Thursday, 2 April 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 28 April 1987, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative date, day or hour of meeting. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-Two years ago I warned the House that acquired immune deficiency syndrome `is potentially one of the most serious and expensive public health problems to face Australia since Federation'. Events in the two years since have merely confirmed that warning. Around the world as of 13 February there have been over 40,600 reported cases of full acquired immune deficiency syndrome. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing an international analysis of AIDS cases. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS) Global data Table 1. AIDS cases reported to WHO, by country, as of 11 February 1987 Country/Area Date of report Number of cases Anguilla... 30.06.86 . . Antigua and Barbuda... 31.12.85 . . Argentina... 31.01.87 69 Australia... 22.01.87 382 Austria... 31.12.86 54 Bahamas... 30.06.86 68 Bangladesh... 31.12.86 . . Barbados... 30.06.86 4 Belgium... 31.12.86 207 Belize... 31.12.85 . . Benin... 13.11.86 2 Bermuda... 30.06.86 42 Bhutan... 31.12.86 . . Bolivia... 30.06.86 1 Botswana... 26.09.86 6 British Virgin Islands... 31.12.85 . . Brazil... 31.12.86 1 012 Bulgaria... 30.06.86 . . Burkina Faso... 13.11.86 . . Burma... 31.12.86 . . Cameroon... 13.11.86 21 Canada... 31.01.87 809 Cayman Islands... 30.06.86 . . Central African Republic... 13.11.86 202 Chad... 13.11.86 1 Chile... 30.06.86 12 China... 03.11.86 1 China (Province of Taiwan)... 26.01.86 1 Colombia... 31.12.85 5 Comoros... 13.11.86 . . Congo... 13.11.86 250 Costa Rica... 30.06.86 12 Cote d'Ivoire... 13.11.86 118 Cuba... 30.06.86 1 Cyprus... 08.10.86 1 Czechoslovakia... 31.12.86 6 Denmark... 01.01.87 131 Dominica... 31.12.85 . . Dominican Republic... 08.12.86 127 Eastern Mediterranean Region... 31.10.86 16 Ecuador... 30.06.86 7 El Salvador... 30.06.86 2 Ethiopia... 13.11.86 . . Finland... 30.09.86 14 France... 31.12.86 1 253 French Guiana... 31.12.85 31 Gabon... 13.11.86 . . Gambia... 13.11.86 . . Germany, Federal Republic of... 31.01.87 875 German Democratic Republic... 31.12.86 1 Ghana... 13.11.86 73 Greece... 31.12.86 35 Grenada... 31.12.85 2 Guadeloupe... 31.12.85 16 Guatemala... 30.09.86 10 Guinea... 13.11.86 . . Guinea Bissau... 13.11.86 . . Guyana... 31.12.85 . . Haiti... 30.11.86 785 Honduras... 30.06.86 6 Hong Kong... 03.11.86 3 Hungary... 31.12.86 1 Iceland... 31.12.86 4 India... 31.12.86 5 Indonesia... 31.12.86 . . Ireland... 31.12.86 14 Israel... 31.12.86 34 Italy... 31.12.86 460 Jamaica... 30.06.86 5 Japan... 19.12.86 25 Kenya... 13.11.86 109 Lesotho... 13.11.86 1 Liberia... 13.11.86 . . Luxembourg... 31.12.86 6 Madagascar... 13.11.86 . . Malawi... 13.11.86 13 Maldives... 31.12.86 . . Malta... 31.12.86 5 Martinique... 31.12.85 6 Mauritania... 13.11.86 . . Mauritius... 13.11.86 . . Mexico... 08.12.86 249 Montserrat... 31.12.85 . . Mozambique... 31.12.86 1 Nepal... 31.12.86 . . Netherlands... 31.12.86 218 New Zealand... 03.11.86 22 Nicaragua... 31.12.85 . . Nigeria... 13.11.86 . . Norway... 31.12.86 35 Panama... 30.06.86 9 Paraguay... 31.12.85 . . Peru... 30.06.86 9 Poland... 31.12.86 1 Portugal... 31.12.86 46 Republic of Korea... 05.06.86 . . Romania... 31.12.86 2 Saint Christopher and Nevis... 31.12.85 1 Saint Lucia... 30.06.86 10 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines... 30.06.86 3 Senegal... 13.11.86 . . Seychelles... 13.11.86 . . Singapore... 04.10.86 1 South Africa... 24.10.86 41 Spain... 19.11.86 242 Sri Lanka... 31.12.86 1 Surinam... 30.06.86 2 Swaziland... 13.11.86 . . Sweden... 24.01.87 93 Switzerland... 31.12.86 192 Thailand... 31.12.86 6 Togo... 13.11.86 . . Trinidad and Tobago... 30.06.86 108 Tunisia... 14.05.86 2 Turkey... 25.04.86 2 Turks and Caicos Islands... 30.06.86 . . Uganda... 13.11.86 766 USSR... 31.12.86 1 United Kingdom... 31.12.86 638 United States of America... 19.01.87 29 536 United Republic of Tanzania... 13.11.86 699 Uruguay... 30.06.86 7 Vanuatu... 30.09.86 . . Venezuela... 08.12.86 69 Yugoslavia... 31.12.86 8 Zambia... 13.11.86 250 Zimbabwe... 13.11.86 6 Total... 40 638 Dr BLEWETT —Globally some five million people are estimated to be infected with the AIDS virus. In the United States of America there has now been a total of 32,825 cases, with 19,021 deaths. In the United States experts predict that by 1991, only four years hence, there will be a cumulative total of 290,000 cases of AIDS, with approximately 179,000 people dead from the disease. While in much of North America and Europe cases remain concentrated among high risk groups-homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and haemophiliacs-heterosexual spread seems a major mode of transmission in Africa. Moreover, the number of cases of heterosexual transmission is rising in the United States-from one per cent four years ago to 4 per cent today. The figure is distinctly higher in New York, where the disease is widespread among IV drug users. This confirms the fear that the use of contaminated needles by IV drug users would provide a major pathway by which the disease would spread to the heterosexual community. In Australia, as of last week, there had been a total of 442 cases of full AIDS, of whom 238 had died. On the best scientific advice available to me in May 1985, I predicted a total of 600 cases by the end of 1986. While this figure has not yet been reached, and there are some encouraging statistics on the decline of venereal diseases in homosexual men in this country, there is no room for complacency. Indeed since the previous statistics on AIDS cases were released in February, there has been an increase of more than one additional case in Australia each day. Moreover, it is estimated that up to 50,000 Australians, most of them walking around in apparently good health, are in fact carriers of one of the most lethal viruses ever known. Because of the long incubation period this will mean a high level of deaths from AIDS into the 1990s. Not only is the disease spreading at an alarming rate, but also the prognosis for those diagnosed as antibody positive has grown bleaker. A few years ago it was believed that only 5 to 10 per cent of those diagnosed as antibody positive would go on to develop full AIDS. Last Christmas the World Health Organisation revised this upwards, suggesting a rate of about 25 per cent. A recent American study has put the rate at 36 per cent. Some reports from Europe have put the rate as high as 70 per cent. This constant revision upwards of the rate of conversion from seropositivity to full AIDS strongly suggests our present division of cases into those with antibody positivity (no symptoms) and those with AIDS (symptoms), may be overly artificial. We may well need to adopt the conservative assumption that almost all of those infected by the virus will eventually show clinical symptoms of the disease. I would remind the House that it is only six short years since the disease was first described in the United States. In that short period it has brought grief and tragedy to many thousands, and struck fear into many millions of people around the world. This is a disease which can reveal itself within six months, or lie dormant in the body for anywhere from six months to at least six years, and maybe more. Unlike measles, or smallpox or cholera, or mumps, there is no way of telling outwardly whether you or anyone else has AIDS. Unlike these traditional diseases, AIDS is not infectious. It is communicable, through the transmission of body fluids, particularly blood and semen, from one person to another. And the person communicating the infection may well show no sign of the disease. Not that the efforts of medical science have been in vain. More has been learnt about the virus in a brief half-dozen years than about practically any virus known to man. We know AIDS is caused by a special virus which attacks and disables the body's immune system, rendering it prey to particular opportunistic infections. We know many of the mechanisms whereby the virus disables the immune system. We know that, fortunately, the virus is fragile and outside the body does not survive well. We know it cannot be transmitted through any casual contact, even quite close contact such as social kissing. We know that blood, semen and vaginal secretions are the main agents of transmission. That being so. It is now clear that there are four main ways to get AIDS. Through sexual intercourse; through intravenous drug users sharing needles; through transmission from seropositive mothers to babies; and through contaminated blood and blood products. Significant advances are being made in treating the disease. There has been considerable progress in the treating of opportunistic infections resulting from AIDS. Many scientists are optimistic that new drugs, like Azidothymidine-AZT-which are now in various stages of trial and development would offer some hope that those already infected by the disease might improve and extend their lives. As yet, however, hopes for a cure or for a vaccine are remote. In the past three and a half years a major co-operative effort has been mounted by all Australian governments against AIDS. In that time, despite economic stringency, some $50m has been spent by Australian governments on the provision of services, the protection of the blood banks, the provision of information, education and counselling support, particularly for high risk groups, and for AIDS research. I would point out that this $50m is AIDS specific money and does not include the more general costs to hospitals, private insurance and Medicare resulting from AIDS. Much of the expenditure has been cost-shared with the States, although it was the Commonwealth that took the original initiatives. Inevitably, as with all cost-sharing arrangements there have been some differences over priorities and emphases between the Commonwealth and the States. States understandably have a tendency to give priority to services, the Commonwealth gives priority to preventive education as the only effective weapon to contain the disease in the absence of a vaccine or a cure. The scientific community, while emphasising the role of prevention, is often torn in its advice between prevention and the immediate provision of treatment and research facilities. I will be taking proposals to the Health Ministers Conference this month to address these issues. At the Commonwealth level, the integrity of the blood banks was a first consideration. Donor declarations were introduced to exclude high risk donors as soon as the danger of this transmission route was recognised. The National AIDS Reference Laboratory, which is based at Fairfield Hospital in Melbourne and which is funded by the Federal Government, co-ordinated the evaluation of AIDS antibody screening kits. By May 1985, the Government had arranged purchase and distribution of testing kits to all Red Cross blood transfusion centres and to authorised State and Territory laboratories. This made Australia the first nation in the world to put in place comprehensive blood screening tests. This has virtually eliminated the risk of infection through blood transfusion. So successful have these actions been, and so high has been the compliance of the at-risk groups, that no blood or blood products used since May 1985 have been associated with the AIDS virus. Unhappily, because of the long incubation period, I expect that there will continue to be a small number of transfusion related cases, dating back to transfusions received prior to the introduction of universal screening. In addition, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory became one of the first agencies in the world to apply heat treatment to factor VIII to eliminate AIDS contamination. The availability of a testing kit for antibodies to AIDS, while an enormous advance, has generated controversy all round the world. The Government favours encouraging high risk groups to seek testing, provided such encouragement is done in a rational low key way, preferably in one to one consultations. It is also essential that strict confidentiality is maintained to prevent discrimination in employment, housing and the like and provided there is adequate pre-test and post-test counselling, because of the repercussions for individuals of a positive result. Public pressures for such testing, often accompanied by threats, lead too often to polarisation and may indeed inhibit the participation of high risk groups in such testing. It has been a basic tenet of Commonwealth policy, based on the best available evidence from overseas, that a spirit of co-operation between the Government and the high risk groups is the best way of achieving public health objectives. Most of the States have accepted such a philosophy. The testing results would indicate considerable success for such an approach. For example, it is anticipated that 356,000 tests will be administered outside blood banks this year. In addition, funds have been provided to the National Reference Laboratory at the Fairfield Hospital, which has now been recognised as the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for this region; to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, on the recommendation of the AIDS Taskforce to develop the manufacture of a possibly useful drug, dideoxycytidine; and to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for preliminary development of an Australian test kit. The drug AZT, which is no cure for AIDS but does appear to have the capacity to prolong life in certain cases, is now undergoing clinical trials in Australia with some 40 patients at the expense of the manufacturer. An offer has now been made by the manufacturer to supply sufficient quantities of AZT to Australia to treat another 200 patients at the cost of $10,000 per patient per year. I have no doubt that AZT will be the first of many such drugs available to treat those with the virus, and it is my concern that governments act responsibly and equitably in relation to this and succeeding generations of drugs. Accordingly, I will suggest an approach to this issue at the Australian Health Ministers Conference this month. In the States, which have the prime responsibility for providing health services, funding has enabled the establishment and development of a wide range of programs, including educational strategies, laboratory diagnostic services, out- patient services, blood bank screening, coun- selling and nursing. Health, welfare, and education personnel have received special training on the provision of information, counselling and care services in relation to AIDS, while educational material, including videos, booklets and leaflets, along with special tutoring, has been provided for an array of people and organisations which could come into contact with AIDS. This includes doctors, nurses, dentists, health care workers, pharmacists, teachers, drug and alcohol workers and union members. AIDS information lines have been established, and programs have either begun or are being organised for specific groups within the community, such as homosexuals and bisexuals, youth, Aborigines, members of the ethnic communities, prostitutes, intravenous drug users, and people in isolated areas. AIDS is as serious a health threat to the Aboriginal community as it is to the Australian community at large. I am pleased to note that officers of my own Department, State and Territory health authorities and Aboriginal medical services, working in close consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, have produced a range of educational and medical services designed to establish effective preventive programs on the ground in local Aboriginal communities. There has been international appreciation and admiration for the leadership and common sense Australia has shown in its response to AIDS. Because of the work already undertaken, Dr Jonathon Mann, the World Health Organisation Controller of AIDS, has asked Australia to share its expertise in our own geographic region. Accordingly, in July this year, Australia will be hosting a conference of member nations of the World Health Organisation in our region. Twenty-three countries will be invited, including China, Japan, New Zealand and other Pacific and Asian nations, and the aim will be to share knowledge we have gained and produce a common plan of action to combat the spread of AIDS in the region. From the outset of this scourge the philosophy of this Government has been that recently enunciated by the American Surgeon-General, C. Everett Koop: We are fighting a disease, not people. . . We must prevent the spread of Aids while at the same time preserving our humanity and intimacy. High risk groups were our first and immediate concern. Efforts to reach those initially thought as most at risk have yielded results. A good example is female prostitutes. So far, there do not appear to have been any known cases of full AIDS among prostitutes in Australia. The low incidence of antibody positivity in members of this group tested may be partly attributable to an AIDS education program run by the Prostitutes Collective. Over the last two years the Federal and New South Wales governments have jointly funded an education program which is aimed to reach prostitutes both in brothels and on the streets. The Commonwealth and all States except Queensland are cost-sharing grants to State voluntary AIDS organisations for preventive education and support programs. The AIDS organisations' chief task is to reach specific at-risk groups, particularly homosexual men, and to implement programs aimed at modifying behaviours and practices which transmit the disease. The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, which co-ordinates the activities of the State and Territory AIDS organisations, also receives funds for special national preventive education projects. The Haemophilia Foundation of Australia receives funding for support and counselling of haemophiliacs and their families. This group has encountered special problems because of their dependence on blood products used to alleviate their condition. However, we cannot simply direct our efforts towards a limited number of groups tagged at risk. Experts from around the world are increasingly concluding that today `at risk' is a much wider concept, and that heterosexual AIDS is developing at an increasing rate. It is not what you are, or what group you belong to that matters-it is what you do. You do not need to be a homosexual, haemophiliac, or a drug user to get AIDS. You do not even need to be a heterosexual with many partners. All you need to do is have unprotected intercourse with one person who has the virus. As yet there have been very few cases of heterosexual transmission in Australia. While anal intercourse may be the surest means of transmitting the disease, there is no doubt that it can be transmitted by vaginal intercourse, and possibly also by oral sex. Moreover, given the incidence of needle sharing by intravenous drug users in Australian society, this provides a further path for spread into the heterosexual population. Some recent magazine articles question whether, in the absence of significant numbers of heterosexually acquired AIDS cases-where there has been no concomitant sharing of needles-there is any real need for a general education program, and argue that we should concentrate simply on programs directed at the high risk groups. It is true that there are very few cases of heterosexually acquired AIDS in Australia. But that should be a challenge, not an inhibition. I am not aware of any public health official or medical scientist who takes in any way seriously the proposition that the virus will not spread among the heterosexual population. On the public health side it would be bordering on the irresponsible to ignore objective facts and not undertake a full and frank public education program. Actions have already been taken to alert the wider community to the hazards of AIDS; for example the insert in the Readers Digest, by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, which was estimated to have had 1.7 million readers, and 700,000 reprints have been distributed. AIDS material for students in the recently published `Your Body-Just the Facts' has also been highly praised. From 5 April there will be a more broadly-based public education campaign to encourage awareness of AIDS and the steps that can be taken to contain its spread. Planning for this campaign has been under way for the past five months. In preparation for the campaign a comprehensive program of research has been conducted to assess the knowledge level and risk patterns of the Australian population. In all States and Territories, in rural and urban environments, 1,703 Australians were surveyed, and in addition smaller surveys were conducted among adolescents, IV drug users, homosexual and bisexual men. Overwhelmingly, most Australians thought that AIDS was someone else's problem, that it did not affect them or their friends. First, the knowledge level; the survey asked respondents simple questions-on methods of catching the virus, the spread of the virus outside high risk groups and methods of risk reduction. Only 17 per cent of those surveyed were able to answer all questions correctly. Of the 16-60 age group, 91 per cent considered AIDS was transmitted by homosexual activity and 42 per cent correctly identified IV drug use as a high risk activity. There was a general tendency to see AIDS as a threat simply to homosexuals and drug users. Moreover, 36 per cent of those surveyed were misinformed in thinking that AIDS could be transmitted by casual contact including handshaking, hugging and sharing food. In each of the knowledge questions, there was, worryingly, a large number of `don't knows'. Second, an examination of risk patterns; `Risk behaviour' was defined in the survey as any one of the following behaviours. Has anal sex; has used a prostitute; has used IV drugs; has multiple sex partners and has not, on each occasion, used a condom. Of men and women aged 16-24 years, 36 per cent were found to have engaged in high risk behaviour, and for those aged 25-34 years, the figure was 33 per cent. Of the total population, 21 per cent were involved in high risk behaviour, and nearly half of that 21 per cent were either in married or in de facto relationship. These findings underlie our public education campaign. It is clear that the level of knowledge in this nation about the AIDS virus and its implications is still low, and a national campaign needs to urgently redress this situation. The public awareness component of the campaign, which will be seen on Sunday and thereafter, will not please all Australians-that is not the purpose. The purpose of the campaign is to alert Australians to the risk posed by the virus to each of them. The market research material runs to nine volumes. I have identified just a few highlights for honourable members. The national information campaign is based on market research identifying the level of Australian knowledge and risk practices, and on evidence available to us around the world on the increasing level of heterosexual spread. The campaign is designed to reach every member of the Australian community, and to alert us all to the relevance of AIDS to ourselves, our families and our friends. The Government has allocated $2m to this media phase of the campaign so that messages will reach people through television, radio, newspapers and magazines. In addition, we will distribute a pamphlet which answers in more detail many of the most common messages asked about AIDS. The pamphlet will be widely available through pharmacies, doctors, surgeries, Medicare offices and other Federal Government agencies. In addition, the National Advisory Committee on AIDS has produced a pamphlet specifically for young people which will be distributed to all Education Departments this week. A further pamphlet, in sixteen community languages, will be distributed through relevant community organisations and government agencies. As well, State governments, community organisations and AIDS councils have produced written and audio-visual material which will supplement and assist the national campaign. The 60-second television commercial is designed to alert all Australians, and to encourage them to seek the information which will be available in national newspapers and the pamphlets. The radio advertisements are primarily directed towards adolescents, and the magazine advertisements are framed to reach a specific readership. There is no doubt, and indeed it is my expectation, that the campaign will increase the demand for knowledge about AIDS. Accordingly, I have set aside over $500,000 for expected increases in requests for counselling and testing. The Commonwealth has set up phone information lines in States and Territories, and has negotiated with the States to upgrade and train counsellors, and extend their testing facilities. Doctors and pharmacists have received a letter providing information about AIDS and the campaign from the president of their respective professional associations, jointly signed by Miss Ita Buttrose. In addition there have been special briefings of religious leaders, editors of newspapers, appropriate people in the electronic media, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and leaders of Federal political parties on the necessity for the campaign. My first duty, as Commonwealth Health Minister, is to alert the people of Australia to the disease that is among us. There is no cure and no vaccine. The best, though not a perfect preventive measure after abstinence or a single safe sex partner, is the use of a condom. We have an inescapable duty to provide this advice. The prime purpose of the campaign has been to promote safe sex among those who are sexually active-not to promote condoms for their own sake. There is absolutely no point in telling people about possible defences against the virus when they still believe that the virus only attacks homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Rather the aim is to increase the understanding of all Australians of the hazards of AIDS. The Government will also make every effort to ensure that whatever new information comes to hand on medical or scientific advances is disseminated as quickly and as widely as possible. The hope of a vaccine or a cure is uppermost in everyone's mind. In the meantime, as the American Surgeon General summed it up: ``Information is the only vaccine we have''. That is why the Government asks every Australian to take the greatest heed of the messages of the national education campaign. In what they do, they are not only taking responsibility for their own life and health, but are involving themselves in the life and health of the entire community. All Australians have the responsibility to improve their knowledge about AIDS. Community leaders, members of parliament, the medical profession, the clergy and the media have a particular responsibility to seek and dispense information which will contain the disease. Finally, AIDS is not just a health problem. Its impact ranges far beyond the confines of health. The facts are that up to $50,000 per patient from diagnosis to death means approximately a further $150m to hospital costs for 1990. It will impose other costs on our social security, community services, and housing portfolios spreading the economic effects wider. There are further social costs in that AIDS kills mainly young people at the outset of their productive lives and this further extends the economic costs. Relations with other countries will be affected by reaction to AIDS as will tourist, immigration and aid programs. It will have profound effects on social values, lifestyles and societal cohesion. It is a challenge not just for health portfolios, not just for governments, but for the whole Australian community. I wish to publicly express my support and appreciation for the work of Miss Ita Buttrose, the Chairwoman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. She has had the responsibility for advising the Government on the national AIDS program, itself an enormous and very demanding task. In addition Miss Buttrose and her committees have provided advice on the complex and sensitive social, legal and service aspects of AIDS. Professor David Penington has advised me that he has been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and therefore will relinquish the chairmanship of the AIDS Taskforce. I congratulate him on his appointment and thank him for his dedication and advice on AIDS over the years. I take this opportunity to thank all those on the taskforce and NACAIDS, and indeed all those Australians who have joined in the fight against AIDS and in the support of those afflicted with the disease. Their dedication reminds us that the victims of AIDS are our fellow men and women, our fellow Australians, whatever their sexual preference. It is the duty of governments and the community to make all efforts to eradicate this disease, and as a community to succour and support its victims. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The coa- lition believes that it is appropriate for the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) from time to time to bring the Parliament up to date with action he is taking to confront the problems of preventing the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, as well as indicate action being taken to assist those who are suffering from the disease. He should also detail the funding being provided for research into ways and means of controlling or curing the disease. There is no doubt that AIDS is one of the most serious public health problems ever to be faced by this country. Whilst it is not a contagious disease, it is communicable through the transmission of body fluids, especially the transmission of blood and semen from one person to another. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that governments, both Federal and State, make the fight against AIDS and the spread of AIDS a high priority. Soon after I was appointed spokesman for health for the coalition in December 1984 it became apparent to me that AIDS was emerging as a very significant health problem with enormous consequences for the Australian community. Initially, I was concerned that the Government was playing down reports regarding the seriousness of the disease, and there was clearly a shortage of information available to the public about the disease. This led to irrational and unfounded fears being generated in the community. Whilst those problems have now been addressed, it is still the case that there are some misconceptions about being able to catch the disease, for example, by living in the same house or using the same utensils as an AIDS sufferer. Nevertheless, since those early days the national AIDS Taskforce and the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, chaired by Professor Penington and Ita Buttrose respectively, have taken action to address these problems. I take this opportunity to express the coalition's appreciation of the time, effort and dedication which both these people, together with their committees, have put into the fight against AIDS. They have been working in a very difficult and sensitive area and their untiring efforts on behalf of the community are deserving of our praise. I, therefore, regret that Professor Penington, because of other work commitments, is unable to continue in his role as Chairman of the AIDS Taskforce. He has been instrumental in getting the campaign against AIDS off the ground, and I wish him well. Whilst work has been done to inform the public about the disease and to dispel some of the myths; nevertheless, the hardest work is still before us. I am sure that the majority of the community believes that AIDS is a problem largely restricted to the gay community, drug users who share needles, and those who received blood transfusions before we introduced blood screening which has virtually eliminated the risk of infection through a blood transfusion. As I understand it, it is this community attitude which the Government is now intending to confront with a publicity and information campaign. Let me say at the outset that the coalition agrees with the Government that this is a high priority. The plain facts are that unless action is taken, AIDS will not be concentrated in the existing high risk group-that is homosexuals, intravenous drug users and haemophiliacs-but rather it will spread into the heterosexual community. Australian has generally been following the trends of the disease in the United States. The Minister mentioned in his statement that the number of cases of transmission of the disease in the heterosexual community has risen from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. That is an extremely significant increase, and unless action is taken to inform the public of the risks of catching AIDS, especially among the young sexually active in our community, we will have a problem of mammoth proportions on our hands. There is already a total of 442 cases of full-blown AIDS in Australia, of whom 238 have died. Up to 50,000 Australians are estimated to be carriers of the disease, many of whom would not know and are apparently healthy. Professor Penington has stated that the projections indicate that the total number of people with the full-blown disease is projected to more than double to 1,000 by 1988 with 1,000 new cases expected annually by 1990. At the moment the Minister claims that there is an increase of more than one additional case in Australia every day. There is no room for complacency. Whilst it is clear that the disease is continuing to spread very rapidly, it is also of very great concern that more and more of those who have been diagnosed as antibody positive are going on to develop full-blown AIDS. There is no clear indication at present as to what proportion of those who are antibody positive will develop the full-blown disease, because the suggested rates of conversion vary from between 25 per cent and 70 per cent. Regardless of the exact rates of conversion, the figures highlight the need to take action to prevent the spread of the disease. Programs have been in progress to inform and educate those in the high risk groups. The problem with this approach is that too many people believe that the chance of getting AIDS is restricted to those high risk groups such as homosexuals or drug users. The stark facts are that if one has unprotected intercourse with someone who has the virus, one runs the risk of catching AIDS. It is not just those in the gay community and drug users who carry the disease. My real concern is the fact that in recent survey work of those in the sexually active age group it was shown that over 90 per cent considered that AIDS was transmitted by homosexual activity. This fact was really brought home to me when I recently saw a television program on AIDS on which young people were interviewed in a hotel. They openly admitted that they were sexually active, that they were not using any protection such as condoms, and that they did not believe they could get AIDS from their group of friends because they believed it was limited to the gay community. Such ignorance of the prospects of catching AIDS must be attacked, otherwise we run the risk of an uncontrollable spread of the disease. Some, of course, would argue that the answer to that problem is to campaign against the level of promiscuity in our society. What is needed, they argue, is a change of community attitudes. Whether or not that is right, the immediate concern is that whilst such activity continues, people must be informed of the risks they run and the need to take protective action if they continue their existing practices. The Government has announced that it has allocated $2m for a media campaign to be run on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines. Any such information or educational programs must be honest, clear, unambiguous and accurate and obviously they must be targeted to the appropriate age groups. At the same time such programs must not undermine the moral, ethical, family and social values on which our country is founded. In ensuring the appropriate balance in such an education campaign, consultation must be undertaken with community and religious leaders and the co-operation of State and local governments must be sought. I have had discussions with Ita Buttrose about my concerns regarding this particular aspect of any campaign. She advises that discussions have been held with community and religious leaders about the thrust of the campaign that is about to be launched, but not the actual wording of the advertisements as I believe that these have only just been finalised. The coalition strongly supports the need for an information and education campaign targeted especially to the sexually active in our community. However, we are firmly of the view that any such program must be undertaken after full consultation and, hopefully, with the co-operation of community and religious leaders. The major concern is that any such program should not be seen as an attack on the family or undermining family values. There are a number of other issues which need to be addressed in our campaign against AIDS in this country. Firstly, access to AIDS testing services must be provided with appropriate follow-up advice and counselling. Secondly, there are a number of policy issues which have to be resolved in relation to the compulsory testing for AIDS. For example, some time ago the coalition called for screening for AIDS for those wishing to immigrate to this country. I understand from departmental sources within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that this is now policy, although I am not aware of any statement being made on the issue. Another area of concern in relation to compulsory testing is in our gaols. Here the concern is that because governments cannot control the sexual behaviour of inmates there is a need for testing and segregation of those with the disease. The Government has not responded to this concern. Thirdly, there have been concerns raised that more funding should be made available for AIDS research. These are just a few of the vital issues which have to be confronted and, whilst not wishing to detract from the urgent need for an informative, educational program to advise people of the risks of catching AIDS through sexual intercourse, the time has come for the Government to produce a general policy paper outlining the Government's policy in these various areas, together with details of funding arrangements made with the States identifying programs being funded so that the assessment can be made of the appropriateness of existing priorities. The campaign against AIDS must involve education, research, testing, counselling and care. We need to have the total program details rather than just looking at isolated areas of the program. Let me finish where I started. There is no doubt that AIDS is one of the most significant public health problems facing this country. There is an urgent need for the Australian community to be advised of the action which must be taken to avoid contracting the disease. At the end of 1984 there had been 37 deaths in Australia from 49 cases of AIDS. By February 1986 the number of deaths had doubled to 72. One year later that number has more than trebled to 214 deaths. It is not a disease limited to the gay community and drug users; it is spreading into the heterosexual community and action must be taken to contain it. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(10.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Sugar Cane Levy Bill and the associated Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill will provide the basis for the establishment of a sugar research fund. The sugar industry will thereby join other major rural industries in the Commonwealth's rural research program. The introduction of this scheme will also complete the Commonwealth's package of measures to assist the sugar industry. The Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on sugar cane produced in Australia for the purpose of funding sugar industry research. The associated Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill 1987 will provide the machinery for collecting the levy. Expenditure of the moneys raised through the levy will be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth. Administrative and organisational arrangements for the research scheme, including the establishment of a trust fund and research council will be provided pursuant to the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. The sugar industry is an important contributor to our national wealth. Total gross return in 1985 was about $800m; over $600m of that was earned as export income. The industry both in Queensland and in New South Wales has an established basis for research but in recent years these problems have proven inadequate to cover the range of issues the industry needs to address to remain efficient and competitive in a hostile world market. The Commonwealth supported program is intended to complement existing arrangements and provide scope for the industry's research effort to be expanded beyond production into areas such as economic and marketing research. The legislation provides for an initial levy rate of 5c per tonne of sugar cane delivered and accepted by a raw sugar mill for milling, contributed 50 per cent by the grower and 50 per cent by the miller. Provision exists for the rate to be varied by regulation up to a maximum of 10c per tonne and for the split between the grower and the miller to be varied. Provision is also made for any recommendations arising from consultation between the Minister for Primary Industry and sugar industry organisations to be taken into account prior to any adjustment to the operative rate of the levy or the grower-miller split. Amounts equal to the levy collected will be paid into a trust fund established under the Rural Industries Research Act. The Commonwealth's matching contribution will be up to a maximum level equal to 0.5 per cent of the average gross value of sugar production. It is expected that given normal seasonal conditions the levy will raise about $1.25m. The research council will therefore have scope for an annual research program approaching $2m. The commencement date of the legislation is to be set by proclamation but it is intended that the levy be imposed on sugar cane produced on or after 1 June 1987. A full year research program under the scheme cannot begin until 1988-89, essentially because of the need to build up reserves. However, the actual level of expenditure on research will be determined by the research council and it is possible that some research could be funded in 1987-88. I commend the Bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(10.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Sugar Cane Levy Collection Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for collecting the levy imposed by the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987. This Bill should be read as one with the Sugar Cane Levy Bill 1987, and is to come into operation on the same day that the levy Bill becomes operative. The Bill specifies the liability of growers and millers under the scheme, outlines penalties for non-compliance and provides appropriate powers of enforcement. It is intended that levy collections will commence on 1 June 1987. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I have presented the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(10.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill is to give effect to the shipping industry development package announced by the Government on 22 December 1986. The package consists of shipboard productivity and capital assistance measures. This legislation will assist Australian ship operators to acquire modern, technologically advanced ships which can be operated efficiently at the crewing levels specified in the Bill. The Government has a firm commitment to the development and expansion of efficient, competitive and reliable Australian flag shipping. We believe that there are opportunities where Australian shipping can compete internationally, on its commercial merits, despite the very difficult market situation shipping faces globally. On the basis of cargo volumes and distance carried, the Australian seaborne transport task ranks fifth in the world. Yet less than 5 per cent of our trade is carried in Australian flag ships. This reliance on foreign shipping places a heavy burden on our balance of payments. In today's tough economic climate we can no longer rely solely on traditional exports to keep our economy buoyant. If we are to enjoy future prosperity we must look to expanding our trade in services, such as exports of efficient Australian shipping services. The industry development package which this Bill seeks to implement is a major element in the Government's long term strategy of developing an efficient Australian merchant fleet. The package is based on the recommendations of the Maritime Industry Development Committee as set out in its report `Moving Ahead'. The MIDC is a tripartite committee of Australian ship operators and seagoing unions, chaired by an officer of the Federal Department of Transport. It was asked to examine, in detail, shipboard organisation and operational arrangements in Australian shipping and to recommend a workable industry manpower plan appropriate for modern ships. I would like at this point to express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Committee and to pay tribute to the seagoing unions and the ship operators for their enlightened approach to their industry. The Committee delivered an innovative, forward-looking plan that has four main elements. The first is the introduction of multi-skilled ratings on to Australian trading ships; that is, ratings who will work both in the engine-room and on deck. This integrated approach to ship crewing introduces into the Australian shipping industry the general purpose crew concept being developed by leading maritime nations. The second is the establishment of a new training regime to equip entrants into the industry with the skills demanded by high technology, modern ships. The third is the establishment of a retraining program to provide the opportunity for existing seafarers to upgrade their skills and remain in the industry. The fourth is the introduction of a new social environment on Australian ships, with the emphasis on team work. The MIDC plan for a new approach on Australian ships is a sound basis on which to take Australian shipping into the next decade. The implementation of this plan has been set by MIDC in a three-point package. First, the unions have agreed to changes which will improve efficiency. Secondly, ship operators have undertaken to invest whenever commercially feasible in the high technology ships that will introduce the new crewing arrangements. Thirdly, the industry has called on the Government to provide financial incentives, which this Bill seeks to do. Each of these elements reinforces the others. Implementation of the MIDC package will bring immediate benefits. The maximum crew on a new generation bulk carrier operating to the new standards will be 21. That is an improvement of some 20 per cent on the previous crew level on an Australian bulk ship of 26. However, the importance of the package goes well beyond this aspect. The introduction of multi-skilled, general purpose crewing will provide a method of shipboard organisation that can readily accommodate further improvements to crew productivity, in line with technological developments in the industry. This package constitutes the greatest single step forward for Australian shipping. It represents the most progressive move made in decades. It is an achievement that has been made possible by genuine goodwill, co-operation and consultation involving all parties-seafarers, ship operators and government. The package has been derived by those who know the industry's strengths and weaknesses and how it functions, and who are committed to its improvement. It is a model for other industries to follow. Over the last few years seafarers have faced a contraction in employment opportunities. Improved shipboard technology has reduced manpower requirements and ships have become significantly larger, one ship often replacing two. Despite these difficulties, Australia's seafarers have adopted an enlightened approach, squarely facing up to the issues and supporting measures which will put Australian shipping on course for a better future. The role of the Government has been to encourage and promote this worthwhile development. It recognises that progress must come from within the industry and cannot be imposed from without. The key to the success of the package is investment in new tonnage. Smaller crews will eventuate only if high technology ships, capable of being operated at the proposed new levels, are introduced into the Australian fleet. New ships mean new job opportunities and a firmer, more secure future for the industry. Both are essential prerequisites for a healthy industrial relations climate. As the cost of capital is the major cost in ship operation, accounting for up to half total costs, any lightening of capital burdens would be a major step forward in promoting the industry. The financial measures that will be provided by the Bill now before the House will therefore act as a positive incentive for ship operators to invest in the new ships that will make the package work. It is the Government's contribution to the future of a vital national industry. The intention of this Bill is quite clear. The Government will provide grants to encourage the introduction of new ships into the Australian flag fleet, provided those ships are operated at all times at or below specified crew levels. The Bill's purpose is to improve the efficiency of Australian shipping by promoting the shipboard management and work practices, and training programs, developed by the MIDC. The Government is prepared to take this step because it knows that the industry-ship operators, unions and employees-is committed to the success of this industry package. I turn now to the details of the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill. The draft Bill provides for a tax- able grant of 7 per cent of the purchase price of eligible new or secondhand trading ships, or, in certain circumstances, 7 per cent of the modification cost of an existing trading ship. As clause 8 sets out, grants will be available only to ships which are: Crewed with Australian residents, at a level no more than that specified for the appropriate ship category; engaged in the carriage of passengers and/or cargoes; and owned and registered in Australia. No ship will be able to qualify for a grant more than once under this scheme. For income tax purposes, the grant will be treated as income in the year of receipt. A shipowner in receipt of a grant will be required to operate the relevant ship in accordance with its certificate of ship category issued by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. Clause 6 of the Bill specifies the categories. That clause also allows for new categories of ships to be created by regulation, where warranted. It is expected that this will occur only rarely-for instance, in the case of small ships, or ships engaged on short coastal voyages where a three watch system need not apply. In this case a maximum crew level of well below 21 would be determined. Clause 7 specifies maximum crew levels for ships benefiting under this Bill. These are 21 for tankers in the international trades and for other types of ships-for example, bulk carriers and container ships. Tankers engaged in the coastal trades will have a maximum crew of 23. I should stress that these are maximum crew levels, arrived at after consultation with the MIDC. Nothing in the legislation will prevent ships from being operated with lower crew levels, provided that can be done with safety. To ensure the maximum impact of the grant scheme, it is subject to a sunset clause. The scheme commences on 1 July 1987 and cuts out for new ships on 30 June 1992, and for second-hand ships on 30 June 1990. To allow maximum operational flexibility, provision is made in clause 12 for a ship to be issued with a certificate stipulating more than one category. For instance, a tanker engaged in both coastal and overseas trading would be able to be crewed according to the voyage actually being undertaken. If required, ship operators can apply under clause 14 for a variation to a ship category certificate when a ship changes its operations or trade. Provision is made in clause 22 for the Secretary to the Department of Transport to permit, where circumstances warrant it, additional persons to be carried for a limited period. This provides the flexibility to cover the case of a new ship experiencing teething problems that require the temporary carriage of specialised technicians. Provision is also made in clause 23 for the Secretary to permit the ship to be operated with trainees in addition to the crew without jeopardising eligibility for grants. This will allow essential sea experience in practical ship operation through the temporary creation of training berths on appropriate ships in the fleet. A ship operator who fails to maintain the crew at or below the appropriate level or knowingly breaches other conditions-for example, crews a ship with non-Australian residents-will be required to repay the grant as set out in clause 26. That clause also requires a ship operator who disposes of a ship in under five years after receipt of a grant to repay that grant, on a pro rata basis. As I announced on 22 December last, these arrangements replace the depreciation concessions and manning notice requirements set out in section 57am of the Income Tax Assessment Act. However, for new ships which are eligible for the grant the Government has decided to retain the entitlement under that section to depreciation in the pre-commissioning year. Eli- gible new ships would therefore qualify for 20 per cent depreciation in the pre-commissioning year and each of the four subsequent years. In the case of second-hand ships the usual taxation rules will apply, which would allow five year depreciation commencing from the date the ship is first used by the owner. Those depreciation rules will also apply to modifications. Appropriate amendments will be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act as soon as practicable. Australia is an important trading nation almost totally dependent on overseas-owned or controlled shipping to get its goods to distant markets. The MIDC package will promote a more efficient, competitive and reliable Australian flag fleet. Australia will be less dependent on overseas shipping and will retain a greater share of the external freight bill. The package will also mean lower coastal sea freight costs. The scheme is estimated to cost $18m, after tax is paid on the grants, spread over five years. For this net outlay, a foreign exchange contribution of $40m to $50m a year could be achieved under the MIDC package. A saving of up to $40m a year is also in prospect from the use of more efficient tonnage on the coast. These savings will increase profits and create jobs. The resultant boost to tax receipts will further reduce, and should eliminate, the net budgetary cost of the grant scheme. Moreover, these benefits are permanent additions to national wealth that will long outlive the transitory cost of grants. This package replaces the Crawford plan, established in 1984. Under that plan, some 10 per cent of the Australian flag fleet was renewed with crew reductions of between 20 and 30 per cent achieved. I acknowledge the part played by my predecessor, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who recognised the need to bring the parties together so that the industry could develop on a realistic and commercial basis. He had our support for his initiative in commissioning Sir John Crawford to work with ship operators and sea-going unions to promote Australian shipping. This Bill represents a watershed for the Australian shipping industry. It will cement into place an industry plan which has evolved after much hard work over the last three years. That plan is the path to the future for the industry because it provides for an ongoing system of crewing that has the flexibility to adjust to the competitive pressures that will continue to emerge in shipping. The industry will have to work hard to secure its future, to continue to improve its efficiency. It will require considerable co-operation between all elements of the industry. I am, however, confident that we have the right framework for success, a success that will benefit Australia as a whole. The Ships (Capital Grants) Bill is an important contribution to this process. I commend the Bill to the House. I table the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Bill 1987, which is now before the House, proposes the replacement of the current Customs Tariff Act with a completely new document that represents the culmination of work which began in the early 1970s. At that time, the Customs Co-operation Council in Brussels, with Australian participation, undertook to modernise its international tariff nomenclature and to promote its use in other areas of commercial activity. The legislation provides that the new Act come into effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation. While it is expected that the actual operative date will be 1 January 1988, this depends on that date being the date of entry into force of the relevant international convention, that is, the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. Amendments to take account of Government decisions made before the new Act comes into effect, and to provide for changes necessary following negotiations on trade commitments, will be made by Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice after proclamation but before the date of operation of the Act. The Customs Tariff Bill runs to 532 pages-much longer than the New Testament but not as long as War and Peace. The First Parliamentary Counsel confirms that as a single piece of legislation, introduced in one hit, only the Companies Act 1981 is longer-546 pages-and more densely packed. The Income Tax Assessment Act makes both pale into insignificance, weighing in at 1,522 pages at the last printing, but it took years of separate enactments to reach its present magnitude. Before commenting on the more significant aspects of the actual Bill, for the information of honourable members I will provide a brief outline of the new international nomenclature and its development. Honourable members have been calling for this for years. The International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System provides a new nomenclature for the classification of goods in international trade. The Convention has been developed by the Customs Co-operation Council to replace its existing and outdated nomenclature, which has been the basis of our national tariff since 1965. The Council approved the new Convention on 14 June 1983, and, for it to enter into force on 1 January 1988, a minimum of 17 contracting parties are required by 30 September 1987. Perhaps in a spirit of collaboration for the Bicentenary they will all help out. The Customs Co-operation Council confidently expects that most major trading nations, including Japan, the European Economic Community and the United States of America, will become contracting parties before that date. It is proposed that Australia also become a contracting party at the same time. It is important to note that the United States and Canada will be using an internationally-based tariff for the first time. The new system aims to: Provide international uniformity in the classification of goods in customs tariffs; make it easier to collect, analyse and compare world trade statistics, both import and export statistics; provide a common international system for coding, describing and classifying goods for commercial purposes-for example, freight tariffs, transport requirements, documentation and so on. The basic structure of the harmonised system is much the same as the current international nomenclature but it has been extensively modernised and extended in detail to take account of trade and technological changes and to provide a uniform international basis for collection of trade statistics. The new system has 97 chapters, compared with the current 99 chapters, and 5,019 mandatory international references, compared with the current beggarly 1,009. Mr Peter Fisher —You have streamlined government. Mr BARRY JONES —That is right. The translation into the Australian Customs Tariff Act has followed public circulation of draft structures by the Australian Customs Service and a subsequent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry and report. The IAC, in its report, proposed two options for consideration. Option one resulted from an item by item examination of the existing tariff. It aimed at minimising unnecessary complexity and fragmentation in the new tariff while at the same time avoiding significant effects on the level of assistance to Australian industries. This option retained a considerable number of complexities and subdivisions which greatly increased the number of national tariff sub-headings over the number of new standard international provisions. Option two removed all the major tariff complexities and brought the Australian tariff very much closer to the standard international requirements. While the changes to duties under this option were greater in certain cases than under the IAC's option one, the net effect on levels of assistance to Australian industry as a whole is considered to be minimal. It has clear advantages for both the public and private sectors through improved administrative efficiency and cost saving from a less complex, less fragmented tariff. The Government has therefore adopted option two, with some minor modifications to meet industry policy and trade