with effective management programs, on the other hand. But what we have seen in the new management policy introduced in October last year is a total refusal by this Government to contemplate on any terms whatsoever the conduct of exploration or the development of resources in any part of Kakadu except that part which the Minister now very kindly gives us at the bottom end of the spectrum, some 34 per cent of stage 3 which he claims to be a conservation zone-a conservation zone which, incidentally, will still not be open to those who may find resources because the conditions which will be set on the development of such resources remain at this stage very much a figment of the Minister's imagination. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, for the past four years the Sunraysia Voluntary Emergency Relief Group has had responsibility for administering and distributing Federal emergency relief funds in the Mildura community. This group was specifically formed to carry out this task and comprises representatives from local church groups including the Salvation Army, concerned individuals and benevolent societies. As the Federal member, I have been aware of this group's high level of concern and its important counselling role, combined with its integrity and efficiency in the administration of public funds. In May last year I made representations to the then Minister for Community Services on behalf of this relief group, requesting a change to guidelines and seeking the right to endorse food vouchers to ensure that they were used for food and not for alcohol and cigarettes. After repeated representations the Minister, to his credit, finally granted approval. This approval was sought for two major reasons: Firstly, to ensure that limited funds were able to meet the huge need of the homeless and underprivileged, a need mainly for daily sustenance and housing; and, secondly, because of the moral view that taxpayers' funds should not be expended on alcohol or cigarettes and so contribute to or compound economic and social problems being encountered by the recipients. However, a few weeks later the Sunraysia community was shocked, and in fact was offended, to find that the Department of Community Services, no doubt directed by this Government, had withdrawn all funds from the Sunraysia Emergency Relief Group and had given responsibility instead to the Mildura Trades and Labour Council. As well, it had cut the annual allocation from $32,500 to $18,300. These actions can only be seen as a blatant political exercise against an organisation and a community that have done an excellent job and whose only concern was to help underprivileged and homeless people. The Trades and Labour Council delegated responsibility for the distribution of this reduced allocation to the Sunraysia Coalition of Low Income Earners. I have now been asked by this group to go to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) seeking further funds as this group has distributed the year's allocation of $18,300 in under four weeks-in other words, up to $1,000 a day-and now none is left. The Sunraysia community is absolutely outraged over this situation. In an article in the Sunraysia Daily newspaper of last Saturday, the vice-president of the Sunraysia youth accommodation project, Councillor Craig Bildstein, said that it was absolutely outrageous that this money had been distributed in such a short period. He said that he understood that this new group had handed out money to just about everybody who wanted it, for whatever reason. The article states: He said people working in the field were absolutely livid that the Federal Government had allowed the vouchers to be distributed from the Trades and Labour Council. The Captain of the local Salvation Army, Captain David Howe, said that the money would have lasted six or seven months had it been handled by responsible people. Captain Howe also said that the idea of management was to make the money last the length of time for which it had been allocated. He went on to say that someone should sit down with alcoholic people and encourage them to seek rehabilitative help instead of giving them money which only furthered their problem. He said that he had come across numerous cases where people had spent up to $300 in two days, and that there were so many people using the system. Other comments in the same vein were made by Mrs Betty Krake, President of the Sunraysia Emergency Accommodation Centre. She said: We still feel very strongly that the restrictions are needed on vouchers. The Director of Mallee Family Care, Mr Vern Knight, said that the distribution of emergency funds was better left to those groups best equipped to run the service, such as benevolent societies and Emmaus House. Now, of course, we find that the Acting Manager of the Department of Social Security in Mildura has said that his Department will now have to refer people to other groups such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, the clerk of courts, the Salvation Army and Emmaus House. The Minister for Community Services advised me at a meeting I had with him last night that there are no more funds to be allocated, so no more funds will be allocated to the Sunraysia community for the next 12 months. This therefore throws all the problems back on to the local charitable relief groups from which this Government removed the original allocation of funds. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.20) —Tonight I want to talk about a new attraction that Canberra will have by 1988-the Australian Opal and Gemstone Museum. This museum will be the contribution of one opal mining family to Australia's heritage-the family of Mr John Benny, whose presence I acknowledge here tonight. I have with me some samples of the wonderful exhibits that will be on display in his museum. Whenever a particular piece of opal was considered to be exceptional because of its size, shape or colour, it was added to the Benny family collection. After 20 years of successful opal mining by that family, this is the best collection of opals in the world. The specimens set out before honourable members are a very small part of the collection. Few Australians will have seen opal as fiery and colourful as these samples of Australia's national gemstone. In addition to the gemstone collection, the museum will feature the history and lifestyle of miners in the opal fields, and all stages in the transformation of gemstone rough into elegant jewellery, which honourable members can also see here. A longer term objective that will be promoted by the museum is the development of a viable and prosperous gemstone processing industry in Australia. Despite the brilliance of these gemstones before honourable members, the fortunes of many of the miners and gemstone processors in this country are very low and there are a number of problems to be overcome. We know that Australia produces 95 per cent of the world's precious opal, but we do not know what quantities of opal are actually mined in this country. We know that about 85 per cent of the opal that is mined in this country is sold at the opal fields to overseas buyers, who take it out of the country. Most of the opal passes through Hong Kong, where it may be cut and polished at one of the many opal processing houses, or it may be exported for processing elsewhere. How much opal rough is exported? We do not know. We can only speculate. However, the average parcel of rough opal sold on the opal fields is about 1,000 ounces. It sells at about $1,000 an ounce and a parcel of opal rough would realise about $1m. Early this year there were 35 overseas opal buyers on the South Australian opal fields and another five who visited regularly throughout the year. If a buyer is purchasing for an opal processing organisation in Hong Kong or elsewhere, he would require at least 10,000 ounces a year in order to supply an opal processing plant. That would require 10 purchases of opal rough at a total cost of $10m. If all 35 overseas buyers made similar purchases, Australia is supplying opal rough to the value of $350m to overseas organisations. Statistics from the Australian Mineral Industry Quarterly indicate that the export value of opal rough in 1984 was only $8m. This figure is obviously ridiculously small when it is compared with the estimated opal production for that year of $44.5m. The estimated opal production is arrived at after considering all the data available. However, when we try to find out what data is available, it is patently clear that the figures are really no more than educated guesses because opal sales are not recorded, export licences are not required and there is no requirement for those involved in the sales to provide any information that could be used statistically. What is the added value after processing the opal? An ounce of opal rough will produce 60 carats of gem quality opal at a retail value of $60 to $100 a carat. Its retail value would range from $3,600 to $6,000. If high quality opal is present in the parcel, as it usually is, the high quality opal would retail for as much as $1,000 per carat. That is how much we are losing to this country. The facts of the industry are: Australia is a mine for world supplies of opal rough; the amount of opal rough shipped out of the country is not known; opal processors in Australia are going out of business because they cannot obtain regular supplies of opal rough; and Australia is, in effect, donating its opal rough overseas and the processing of that rough provides an added value on the retail market of between 200 and 400 per cent on the initial cost of the opal rough. I would like to congratulate the Benny family on attempting to keep these opals in Australia and I wish Mr Benny well in his exercise of establishing an opal and gemstone museum for Canberra and Australia. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.25) —Many members of the House are by now aware of the rural crisis, but tonight I would like to read a section of a letter from a constituent who is the wife of a dairy farmer so that members of this House are left with no illusions about the very human crisis that these people face. I quote: We mortgaged our existing property in order to purchase adjoining land, and our interest rate with the State Bank was 13.5% at 1.2.84. It is now 18.75%, having had two increases in about a month, which in terms of money has added $129.70 to our next instalment, which now stands at $6,547.50 for this 1/2 year, and goodness knows what it will be by September. She may well ask. The letter continues: As well as that, we are committed to the Department of Agriculture rural assistance branch $6,120 per year, on the same property, a total of almost $20,000 per year, which means an average of $400 per week to meet Bank payments alone. At present we are being charged a $15.00 fee by the Dairy Vale factory to pick up our milk, because the production has fallen below 200 litres per pickup . . . We don't get holidays and sick leave and all the benefits that wage earners get. In fact, to quote our own case, have a week's holiday a year, which is our Christmas gift from a friend. The woman goes on in her letter to say: The thing which I feel is so wrong with the present system, is that there is no benefit available for farm family members in the same way as unemployment benefits are available to our city cousins. She explains what she means: Farm kids are needed to help on the family property, but can't be paid anything like the basic wage, but because they are employed, can't lawfully collect the dole. Our son, 20 years old, works for pocket money and his keep, $1,481 for the 1985-86 financial year, which is little short of disgusting. I agree with her. He never complains . . . but it's a very disheartening position to be in. She then goes on to say: Will the farm be a source of financial security to him in the future, or will it be just a hand to mouth existence as it is now? No one can answer that, of course, but it causes me much concern. We bought the additional land to try to ensure a form of security for his future, but I wonder sometimes if it will be able to hang on long enough to pay it off . . . I never thought I'd see the day when I would go out to work to support the farm, but that is exactly what I am doing, over 50 years of age, but it was the only way out. I could write much more, of equipment that can't be used because it needs repairs that we can't afford, fences in an appalling state, for want of materials, incomplete upgrading of the dairy due to lack of finance, so the milking is done under difficulty and stress to cows and operators alike. That is the sort of letter that I am receiving in my electorate office regularly. Mr Hollis —Why did they buy extra farms? Mr DOWNER —It really disappoints me that honourable members on the other side of the House should interject with facetious remarks, showing absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the very human plight of somebody like this constituent. The Australian Labor Party is forever trying to tell the Australian community that it is the party of compassion. It does more than that-it actually claims arrogantly to have a monopoly on compassion. No example could be clearer than the example we have had today from the people on the other side of the House, who show a complete lack of sympathy for this woman and for her family. They show in their policies to rural Australia the same lack of sympathy and the same sneering disregard for people on the land, in my electorate for people on the land in the electorates of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and for the people on the west coast of South Australia who are going bankrupt by the dozen. It is a matter of complete disregard to the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who thinks that it is a laughing matter. But for these people it is a human crisis. It is about time that the Labor Party woke up to that crisis and started to show some real compassion by abandoning its high interest policies, its big spending policies and its deals with the trade union movement, and gave rural Australia and small business people in our country a fair go, because they are the productive people who have made Australia what it is. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.30) —There are two issues I would like to touch on briefly this evening. I have today and on other occasions had the opportunity to read `Warden in the Gallery' in the Canberra Times. If I were not such an amiable fellow I could have been offended by the suggestion that I was the `most languid Member of the House' when one considers that the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes `languid' as `Inert, lacking vigour, indisposed to exertion, spiritless . . . sluggish, and slow-moving . . .'. But when one considers some of the mammoths on the other side of the House I take some exception to that comment. Coming second in the languid stakes behind me is the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). That is not much of an endorsement either when one considers that the only person who can beat him is Mr 17 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I take umbrage at the suggestion that my demeanour in the House is in some way related to the fact that in the morning my time is taken up with sporting activities. That assertion is without substance and without research and in an endeavour to be glib and smart I think the journalist has just been inaccurate. This leads me to my second point. When one looks around this House one sees that we have magnificent wooden panelling and elegant carving in the chair in which you sit, Madam Speaker. But the ergonomics of this place, the efficiency at which people can work in this environment are something else. One has only to see the inkwells in the desks to realise that this building is a relic from the past. One only has to try to sit on these seats to appreciate that they are inefficient and poor. One only has to be inundated with paper every day to know that the way in which this place functions is out of date. It is time that we looked at the irrelevancies in this place. Even when I look at the officers in the House and see their fancy dress, I can appreciate that this place is out of date. In an endeavour to preserve the traditions we have put function and efficiency into the back seat. On coming to Canberra I was one of those who realised immediately that the sitting pattern of this House was inefficient and expensive to the taxpayer of this country. In an endeavour to change that we introduced a two weeks on, two weeks off sitting pattern. Yet we find ourselves here again for the third week in a row. Again in May we will find ourselves here for three weeks in a row. The Procedure Committee looked into the possibility of the sitting pattern. In November, unfortunately, I was unable to speak when the debate on that Procedure Committee report was discussed. It is time that we came into this House to debate the big issues. In order to do that it is appropriate that we have plenary sessions, but I also think it is important that we look at delegating some of the functions and responsibilities of this House without losing some of the parliamentary scrutiny. When we look at what we have coming up next week we find on the Notice Paper the Egg Industry (Hen Quota) Levy Bill and the Egg Industry (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Bill. Certainly the case is that many of the functions of this House are unnecessary in respect of that sort of legislation. That legislation could be much more easily and efficiently handled somewhere else. The time of honourable members is taken up too much by that sort of legislation. Tonight we had no better example than that between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock we had four quorums called by members of the Opposition. In every parliamentary session two or three days are lost in quorums and divisions. It is time that we became efficient and got rid of the extravagances that are associated with this place. The functions of the world have changed; the needs of this place have changed; the technology has changed; and the methods by which this Parliament operates must be changed. It is time that this place, instead of being dragged behind, set an example. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.35) —We have all become aware of the zeal that has been brought to the subject of taxation by the utterances of the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, that the identification card system would not work or that his system would work better with an identification card. We also know about the preamble that he placed in the front of all the booklets that went out about fringe benefits tax and the like, his claims to the world about how marvellous these taxes were, how they would help everybody, et cetera. Mrs Sullivan —A public servant did that? Mr DONALD CAMERON —He is a public servant but he has played a political role. I note that in recent weeks, since he attracted some attention to those activities, he has gone relatively quiet on playing a political role. When members on this side of the chamber talk about the Australian Taxation Office getting its act into gear before an ID system is even contemplated, we do so with considerable justification. I make representations on behalf of a constituent of mine whose former husband was killed in October 1984. The Australian Taxation Office wrote on two or three occasions to this deceased taxpayer. The couple were living apart before his death. Unfortunately, their marriage had not survived. Letters were forwarded to the widow by the person who later lived at the address at which the former husband had resided. This lady kept getting these letters. She wrote to the Taxation Office saying that her husband was deceased-killed in a road accident. The House can imagine the fright that she got last September when there was `knock, knock' on her door. I think it was September 1986. She went to the door to find a big policeman standing there. She said: `How can I help you?'. He said: `I want to see your husband'. She said: `Why?'. He said: `Because he has not paid his tax'. She said: `That is understandable because he is dead, and he cannot pay his tax'. The policeman was very embarrassed, being a sensitive officer of the Queensland police force, and beat a hasty retreat. But you will not believe this, Madam Speaker. I have here four letters from the department that wants an ID card system so it can identify people. They are from the Taxation Office in Queensland. It wrote four letters. In one letter, the Office demanded tax for the year ending 30 June 1983. The deceased did not pay his tax that year for some reason that none of us can ascertain. Another letter to the deceased referred to 30 June 1984. About the time, that return was due, the poor man was dead. In another letter the Office wanted to know his income for the year ending 30 June 1985. In another letter the Office wanted to know the income for the year ending 30 June 1986. To indicate how the Taxation Commissioner treats ordinary people-even dead people-as compared with the way he treated the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I will read what is on the bottom of every letter. He says: PLEASE NOTE THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF INCOME DERIVED, any person who fails to furnish a return by 31 August next following the year of income, or by such later date as is authorised, is liable to ADDITIONAL TAX which may be equal to double the amount of tax payable or $20, whichever is greater. If the return has been lodged, please advise the date and place of lodgment. My poor former constituent cannot tell anybody, but I am telling the Taxation Commissioner that before he asks for an ID card he had better smarten up his whole system. On behalf of my living constituent I ask: How often do we have to tell the Taxation Department that a taxpayer is no longer alive? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.40) —I rise tonight to pay tribute to a very great Australian. I am sure that my words tonight would be widely supported on both sides of the House. I speak of the Reverend Ted Noffs who, at this time, lies still very critically ill following a cerebral haemorrhage which he suffered. I know that I am not the only person in this House whose life has been touched by Ted Noffs and although I have not consulted the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) I know that he too holds Ted Noffs, as do many other members, in very high regard. What I ask the House to do tonight is not merely to reflect on Ted's current very critical situation, but also to reflect on his work and use the very tragic circumstances of his current predicament as a springboard to initiate further action to give tangible effect to one of his most important projects which emanated from the Wayside Chapel; that is the life education program that has already extended to many parts of Australia. Mrs Sullivan —The Gold Coast. Mr TICKNER —Indeed, as the honourable member informs me, it has extended to the Gold Coast. It has also extended overseas. The life education concept is very much a product of Ted's work at the Wayside Chapel. After many years of dealing with people with serious drug additions he realised that it was essential to be able to combat the problem to take action on the question of prevention-not just prevention in later years of life but to look to children and to build a lifestyle, an awareness of the human body, that would mean that children simply would not turn to drugs to try to solve the problems that they were confronted with in life. The life education unit and the mobile caravans educate children in a very practical way about how the human body works and the very damaging effects that drugs can have on the human body-not just the so-called hard drugs, but the drugs that we sometimes ignore but which are equally worthy of consideration, tobacco and alcohol. I ask honourable members to try to use their own resources as members of parliament to promote the life education program in their local communities, if that is already not happening. I have sought to use the occasion of my new electorate office opening to promote the life education program. I tried to think of a person who was above politics and who could play a role as a uniting force in the community to open my new electorate office and who also could have some positive social force in the local community. The person I approached to do that in a strictly non-political way was Australian of the Year, Mr Dick Smith. I am very grateful to Dick Smith for agreeing to come and open my electorate office. He will be doing that after flying in to the Royal National Park on 8 April. I have sought to link that opening with the life education program. I am very grateful for the co-operation of the Sutherland Shire Council and the Sutherland Shire Drug Awareness Association because they will arrange for a life education mobile caravan to be parked at the front of my electorate office. I have sought to make the whole of my electorate aware of this fact by issuing invitations right across the political spectrum to people from all walks of life-to schools, to community leaders and to church leaders to encourage people to come along and find out what the life education program is about. I urge my colleagues to consider the valuable work of Ted Noffs in the life education program. I am sure I speak for the whole House in wishing Ted a very speedy recovery and giving our fond wishes to his family. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.45) —I congratulate the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), on what he has said. We certainly endorse it on this side of the House. A problem to which we all seek solutions in this House which is of bipartisan concern is unemployment. The Tasmanian Liberal Government operates an employment program known as the Tasmanian employment program or TEP. I would like to talk briefly about it tonight. Since the program's inception in September 1984 it has been enormously successful, and tonight I want to outline a few details of how the program operates and contrast its success with the billion dollar commonwealth employment program. The TEP was was introduced on 12 September 1984, and offers $5,000 to employers over a period of 18 months for each additional employee taken on. The initial budget allocation was $1.5m in 1984-85. The TEP has been favourably received by both employers and the Commonwealth Employment Service, principally because of the broad guidelines and flexibility of the scheme; its simple administrative procedures; and the fact that it has no restrictive participant targeting. Currently, there is also a very good link between the TEP and training opportunities for young people in Tasmania, the group bearing the greatest unemployment burden in our society The programs are administered in accordance with an Act of the State Parliament and have a staff of five fulltime and three part time officers. Of these, six are either full or part time inspectors whose role is to verify that awards and conditions are met and to ensure that all TEP positions are additional. Participants must have been unemployed for at least three months prior to commencing employment under the program. A key feature of the program has been the self-canvassing by prospective TEP employees and this has introduced a degree of equity into the program which does not exist in some other programs where selection is done on a targeted basis by CES personnel only. By any standard the TEP has been an outstanding success. In its first two years of operation, 1,712 people were or had been employed under the program. Of these, 67 per cent were male and 33 per cent were female. There are very clear indications that 30.1 per cent of those employed under TEP would not have gained employment if the scheme had not existed. The aim of the TEP to provide long term additional employment is being substantially met with only 10 per cent of employers indicating they would not have employed the same person anyway, irrespective of assistance under the TEP. These jobs are cost efficient compared with the cost of each job created under CEP. The cost of TEP jobs has been calculated at a subsidy per employee of $64 per week, or $1,664 per employee for six months. By contrast, the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has calculated that the average net cost of each job under CEP has been $5,476 for six months. The cost per job generated by CEP is thus more than three times the cost of each job generated by TEP, surely an indictment of the over-bureaucratised nature of this Government's national job creation scheme. TEP has made a significant contribution to the 10.5 per cent growth in employment experienced in Tasmania since September 1984. In the research report that has just been released-I would like to quote from it-an interesting comment was made in the conclusion. It states: Many employers are either deliberately choosing to avoid the CES or relying on the effectiveness of friends, relatives and other workers to supply labour. Many young school leavers were quite cynical of the CES, but had little contact with the organisation itself and had relied upon friends and relatives to assist with labour market entry. Obviously that is something the CES ought to have a closer look at. Post-program retention figures indicate that 60 per cent of employers have kept their TEP employees on rather than replace them at the expiry of the grant period. Between 72 and 75 per cent of all employees under the TEP have remained in full time employment. That is a significant result. The Federal Government would do well, I believe, to applaud the innovative and highly successful program, a program that is achieving real and positive results and one, I believe, of which the Tasmanian Liberal Government can surely be proud. It is well summed up by the research report in one of its concluding remarks. It states: The TEP is cost-effective- as I have demonstrated- provides long-term employment for disadvantaged job-seekers and has an additionality requirement. It also has significant multiplier effects. In these respects it compares favourably with Commonwealth programs . . . I ask the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) to have a closer look at the TEP. One thing we want to do is make every dollar go a little bit further and hit where it needs to hit; that is assist the unemployed and not be taken up in bureaucratic administrative costs which I fear that the CES and the community employment program schemes are guilty of. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.50) —Tonight I came into the House to draw attention to an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 18 October 1986. It referred to a study done by Civil and Civic Pty Ltd, a large construction firm, which compared the building costs in Australia with those in the United States of America. The article is quite interesting because it says that Australian building workers work quicker than their American counterparts, build higher quality buildings and are much safer. It is true that, because Australia has a large number of public holidays, we take slightly longer-some 3 per cent longer-to build the buildings, but in all it was a tribute to the ability of the Australian building workers. It is rather good, coming from Civil and Civic, and makes a change from the continual bashing that workers tend to get, particularly from honourable members opposite. I have been side-tracked from enlarging upon that by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who made a posturing speech tonight about the problems of the rural sector. Last night I spoke about this matter because I am very aware of the problems of the rural sector. The honourable member for Mayo spoke with something less than sincerity. There is no doubt that interest rates are a problem in the rural sector, but they are not a problem for all farmers. If any assistance is to be given to this group, the aim must be targeted. One of the strange ironies is that whenever a targeting policy has been suggested it has been violently opposed by the National Farmers Federation, the National Party of Australia and, of course, the Liberal Party of Australia. This means that aid cannot be directed to where it is needed. It is needed by a narrow band of farmers, principally wheat farmers, but a few others have had enormous problems. Some farmers are in trouble clearly because of their own incompetence, but others are in trouble because they have borrowed money, at the behest of the banks and based on the best agricultural advice at the time, for essential development work, and they were faced with very large interest rates. In Perenjori, which is in the area I used to represent, I foresaw this problem several years ago when people, after suffering nine years of drought, were simply failing. Those people failed not because they were poor farmers or because of high interest rates; they failed simply because the resources had been exhausted. It was my view that assistance should have been given in those circumstances. The response from a lot of people was that this was marginal country which should be closed up. The truth is that that country had had record yields for many years. For the previous 50 years it had a record of being some of the best wheat producing country in Western Australia. The drought was one of the vagaries of the season and the vicissitudes of fortune, I guess, and it was most unfortunate for those farmers who suffered. The same thing is happening today. Many farmers who are very hardworking and capable are being beset by problems beyond their control and we have to look at some targeted assistance for them. Unless we accept targeting, we will never be able to do any good for these people. I am pleased to say that some members of farmer organisations in Western Australia, particularly the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia (Inc.), are coming to the view that targeted assistance is necessary. Another thing that could be done for the rural sector is to increase educational programs. Now that we have much better television services-I thank the initiative of our very good Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy)-we should be looking to utilise those television channels to bring farmers economic and financial planning advice. This is one area that I have found, from my experience and as a member of the rural task force, in which farmers are lacking and if this could be done we would be providing a very useful service to the rural sector. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.55) —I have the honour to inform the House that after 23 years out of uniform I am now back in uniform, having been appointed Deputy Senior Officer, Tasmania, of the Naval Reserve cadets, with the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. That gives me very great pleasure. On a completely bipartisan basis, having worn the Queen's uniform from 1952 to 1963-I signed up in 1952, two days after the death of King George VI-I am very proud to be back in the ranks in a voluntary and honorary capacity. The last two weeks have seen the inspection of every Naval Reserve cadet unit in Tasmania by the newly appointed Naval Officer, Commanding Tasmania, Commander John Brown, ADC RAN, in company with Commander Geoff Seymour, who is the Senior Officer for Tasmania, Naval Reserve cadets, me as Deputy Senior Officer, and Lieutenant Danny Jackson, RAN, the Supply Officer of HMAS Huon. I take the opportunity to place on record my admiration of those involved in the six Naval Reserve cadet units in Tasmania. The first unit inspected was the TS Derwent in Hobart, under the command of Lieutenant-Commander Tony Lee; a fine unit, which I was proud to be a member of, and which is going on from strength to strength. We then went up to the electorate of Braddon where there are three excellent units-TS Emu at Burnie under the command of Lieutenant Phil Anderson; TS Leven at Ulverstone under the command of Lieutenant Gordon Fuller and TS Mersey at Devonport under the command of Lieutenant-Commander David Andrews. There are very strong seafaring and historic links on the north-west coast of Tasmania and I was particularly delighted that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) was able to attend the inspection of TS Leven at Ulverstone last Saturday. We then went into northern Tasmania, where there are two training ships. The first we inspected was TS York at George Town, with seagoing facilities at Low Head. That training ship is under the command of Lieutenant Kelvin Coker. Last but by no means least is TS Tamar at Launceston, under the command of Lieutenant-Commander Malcolm Smith. These six units have approximately 250 officers, instructors and cadets-both young men and young women. Very significantly, they are backed in each instance by very strong committees, made up mainly of the parents of the cadets and also by the Navy League, which still continues to operate with great distinction in Tasmania. It is particularly pleasing not only that there has been strong community support from service clubs and the like, which have been excellent, but also that the Government has continued to provide uniforms and equipment on a very good basis. I was pleased to see surplus equipment from the Royal Australian Navy being utilised in these units. The operation is extremely good. Mr Barry Jones —How many full time staff are involved? Mr HODGMAN —None; they are all volunteers. It is opportune for me to place on record, I am sure on behalf of both sides of the House, our gratitude to Captain Bob Ray, Director of Naval Reserves, Royal Australian Navy, who will shortly retire from the RAN. He has given outstanding service in charge of reserves and cadets throughout Australia and has done a great job for this country and for those who believe in the Naval Reserve and cadets. Lastly, I would like to say how thrilling it is to note that Tasmania has the highest per capita enrolment of trainees attending the Australian Defence Force Academy who wish to go into the Royal Australian Navy. Tasmania is the seafaring State, and to the young members of the cadet units in Tasmania who are planning to go into the Australian Defence Force Academy this year, I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House would wish them all the very best as they enter a career serving in Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 31 March 1987: Defence Act-Determinations-1987- No. 19-Disturbance Allowance. No. 20-Amendments. No. 21-Expense of Office Allowance and Recreation Leave. No. 22-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Act 1987-Parts II, III, IV, V and VI-1 April 1987. Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1986-Sub-section 4 (2) and 17 (2) and sections 20, 22 and 29-1 April 1987. Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987-Provisions of the Act, other than sections 1, 2, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and Division 2 of Part III-31 March 1987. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 4988) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Was the recovery of the moneys owing to the Australian dairy industry for raw materials supplied to PT Indomilk made at the expense of the loss of the industry's shareholding in PT Indomilk; if not, what sum was received by the Australian Dairy Corporation for its shareholding in PT Indomilk. (2) What has been the additional interest cost which the dairy industry has had to pay through the export pools on the outstanding money owed by PT Indomilk since January 1983. (3) Is he able to say what legal costs were incurred by Asian Dairy Industry Hong Kong Ltd and the Corporation since 1982 in the disputes and negotiations involved in the sale of its 50% shareholding. (4) What is the estimated overall loss incurred by the dairy industry in the disposal of its assets in Indonesia, including the loss of $2.1 million absorbed by the dairy industry representing unpaid technical fees and interest. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were two separate aspects regarding the recent finalisation of matters relating to the involvement of the Australian Dairy Corporation and its subsidiary Asia Dairy Industries with PT Indomilk. These were the payment for dairy products supplied to PT Indomilk and the sale of the Australian Dairy Corporation's shareholding in the company. In relation to dairy products, Asia Dairy Industries accepted a total of $US8,150,000 through a factoring arrangement under which the full debt for raw materials, technical fees and interest, which was owning by PT Indomilk, was assigned to the Indonesian company Satwikar Sinar Mas. This allowed Asia Dairy Industries to pay the Australian Dairy Corporation in full for the raw materials supplied to PT Indomilk. In respect of the shareholding, the Australian Dairy Corporation on 31 October 1986 received a payment of $US348,000 for the sale of its full shareholding in PT Indomilk to Satwikar Sinar Mas. (2) Interest on amounts owing to the Australian Dairy Corporation since January 1983 has been paid in full with the exception of an opportunity cost of interest during an interest moratorium period granted by the Australian Dairy Corporation. This opportunity cost is of the order of $A1.6 million and should be seen as part of the overall arrangements referred to in the answer to question 4. (3) The total legal costs incurred in finalising financial and legal matters concerning PT Indomilk amounted to $A371,445. Separate accounting was not maintained in respect of the sale of the shares. (4) It is extremely difficult to calculate the extent of any loss incurred by the dairy industry as a result of its sale of the PT Indomilk shareholding. The sale commenced in 1981 and was finalised in 1986. During this period there were a number of events which substantially affected the performance of PT Indomilk and hence the value of the company. Examples of these are the decline in the Indonesian economy as a result of the world oil price collapse and devaluations of the Indonesian currency. The effect of these events on the company caused the ADC to write off the entire value of the investment in that company, amounting to $A339,000. As the shares were subsequently sold for $A552,000, a notional book profit of $A213,000 could be calculated. Offsetting the opportunity interest costs and the legal fees referred to earlier is the income resulting from five years of raw material supply, technical fees and interest. A component of this income was utilised to cover the write-off by Asia Dairy Industries of approximately A$2.1 million, representing unpaid technical fees and interest. The Australian Dairy Industry Conference (ADIC) has expressed its satisfaction with the outcome of the Australian Dairy Corporation's sale of its shareholding, which according to a press release by the ADIC on 5 November 1986 was seen as avoiding ``a very real possibility of losing up to $14 million''. All money owing to the industry product pools in respect of dairy raw materials supplied to PT Indomilk have been paid in full.