commitment obligations, for the new Australian customs tariff. Returning to the Bill itself, I will now outline the more important provisions and changes from the current Customs Tariff Act. The Bill comprises 29 clauses and 6 Schedules. While many of the clauses are similar in application to the current sections of the Customs Tariff Act, some significant revision and simplification has been undertaken. For example, sections 5 to 9 of the current Act refer to the status of off-shore installations for the purposes of Customs Acts generally and do not have specific relevance to the Customs Tariff. Consequently, they have not been included in the new Bill but will be covered more appropriately by a separate Bill. Current section 10, relating to the measurement of alcohol, is considered more appropriately located elsewhere in the Customs Tariff Act. It now forms part of Schedule 3 to the Bill. The complicated provisions in various sections currently required to provide for preferences to `declared preference countries' have been removed as these countries no longer require specific reference in the new tariff. Should the need be seen for specific preferences to be given to such countries in the future, adequate provision exists under the proposed new special rates clauses. The ministerial discretion relating to duties applicable to substitutes and imitations-current section 25-has not been carried forward to the new Bill. The normal method of utilising the provisions of the IAC Act, including the public inquiry process for duty alterations, is regarded by this Government as the more appropriate and visible method of dealing with any such cases. Powers under the current section have not been exercised for several years. I do not propose to go into detail-unless you insist, Mr Deputy Speaker- on those clauses of the Bill which are very similar in impact to current sections. Details of these are available in the explanatory memorandum with this Bill. However, specific mention should be made of some of the more significant clauses of the Bill. Clause 10 provides for the application of the interpretation rules which are fundamental to application of the harmonised system nomenclature to ensure international uniformity in the determination of the classification of goods. To provide specific guidance in this regard, the intended coverage of the headings and sub-headings of the nomenclature is laid down by the Customs Co-operation Council in its `Harmonised System Explanatory Notes'. The actual texts of the rules are set out in Schedule 2 of the Bill. Clauses 12, 20 and 23 are provisions necessary for the application of a new system for determining duties for goods the subject of tariff quota restrictions. The actual duty structure is provided in proposed Schedule 5. This new system was considered necessary to avoid unacceptable fragmentation and complexity of the main duty Schedule-Schedule 3. It also allows for the determination of both the `within quota' rates and the rates applying for such goods not meeting quota requirements-`penalty rates'-by reference to a single Schedule rather than the current system which necessitates consultation of both current Schedule 3 and Part II of Schedule 4. While the scope of existing quota provisions has not been significantly altered, considerable administrative and tariff simplification will result from the new provisions. I present, at this point, a brief outline of the coverage of each of the schedules of the proposed Bill to assist honourable members in their consideration of the structure of the new customs tariff. Schedule 1, as with current Schedule 1, lists the classes of countries and places to which special rates apply. These are limited to Forum island countries and developing countries in the proposed Bill. As indicated earlier, special provisions for declared preference countries are not required in the new tariff. Schedule 2 covers the general rules for the interpretation of the harmonised system. I have previously indicated the importance of these principles in promoting international uniformity of classification. The first four of these rules are essentially the same as the rules provided by Schedule 2 in the current tariff. Rule 5 is a new international rule governing the classification of cases, boxes and similar containers and packing materials and packing containers. Rule 6 has been introduced to ensure uniform application of the rules and notes at the new harmonised system sub-heading level. The principles of both these new rules have always been applied in application of the current Australian customs tariff. Schedule 3 is, as for the current tariff, the principal schedule for the purposes of determining the classification and rate of duty applicable to imported goods. Although the systematic structure follows the same pattern as that of the current tariff Schedule 3, there are extensive changes to reflect the more detailed and updated harmonised system. Schedule 4 provides for the concessional entry of goods meeting certain prescribed conditions. This Schedule is similar to the current Schedule 4-Part I-provisions of the Customs Tariff. Some restructuring for simplification and rationalisation purposes has been undertaken but no significant duty changes will result. Current Schedule 4-Part II-provisions form part of the tariff quota Schedule 5 of the new Bill. Schedule 5 is a new provision for determining the duties applicable to goods the subject of tariff quota restrictions. The purpose of this Schedule has been explained earlier in connection with my comments on clauses 12, 20 and 23 of the Bill. The provisions of current Schedule 5 of the Customs Tariff which listed the rates of duty applying in relation to New Zealand goods have been included in the main Schedule-Schedule 3-of the proposed Bill. Schedule 6 is similar to the current Schedule 6 and is simply the provision necessary for listing Acts repealed by the legislation. In summary, the new Australian customs tariff proposed by this Bill reflects the culmination of a mammoth effort both nationally and internationally to produce the most rational, simple and modern tariff seen for decades. It represents a move away from the long standing `tailored' nature of the Australian tariff which has developed over the years in response to the special competitive needs of particular Australian products or narrow industries. A more neutral environment for investment and trade decisions is anticipated as a result. While changes to tariff rates for particular imports are inevitable, the net effects on levels of assistance to Australian industry as a whole, will be minimal. The harmonised system of classification on which the tariff is based will be of major benefit to Australia and its major trading partners in a number of ways. It will reduce doubts as to the description and coding of goods, a significant source of error which today affects the accuracy of trade statistics and the application of tariffs. It will facilitate the international collection and dissemination of trade data and its common language will remove the cause of many interruptions to the movement of goods between countries, thus reducing the cost of trading transactions. Financial Impact The likely financial impact of the proposed new tariff is difficult to assess. However, the IAC report indicated that its option 2 proposals would result in a slight increase in the average general import weighted tariff rate of 0.7 of a percentage point. This increase would be marginally less with the modification to the option proposed by the Government. Administrative costs involved in implementing the new system will be mainly once only printing and dissemination costs of $0.9m. There will of course be initial costs to the community at large in converting to the new system but these are expected to be minimal. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 amends the following Acts: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act 1985 Bounty (Books) Act 1986 Bounty (Computers) Act 1985 Bounty (Electric Motors) Act 1984 Bounty (Injection-Moulding Equipment) Act 1979 Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act 1985 Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 Customs Act 1901 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Act 1985 Excise Tariff Act 1921 Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) 1930 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act 1986 Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment) Act 1985 The Bill is complementary to the Customs Tariff Bill 1987 which I have just introduced and contains necessary citation and other con- sequential amendments to legislation containing references to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 or containing provisions linked to that Act. Apart from consequential changes required as a result of the introduction of Customs Tariff Bill 1987, the opportunity has been taken to clarify and simplify sections 151 and 151a of the Customs Act. A new section 151 to the Customs Act 1901 to define the criteria under which goods will be considered to be the produce or manufacture of a particular country or group of countries forms part of the Bill. No changes in application of the provisions of the current sections will result. Financial Impact This Bill will have no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Customs Tariff Bill 1987 which I have just introduced and will come into effect on the same day as that Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to continue the application of current sections 5 to 9, inclusive, of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. In very general terms, these sections provide that when an installation becomes attached to the Australian seabed, the installation shall be deemed to be part of Australia and it, and any goods on it or taken to it, shall be deemed to have been imported. Likewise, on being detached from the Australian seabed for the purpose of being removed from Australian waters, the installation and any goods on it shall be deemed to have been exported. These sections are not included in the Bill which will replace the Customs Tariff Act 1982 as they are not considered to be appropriate to the concept of the new legislation. Accordingly, it has been decided to create a separate Bill. There is, however, no change in the scope of the legislation. Financial Impact The Bill has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to the most significant business taxation reform in this country in the post-war years-the elimination of the double taxation of company dividends. It will do this by amending the income tax law to introduce, with effect from 1 July 1987, the full imputation system of company tax announced on 10 December 1986. It will also give effect to a number of the related measures that were also announced on that day. Under the imputation system, dividends paid by Australian companies will be relieved from tax in the hands of resident individual shareholders by a rebate to the extent to which tax has been paid at the corporate level. Dividends relieved from tax in this way will be known as franked dividends. Such dividends when paid to non-residents will be exempt from withholding tax. The Australian imputation system is a world first. It will put Australia at the forefront of business tax reform, and give us one of the most advanced and efficient tax regimes in the world; it will restore the position of the stock market as the mobiliser of investment funds and reduce the previous bias in favour of corporate debt finance over equity; it will mean that entrepreneurs trying to get new businesses off the ground should find it easier to raise equity finance; it will make investment in these enterprises relatively more attractive for investors; it will improve the climate for productive investment and enhance economic growth for Australia; and it will provide increased incentives for all Australians to participate in the ownership of Australian companies by significantly reducing taxes on dividend income. In conjunction with the substantial personal income tax cuts being delivered by this Government, imputation will result in a reduction of up to 40 per cent in the overall tax burden for shareholders and small businesses. To put this another way, imputation will substantially increase the after-tax return to shareholders. Under the existing system and before the personal tax cuts already in place, a dividend paid to a shareholder in the top tax bracket was effectively taxed at a rate of 78.4c in the dollar. The return to the shareholder was 21.6c in the dollar. Under imputation and with the maximum personal tax rate and company tax rate to operate from July 1 aligned, the maximum tax that will be paid on any dividends will be 49c in the dollar. The return to the shareholder will be 51c in the dollar-a return more than twice as much as under the old system. For taxpayers in the middle income ranges the outcome will be just as favourable, as any excess rebate on franked dividends will be available to reduce tax on other income, including capital gains. The direct cost of these changes, and of the associated abolition of Division 7 additional tax on the undistributed profits of private companies for which legislation will be introduced shortly, will be almost $500m in a full year. In my announcement of 10 December 1986, I indicated that the Government would also eliminate the double taxation of company income derived by non-residents from Australian sources. This Bill will implement that proposal by abolishing dividend withholding tax on franked dividends paid after 30 June 1987 to non-residents, and the branch profits tax on income of the 1986-87 and later income years. This will be at a further full year cost of $280m. The total cost of all these changes, amounting to $775m, will be offset in part by the increase of three percentage points in the company tax rate from 1 July that will be given effect by the accompanying Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1987. The net benefit of all of these changes for taxpayers will therefore be $300m in a full year. This will be on top of the benefit of $4.5 billion in personal income tax cuts delivered by this Government from 1 December last year and 1 July this year-in part paid for by action that only this Government was prepared to take in properly closing long-standing gaps in the income tax base relating to capital gains, fringe benefits and the substantiation of claims for income tax deductions. As part of the package announced on 10 December 1986 the Bill will modify the scope of liquidation distributions which are brought within the income tax base. Liquidators' distributions out of realised capital gains on taxable assets acquired after 19 September 1985 will be taxed as dividends, and be dealt with under the new imputation arrangements. The same treatment will apply to distributions out of other profits that are assessable income, but which are not presently taxed on liquidation. Finally, the Bill will deny the intercorporate dividend rebate on dividends paid before 1 July 1987, and on unfranked dividends paid on and after that date, being dividends that are in effect paid in substitution for payments of interest under certain finance arrangements. The revenue savings from these two measures are unquantifiable, but are expected to be significant. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. Full Imputation By the measures contained in this Bill, tax paid at the company level will be imputed, or allocated, to shareholders by means of imputation credits attached to dividends they receive. Such dividends will be known as franked dividends. An amount equal to the imputation credits attached to franked dividends will be included in the assessable income of resident individual shareholders, who will then be entitled to a rebate of tax equal to the amount included in their income. The extent to which a company may frank a dividend will depend on the credit or surplus balance in its franking account at the time of payment of the dividend. Credits to this account will most commonly arise when a company pays a company tax instalment or when a company tax assessment is issued. Credits will also arise whenever a company receives a franked dividend from another company. In this way, credit for company tax borne by one company will be effectively transferred to the company receiving the franked dividend to allow that company in turn to frank dividends it pays to its shareholders. Predominantly, debits to the franking account will be for the payment of franked dividends. Special statutory rules will apply to determine, in any given situation, the minimum amount to which a dividend is to be franked. Subject to an exception for small balances, the basic rule is that a company must frank dividends to the extent permitted by the franking account surplus at the date of payment of the dividends. Other rules will operate to ensure that, when determining the extent to which particular dividends are to be franked: Future dividends which the company has an obligation to pay, for example, dividends on preference shares, are taken into account; and All dividends paid as part of the one distribution, for example, interim dividends paid to ordinary shareholders, or as part of another distribution made on the same day, are franked to the same extent. Those rules will operate to prevent blatant channelling of imputation credits to particular shareholders in preference to others. Subject to those rules, there will be no requirement for a company to equally frank interim and final dividends and dividends on different classes of shares. It will be the franking account balance at relevant times that will determine the extent of franking in each case. Apart from these rules, a company will be able, at its option, to frank dividends to an extent greater than otherwise would be the case by making a reasonable estimate of any additional franking credits it expects to receive later in the year. I originally announced that if a company wished to overfrank a dividend in this way it would have to make a formal estimate of its anticipated franking credits for the year, at the time of payment of the first dividend in that year. The legislation before the House, however, dispenses with the need for a formal estimate. This will substantially reduce the administrative burden on companies and introduce increased flexibility into the system. Penalties will apply to prevent clear abuses of this overfranking concession. Where, however, a company has overfranked a dividend at any time or otherwise has a franking account deficit at the end of a year, the company will be required to make a non-refundable payment shortly after the end of the year to make good this deficit. While this requirement will be formally imposed as a tax-to be known as a franking deficit tax-in practice, this payment will be treated as a prepayment on account of future company tax. It will be offset against any company tax liability in respect of the 1986-87 or any later income year that is raised after the end of the year in which the deficit arose. In order to frank a dividend, a company will have to declare the extent to which it is franked, and will be required to provide shareholders with this and other pertinent advice in relation to the dividend. Where a dividend is fully or partially franked, the attached imputation credit will fully offset any personal income tax liability of resident individual shareholders-even those on the top marginal rate of 49 cents in the dollar on the franked part of the dividend. Any part of a dividend that is unfranked will have no imputation credits attached, and will remain subject to tax in the hands of resident individual share- holders in the same way as dividends received by such shareholders are taxed under the present law. For resident individual shareholders on lower rates, imputation credits attached to franked dividends will exceed the tax payable on the franked amount of the dividends. The excess rebate will be available to offset tax on other income, including unfranked dividends and capital gains, but will not be refundable where it exceeds such tax, and will not be offset against the Medicare levy. Imputation credits attached to franked dividends will not form part of separate net income for dependent rebate purposes, but will be included in the Medicare levy tax base. Special rules will apply to franked dividends paid to a partnership or to a trustee of a trust estate. These will ensure that the attached imputation credits flow through to each partner or beneficiary-or trustee if appropriate-in proportion to their share of the net income of the trust or partnership that is attributable to franked dividends. The amount flowing through will be dealt with on the bases outlined earlier depending on whether the partner or beneficiary is a resident individual or company, or is a non-resident. Related Measures DIVIDEND WITHHOLDING TAX Imputation credits will not be allowed to non-resident shareholders. However, where a franked dividend is paid to a non-resident after 30 June 1987-whether an individual or company-the franked amount of the dividend will be exempt from dividend withholding tax. Dividend withholding tax will continue to apply to the unfranked amount of any dividends paid to a non-resident after that date. BRANCH PROFITS TAX In association with the introduction of inputation, the additional tax imposed on the reduced taxable income of non-resident companies-the branch profits tax-is being abolished. This tax will last apply to income derived during the 1985-86 income year. Dividends derived after 30 June 1987 by non-resident companies with a branch in Australia will be subject to the revised withholding tax rules outlined, and will no longer be subject to tax by assessment in Australia. DISTRIBUTIONS BY LIQUIDATORS By this Bill the provisions of the income tax law that deem liquidation distributions to be dividends will be extended to include distributions made out of amounts, other than indexed capital gains, assessable under any provision of the income tax law, and out of realised capital gains on assets acquired after 19 September 1985. The changes will apply to distributions made in the course of a winding up of a company that commenced after 1 p.m. Australian eastern summer time on 10 December 1986. This will mean that the new measures will not apply where an application for the winding up of a company was lodged with the court, or a special resolution for voluntary winding up was passed by the company in general meeting, before that time. DIVIDENDS PAID INSTEAD OF INTEREST Amendments to the income tax law announced on 7 April 1986 and contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 effectively treat certain finance arrangements for periods of two years or less as loan arrangements for income tax purposes although formally they are structured as issues of shares. The amendments will do this by denying the intercorporate dividend rebate in relation to the dividends paid on the relevant shares, but allowing a deduction to the issuer of the shares as if the dividends were interest payments. The amendments proposed by this Bill will extend this treatment so as to deny also the intercorporate dividend rebate to dividends paid on shares used in finance arrangements of any term where the dividends are equivalent to the payment of interest on a loan. In the case of such a dividend paid on or after 1 July 1987, only so much of the dividend as has not been franked under the new imputation system will be denied the dividend rebate under this new measure. Unlike the measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5), the payment of dividends subject to the provisions of this Bill will not entitle the issuer to a deduction. Dividends subject to this new measure will be those paid on relevant shares either issued, or used in finance arrangements entered into or extended, after 1 p.m. Australian eastern summer time on 10 December 1986. OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO IMPUTATION The legislation before the House today contains the essential elements of the imputation system. I mentioned earlier that legislation to abolish the division 7 tax on private companies that I also announced on 10 December 1986 would be included in a later Bill. Some other measures I announced on that day as part of the imputation package will also be included in that Bill. These are the measures required-to apply the intercorporate dividend rebate on a gross, rather than net, basis; to remove the present exemption from tax for bonus shares issued after 30 June 1987; alter the capital gains treatment of such shares and give parallel treatment to issues of bonus units in unit trusts; to extend by a series of technical provisions the imputation measures to corporate unit trusts and public trading trusts that are taxed as companies; to enable franking rebate entitlements to be taken into account in the calculation of provisional tax payable by individual shareholders; and to enact some measures of an anti-avoidance nature as a consequence of the introduction of imputation. These additional matters are peripheral to the working of the imputation system and the Government has expedited the introduction of the measures contained in this Bill so as to enable companies and shareholders to plan for imputation with the certainty of legislation before them. A memorandum explaining the main features and operation of the Bill and two other Bills I shall introduce shortly has been circulated to honourable members. I will be circulating to honourable members within the next week a further memorandum containing an explanation of each clause of the Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax (Franking Deficit) Bill 1987 which I have just introduced will amend the income tax law for the introduction of the full imputation system of company taxation. As I explained in the context of that Bill, where a company has a franking deficit at the end of a year it will be required to pay franking deficit tax in order to make good the shortfall in company tax imputed to its shareholders. The purpose of this Bill is to impose formally on such a company liability to pay franking deficit tax. Franking deficit tax imposed by this Bill will be offset against company tax on income of the 1986-87 income year or any later year which becomes due under an assessment or amended assessment raised after the end of the year in which the deficit arises. The franking deficit tax is not a penalty. It is simply a payment which will be required to make up any amount of company tax that has been imputed to shareholders by the payment of franked dividends beyond what has actually become available by the end of that year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1987 will amend the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to declare the rates of income tax payable for the 1987-88 and subsequent financial years by companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes. The tax at the declared rates will be payable on incomes of the 1986-87 and subsequent years. As announced in the September 1985 tax reform statement, the 49 per cent company tax rate to be declared by this Bill will bring the company tax rate into alignment with the maximum personal marginal tax rate, and will help defray the cost of the new imputation system that I outlined earlier for honourable members. The 49 per cent rate will also apply for unit trusts treated as companies. The rate of tax for registered organisations is to remain at 20 per cent. The Bill will also declare a 49 per cent rate of tax payable by trustees on trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries in the 1986-87 and subsequent income years. A non-profit company that is not a registered organisation pays tax at full company rates only where its taxable income exceeds $2,542. Reflecting the increase in the company tax rate of 49 per cent, the threshold for non-profit companies is to be increased to $3,813. Finally, as a consequence of the further lowering of the personal income tax rates from 1 July 1987, this Bill will declare lower rates of tax payable on incomes of some superannuation funds and ineligible approved deposit funds in respect of the 1987-88 and subsequent income years. The additional revenue raised by increasing the company tax rate to 49 per cent will be $460m in 1987-88 and $475m in a full year. However, as I mentioned earlier, these revenue gains will be more than offset by the costs of the imputation arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 will amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Radiocommunications Act 1983 and the Telecommunications Act 1975. Provisions of the Bill will empower the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, with ministerial approval, to engage in activities relating to telecommunications in Australia and to engage in activities relating to domestic and international telecommunications services in or for a foreign country. The Bill will remove present requirements for OTC to obtain ministerial approval to exercise incidental powers and to provide consultancy service overseas, and will limit the requirement to obtain ministerial approval to alteration in respect of basic overseas telephone and telegram services. Other provisions of the Bill will enable Australia Post to enter currency hedging and financial futures contracts-hedging contracts-and will make technical amendments to the hedging contracts provisions of Telecom Australia and OTC. Further, the Bill will impose a moratorium on the provision of domestic pay-television for at least four years. It will make a number of changes to provisions of the Radiocommunications Act relating to the making of standards, spectrum plans and frequency band plans. It will also expand the scope of evidentiary certificates issued under the Radiocommunications Act. I will deal first with the provisions of the Bill to expand the powers of OTC. The provisions will enable OTC to participate in a number of opportunities that have arisen recently in Australia, including membership of the telecommunications trading and development company proposed by the Australian Industry Development Corporation-AIDC-commercial development of OTC research and development in areas such as antenna design, marketing of specialised computer software consultancy services in Australia. OTC will not be empowered to establish, operate, provide or maintain telecommunications services in Australia. The amendments will also enable OTC to exploit off-shore opportunities as they arise. In particular, OTC will be able to develop an Australian telecommunications hub-network for the South Pacific region and to provide domestic and international telecommunications in or for foreign countries. Ministerial approval will be required before these new powers are exercised. In granting approval to specific proposals, arrangements will be put in place to ensure that there is no cross-subsidisation and that relevant government interests are taken into account. The amendments will give effect to a recommendation of the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Call Us Again'-a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit on the control over manpower and property by OTC. The Bill contains provisions to remove unnecessary requirements for ministerial approval with respect to certain activities of OTC. The requirements in the Overseas Telecommunications Act for ministerial approval before OTC exercises incidental powers or provides consultancies are inconsistent with the powers of Telecom Australia and its subsidiary Telecom Australia (International) Limited under the Tele- communications Act 1975. The restrictions are also unnecessary impediments to the Commission in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities. Similarly, the need for the Commission to obtain ministerial approval to alter services other than its basic overseas telephone and telegram services is inconsistent with the Commission's status as a competitive government business enterprise. I now turn to the other provisions in the Bill. The provisions in the Bill to enable Australia Post to enter hedging contracts are modelled on similar provisions contained in the Communications Legislation Amendment Act 1985 for Telecom Australia and OTC. Part IV of the Bill contains amendments to the Radiocommunications Act. The most significant of these is the moratorium on domestic pay-television, which is contained in clause 19 of the Bill. On 2 September last year I announced that the way was clear for the introduction of new video and audio entertainment and information services to non-domestic premises such as hotels, motels, clubs and TABs. I am sure that most honourable members are by now familiar with services such as Sky Channel and Club Super- station which are currently operating. At the same time, however, I announced that the Government had decided that the introduction of pay-television services to the general public would not be permitted for at least another four years. The proposed new section 24a of the Radiocommunications Act gives a statutory basis to that moratorium. Other noteworthy changes to the Radiocommunications Act are contained in clauses 15 and 16. These amendments will enable plans made by the Minister under the Act relating to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum and particular frequency bands to adopt and incorporate existing documents. Documents such as the Australian Table of Frequency Allocations which reflect resolutions of the International Telecommunications Union are already published and widely accepted. The proposed provision will allow such documents to be readily adopted. Clauses 14 and 17 of the Bill are designed to remove unnecessary repetitions which occur in the process of making standards, spectrum plans and frequency band plans. Under the current provisions, once even a minor change is made to a plan or standard as a result of public consultation the Minister is obliged to resubmit the whole document for a further round of public consultation. This requirement, with its obvious scope for needless delay in the making of plans and standards, is to be removed. Of course, the Minister will still be free to resubmit an amended plan or standard for further public consultation where amendments are more significant and further consultation is felt to be appropriate. Finally, I turn to the financial impact of the Bill. The provisions to augment the powers of OTC have the potential to lead to an increase in the Commission's profit and consequent dividend payment to the Commonwealth. The provisions to limit the range of activities for which OTC requires ministerial approval will not affect the Commission's revenues and will result in some small administrative cost savings. The provisions to enable Australia Post to enter hedging contracts will enable the Commission to manage its foreign currency exposure in a prudent and effective manner with corresponding savings to the Commission. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. There have been several proposals for establishing off-shore installations on the continental shelf beyond the territorial sea, mostly in the Great Barrier Reef area. Some of these can be dealt with simply enough under the current arrangements, involving the Great Barrier Reef ministerial councils, both of which involve continuing Commonwealth and Queensland co-operation on policies and day to day management. However, there is no similar arrangement for other areas, and proposals are now being made which require regulation beyond the scope of those arrangements. The Sea Installations Bill provides a framework to ensure that new developments are technically sound and environmentally acceptable. It provides a basis for the application of important Commonwealth laws, and for State or Territory laws to be adopted as Commonwealth laws. These provisions are parallel to those already applying under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which regulates off-shore petroleum and mineral exploration and extraction. That Act and the Sea Installations Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill are based on the belief that the most efficient approach is to adopt State and Territory laws and to develop administrative arrangements involving State and Territory administrations. This approach also takes account of the satisfactory arrangements we have with the Queensland Government for day to day management of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park activities by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is important that off-shore installations not be used as a basis for evasion of Australian laws, particularly those regulating customs, migration, taxation and quarantine. The proposed legislation will deal with this by requiring contact with the installations to be from the mainland, and by including provisions to ensure that the laws in question can be efficiently and effectively applied. The Bill before the House does not cover sales tax and income tax, both of which will be the subject of separate legislation in accordance with the announcement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in January this year. The approach taken in the legislation is to require proponents of off-shore installations to seek permits from the Minister. They will have to provide information about the purpose of the installation, structural and technical issues, the extent of use and occupation by people, insurance arrangements and so on so that proper standards can be applied and assessments made of the impact on the environment. Where necessary, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be invoked, as has already been done in the case of the proposed floating hotel off Townsville. Permits will be accompanied by whatever safeguards are necessary to ensure that safety and environment considerations are paramount in day to day operations. Variation, revocation and renewal provisions have been included to provide a means of continuing monitoring and to allow changes to accommodate any new factors which arise. The application of State laws and the use of State administrations will be an important part of this monitoring, in areas like health standards and others which will normally apply to similar operations on the mainland and the Sea Installations Bill makes clear that the States will be paid for their participation. There are already several cases of small installations such as those used as navigational or meteorological aids which do not require further regulations. It would be possible under the regulations to exempt these from the new legislation. A provision has been included to allow exemption from particular aspects of the regulatory scheme. This will also ensure there is no unintended interference with existing regulatory arrangements directed at matters not within the objectives of this Bill, such as commercial fishing. On the other hand, care has been taken in defining sea installations to include ships which remain constantly or continuously in the seas in question and thereby provide a basis for evasion of the legislation. These provisions acknowledge our obligations in respect of foreign shipping. The development of off-shore installations is already a fact of life. We are committed to harmonising conservation and sustainable development in the natural environment. This includes the seas. This legislation will be part of the Government's policy of protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the environment. This approach is already being applied by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to installations subject to its regulations. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Sea Installations Levy Bill is part of a package of Bills to provide for the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to sea installations. It provides a framework for imposing taxes or charges on these installations. This will ensure that the administrative costs of the States and Territories are met, and that general revenue can benefit, as it would if similar installations were located on the mainland. The States have quite rightly pointed out that the development of off-shore installations for commercial purposes should not be at the expense of the mainland economy and should not provide a basis for evasion of State and Territory taxation. The Commonwealth accepts this, and so the intention is that the levy be set with these factors in mind. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill makes amendments to Commonwealth legislation necessitated by the sea installations legislative package. The Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 are amended to give to officers administering the respective Acts power over such installations, ships, aircraft, persons and goods arriving with or at the installations or departing overseas from such installations. The Migration Act 1958 is amended to identify the point when sea installations and the persons on board enter Australia and when such installations become or cease to be part of Australia. The amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 apply a wide range of controls under the Act to sea installations. The principal control is to make newly arrived installations, persons and goods on the installations subject to quarantine. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(12.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of measures which extend the Commonwealth's taxing and Customs control powers to sea installations as a consequence of the introduction of the Sea Installations Bill 1987. The Bill extends the application of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 to sea installations installed in coastal areas of Australia, or adjacent areas, and to goods brought with or taken to such sea installations. This will ensure that such sea installations and goods receive the same treatment as goods imported into Australia in the normal way. I commend this Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(12.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of measures related to the implementation of the Government's decisions relating to sea installations. This Bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to provide that excisable products manufactured or produced at an Australian sea installation shall be deemed to be goods manufactured or produced in Australia. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.02) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of new utility helicopter facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville. This proposed work, as I have just said, is for the construction of new operational and support facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Townsville. The proposed work was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works on 23 October last year. The Committee tabled its report in this House on 18 March. The new facilities will enable No. 9 squadron, which is to be re-equipped later this year with Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters, to be relocated from the base at Amberley to Townsville. The primary role of No. 9 squadron is to provide tactical support for the Army, principally to the operational deployment forces based at Townsville. The relocation will eliminate the non-productive transit flying hours currently necessitated by operating from Amberley. When the House referred the proposed work to the Public Works Committee the scope of works included 15 houses at an estimated cost of $1.4m. The Committee in its report has recommended that only the helicopter facilities proceed at this time. The Committee was concerned at what it saw as the apparent high cost of construction of the 15 houses. It has requested officers of my Department and the Department of Defence to forward a supplementary submission to the Committee on the question of housing costs, methods of delivery and the role of the proposed Defence Housing Authority. The 15 houses proposed for inclusion in this work have a number of additional features covering such items as landscaping and internal fittings and finishes to meet the defence scales and standards and to make the houses immediately habitable by service personnel. The cost of these houses in their basic form is equivalent to the cost of private project houses. In view of the urgency of commencing the helicopter facilities, it has been agreed that the houses not proceed at this stage, pending a supplementary report by the Committee. As I mentioned in the referral motion, it is proposed that part of the requirement for 113 married quarters is to be provided for the squadron by transferring 42 existing houses surplus to the Army's requirements. These houses need to be upgraded to current scales and standards of accommodation for service personnel. The Committee has recommended that some recovery of the cost of upgrading these houses should be undertaken. Although this matter is outside my portfolio responsibilities, I understand that the Department of Defence will address this matter in its supplementary submission to the Committee. The Committee also requested that the Department of Defence consult further with local authorities and wildlife and conservation organisations. This recommendation arose from the Townsville City Council's proposal to undertake a drainage scheme for Louisa Creek to alleviate local flooding problems in Townsville. Louisa Creek provides a wetlands habitat for local birds and wildlife. Although the drainage scheme proposal does not impinge on the proposed defence facilities, I have been advised that the Department of Defence has undertaken to consult further with the interested bodies. This will involve technical input from the Department of Housing and Construction. The original proposal, as referred to the Committee, was estimated to cost $20.7m at October 1986 prices. The estimated cost of the revised proposal, which excludes the construction of 15 houses, is $19.3m. The design of the facilities was undertaken by my Department with assistance from private consultants. Construction will be contracted to private enterprise. The works are to be completed by August 1988 to enable the relocation of No. 9 squadron early in 1989. It is anticipated that tenders will be invited this month, with construction commencing in May this year. The construction activity should employ an on-site work force of up to 150 persons and up to an additional 300 workers will be employed off-site. I thank the Committee for its prompt report on this very important project and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.08) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me the details of the motion for the construction of new operational and support facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Townsville. The Opposition supports this motion. It believes that one of Australia's defence priorities is the upgrading of this facility at Townsville and that helicopters are essential for the defence of our country. Much of the Minister's speech was spent discussing the housing position, which gives the Opposition an opportunity to comment briefly on the general standard of housing for our defence forces. Housing has been a significant factor in the decline of service morale, as reflected in the current high wastage rate which has brought the strength of the armed forces to its lowest figure since the Vietnam war. Of the 22,000 houses in the total defence housing stock, close to 15,000 are considered to be below Commonwealth housing standards. The coalition has a commitment to improve defence housing by freeing up financial arrangements and working more closely with the private sector. The broad aims of improved housing, improved efficiency and greater private sector involvement would be facilitated by delegating responsibilities covering housing to base commanders. The coalition would also welcome any provision encouraging and assisting home ownership among the members of the defence forces. Furthermore, attempts to privatise the defence service home loans scheme have not been successful, according to industry sources, because the administrative costs of the scheme under existing or proposed arrangements are simply not commercial. The Minister should give some attention, firstly, to the question of when the houses that it is not proposed to proceed with at this stage will be constructed and, secondly, to whether it is truly economic to upgrade the 42 existing substandard houses. During a recent visit to Hols- worthy, the Army camp near Liverpool in New South Wales, it was put to me that the seemingly prohibitive cost of renovation of substandard houses was such that it would be more economical to build new ones. The Minister should tell the House when this matter will be addressed in a supplementary submission to the Committee. The Minister will note that the cost of the 70 houses to be constructed at a later time is presumably the difference between $20.7m and $19.3m-$1.4m-that is, a cost of nearly $100,000 per house. This appears high. In moving the motion, the Minister said: The design of the facilities was undertaken by my Department with assistance from private consultants. Construction will be contracted to private enterprise. For about 18 months now, in response to motions of the type that has been put by the Minister today, I have been constantly reminding him that the private sector should have the maximum involvement in the design and construction of these sorts of facilities. I am delighted to see that at last now the Minister is advising me, the House and the Australian people of the involvement of the private sector, and I welcome those additions to these motions. However, I continue to encourage the Minister to maximise the amount of private sector work in the design of the facilities. The Opposition supports this motion on the development of heli- copter facilities at RAAF Townsville. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(12.12) —I just want to take a couple of minutes to support the remarks made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and to emphasise, as someone who was in the defence forces for many years, how important the provision of adequate housing is for the defence forces. It is interesting that a defence White Paper was brought down recently, the thrust of which has had general approval. But the fatal flaw in that paper is that the personnel problems in the Services have hardly been addressed. In the tabling speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) he gave about one paragraph, I think, to the personnel problems besetting the defence forces. Those problems centre around pay and conditions and housing. The fact is that the Government seems to think that the defence personnel of this nation are somehow separate from the community and that they will put up with these substandard houses. There are houses in Townsville that we are talking about in this proposal in which the floors have fallen out of the bathrooms because no one has been able to fix them. People are expected to live in such houses, in ghettos, with no cement underneath the houses and no verandahs, and which cannot be fixed because a repair system just does not operate. Today the Minister has said that 42 of them will have to be upgraded before new tenants can go into them. Does the Minister know whether anybody is living in those 42 houses now? Mr West —We will be looking at all of this during the supplementary report that the Committee has asked for. Mr WHITE —I bet people are living in them, in substandard conditions. That is the problem. I do not wish to take the time of the House except to make that point and to reinforce what the honourable member for Deakin has said. If we are to get and keep people in the forces, implement the defence White Paper and look to the defence of this country, it is absolutely essential that we make a concerted effort on the conditions under which Defence Force personnel live. As someone who lived in 26 different houses in about 15 years of married life in the Services, I speak from some experience. Defence personnel will not put up with the conditions that are expected of them at the moment. The sooner this is addressed, the sooner we will have a fair chance of getting some quality and retention in our defence forces. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.15) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrading of the Jindalee facilities at Alice Springs. The proposed work is part of a further development of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar facility. A test bed will be established to facilitate a network of radar systems for long range air and sea surveillance. Existing facilities for the Jindalee radar are dispersed at remote locations in the Northern Territory. The transmitter site is about 160 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs, in the Harts Range area. The receiver site is closer to Alice Springs, about 45 kilometres to the north-west in the area of Mount Everard. There is also a beacon located at HMAS Coonawara in Darwin which provides reference information for the radar system. The existing facilities are not adequate in terms of standards and size for the increase in activities required for further development of the radar system. The proposed work at the Mount Everard receiver site involves alterations to existing buildings to accommodate additional personnel and equipment. Work will also provide an administration and amenities complex, a general engineering workshop, guard house, carports for defence vehicles, an electronic security surveillance system and a power supply connection. Existing engineering services will be upgraded, and landscaping will be provided. At the Harts Range transmitter site, the transmitter control building is to be altered and two transportable buildings are to be refurbished for use by transient personnel. Two new transportables are to be provided for use as kitchen and dining facilities. Other new facilities to be constructed at the Harts Range site include a workshop, store and five four-bedroomed houses. Civil works will be undertaken to enable extension of the antenna. As with the other site, engineering services will be upgraded and landscaping provided. Nine houses and four townhouses are to be constructed in Alice Springs to provide accommodation for defence personnel commuting to the receiver facility. The beacon at HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin, which provides reference information for the radar system, is to have its power supply upgraded and is to be modified to improve cyclone resistance. The estimated cost of this proposal is $8.2m at February 1987 prices. Design work for the project was undertaken by my Department with some contract support. Construction will be done by private enterprise in accordance with normal practice. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended to call for tenders in August and for construction to commence later this year. The project should be completed by mid-1989. I table the plans of this proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.19) —Again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me the details of this motion. The Opposition supports the proposal to upgrade our nation's surveillance and intelligence facilities and regards these as part of the first line of defence for our nation. The Minister refers to the need to construct 18 houses or townhouses and in this respect I refer him again to the dire condition of much of Defence Force housing. I trust that these houses will be of an appropriate standard. I also refer the Minister to the comment he made about design work for the project having been undertaken by his Department with some contract support. Again, I urge that in future he optimise the role of the private sector in this sort of design work. The Opposition supports the motion for the referral to the Joint Committee on Public Works of the upgrading of the Jindalee facilities at Alice Springs. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.20) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrading of acute ward accommodation, Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, NSW. The proposed work before the House is for the construction of a new acute ward accommodation block at the Repatriation General Hospital in Concord, New South Wales. The existing ward block was constructed in 1941 as part of a group of buildings to meet the medical and surgical needs of wounded and sick servicemen. This received the Sulman Award for Architecture in 1946 and is included on the Royal Australian Institute of Architects register of significant twentieth century buildings. The building now requires upgrading because of changed approaches to such matters as infection control, patient welfare, staff training and treatment procedure. Measures needed to meet the changed technological and clinical standards will lead to the loss of at least 168 bed spaces in the building. The proposed works will provide the construction of a new ward to replace the loss of bed spaces in the upgrading of the existing building. When the new ward is finished and occupied, progressive upgrading of the existing facility will be undertaken to similar standards. Scope of the current referral includes: Construction of a new ward block with a capacity of 168 beds. Facilities will include single and four-bed patient areas with en suite showers and toilets, nurses' stations and ward support areas together with a connection to the existing ward block. The ground floor will include provision for a gastroenterology unit and day care ward. Associated external services, site works and landscaping. Alternative accommodation to replace those buildings which need to be demolished to provide a clear site for the new works. Subject to further consideration by the Public Works Committee, it is planned that construction will commence in August 1988 with a view to completion by mid-1990. The estimated cost of the work is $13.4m at November 1986 prices. I table the plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.23) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me details of the motion for construction of a new acute ward accommodation block at the Repatriation General Hospital in Concord, New South Wales. The Opposition supports the on-going program of upgrading facilities at Concord, especially as many thousands of World War II veterans are now reaching that time of their lives when their need for facilities such as described in this motion will increase. Although overall numbers of veterans are now falling, resulting incidentally for the first time in a contracting of the service pension scheme, it is clear that the requirement for hospital and nursing home beds for veterans will continue to increase well into the 1990s. It is disappointing that even as late as September 1986 there were 106 beds at the hospital closed. The Minister says in his speech that changed technological and clinical standards will lead to the loss of `at least 168 bed spaces' in the building and then goes on to say that the new ward will replace the loss of bed spaces by the construction of a new ward block with the capacity of 168 beds. What the Minister does not say is whether the measures needed to meet changed technological and clinical standards will result in a reduction of the total number of available beds from their current level of 725 and I would suggest that this is a matter to which the Minister should give his attention. The Minister might also care to note that there are a number of specific problems that arise on admission to the Repatriation Hospital at Concord and these are experienced by totally and permanently incapacitated and other pensioners, and it is to be hoped that the upgrading envisaged will alleviate these difficulties and also that steps will be taken to ensure that these problems do not occur while the construction of this ward is taking place. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister says he expects construction to commence in August 1988 and accordingly there is no mention of this project in the Explanations for Estimates of Expenditure 1986-87. However, in view of the upcoming May statement, I hope the Minister has thought through carefully the implications of this project on what will undoubtedly be some severe spending cuts, and that he does not disappoint the veterans in our community by agreeing to some sort of deferral of its taking place as a result of the May statement. As I said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition supports the reference of this work to the Public Works Committee. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.26) —I join with my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in supporting the motion before the Chair relating to that vital institution, the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, which has looked after so many veterans, war widows and community patients since World War II. In supporting the honourable member for Deakin, I join with him in emphasising the vital role which will have to be played by the repatriation general hospital system over the next decade and the related need for additional nursing home facilities as the mean or average age of so many veterans-particularly from World War II-reaches the critical years which will mean that they require increased medication and increased hospitalisation and nursing home resources. There are just two other matters I want to touch on in relation to this motion. When I visited the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, last year I noted the differing accommodation standards depending on whether the wards had been refurbished or were part of a newer wing. Concord Hospital has such a large area that there are problems in providing many of the services to the buildings involved. Despite all the difficult conditions, it was easy to see the spirit of the staff in seeking to do their best to look after veterans, war widows and community patients. However, since my visit last year, and again in more recent weeks, a number of concerns have been expressed in relation to admission to the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, particularly with regard to totally and permanently incapacitated and other pensioners receiving correct priority in gaining admission as veterans, former prisoners of war or various other categories of recipients and beneficiaries under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. they are being turned away, on occasions, from admission to Concord. Naturally, I hope that on the completion of the extensions and improvements which are provided for in this motion, there will be improvements to the rate of admission to the RGH, Concord. I take this opportunity to highlight to the House the problems which exist concerning admission and the concern that they create for so many veterans not only at Concord but also at Heidelberg, Melbourne, and elsewhere when they are turned away. I support the overall government policy of providing that a maximum of 20 per cent of patients in our repatriation system be community patients. That is desirable to try to provide the right range of discipline and professional experience to the professional staff involved. However, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), the Government and the officials involved need to look very carefully at admission procedures to see that the right thing is being done for the veterans, the TPI pensioners and particularly former prisoners of war. They have often reached very critical stages with their war-related disabilities and should not experience delays in receiving adequate care and medical attention when they require them. I join with the honourable member for Deakin in supporting this motion before the chair. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.30) —In the time that is available to me, which is going to be split by the grievance debate at 12.45 p.m., I would like to open the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill by outlining briefly what is included in the Bill. Before the grievance debate I shall try to deal with the principal provisions of the legislation with respect to reserve call-out. When I resume later this afternoon I will deal with the balance of the Bill. To start with I should tell everybody that this Government is making an absolute mess of defence. There is an appalling lack of recognition by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and by the Government that personnel, as much as equipment, constitute an important element of a strong defence force. The Government does not seem to understand that. The whole nature of its operations has been to encourage a situation where we saw in January 1,068 resignations from the service. Obviously, one has to maintain within a voluntary service a capability to attract quality service men and women and to retain their skills so that it is possible to operate the increasingly sophisticated equipment that is necessary for the overall capability of the Defence Force today. I want to say a little about resignations from the forces because they very much relate to the changing nature of the reserves. The extension which this Bill provides for in the call-out provisions has the total support of the coalition. Our attitude towards the change was reflected in the debate that followed the presentation by Tom Millar some years ago of his report, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces. However, there are problems in the degree to which the Government still, in our view, has not broadened sufficiently the call-out provisions for the reserves. I will address that matter a little more in the Committee stage. The degree to which the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill has changed the restraints on the use of the Australian reserve forces in circumstances other than a defence emergency has the total support of the Opposition. We seek, however, firstly, to ensure that there is a recognition within the Government that reserves are no substitute for maintaining an adequate regular military force right across the three Services. Secondly, whilst we endorse, and indeed introduced, the system of integrating reserve elements into the normal operating strata of the Services, we want to make sure that that facility will extend the operational capability of the defence forces and not impose restraint simply because of the way in which those reserve elements are integrated. By that I mean that if people can serve as reserves only in certain circumstances, or if the training days are so few and money available to them is such that they cannot undertake broader responsibility, then the very purpose of broadening that responsibility can disappear. I want to consider that matter, too. The other elements of the Bill which I will come to later are mainly of a general character. They embrace such matters as changes to defence disciplinary provisions, Defence Force retirement and death benefits entitlement, and long term enlistment for soldiers, sailors and airmen. There are a number of other general matters about which I will also say a few things later in the debate. I come to the areas where to date we believe that the Minister has failed abysmally in his responsibility. He does not understand the extent to which it is essential that there be a recognition of the genuine personnel problems of the Services. These problems cannot be solved just by transferring responsibility to the reserves. The responsibility of the reserves as an integrated element of the Australian Defence Force has our 100 per cent endorsement. The broadened responsibility this legislation envisages is a move in the right direction, although it is not quite wide enough. Two elements, which I will reiterate to the Minister, are absolutely essential. Firstly, it must be possible for the reserve forces to be called out in circumstances, for example, of natural disaster. I do not believe that the present definition is sufficient for that purpose. In the Committee stage of the debate I will suggest that the broader definition which was originally available for the regular Army emergency reserve seems more satisfactory than the definition the Minister is providing in the present instance of the broadening of the call-out provisions. Secondly, it is absolutely essential that if one is to provide for a call-out of the reserves, funds are available sufficient to enable those who are called out to be paid and for the days that are used during the period of call-out not then to be withdrawn from the elements of which those reserves are members to the degree that levels of required proficiency are prejudiced. Let me explain that within most reserve units there has been a reduction in the permissible number of training days for nothing but monetary reasons. If sufficient funds are not available at present for members of the reserve forces to achieve required levels of proficiency, what chance will there be for them to attain those levels of proficiency if they are expected to go off, under some sort of an obligation under a defence call-out, without some extension of the pay available? It has always been the view of the National Party that the reserves are a very important part of the Australian defence forces. Reserve elements around Australia have been particularly well supported in regional areas. One need only see the honour rolls following World War I, which contain an incredible number of people from relatively small communities who often gave their lives as well as significant periods of their lives in the service of this country. That is a reflection of the total commitment of Australians in regional and rural areas to Australia's defence. I return to my concern about the resignation of personnel from the armed forces. It is my view that the Minister, in his lack of recognition of the problems of the personnel and the families of servicemen and women, and the difficulties that they have in this day and age, is failing the Defence Force. When one reads that 1,068 members of approximately 70,000 voluntary members of the armed forces resigned in January, one knows how bad things are. After all, that figure is more than double the 444 members who left in December. There was a 300 per cent increase in the number of officers leaving. In January 143 officers left, compared with an average of 41 who left each month during the previous three years. Of the officers who left, only one female and six males left after reaching retirement age. In other words, the overwhelming majority of those leaving were younger men and women of the equivalent rank of captain or major. There are problems, not only in the officer corps but right through at all levels of service. The Government has not, either in the legislative packages-this package and the legislation that is about to come before us for the establishment of a housing authority-or in its presentation of the White Paper adequately addressed the problems of the personnel of the Services. Another problem the Minister has not addressed adequately is the whole problem of management. Within the defence forces there is still far too much bureaucratic intervention. We still have a teeth to tail ratio that cannot be endorsed. There are far too many people in the Russell and Campbell office complexes. Defence central deserves to be and needs to be decentralised. The Minister has to introduce a far greater measure of financial delegation to allow the people who have absolute power over the lives of thousands of Australians and others during wartime to exercise something like the ordinary responsibility which the boss of a Woolworths, Coles or Myers branch supermarket has during times of peace. The failure to provide that financial delegation means that there is far too much reference back to the civil servants who essentially control the purse strings of the Defence Force. One of the inevitable consequences of the greater integration of the reserves into the overall operation of the Defence Force is the necessity for the call-out provisions to be changed. As I have explained, the Opposition gives complete endorsement to the Government's action in this respect. However, we will be seeking in the Committee stage to ensure that the call-out provisions are adequate in case of emergency, for example, another Cyclone Tracy in Darwin. Heaven forbid that it should happen, but regret- tably heaven can facilitate as well as forbid. It has happened before. In my view, it is essential that, if there are elements-for example, the Norforce element in the Northern Territory-they should be capable of being called out to assist. Equally, the same position could apply if there were problems in one of Australia's territories. We all know that Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk islands lie in the cyclone belt. If damage were caused there by a natural disaster, given the integration of the reserves into the regular forces-not just the Army but the other two services also-it would seem common sense that, if we wished to provide the most effective and quickest involvement of the defence forces to assist in those circumstances, we should be able to call out the reserve forces and send them on that purpose. There are implications. As I have suggested, those implications involve the absolute necessity of providing adequate financial resources to ensure that those who are so called out are not precluded from serving for the rest of that particular year in the ordinary operations of their unit. There has to be a flexibility to allow more days of service and to pay for more days of service for reserves if they are called out so that we can maintain the normal effectiveness of the units to which they belong. It must also be recognised that Reserve people have civilian employment. There needs to be an acceptance that, if people are called out, there should be some sensitivity to ensure that their own field of civilian employment is not so prejudiced that they can lose their jobs. We all know that the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 provided protection in relation to civilian employment. Within the legislation there is a protection to ensure that where a person who is a member of the defence forces resumes work or is reinstated in employment he should not be disadvantaged. However, the reality cannot be covered by any government legislation. We must find a way to ensure that, if there is a call-out, people within private sector employment, particularly those working for themselves in small business, are not so disadvantaged that they are denied a reasonable opportunity of being recruited into the reserves. Another aspect of the legislation which I should mention concerns the implications that follow from the increased number of female recruits to the Defence Force. While all honourable members on this side of the House accept that there should be equal employment opportunities, our approach to employment in the defence forces, and indeed generally, is different from that of the Government. I am concerned, at a time of increased resignations and increased recruitment of women, that some aspects of female participation in the Defence Force are not understood. Their term of service generally is much shorter than that of males; therefore, the cost of training is higher because more people have to be trained to do the job over a similar period. There are restrictions on areas in which women can serve. That places restraints on the flexibility that commanding officers, in whichever service, have in using their personnel as they would wish. It needs to be comprehended that any approach towards equal employment must be done with sensitivity. That is equally the case with the call-out provisions. Unless we recognise that there are restraints, we will find that the male members of the defence forces will have even greater demands placed on their time and, instead of increasing the flexibility of the use of reserves, the position is likely to be the reverse. That would be a great pity. The reserves should not be regarded as an alternative to maintaining an adequate level of personnel throughout all elements of the regular services. The reserves must be complementary, but not an alternative, to the regular forces. I am concerned that the Government's approach in the legislation seems to be an excuse to say: `We will pass over the reserves because our general recruiting program and maintenance of people within the Services have failed. Therefore, we have to find an alternative'. That is not satisfactory. The reserves have a vital role, but it must be complementary to that of the regular forces. With the increased measure of sophistication of equipment within the Australian Defence Force, it is essential that they work together in a harmonious way. I will move an amendment at the Committee stage to ensure that the reserve forces can be called out in times of natural disaster. It now being 12.45 p.m., I presume it is a convenient time to move on to the grievance debate. I reserve my right to resume my remarks at a later hour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The right honourable member for New England will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(12.45) —I rise to speak in this grievance debate because I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the lack of opportunity being given to this Parliament for discussion in this place on the needy, the frail, the disadvantaged, the disabled and the helpless. I am concerned that we are no longer being given the chance by this Government to talk at any length in this Parliament on the welfare of these Australians. We had an extraordinary example of this when earlier this week the newly-appointed Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), in answer to a dorothy dix question from his own side, made a statement regarding care for the elderly in nursing homes and hostels. It reached the point of nonsense when we received in our offices a series of Press releases, prepared by the Minister, which announced that these people would benefit from measures announced that day by the Minister for Community Services. The incredible situation is that the Minister made no such announcement. What in fact we had was this negative dorothy dix question on a matter of policy, itself not in accordance with the Standing Orders, made during Question Time, giving members of the Opposition absolutely no opportunity to discuss this matter at all. No subsequent statement has been made, and so we in the Opposition and the Government back benchers still cannot discuss this subject in debate. On the same day, we had the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) making a statement on the National Agenda for Women, and again there was no opportunity for the Opposition, apart from our Leader, to discuss at length real problems facing women in the community today and the real problems facing the disadvantaged women in the community today. It is about time this Government came to terms with itself and realised that the Parliament is the place for discussing these matters. The Parliament is not the place merely to make statements under the guise of an answer during Question Time, or statements which themselves are not open to debate by the ordinary members of the Parliament from both sides. Though this is one of the grievances I have today, my grievance on this subject is deeper than this parliamentary ploy which the Government seems to be following. I am concerned that the limited discussion we have had on welfare issues concentrates on abuses of the welfare system. We hear about what Budgets cannot afford. We hear about what must not be paid. I would be the last to deny that one of the critical areas of review of any government is the need for much discussion and action to overcome abuses within the welfare field. Abuses of the system are, as all of us know in this place, very widespread. Whether it is the present Government or the Liberal-National Government which will be the next government of this country, there is a need for a bipartisan approach to those areas where we see abuse to see where and how it can be resolved. Just as I would like to see a bipartisan approach to eliminating the abuses in the welfare system, so I believe we must move towards a bipartisan approach to the needy, and a bipartisan awareness as to who the needy in the community really are. It is clear that not enough understanding is being shown by this present Parliament towards those who are being disadvantaged. Whether we like it or whether we do not, there will always be a disadvantaged section of the community. For example, we cannot allow the percentage of unemployment to remain as it is without examining who the unemployed really are. Most people, when they talk about unemployment, refer only to the young-the under 25s. A great deal is being said at the moment about Workfare, and though I generally agree that such a scheme deserves investigation-and I am aware of the matter of public importance that was raised in this House yesterday on this very subject-it comes back to the question of who are the needy in the community when one thinks of unemployment. Within the limited social security budget, it is crucial that those in the greatest need are targeted for the aid available. There would not be a member in this House on either side who is not regularly approached by employers who are having difficulty in finding labour to fill many jobs. To many of these people unemployment is a myth. I do not agree with them and I believe that not enough attention is being given to those who are genuinely unemployed and who the genuine unemployed really are. For example, I believe that not enough consideration, not enough thought, is being given to those who are out of work, say, from the age of 40 onwards. At the moment their future is terrible and one wonders what will happen to these people in the next two years if the economic conditions to which we are referred every moment of the day in this place do not improve. The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission has put the question, I believe most succinctly, in relation to the unemployed. In a recent discussion paper put out by this group the point is made-and a vital one at that-that the unemployment is not uniform across socio-economic groups in the community. It identified the most affected groups in the community as: the younger persons not yet experienced in the labour force; the older persons who, once retrenched, may lack the flexibility or attributes needed to become accommodated to new jobs in the eyes of potential employers; the unskilled, or less educated; the specialists in skills which become redundant; ethnic groups with language, cultural or other barriers; recent arrivals not possessing local knowledge; handicapped persons at a disability in a buyer's market for labour; Not all of these people appear in the unemployment statistics. We in this Parliament, however, should be identifying these groups and ensuring that our social welfare budget targets them. The same applies to supporting parent's beneficiaries. We also hear so much talk in this place about the supporting parent's benefit-the arguments for and against it. Surely we should be channelling our attentions to identifying the needy within this category and to what is their level of need, as well as arguing the merits of this benefit per se. Of course there are abuses. But we cannot allow this to overshadow the fact that there are supporting parents in real need. In my opinion, to abolish the supporting parent's benefit would be to disadvantage further what is already a disadvantaged group. I would point out that many of these beneficiaries fall into the lowest income groups and families living below the poverty line. Having one of the highest concentrations of single parents in the very suburb in which I have lived for a quarter of a century has alerted me to the problems of the single parent family and the social problems which are developing among those who definitely are being disadvantaged as a result of the epidemic of family breakdown that has followed the introduction of the current Family Law Act, which is in need of major rethinking. It is another argument, which I do not propose to proceed with now, as to whether the Family Court allows too easy a separation of families and the destruction of what has been the traditional family situation. Like it or not, if this law is not changed, we are going to have an ever-increasing number of people within our community growing into adulthood without the advantage of proper family background, of proper family attitudes and of proper family concerns. We must do something about this. We cannot sit by and say that the problems will run away or diminish. From my own experience in the last 30 years, I am very much aware of the problems facing handicapped persons, who are at a disadvantage in a buyer's market for labour, which is the present situation. I am not referring at this stage to those who have a distinct disability, or people who work under the sheltered persons legislation. I am talking of people who have moderate physical-and sometimes intellectual-disabilities. I can assure the House that this is a group which has tremendous problems at this particular time. I do not have the numbers, but it is an issue on which practically nothing has been heard in this chamber for years. If any honourable members have spoken on this subject and I have missed it, I apologise. But, for people who have slight handicaps, the present labour situation is proving horrendous and will have to be given attention by both sides of the House. Time does not permit me in this grievance debate to go right down the road regarding the normal problems of assimilation faced by this section of our community. I raise the matter at this time merely to point out the problems facing this particular disadvantaged group, which receives scant attention from the Parliament, not just the Government. It is not my intention to list every needy section of the community in this grievance debate. However, I point out to the House that there is a notice of motion in my name, No. 24-in which I call on the House to form a joint standing committee to be known as the Joint Standing Committee for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, to review Commonwealth legislation, commissions concerning the rehabilitation and welfare of the physically and intellectually disabled, and problems as they relate to the employment, education and welfare of the physically and intellectually disabled. I hope that this may one day be debated in this House and that I may achieve this dear goal of mine. I am distressed that it is highly unlikely that this matter will be raised in the life of this Parliament, even with the new election date. What I am doing in this grievance debate is alerting the Parliament to the need for a bipartisan approach to the problems facing the needy-a bipartisan approach to identifying them, a bipartisan approach to resolving their difficulties. It is stupid for us to think that, with the huge social welfare budget we have every year, we can allow our approach to these matters to be the subject of petty arguments, petty disputes, as to who the needy really are. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.55) —I wish to raise two matters in this grievance debate. The first is the misuse of Commonwealth cars by the Chairman of the Opposition Waste Watch Committee, Senator Michael Baume. This person, who set himself up to oversee Government wastes and extravagances, has been found out. In today's Illawarra Mercury he accuses me of smear tactics. If I ever want a lesson in political smearing, being a successful candidate at one time against this person, I know where to go for lessons. I note also in today's Press that he is calling me a liar and a cheat and challenging me to sue him for this. This is not my style, and I will leave any suing to him, as he has a lot more experience of the courts and of suing in this country than I have. I did not raise the issue of the misuse of Commonwealth cars to smear Senator Baume, but I believe that someone who lectures the Government on the so-called waste and extravagance of Government funds should have his own house in order. His emotive outburst indicates that he has not. When I first raised the matter last Thursday evening I claimed that a Commonwealth car waited for Senator Baume for an hour and a half. I stand by that claim. Senator Baume at first said I was wrong in that it was an hour and 20 minutes, not an hour and 30 minutes. By yesterday it was down to an hour and today, according to the Illawarra Mercury, it was 40 minutes. By tomorrow it will be 20 minutes and by the weekend Senator Baume, going on his past record, will be calling me names and claiming that he did not use a Commonwealth car at all and threatening to sue anyone who claims he did. As all honourable members know, there are rules for the use of Commonwealth cars. One goes to one's appointment and, if there is a long wait, arranges for a car to collect one later or telephones the transport office. The driver returns to Parliament House to be allocated other duties. I believe that, instead of abusing me and trying to divert attention from himself, Senator Baume should apologise to the Commonwealth drivers. Senator Baume said to the media: If there are people employed in the Commonwealth car service who are prepared to break this confidentiality for political purposes, I believe there is a need to establish what redress senators have in general and in particular against the use of such deliberately false accusations based on breaches of confidentiality. Senator Baume is doing the usual Liberal thing-when found out, blame the workers. He has slurred all the drivers in the Commonwealth car service and should apologise. As I said yesterday, my information came not from the transport office, nor from anyone in the Commonwealth car service, but from a member of the public who saw the car arrive, not at 10.15 a.m., as the senator has claimed, but earlier. This person passed the car several times while it was waiting and then waited to see who came out. She was a member of the public who happens to be a constituent. She had worked in Canberra that day and passed the information on to me. The point was not that Senator Baume was at the dentist but that the car had waited for so long. Name calling, abuse and threats of legal action will not silence me on the issue. The Chairman of the Opposition Waste Watch Committee has been found to be wasting taxpayers' money, and to claim that it is an inconsequential matter, as he has done, will not wash with the Australian taxpayer, whose taxes Senator Baume thought so little of wasting. I turn to the other matter I wish to raise. As honourable members will be aware, the President of the African National Congress, Oliver Tambo, is currently visiting Australia as a guest of the Government. It is generally accepted that the ANC is the principal agent for change in South Africa and will play a decisive role in the formation of that country's first democratic government. This point is acknowledged by the international community, by most church leaders in South Africa, by major South African business people and, most importantly, by a majority of South Africa's black and coloured population. Meanwhile, here in Australia the right wing is in full cry. Its self-appointed spokesperson is Bruce Ruxton, who discredits himself every time he opens his mouth. Then there is that motley collection of former white citizens of South Africa and some, but not all, Young Liberals, such as Mark Heyward, ex-researcher of a New Right think-tank organisation, Centre 2000, who is chairman of the New South Wales Liberal Party's defence and foreign policy committee and an economics student at Sydney University. Mr Heyward has claimed in the Press that most of the protesters at Tambo functions are Liberal sympathisers. Behind all such protests lies an innate racism. But racism is not the preserve of the rednecks and of some Young Liberals in this country. Last Monday night I attended a function at the residence of the Ambassador of the United States to celebrate the Boeing company's commitment to the Australian Bicentenary. In a group of Americans and Australians, including one other member of this House, an Australian air commodore made derogatory comments about the visit of Oliver Tambo. Warming to his topic, he said that in Sydney during that last weekend he had seen a Commonwealth car with an ANC flag flying from its bonnet, and expressed to the group his outrage that his tax money was being spent in this way. I was concerned about this and checked this matter out. It simply is not true. Why, one might ask, would a senior serving officer of the Australian armed forces make such an outrageously false statement? I have been informed by the Department of Foreign Affairs that no flag has been flown at any time on any Commonwealth car carrying Mr Tambo or any other member of his party. There is a very strict etiquette regarding the flying of flags on Commonwealth vehicles. This etiquette has been, and will continue to be, observed scrupulously throughout Mr Tambo's visit. I exchanged words on the matter of Mr Tambo's visit with the air commodore which, as honourable members might imagine, went much further than the use of Commonwealth cars for official visitors. I have no argument with individuals holding racist views. I do not support such views, but it takes all types to make up a pluralistic society. I suggest, however, that an official function where, in varying degrees, we are all representing the Government of Australia is hardly the appropriate place to air such views, especially if one is a senior serving officer in the armed forces of Australia and there are many diplomatic guests present. It is important that visits to Australia of persons such as Mr Oliver Tambo continue. This program enables prominent opponents of apartheid to put their points of view to the Australian public and thus restore a semblance of balance to debate on the South African question. For far too long, the Australian public has been subject to a well-organised propaganda campaign supporting the South African minority regime. This campaign has quite effectively played on and reinforced racist attitudes within our own society which, sadly, are far from dead. It is therefore most important that authentic spokespersons for the oppressed black and coloured majority of South Africa continue to visit Australia and help us understand the true nature of the struggle for democracy of the people of South Africa and how we can best support them in that struggle with a minimum of bloodshed and violence, which has always-I repeat, always-been the goal of the ANC and remains so today. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(1.05) —I wish to take the opportunity in this grievance debate to raise a number of grievances in relation to the conduct and implementation of Australia's new sub- marine project. I particularly wish to express concern about the way in which I believe the request for tender document issued originally by the former Department of Defence Support has in certain major respects been violated in the conduct of the program. I point out at the outset that the request for tender document relating to the new submarine project, as I said, issued by the Major Contracts Branch in the Department of Defence Support, clearly stated, on page 2-15, in relation to the construction of the submarine: The submarine to be selected should preferably have been built and introduced into service, or there should be good evidence of a sponsoring government's intention that it should enter service by 1986 and it can be assessed from trial results before a Submarine Contract is entered into, that the technical production risks are low. A minimum requirement shall be that the design shall be a derivative of a proven in-service design of demonstrable performance and reliability. That is a fairly fundamental and very clear statement. As we are aware, the two submarines that have been selected for the project definition study, the HDW-IKL type 2000 and the Kockums type 471, are in fact not in service and exist on paper only. That is no doubt the reason why in many respects we are already starting to run into very serious difficulties with this project. The request for tender document I referred to required that tenders be submitted by 10 November 1983 and they were accordingly submitted on that date. Six contenders actually put in by 10 November 1983 and at the time tenders closed on that occasion it was estimated the project was going to incur a total cost of $1.3 billion. However, on 21 May 1985, when we finally got around to the award of the project definition study, announced by the Minister for Defence, to the two short-listed contenders-that is to HDW-IKL for its type 2000 and Kockums for its type 471-we found that the cost had moved to $2.6 billion. So already we find that the project has doubled in cost from the time that tenders were first called for. In the current circumstances of early 1987, we find on the most recent reports that the project cost has been mooted in the vicinity of $3.5 billion to $4 billion. In fact, there is a very real concern, given the fact that neither of these designs is proven or in service anywhere and that we are dealing with a very open ended situation, that the whole project may blow out even further. We see a very real possibility that by the 1990s this project, if it continues on its current course, will blow out to such a degree that it may seriously jeopardise the defence budget and overall Federal Budgets. If we turn to the specific contender HDW-IKL we see that the request for tender document has been violated in certain other respects. There is a lot of concern about the German company HDW-IKL in a number of respects including the fact that many of its so-called technological breakthroughs which assisted it in being awarded the project definition study on that earlier occasion, have now been withdrawn, in particular the escapesphere and the air independent propulsion system. So the so-called technological breakthroughs that existed at an earlier stage no longer apply. Also if we look at the general history of HDW-IKL we find that most of its submarine construction work, albeit that it has built about 50 per cent of the conventional submarines constructed since 1945, has been concentrated on building for its own navy and for South American navies. Of more recent concern is the fact that it appears fairly clear in the eyes of many people that plans for the type 2000 have in fact been passed to South Africa, which is also in violation of the request for tender document. I quote from an article in Der Spiegel of December of last year, headed `Arms Exports-the Row Continues'. The article opens: It is obvious that work has already begun in South Africa to build submarines to the drawings which were illegally sold to them. Did Kohl make promises to Premier Botha? After going through a number of matters that relate to this problem, the article concludes: In the meantime, South Africa is obviously already working on the Lubeck and Kiel drawings. At the beginning of this year, much to the amazement of his colleagues, Gerd Rademann, senior engineer at Kiel, quit his job at HDW. It has now been discovered that Rademann went to Durban in South Africa where the large renamed shipyard `Dorman Long Vanderbyl Corporation Ltd' is sited. According to his colleagues, the engineer is the ideal man to provide qualified aid for submarine building and or submarine refits. His excolleagues at Kiel are saying `he takes the drawing and then off he goes!' If we look again at the request for the tender document we find the second violation of that document in relation to secrecy and security. That document very clearly states the requirements in this area. It says on page 6-12: All matter of a classified nature passing between the parties overseas whether generated in Australia or overseas, shall be subject to the provisions of the laws of the overseas country regarding the custody and protection of classified matter and to the Security Agreement, Arrangement, or Assurance existing between Australia and the overseas country. That requirement has been violated, as has also, as I understand it, West German law. There is some further elaboration on that matter further to the considerations of secrecy and security. In fact, one of those further provisions provides that the Commonwealth can dispense with a contract or an arrangement with an overseas supplier if that secrecy and security provision has been violated. Much of the evidence so far would appear to indicate that that has happened. I turn now to Kockums, the other contender which was short-listed. Again, we see a whole range of problems here, not only in relation to Kockums itself but also in relation to the request for tender document. We have very real problems in relation to whether Sweden, which is not part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or any Western alliance, can produce a boat which is compatible with Western navies. Another problem is whether over a period Sweden will be able to guarantee support by way of spare parts and other requirements in times of conflict, because we have certainly had experience of the Swedes having reneged on us in terms of providing spare parts and other requirements when we have been in a time of conflict. We have a further problem with the Swedes in that, like the Germans, they do not have experience in building large, deep water, long-range boats. When we add to that the possibility that the type 471 has been penetrated by Czech intelligence, there seems little doubt that Kockums itself has certainly been penetrated by Eastern bloc intelligence, as has much of Swedish industry elsewhere. That must be a further area for concern. But, in relation to the request for tender document, the most grievous area for concern has to be the warranty provisions. We see on page 6-3 the warranty provisions of the document. It states: The Contractor understands that the Submarine Contractor will be required, pursuant to the terms of the Submarine Contract, to furnish the Commonwealth with warranties of design and performance for the complete submarine claimed and the deliverables including those elements provided by sub-contract. We know that Kockums has very serious financial problems at the moment. It stays in existence only through massive Swedish Government subsidies. Its work force of over 6,000 just under a decade ago is now down to 700, and further cuts to 600 employees are being mooted at the moment. In fact, it is very doubtful that Kockums will even exist in a short period because back in Sweden it has been suggested that it may shortly merge with Karlskronaveru, a subsidiary of Swedeyards at Karlskrona. It may completely disappear, when the warranty provisions will not be able to be upheld in the request for tender. To me the only commonsense course of action for the Government now is to extend the life of the Oberons from 25 years to 30 years, as the British have already done with five of their Oberons, and to send this project back to the drawing board and look at it again. I suggest that we push ahead with more urgent projects such as the patrol frigate program and devote our limited financial resources to more urgent priorities. We should get ourselves out of the debacle of this particular project. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(1.15) —I would like to raise in this grievance debate my concern at the attack by the wealthiest and most powerful New Right generals on ordinary Australians. There is a lot of talk about Australia going broke, banana republics and so on, but what is really going on, what is really behind it all, is that there are people in this community who are trying to send the Government and the Australian taxpayer broke, while at the same time building up their own wealth and empires. Members of the Opposition, with their rigid idealogues, who sit on the other side of the House in support of these go-getter so-called free enterprisers, think they have a gold mine of votes in the community in punishing the poor and underprivileged in our society as they stack those people up against the ordinary Australian. They are quite wrong in this. These are simplistic terrorist economic tactics and political tactics. I believe that the people of Australia will begin to realise over the next few months that the transfer of wealth and national productivity from the public sector, the taxpayer and the ordinary worker and his or her family is really going into the bank accounts of the wealthy industrialists with very little return, very little national wealth in the form of the development of products going back into Australia's economy. These people from the New Right are prepared to grind the ordinary worker into Third World poverty, to cut social security benefits and pensions and, indeed, to destroy the fabric of our society, which has been worked for daily by millions of ordinary Australians. Many Australians, as well as those who have died in wartime, have died in industry to protect our society. The attitudes of the John Stones, the Katharine Wests, the John Elliotts, the Andrew Hays and the Peter Boyles of this world can be summed up by the words of those opposite, particularly those of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) a few weeks ago when he said that if Joh got in, or the Opposition got in, pensions would be cut, and more. This situation is intolerable, because these people are after a quick buck-the profiteer economic means to their own wealth. They are not concerned about the ordinary Australian. They want to cut government spending, they want to cut wages and they want to cut the standards of living of the ordinary Australian. At the same time they transfer billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to their own empires, building their own wealth and to pitting Australian against Australian; pitting the ordinary Australian against the lesser privileged, the poorer Australian. We saw a clear example of that here yesterday in the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition concerning compulsory work for the dole. It is a terrible indictment of that section of Australian society's concern and interest in Australia's development. We face a critical period in Australia's history. We are just about to embark on our third century of European settlement. That century should be our most dynamic period. We have all the benefits. We have the resources and we have a growing new economic base-a new invigoration in development, in education and in new technologies. This is all under threat, not from some outside military force, not from some foreign economic force-Japan, West Germany or the United States of America-but from a very deliberate and greedy threat from within, from the most greedy and most powerful section of Australia; that basically summing up the New Right. Senator Arthur Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, a couple of days ago in a speech to the Blinded Soldiers of St Dunstan's in New South Wales, rang some very important warning bells. I unashamedly draw on parts of that speech in my speech today because what was said there should be read and understood by all Australians. It was a warning siren to us all, and it is a great pity that it is not being picked up by the Press at this stage. Opposition members in this House, and in the other House as well, talk about the Australia Card as one of the greatest dangers ever to face this nation. Takeover activities have been going on in this country in the last few years. The billions of dollars that have been coming in from overseas to prop up these takeovers constitute our most serious danger. They are driving Australia into debt. These people in private enterprise are driving Australia into debt. It is not public debt that is causing the problems; it is private debt and Australia's lack of equity. That is what is going to make us an indebted country. It is not the public debt that is reducing much-needed community services, defence and so on; it is private debt. I refer people to an article in the Age on 30 March headed `Australia's ratio of public debt to GDP quite low'. It said: Australia has one of the lowest ratios of public debt to GDP in the OECD region, according to a recent study by officials of the OECD secretariat. Net public debt as a percentage of nominal GDP in 1986 is estimated to be 25.6 per cent of GDP, compared with 33.5 per cent for the OECD region. The only countries with a lower net public debt burden were France, Sweden, Finland and Norway. That is the situation. But members of the New Right, with their attitudes and the way they would run this economy, would put a millstone around every Australian's neck to protect their own wealth and privilege. The headless chooks from the Opposition show their own bankruptcy by their own blind adherence, their immature and ideological adherence to the New Right. They are mere puppets. The people of Australia should realise that the Opposition parties are run by people outside this Parliament. These people have been allowed to take over these parties. They are the Johs and the white-shoe brigade, people who go to other countries, who bag their own countries. They are blinded, driven only by their own megalomania. In the Liberal Party we have John Elliott. He is going about destabilising his own Party, going against his own Party's preselection procedures to overturn a sitting member of this House. Now that is fine, but what sort of person would not stick to the rules but do that? If that is the sort of person that people want in this Parliament, then so be it. But that is the sort of person that they would have to trust to run their economy and their lives. Mr Elliott is a prime example of the New Right. He is the Treasurer of the Liberal Party as well, so he is a very important person in the Liberal Party. He runs a very large conglomerate, Elders IXL Ltd, which made $233m profit last year, more than double the record for the year before. But it paid only 10 per cent tax compared to the corporate rate of 46 per cent, and it borrowed billions of dollars overseas for its takeover bids. Its directors preached restraint at the National Economic Summit Conference, but in the last two years Elders IXL directors' fees have risen by 33 per cent and 25 per cent last year. Their executive salaries rose 15 per cent while the incomes of workers on average weekly earnings rose by only 7.9 per cent. The average weekly adult male award wage rose by only 4.5 per cent in 1985-86. These people unilaterally rip through the country, bleeding the country dry. They fly around in aircraft worth millions of dollars and they are not putting anything back into the country. They are just making paper profits and building up their own wealth. Elders and the Bond companies, which control the major brewing interests in this country, are not interested in developing products and technology and investment for Australia; they are interested only in developing their own wealth. If they had any indication, any idea, of what wealth they could generate from simple things such as new technologies and biotechnologies in brewing, Australia would be a far better place and they would have some credence to put forward to the Australian population. Mr Peter Fisher —Which brewery? Mr STAPLES —Kirin Brewery in Japan, through biotechnology, can now make a full strength, full flavoured beer in 24 hours. It takes seven days under the other process. Can honourable members imagine what that does to the price of beer? This is one of the world's major brewing companies. What are Elders and Carlton and United Breweries Ltd doing in technology? Nothing. What is Bond doing in technology? Nothing. These people sit back, fly around the country, fly around the world in their Fosters jets, and contribute nothing to the wealth of this country. The high interest rates that Mr and Mrs Average of Australia face come about because of these people's overseas borrowings, because the excessive private overseas debt is driving down the Australian dollar. They want to restrict government borrowings and expenditure further to compensate for their own inadequacies and greed. They want us to pay. They want the ordinary Australian to pay for their takeovers, and they want them to pay with their pensions and benefits. They want to bankrupt and tie the hands of government, and they want to increase their own wealth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(1.25) —I can only agree with the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who is showing obvious frustration at his Government's prostitution to this country's money manipulators and big business. I want to speak today about the effect of this Government's policy on small business. We all know that small business is a dynamo of commercial activity in Australia and a major employer in our economy. There are today approximately 800,000 private enterprises in Australia, 98 per cent of which are classified as small. It can be assumed from these figures that total employment in small business is as high as 2.8 million, or 55 per cent of our private sector work force. It is obvious, therefore, that this sector is of immense economic significance. It is the largest single contributor to the creation of wealth and pays over half of all State and Federal government taxes and charges. Small firms have never sought government support, subsidies or preferential protection, unlike our big businesses such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the textile and footwear industries and even the motor vehicle industry. Today, as the ramification of high interest rates, high taxes and excessive regulation and bureaucracy, combined with the restrictive work practices that occur within small business, a revolt is occurring as generations of successful and productive endeavour is threatened. This Government has also removed or further eroded the asset and capital base of small business with capital gains taxes, fringe benefits taxes and, of course, the assets test. I refer to just one example of the bureaucratic nonsense of the fringe benefits tax: The case of a publican who lives in his own premises and is being charged $1,000 in fringe benefits tax simply for the cost of the accommodation and board of a 22-month-old son. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), wisely, announced yesterday that he will not be having an early election. How wise this decision is, because he knows that his Government would be totally destroyed. This Hawke Administration is widely perceived as being unbusinesslike and extravagant in pandering to noisy minorities who believe they have rights and entitlements without obligations. The irresponsible must not be allowed to unload on the responsible and hold the productive and enterprising sector to ransom. Only in Australia, in our country, can one leave school and obtain unemployment benefits and stay on them until eligible for an age pension. I raise the problems of small business today because of the effect of the primary industries downturn on non-farm businesses throughout Australia. Last week, in my constituency, 20 farms were advised that their credit was cut off. They now have a month to sort out their problems, and possibly in a fortnight's time will receive a letter from various financial institutions calling in their loans. Between 1984 and 1986 there has been a significant decrease in employment in non-farm businesses in the dry land areas of the Mallee and the Wimmera. Employment has fallen over 12 per cent. Some employees, especially younger and single persons, have already relocated, at least temporarily, but unemployment levels have risen. Data show that the number of businesses has remained steady but this is due to a rise in the number of single contracting services which have been set up, compensating for the fall in the number of multi-employee businesses. Governments so far have not provided any measures to assist business to retain viability or to adjust to the rural recession. In the Mallee, most farms are today making a loss. In fact, very few are even making a small profit. As we know in the wheat industry throughout Australia the average income per farm will be only $1,200 this year. People's spending, therefore, is going to be limited to those items essential to the running of the business and household, such as food, fuel, chemicals, fertilisers and the maintenance of machinery. It has been estimated that half of the farm households in the Mallee today are being supported by household support schemes, unemployment benefits or family members seeking off-farm work. It is clear that in this situation the reduced expenditure will greatly affect farm inputs and spending will be mainly on farm imports and normal household items. Businesses at risk, therefore, are in the areas of furniture; clothing; electrical retailing; motor vehicles; machinery; and materials involved in farm and home improvements, such as fencing, sheds, yards, et cetera. Many of the businesses will fail if we do not receive some form of government assistance. I was advised just yesterday of a motor dealership in my own home town of Rainbow that is in serious trouble and likely to close down after 100 years of operation in this community. Many other businesses in similar situations are under severe threat. Government employment levels are also falling in our towns. Between 1980 and 1986 the number of children at primary and secondary schools in the Mallee section of my electorate fell from 2,940 to 2,300, a fall of over 18 per cent. In the last two years the number has fallen by 8.8 per cent. It is likely that the number of teachers has also been reduced by at least half of this percentage. A similar position exists with our rural services, such as our hospitals. Medicare has forced many people today to by-pass their bush nursing hospital system and go to public hospitals many miles away, in many cases over 100 miles from their home. This, of course, apart from reducing the viability of the bush nursing system, is putting extreme pressure on the public hospital system. The real question, therefore, that we have to ask is this: Can Mallee communities and communities throughout Australia like them, and even the Victorian economy, handle the effects of 10 to 20 per cent of farmers and townspeople leaving their areas over the next one or two years? As we lose people we know that difficulties are created in maintaining, for instance, school bus routes-and already in Victoria these are under review-school councils, which are burdened with never-ending reports and bureaucracy; and local voluntary services such as fire brigades. We are not being helped by governments, which are pulling out many of our rightful services in the area, such as ambulance services, the State Electricity Commission, rail services and the Rural Water Commission. Many communities today are on a knife edge. They are just managing to support their hospitals, their doctors their agri-businesses and, in particular, the secondary school system. A loss of services, of course, will increase the cost of farming and of living in rural areas. People today are under enormous financial and social stress-the stress of people leaving, losing family and friends; rapid change that is creating all kinds of social and family problems with ultimately greater expense to the taxpayer than would be involved in short term assistance measures. A majority of businesses must remain in our rural communities. Rural peoples need and deserve a range of products and services at reasonable convenience and price so that the cost of living and operating a business in the country is not prohibitive and the quality of life remains acceptable. What, then, are government's options for assistance? When will this Government understand that the small business sector is best served in an industrial market economy by conditions that encourage growth, rather than today's negative conditions? Obstacles should therefore immediately be removed by Federal and State governments alike in relation to restrictive work practices. I have already mentioned the new taxes that this Government brought in, despite promises not to do so. The Labor Party claims that Australia's rural recession is due to a downturn in world commodity prices. That is misleading. Falling commodity prices are affecting specific sectors of the rural industry. The community as a whole, however, is suffering from the crippling effects of the current Government's economic policies, particularly high interest rates. There are many areas which the Government has failed to pursue to improve the economic problems of primary producers and small businesses. For example, the cost pressures on the nation would be substantially improved if the Labor Government were to reduce fuel prices. This would reduce inflation and in turn, of course, reduce interest rates. I see the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) in the House. I remind him that the task force of which he is chairman, when it visited central Victoria last year, reported that: The rural adjustment scheme could be extended to include identifiable businesses affected by the collapse in world commodity prices for agricultural products. I endorse this view completely, but no action has been taken, only reinforcing the Opposition's contention that the rural task force was never intended to be any more than a public relations exercise, and it is a failed one at that. Small business operators are typically owner-operated, are fiercely independent and object to outside controls. They are prepared to take risks in a volatile area and have recognised that job satisfaction for employer and employee alike is worth the risk of a high failure rate. The small business sector has the potential to make Australia an industrious nation if incentive is given to the use of the richness of our human resource and our natural opportunities, but government simply has to act. Our rural communities can take no more and they are under real threat at the moment from this high-taxing, high-interest, extravagant Hawke Government. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(1.35) —In listening to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) talking about small business and the Government's economic policy, I would have thought that he would be one to have applauded the Government's floating of the dollar and to have recognised the fact that the coalition Government had for years maintained an artificially high dollar which hurt the very rural sector that he was talking about. I would have thought that he would welcome the reduction in marginal taxation rates, the reduction from the 60c in the dollar Howard rate to 49c in the dollar that will occur on 1 July. I would have thought that he would welcome the imputation system for incorporated small businesses. We will be the second country in the world to have imputation, and in West Germany the corporate rate on imputation is 56c in the dollar, not 49c. I would have thought that he would welcome the removal of Division 7. Imputation and Division 7-that is, the taxation of retained earnings-are issues that small businesses have been campaigning about for years. At least this Government has had the guts to tackle tax reform, tackle hard economic decisions and bring in, in at least two of those measures, things that businesses have keenly sought. In addition to that, I would have thought the tax concession of 150 per cent for small businesses and companies engaging in research and development would be welcomed by the honourable member for Mallee. I did not rise on this occasion to speak about small business. I want in this grievance debate to talk about senior citizens. Being a fellow New South Welshman, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the month of March was a very important one for senior citizens. A former Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Neville Wran, instituted a very important measure, that is, classifying or identifying one week as senior citizens' week. I think it is very important that the community acknowledge the contributions that senior citizens have made to this country-a contribution that we, quite frankly, are now taking advantage of. Hopefully, their contribution will serve as an inspiration for successive generations. I was very pleased to attend the senior citizens' concert that was put on in the Blacktown City Council area. We had senior citizens from Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill, Doonside, Blacktown, Lalor Park and Riverstone. We have a very strong senior citizens' organisation there as well as a combined pensioner organisation. We had something like 600 pensioners at the Bowman Hall and I am sure they enjoyed it as much as I did. I want to pay tribute to the senior citizens, not only of Blacktown or New South Wales generally but of the whole of Australia. I commend the institution of a senior citizens' week to those Premiers who have not followed the New South Wales lead. Senior citizens certainly deserve recognition of their contribution. The concert was also important for me personally, because I had the pleasure of responding to the invitation from Mrs Lawson, the secretary of the western Sydney area combined pensioners association, to attend their regional meeting at Wentworthville Leagues Club. Indeed, this was the second time that they had invited me to attend. The first had been at Penrith in 1986. Something like 250 delegates turned up to that meeting. I found that it was very useful and fulfilling to be able to go there and talk to them but, most particularly, to listen to their concerns. Unfortunately, the meeting at Wentworthville was held on a day of very heavy rain. It had been raining for a few days and we did not get the roll up that we had hoped for or consistent with Penrith. But I understand why many of the delegates would not have been able to travel on that particular day. There are a number of issues that senior citizens and pensioners are very concerned about. I want to reiterate the record of this Government as far as senior citizens are concerned and to raise a couple of specific grievance matters. The pension is now very close to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, the level that this Government has sought as a matter of policy as a commitment to senior citizens. I remind the House that the coalition in fact reduced pensions from 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings when it took office to 22.7 per cent when it left office. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that pensioners are looking forward to an increase on 25 June, increasing the single pension by $5.95 to $112.15 and the married pension by $9.90 to $187.00. This, of course, will bring it much closer to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. This Government to date has increased pensions by 37.5 per cent in nominal terms. Let us look at what the real increase has been. The Hawke Labor Government has made a 7 per cent real increase in the level of pensions. We compare that to the record of the Fraser Government, under which the real increase was 1.5 per cent over seven years. People sometimes forget this Labor Government's real commitment to improving the lot of the poor, the socially disadvantaged and, of course, the senior citizens, in particular, pensioners. There was a real change in climate from the last time I addressed the regional meeting of the combined pensioners organisation to the most recent. When we were at Penrith we were talking and arguing, in a consensus sort of way, about the legitimate things that pensioners could expect to receive from a government of whatever political flavour. But pensioners are now very much under attack, I think mostly from the Opposition. Indeed, the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has suggested that we ought to introduce a welfare tax to pay for pensions. This sounds very much like the National Welfare Fund established by the Curtin and Chifley governments, which was absolutely gutted under Menzies. It was gutted by the parties now in opposition, and now they seem to be wanting to reintroduce it under a new guise. More recently in Parliament we heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a very interesting analysis. The coalition's commitment to abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the entertainment allowance will cost $1,300m, and that money is very likely to be funded by pension cutbacks. I think it is disgraceful to propose giving tax breaks to the wealthy, those who are most able to afford their taxes, and taking from those who are most vulnerable and those who have made such a magnificent contribution to Australia. We cannot talk about the effects on pensioners of Opposition policies without talking about a consumption tax. It is fair enough to say that this Government contemplated a consumption tax but one of our real concerns at that time, before we discarded it, was to compensate pensioners. In none of the literature coming from the Opposition benches do we see that any compensation for pensioners will result from the introduction of a consumption tax. To see the inflationary effects of a consumption tax and how that might affect pensioners, one has only to look at New Zealand where a consumption tax has indeed been introduced. Currently in New Zealand the inflation rate is 18 per cent and the home loan interest rate is 20 per cent. I ask the pensioners of Australia how they are going to cope if a consumption tax is introduced, there is no compensation, and they see the prices of the basic commodities they consume going up by 12 per cent, 15 per cent or 18 per cent. It is a very sad thing. Instead of there being a bipartisan approach to pensioners, it seems clear to me that it is the Australian Labor Party that has done most in government for pensioners. It is the Australian Labor Party that has a commitment to the future security of our pensioners but it is the Opposition which, with some glee, is preparing to take away bipartisanship regarding additional increases for pensioners and to really attack their benefits. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(1.45) —In recent times we have heard a great many speeches in this place concerning the extreme difficulties being experienced by farmers, their families, people living in rural towns and the small business people in those towns throughout Australia. I intend to reiterate some of the arguments already put before this House. I believe that there is an urgent need to continue hammering away at the Hawke Government on this subject. This Government must come to realise that rural Australia is facing its greatest economic threat since the Great Depression in the early 1930s. High interest rates, inflation, fuel taxes, work practices which affect productivity, government taxes and regulations and an unsympathetic interference in farmers' day to day lives are but a few of the ever-mounting problems facing people who live in rural areas throughout Australia today. There is a rapidly spreading sense of despair amongst these people and, while it is wrong to generalise that all are in financial difficulties, it is fair enough to say that more and more are reaching the end of their tether. A great many are wondering when they will be caught up in the morass if things go on as they are at present. High interest rates and inflation are probably the two greatest problems faced by people living in rural areas today. The seemingly never-ending, crippling interest rates ruling right across the board are bringing many people to their knees. There are countless numbers of people in all walks of life who do not know how they are going to meet their interest commitments. Those involved in farming have a particularly serious problem because of their low incomes. In fact, more and more face the prospect of walking off their farms. It is all very well for members of the Hawke Government to say that the present number walking off farms is relatively small, but I maintain that the potential for this to happen is nothing short of disastrous. It is high time the Government followed the advice of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Opposition shadow Minister for Primary Industry, who put forward the following proposition on behalf of the Liberal-National Party coalition. He called on the Government to conduct a debt crisis strategy meeting between the banks, representatives of State adjustment agencies, farm leaders and the relevant Ministers for rural adjustment boards. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has refused to do this so far, probably because it would be seen as an admission of the failure of Government fiscal policies. Farmers and their families throughout Australia are feeling threatened. Farming is, of course, a great way of life. Although it requires a large capital investment to become involved, most farmers are used to receiving a small or non-existent return on their capital investment. The story goes that a farmer who won $1m in Tattslotto decided to remain farming until his prize money ran out. This, of course, is but a story. However, it symbolises the feeling throughout the Australian farming community today. Interest rates may not be a direct cost to all farmers but they are certainly an indirect cost. Most people involved in servicing the farmer, such as agents, manufacturers, service industries, wholesalers and retailers, have an interest problem which is automatically passed on to the farmer. Inflation, which is a direct result of government fiscal policies, goes hand in hand with high interest rates in creating unusually severe problems for the rural community. The Australian inflation rate of around 9.8 per cent is four times the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It also compares very badly with the zero inflation rate of Japan, our major trading competitor. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Primary Industry and any other Government Minister honourable members may care to ask continually blame overseas prices for our commodities as the cause of our economic problems. Surely the high cost of production of these products brought about by high interest rates, high inflation rates, high freight rates, ridiculous work practices and industrial disputation, high taxes-particularly on fuel-and stifling government regulations must come into consideration when we talk about our capacity to compete overseas. Most of these major problem areas are directly affected by government expenditure. The Hawke Government will go down in history as one of the greatest spending Australian governments of all time. Since coming to power in 1983 it has spent nearly $24 billion more than it has collected in taxes during that period-$24,000m which we really did not have to spend. This amounts to approximately $6,000 for the average Australian family. When this is considered in the light of the Hawke Government being the highest taxing peacetime government in Australia's history, it is quite obvious why our costs of production are so high and so often uncompetitive against overseas trading nations. Work practices and industrial disputation add further to our high cost of production. Some of our work practices are unique throughout the world. I refer to such things as four weeks annual leave and a 17.5 per cent loading on holiday pay, to make up for lost overtime while on holiday. This practice is unheard of in other countries, countries which are fiercely competing with our vital markets. Penalty rates ranging from time and a half to double time may not be unique to Australia, but they are industrial madness while we are facing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. All of these practices affect the farmer, if not directly, then indirectly. The big difference between the farmer and others who make a living through industry or commerce is that he rarely has the capacity to pass on these heavy costs. The Australian farmer is dependent on exporting 70 per cent of his production to overseas markets, where he competes against low production cost competitors. He really is being placed in a quite impossible position with a frightening future facing him in the near future. I join the Opposition shadow Minister for Primary Industry in the call he made on the Government to launch a three-pronged approach to the farm problem. He called, firstly, for immediate action to remove tariffs on all farm machinery, spare parts and chemicals or, if not the removal of these tariffs, at least their replacement with bounties. In addition he called for an immediate reduction in excise on fuel. He called, secondly, for the allocation of additional funds to the rural assistance boards to meet the growing need for debt adjustment and interest relief for those farmers who are in trouble but have some hope of recovery. Thirdly, he called for the re-establishment of the farm development loan fund from an allocation of funds from the statutory reserve deposits to provide long term concessional fixed interest rate loans. This suggested three-pronged approach has great merit and I congratulate the shadow Minister on coming forward with his sensible proposal. We can now only wonder whether the Government will swallow its pride and implement these proposals or something similar in an endeavour to take some meaningful action to alleviate problems now being faced by the farming community. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(1.54) —I rise in the last 5 1/2 minutes of this grievance debate to raise a matter that I think is of great concern. It also deals with the farming community. Australia, with its changing economic situation, has become a very competitive nation on world markets. Despite the doom and gloom talked of on the opposite side, many of our farmers have taken the initiative and are moving into export markets. It is a great thing to see new horticultural industries expanding and developing products to sell on overseas markets. However, some of the farmers in Victoria, in my area in particular and in the Western District, have run into a particular problem in relation to those exports. It has always been customary in the potato growing areas of Victoria for growers to sell potatoes through agents. Those agents, under State legislation, would normally be covered by a bond. In New South Wales and in Victoria they would also require a licence. But we have the position that these farmers, in all honesty, set out to export potatoes to the Pacific Islands through a company in Queensland. This company, registered at 379 Queen Street, Brisbane, was called Hebdeen Pty Ltd. Hebdeen Pty Ltd signed contracts with the producers to produce potatoes to send to Suva. The producers, in all good faith, bought bags in the name of Hebdeen by the thousands, because rather large tonnages were being sent out of the country. In good faith, they packed those into containers for shipment and went through all the proper procedures. They even went to the trouble of asking a bank to check out this company to see whether it was okay. Everything appeared to be fine. After the first few shipments went out and the first 30 days for payment passed and no money appeared, people started to become worried as to what was going on with Hebdeen Pty Ltd, which was based, as I said, at 379 Queen Street, Brisbane. It appears that this company was one of those established with a couple of dollars. The directors were registered as Jean Edmonds of 8 Beilby Road, Kenmore, New South Wales, and John Conna Edmunds, whose registered address was Flat 1, 54B Darlington Point Road, Darlington Point, New South Wales. What has occurred here is that the agent involved appointed a person in Victoria to sign up contracts with the farmers, who signed them in good faith and delivered the potatoes, which went by ship to Suva. They were sold in Suva and consumed in Suva, paid for in Suva by a company known as Dan Kennedy Investments. It just so happens that Dan Kennedy Investments has another company in Australia, also called Dan Kennedy Investments, which also happens to be in the same building in Queensland, 379 Queen Street, Brisbane. But Dan Kennedy Investments in Suva has not paid Dan Kennedy Investments in Brisbane and, of course, Dan Kennedy Investments in Brisbane has not paid Hebdeen. So these growers are out of pocket to the tune of $900,000 in their first effort of exporting potatoes to the South Pacific. Whilst the Government has established our economic situation, making us very competitive on world markets, it is very important that when our growers export to these nations they have some protection from the sort of people they are dealing with. In Victoria it has always been the case that, when a farmer produces a vegetable product and sells through an agent, that agent must be licensed, and has to place a bond with the State Government. In New South Wales the same thing occurs under its legislation. A bond is required, and a licence is required. But in Queensland, under Queensland legislation, a bond is required, but the licensing area, the checking of the system, does not seem to operate. Hence this company, Hebdeen Pty Ltd, was able to move around Victoria, signing up these growers with contracts to produce the product to send to the South Pacific islands. A person who is in the islands now has $900,000 of these growers' money. He has gone into liquidation in Brisbane and in Suva and the growers will have no hope of getting any funds. We have a Premier in Queensland who is so busy running around Australia, cruising around in his jet playing at wanting to become the Prime Minister of the country, at the taxpayers' expense, that he cannot even put his own house in order and prevent the sort of charlatan approach that has been taken in Brisbane, where- by a company can be established in this way, go all over Australia buying products to the tune of $900,000, ship them out of Australia, get paid for them and leave the growers high and dry without a single cent. I say to the Queenslanders in this House, especially that group which supports the Joh for Prime Minister campaign, the group that is going to break away from the coalition: `Get your own house in order. Go back to your Premier, and make sure that he runs his own State and stops carrying on around Australia, leaving other people to be better off'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from Question Time today on official duty in Papua New Guinea. Any questions normally directed to him should be directed to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind him of his oft repeated statement that there is no such thing in law or practice in Australia as compulsory unionism. Is he aware of demands by the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union that the management of the Brisbane Hilton International Hotel impose a closed shop in its establishment in favour of that union, and that it deduct union fees from employees, which is contrary, as he would also know, to the wishes of the employees of the establishment? Can he confirm that a senior Minister in his Government-namely, Senator Ryan-and her staff in active, open and quite declared support of the compulsory unionism campaign at that Brisbane hotel have boycotted, in support of that active campaign for a closed shop, the hotel and have cancelled established bookings? Does the Prime Minister still maintain that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in Australia when his own Government and a Minister are actively supporting the enforcement of compulsory unionism and the closed shop at the Hilton Hotel in Brisbane? Mr HAWKE —Let me make these points: Obviously if there were compulsory unionism in Australia it would be difficult to explain the fact that only 56 per cent of Australian workers are members of trade unions. It is a statistical absurdity for the honourable member to assert, in the face of that fact, the existence of compulsory unionism. Secondly, and parenthetically, let me make the point, as I always do when this particular gentleman raises this question, about the hypocrisy that is involved in his assertions on this matter because he is a member of the profession which has absolute compulsory unionism. One cannot be a barrister in Australia unless one is a member of the union. It is the only area where there is a totally closed shop. Mr N.A. Brown —Absolute nonsense! Mr HAWKE —He says it is nonsense, but he cannot refute it. The people of Australia will judge the virtue of the question coming from a member of this House who is himself not only a member of a profession which practises compulsory unionism but also is part of that practice. The third point I make is that I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman refers, but if there were compulsory unionism in Australia the circumstances to which he refers would not be necessary, by definition. He knows from his practice in the industrial jurisdiction that workers in establishments will make an issue of the question of membership of a union, and indeed not only will unions but so will employers, very many of whom prefer their employees to be members of the relevant trade union because they regard it as an appropriate mechanism for the better conduct of industrial relations. What the Minister for Education does or does not do in terms of her bookings in Brisbane or elsewhere is a matter of supreme indifference to me and will continue to be. Mr GORMAN —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of recent allegations by the National Party Senate candidate for the Northern Territory suggesting that the Minister is inadequately advised in respect of the threat of acquired immune deficiency syndrome posed to the Aboriginal community? Can the Minister inform the House whether he believes that statement is accurate? What steps, if any, has he taken to advise Aboriginal people of the threat of AIDS? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I have had my attention drawn to the statement by the National Party Senate candidate for the Northern Territory. I am also aware of editorial comment that that statement may have been made as an exercise in headline grabbing. I am aware of the fact that the statement has been significantly condemned by Aboriginal people in and around Alice Springs. On the general issue of AIDS, however, I am prepared to give the National Party candidate the benefit of the doubt. If he believes that he has information for me which may be relevant I would be only too pleased to receive it because I do not believe AIDS, which is an enormous health hazard not merely to Aboriginal people but to all people in this community, ought to be a matter for political point scoring. In terms of the work that has been done in my own portfolio in respect of this, a committee has been established and has been working for some considerable time. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that in this area there is very close co-operation between State health authorities, particularly in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, and Aboriginal medical services. For some time some of those services have been conducting very extensive information services on both the nature and the cause of AIDS and have been advising Aboriginal communities as to methods by which they can deal with that. I think it is true and fair to say that in some areas, not all, Aboriginal people are probably better informed on some of these aspects than members of the broader community. We have an ongoing committee and, on a party basis, if any member of the House wants to be informed I think briefings are appropriate. Given the nature of the problem, I would suggest that it should not be an exercise in which we are concerned to make political points. It ought to be an exercise in which there is a large measure of agreement and frankness about how we are dealing with a very serious health problem. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Government considering the sale of government owned assets because of a change of ideological heart or because of a desperate need to find money to fund its deficit? Mr HAWKE —I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave yesterday. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware of claims by a group calling itself the `coalition drugs task force' that a survey by that group shows the national campaign against drug abuse to be a flop. Can the Minister inform the House as to the success of the national campaign against drug abuse? Dr BLEWETT —My attention has been drawn to a new appearance by the so-called coalition drugs task force. I must say that we have not heard of it for about the last nine months and that in a total of 18 months it has not put forward a single constructive suggestion about drugs in this country. It is really typical of the approach of these people opposite that they set up a coalition drugs task force but it does not make to the community a single constructive contribution about how we should deal with the drug problem in this country. Of course when they attack the drug campaign it is a further indication of the division in their own ranks because this drug campaign is not, in fact, solely a Commonwealth Government campaign; it is a campaign in which we have worked with all the States and have been supported by all the States. I am not prepared to make a political issue of the drug campaign. I want to say now, as I have said regularly on the public record, that the co-operation in this campaign from the conservative governments of Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory has been excellent. When we have these attacks honourable members should remember that those opposite are attacking not just this Government but all of the governments in this country which are working to deal with this problem. The Opposition has produced another survey. We treated its survey last year as a complete and utter joke and this is likely to be a survey of very much the same order. There is no evidence as to how the cohorts are drawn or of any proper sampling. As we found on the last occasion, the Opposition probably just phoned up a few of its mates. Even if it did phone up its mates, if we look at the figures we find quite effective support for the drug campaign. Indeed, I find the figures astounding because they suggest the effect of the campaign has been so great. The survey shows that 40 per cent of those surveyed say that they know more about drugs than they did before the campaign. To get a change of that order in a society bombarded by so much material is really quite surprising. Another 30 per cent of those have changed their attitude. To get that kind of change in this society is pretty impressive. Even given the shoddy basis of this survey, when it is analysed it makes some quite interesting points. The next point made by this rum collection was that the campaign would backfire. The Opposition's drugs task force achieved that conclusion by getting freedom of information material, freely supplied by this Government and by the most deliberate and selective quotation. Indeed, every agency that the Opposition's drugs-task force quotes recommended to us that there was value in an advertising aspect to the drug campaign. I received a letter today from one of the agencies, Forbes, Macfie, Hansen Pty Ltd. The coalition drugs task force quoted: Drug abuse programs can and have been counterproductive. That is all it quoted. Let me put that statement in context just to show how dishonest it is. The full statement was: Drug abuse programs can and have been counter-productive. Therefore, our first recommendation is that the first priority must be to get the right program rather than to get a program. The letter goes on to say that this recommendation was accepted. It continues: In over 20 years as an advertising practitioner I have not been involved in a program as thoroughly researched as The Drug Offensive. It is a practice of deliberate and dishonest selective quotation. Let me just tell honourable members a little about what the campaign has achieved. First of all, the public education campaign on drugs has been an essential activity to background the rest of the work done by the States. There has been a significant change in the perceptions in this country about drug abuse. Again, today there is a much wider realisation that the problem of drugs encompasses not just the hard drugs but also the problems of alcohol and tobacco. Since April 1985 the Commonwealth and the States have funded over 138 new or expanded cost-share projects in treatment, rehabilitation and education. Total expenditure at the grass roots has been nearly $50m. One of the big pleasures I get as a Minister going around this country and talking to people in the drug area is the enthusiasm that they show for the benefits that have flowed through to the grass roots out of this campaign. Indeed, the Opposition totally discredits itself by the attitude it has taken. In addition, we have established another 39 ongoing research projects-- Mr Reith —I rise on a point of order. The Minister has now been speaking for well in excess of five minutes. It is an abuse of Question Time and I ask you to request the Minister to wind up his answer. If the coalition's drug task force requires such a long statement of rebuttal, perhaps he ought to make a statement to the House. Madam SPEAKER —The question has been asked of the Minister and I find him in order. Dr BLEWETT —It is quite clear that this Opposition has shown no interest in the drug problem and is not interested in the details of that issue. As I was saying, the Government has established 39 ongoing research projects in the area of drug abuse. We have established two new centres of excellence for drug research-one in Western Australia and one in New South Wales. We have established for the first time in this country a drug information centre for the collection of data from all jurisdictions. One could give many lists of individual projects, but let me take just two in the electorate of the honourable member for Gilmore. We have spent $194,000 on the We Help Ourselves organisation, a drug-free therapeutic community in, Goulburn in the middle of the honourable members electorate. We have also supported Oolong House, a residential alcohol rehabilitation centre at Nowra-- Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, you have ruled in relation to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Flinders that the answer is relevant. On 1 March 1984-- Madam SPEAKER —I did not rule that the answer was relevant, I ruled that I found the Minister in order. Mr McGauran —I now wish to raise a point of order on the length of the answer. On 1 March 1984 Speaker Jenkins said: I observe that at times the Chair does not have any power over the length of answers. While the Minister's answer was completely relevant, I hope Ministers will co-operate with me in trying to have brevity of answers. Madam Speaker, are you prepared to make the same appeal to Ministers? Madam SPEAKER —At times the Chair has asked Ministers to draw their answers to a close. It is a request that the Chair makes; it has no authority whatsoever. I once again suggest to members of this House that they give such authority to the Chair through the Procedure Committee. I call the Minister in conclusion. Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: We all realise that you have sought refuge behind that bland statement that you do not-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. He is now reflecting upon the Chair. Dr BLEWETT —I think it is peculiarly relevant to the answer to note the projects which have been supported in the honourable member for Gilmore's own electorate. The second of those is Oolong House, a residential alcohol rehabilitation centre at Nowra, to which $28,000 this year has come from the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse and $80,000 from the New South Wales Government. When I visited Oolong House on 28 January, I found the honourable member had not visited that centre in his own electorate. That is how serious those on that side are about the drug problem. The honourable member has a centre in his own electorate that he has not visited. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will draw his answer to a close. Dr BLEWETT —I think that the evidence I have shown shows what has been achieved by the drug campaign in this country and shows how superficial and insincere are the types of attack mounted by the honourable member for Gilmore. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister to give an assurance to the House that the proceeds of his Government's planned sale of public assets will be used to reduce our accumulated debt and not to finance current consumption. Mr HAWKE —The details of the Government's budgetary strategy will be made quite clear both in the May statement and in the Budget. I have no intention of entering into any interchange with the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. The strategy will be made clear. The point and purpose will be made clear. I simply make the point that this Government is more than happy to stand on its record of budgetary achievement against the fiscal irresponsibility and irrelevance of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I ask a question of the Minister for Housing and Construction concerning one of the great success stories of this Government, and that is housing. How will recent changes to the first home owners scheme improve access to home ownership and the performance in the housing industry? Mr WEST —I point out to honourable members and to Australians that the honourable member for Stirling always exhibits a very great interest in the housing industry, particularly in Western Australia. Our decision last Monday to increase the income limits for the first home owners scheme demonstrates the Government's commitment to assisting low to moderate and middle income earners to acquire their first home. The introduction of even higher income limits for families with dependent children emphasises the Government's concern for the family and indicates a recognition of the additional problems faced by families in achieving first home ownership. The increase in income limits will allow an additional 13,000 first home buyers to benefit from the scheme, and another 13,000 will receive increased assistance. In total, 52,000 first home buyers are expected to receive assistance in 1987-88. I expect an additional 5,000 new starts to result from the changes announced last Monday evening. That should result in an additional 10,000 man years of employment in the housing industry. Over 230,000-odd households have already been assisted by this very worthwhile scheme for an overall commitment of $1,000m. An amendment to the first home owners scheme regulations will be drafted to give effect to the new income limits from 31 March 1987. The amendments are expected to be in place shortly. I would like to inform applicants who are purchasing after last Monday, 30 March, that they will be able to immediately lodge an application, and will be able to assess their entitlement on the basis of the new income limits. The changes that we announced last Monday, at a time of very great pressure on Budget outlays, illustrate the Hawke Labor Government's ongoing commitment to first home seekers and the industry in very difficult economic times. Mr Hawker —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that the Minister table the document from which he was reading. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a confidential document? Mr WEST —I was reading from a confidential document and my personal notes. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Perhaps we would all be able to hear the answers if Opposition members were quiet. They would not need documents to be tabled if they were less rowdy, and we would be able to hear. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has raised a point of explanation rather than a point of order. Mr HOWARD —I remind the Prime Minister of a speech he made on 21 July 1985, at the opening of the Nunawading by-election, in which, when speaking on the sale of public assets, he said that it was: . . . a one-off fire sale; a sale of the century of your assets, the assets of the people of Australia. They would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few to the cost of every one of us. Does the Prime Minister still hold to that view? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject. Dr CHARLESWORTH —In light of the recent highlighting of the issue of tertiary education by the activities of some student groups, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education: How does the record of this Government in the creation of places in higher education compare with its predecessor? Mr DAWKINS —This is obviously an important matter. In the last four years of the Fraser Government a miserable 13,000 extra places were provided in universities and colleges around Australia. That is to be compared with the first four years of this Government-the first four of many years, I would imagine-in which we have created 37,000 new places in universities and colleges, nearly three times the number of places that were created by our predecessors. As if that were not a stark enough comparison, if we were to look at the policy revealed by the Leader of the Opposition recently, we would find that any re-elected Liberal-National government would provide not 37,000, not 13,000, not 3,000, but precisely zero new places in universities and colleges. Before anyone jumps to any particular conclusion about that, one needs to qualify any Leader of the Opposition produced policy with the qualification that we do not really know where the National Party stands on this issue. If there is one thing we know about the Leader of the Opposition, it is that he is desperate to dance to the tune of whoever happens to lead the National Party. That is why this Leader of the Opposition continues to have the affectionate support of the current leader of the National Party, who knows from years of long experience that one can always rely on the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, to do precisely what the National Party wants. The problem at the moment is that the Leader of the Opposition is not quite sure about which tune of which Leader of the National Party he is supposed to be dancing to. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was about education. What the Minister is saying has nothing to do with the question, and he knows it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair was about to ask the Minister to get back to the question. Mr DAWKINS —On 5 February, when the Premier of Queensland, the putative Leader of the National Party, was asked what the differences were between him and the Leader of the Opposition, he said: He's not reducing the government expenditure as I said, by doing away with all this duplication . . . He wants an education department which costs billions and billions of dollars every year but he doesn't teach one single child. He is only . . . shuffling policies around and trying to tell the States what to do-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the Minister get back to the question. Mr DAWKINS —This is about education. The Premier said: `He does that in every single section and I say, get rid of them, so we're different on policy'. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is the same. The Minister is not dealing with education; he is quoting somebody from the Queensland National Party which has nothing to do with the question being asked of him. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is quoting at the moment. I hope he will then continue with the rest of the answer. Mr DAWKINS —So, a few days later in response to this statement by the Premier of Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition said-- Mr Porter —So what? Mr DAWKINS —I am about to quote him. The honourable member probably has not heard it. The Leader of the Opposition said: `It is no good shifting a function from the Federal Government to the States; what you have got to do is abolish the function altogether'. So the Leader of the Opposition, on 18 February, in response to what the Premier of Queensland said, was saying that the education function should be abolished entirely. It was only a matter of two weeks before he unveiled a policy for higher education which quite clearly involved a continuation of Commonwealth involvement in tertiary education. The important point is that any student in Australia is entitled to judge our policy and compare it with the Opposition's policy. Mr Hawke —And record. Mr DAWKINS —And, as the Prime Minister says, with our record. Nobody knows at the moment what the Leader of the Opposition's policy really is. We will never know what the Leader of the Opposition's policy is until such time as the National Party gives him his marching orders. Those of us who observed-- Mr Downer —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to some of the points of order that have already been made. This question was a request for a comparison between the performance of the Fraser Government and that of the present Government. It had nothing to do with the policies of the Opposition at this time-policies which will give young people very real opportunities that they currently lack. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr DAWKINS —As the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs says, it does not worry someone who has got the assets and the resources of the honourable member for Mayo. Those opposite can pay what they like. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will draw the answer to a close. Mr DAWKINS —Those opposite are in an incredibly excitable frame of mind this afternoon. One reason for their anxiety and their discomfort is that they know-the Liberal Party particularly knows-that they do not know what their policy is until the Leader of the Opposition gets his instructions from the National Party. I have been a fairly persistent follower of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition and particularly his conduct in government. For the benefit of-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The same point of order is being made-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is now comparing the policies. I hope that he is now going to draw his answer to a close. Mr Spender —The question that was asked of him was about places under the Fraser Government and under the present Government. This is a direct debasement of Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister for Trade representing the Minister for Education will draw his answer to a close. Mr DAWKINS —In fact it would have been half as long if it had not been for the interruptions from honourable members opposite. I think it is a matter of importance to allow the people of Australia to know precisely where the Leader of the Opposition stands. So with that in mind I have prepared a brief document about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You gave the Minister an explicit instruction to draw his answer to a close. He has spoken for a whole minute and now he is about to start another performance. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has asked the Minister to draw the answer to a close. He will do so promptly. Mr DAWKINS —I would give members of the Opposition a copy of this document, but I expect they would just turn it into confetti as they did on an earlier occasion. The important point is that this document identifies-- Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You gave a most precise instruction to the Minister. He is not putting that instruction into effect. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is drawing the answer to a close right now. Mr DAWKINS —The document, which I table, recounts in fairly exquisite detail the number of occasions on which this man as Treasurer was stood over by the National Party. That is why the current leadership of the National Party would like to have this weak, spineless and vacillating leader as Leader of the Liberal Party-they know they will always get their way. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The people listening to this program will have trouble hearing the answers, like we are. I ask you to ask members of the Opposition to behave better in the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House to come to order. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement on 23 May 1985 that any proposal to sell off the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and Trans Australia Airlines-now Australian Airlines-constituted `vandalism of Australia's great authorities'. Does the Treasurer still hold this view? Mr KEATING —There is no point in members of the Opposition trying to cloak any virtue on their view about the sale of public assets on the basis that they would, in any way, be a substitute for the kind of recurrent outlays cuts needed to fund these totally irresponsible expenditure commitments on the taxation side by the Opposition. That was the issue I was referring to then and I will refer to it now. I make it quite clear that the tests in public policy are to deal with the recurrent outlays of the Commonwealth. Members of the Opposition should not run around with irresponsible grab-bag tax promises to try to drag some people in and be so dishonest as to say one thing to one audience on the weekend and then to stand up in the House or hand out a Press statement and say `There are no ongoing commitments', when we know there are spokespersons from the Opposition day in and day out making commitments to draw support from certain constituencies of this country to the coalition for tax expenditure commitments and outlays commitments which we all know in this House this nation cannot afford. The Opposition's sale of assets policies-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer was asked quite clearly to confirm or otherwise some remarks he made previously. He has said not one word about it. Standing Order 145 requires that he be relevant. I request that he be told to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —It is unfortunate that members in the House are unable to get exactly the answer they have decided they want. But the person who was asked the question surely has the right to answer the question. Mr KEATING —Because we know the changes to recurrent outlays programs are difficult and because we know that the Leader of the Oppositon always as Treasurer squibbed the test to change any of the major structural things, members of the Opposition developed a year or so ago a so-called privatisation policy under which they would sell off assets, not to retire debt but to fund grab-bag tax promises. That is the truth. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr KEATING —There is no point of order-- Mr Howard —You sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, is it within the Standing Orders of this House and are you going to continue to allow the Treasurer to deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent the attitude of the Opposition? Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will not misuse a point of order. Mr KEATING —I am on your wheel, brother; whenever you look around I will be there. Members of the Opposition have run around saying that they will abolish capital gains taxes, they will abolish fringe benefits taxes, they will change the substantiation provisions, they will offer a much reduced level of marginal tax rates at a massive cost to the revenue-and this is to be funded by the one-off sale of government assets. We know when that one-off sale was completed the Budget deficit of the Commonwealth would blow out and stay out. This is the absolute epitome of irresponsible economic promises. Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have been asked to rule as to whether the Treasurer is relevant. You have ruled that he is relevant. I would like to hear your definition of relevance. He has not been relevant to the question, to my knowledge, since he started to answer. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair ruled that the Treasurer was in order. Mr Cadman —Madam Speaker, I take it then that you rule that he is relevant as well. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, the Treasurer is in order under standing order 145. Mr KEATING —On that occasion the Prime Minister and I and other spokespersons for the Government pointed out that such a policy would not deal adequately with the fiscal problems of the Commonwealth. Now by contrast what the Government is saying, and has said in a number of Budgets, last year and this coming year, is that it will from time to time look at the assets of the Commonwealth not with any blind ideological view but as a serious and reasonable evaluation of priorities as to which assets it believes ought best to remain in the public sector and which assets ought to be disposed of. In that evaluation, whatever the Government decides should be sold will be used to reduce the Budget deficit and retire debt. It will not be used in an irresponsible grab for votes by tax promises that it knows the nation cannot afford. That is the basic difference between the responsible Party in government and the irresponsible sham that the Opposition group is now. Mr Howard —You are dishonest. Mr KEATING —I am dishonest? Mr Howard —You are, yes. Mr KEATING —I know, and you are under pressure and cracking every day, aren't you? You are falling to bits over there every day. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will speak through the Chair. Mr KEATING —I just wish he would speak to you as well, but he keeps talking to me. In fact, I like him over there; we aim to keep him over there. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will still speak through the Chair. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, the business community of this country and the markets of Australia and the world think that only one party in Australia has credibility in fiscal policy, and that is the Australian Labor Party. Opposition members all know that to be true; so they should not harp about privatisation as though the puny political minds over there thought about it. Any government has a right, indeed a duty, to comb through its assets from time to time and decide which ought to be held in the public sector. That is entirely another matter from saying: `We will smash Telecom, we will smash the Commonwealth Bank, we will smash Australia Post and we will smash other things'. What I said on that other occasion was right and it is still right today. Mrs KELLY —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on Australia released yesterday. Is it a fact that the report- Mr Sinclair —Get your hands out of your pockets and stand up straight. Mrs KELLY —Is that all the right honourable member can say? Is that the best he can do? Is it a fact that the report emphasises the need for continued moderation in wages if Australia is to successfully achieve the formidable adjustment task imposed upon it by external factors? What implications do these findings have for incomes policy in Australia? Mr WILLIS —The Government is very much aware of the OECD report and what it says about the adjustment process which this nation must undertake as a result of the external factors which have been operating against us. Of course, a key element of the successful implementation of that adjustment process, as the OECD makes clear, is for continued moderation in wages and other incomes. If that is not achieved, we will not be able to get inflation down, to retain our competitiveness, to get our foreign debt stabilised, to increase net exports, to reduce interest rates or to maintain substantial economic and employment growth. So this area is quite crucial. Today we have a meeting of the trade unions affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a Federal unions conference, which is considering the unions' policy in respect of wages. I very much hope and expect that the matters I have been mentioning will be very much in the minds of delegates at that conference. I expect that the ACTU will come out in strong support of the present wage system as determined by the recent national wage case. The words of the OECD report are relevant, not simply to wage and salary earners and trade unions, but also to other groups in the community, including professional groups, some of which seem to think that they are exempt from the economic circumstances which apply to the rest of the country. I refer particularly to a group of doctors in the Australian Capital Territory who are currently seeking an 87 1/2 per cent increase for their role as visiting medical officers in our public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. They want an increase in the total payments to them for the work they do as visiting medical officers from $4m to $7.5m. Since 155 doctors are involved, this means an average increase of $22,600 per annum, or $430 per week, for what is very much only a part-much less than half-of the total income and activities of those doctors. Claims such as that not only are being made but also are being sought to be enforced by the operation of bans on elective surgery in the Australian Capital Territory at present. So it is not just something which is of theoretical difficulty; it is something which is being imposed with industrial action in the same way as other unions have sought to do. Doctors tend to see themselves as a substantial professional group, but when they impose bans on surgery in hospitals they must see themselves as no different from any trade union in this country and subject to the same sorts of strictures which apply to trade unions. The doctors who are imposing these bans and making these claims have no justice on their side. From calendar year 1983 to the end of the financial year 1985-86 the average income of doctors, from fees and hospital payments in the Australian Capital Territory, increased by 21.8 per cent. Over the same period award wages increased by 16.3 per cent, average weekly earnings by 20.3 per cent and the income of Federal members of parliament by 12.9 per cent. Over the period for which we have information, doctors have been well ahead of members of parliament and wage and salary earners generally, yet they are seeking an increase of 87 1/2 per cent in respect of that part of the income they get as visiting medical officers. It is just not feasible for the Government to accept-- Mr Cadman —Come on, make a statement! Mr WILLIS —I know that the Opposition supports the doctors in making claims such as this. The Opposition is utterly hypocritical in its attitude: It condemns trade unions, but it thinks that doctors can do anything. As I was saying, these doctors are seeking an increase of 87 1/2 per cent. They have been offered 21 per cent, which would give them a standard of remuneration in respect of their activities as VMOs which would be on a par with the rates operating in the States, yet they have rejected that. I point out that the average gross income of doctors from fees and hospital payments in 1985-86 was $152,000. It seems to me that a group with that kind of six-figure income is one of the last groups in the country which should be making a claim that is anything like the order of that that is being made, let alone pursuing it with bans in the current economic circumstances in which the nation finds itself. This is a disgraceful attitude by those doctors. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves for pursuing those claims. The Opposition, by interjecting in support of the doctors, put itself in the same position as the doctors. It is utterly hypocritical in its attitude of condemning trade unions for actions they have taken which, in the main, have been utterly responsible over the past three years, yet supporting doctors in making claims which are utterly outrageous and cannot be supported by any fair-minded person. Mr LLOYD —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. Why is a senior officer of the Department of Transport visiting coastal surveillance bases with Mr Amman, the successful tenderer for the Coastwatch contract to commence on 1 July, and attempting to persuade pilots and technical personnel of Skywest Aviation Ltd to join Mr Amman to try to avert the non-fulfilment of the contract? Where does this emerging scandal place the Minister and his assurance that the company had been thoroughly checked, including security and credit aspects, and that the successful tenderer had the necessary aeroplanes, personnel, technical expertise, et cetera, to continue the present high standard of coastal surveillance, when it is becoming more and more evident that it has not? Mr PETER MORRIS —The assertions are those of the honourable member; they are assertions. The honourable member has been seeking, following the award of a contract by a properly constituted tender assessment panel and following the proper procedures in the use of public moneys and a proper procedure in the calling of tenders, along with other vested interests, to try in some way to show that the successful tenderer should not have been the recipient of that contract. Mr Lloyd —Why is it necessary to send a departmental representative? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has asked the question. Mr PETER MORRIS —If he is asking this Government to deal with tenders in the same way as do his Party colleagues in Queensland, that is not on. If, on the other hand, he has some evidence, that he wishes to put to paper and to stand by, of something that is in conflict, some legal impropriety, let him do so. In the meantime-- Mr Lloyd —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have already given the evidence that Mr Ramsay of his Department, quite improperly-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Lloyd —is going around the country-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It is quite out of order for him to be shouting from the dispatch box. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member will find that the processes being followed are very similar to the processes followed by the previous Government, by his own National Party colleagues, in respect of similar tenders when they were awarded in the past. The simple fact is that, as with all business arrangements, tenders were invited. In this case eight tenders were received. Only one can win. Those who do not win embark upon different methods to try to justify their case. I say to the House that the procedures that were set down were followed. If the honourable member has some evidence of legal impropriety that he wishes to put to me or to the Government, I will be pleased to look at it. But, in the meantime, I remind him that he is being seen as pushing the barrow in this case, as I understand it, of a tenderer who did not run second but who ran third. I again say that this Government does not deal with those procedures and processes in the same way as does the National Party Government of Queensland. If the honourable member wishes to have that kind of rigging of tenders introduced, let him stand up and say so. Madam SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report relating to the parliamentary zone development plan and proposed works in the parliamentary zone. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Thirteenth International Trade Law Conference, held in Canberra from 1 to 3 November 1986. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the text of a statement relating to Australia's role in achieving world agricultural trade reform. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr N.A. Brown —I move: That the debate be adjourned. In moving that the debate be adjourned, Madam Speaker, I again draw your attention to the fact that this is the text of a statement that is being tabled. It is on an issue which is probably the most important economic matter facing Western societies-and probably others as well-and apparently there is to be no opportunity to debate this matter. It is simply not good enough that during Question Time the Minister for Trade ranted and raved on irrelevancies when he could have been speaking about this subject. In moving that the debate be adjourned, I want to know whether there will be an opportunity to debate this statement and, if so, when. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, we are also very desirous of having the statement debated. But the problem the Opposition faces is that it makes one decision here about the conduct of business and another decision in the other place, which does cause problems with the presentation of statements. But I will see what can be done about bringing this statement back on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 38 (3) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Parliament House Construction Authority for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 43 (8) of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Heritage Commission for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MACPHEE —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —Madam Speaker, on 20 March, Senator Haines, for the Australian Democrats, said the following in a Press release: The voting record of the other parties on ethnic affairs issues rarely tallies with the policies they espouse. In the Budget session last year while Democrat Senators sat in a small group on one side of the chamber, Government and Opposition Senators were nearly on each others laps as they combined to amalgamate the ABC with SBS, abolish the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, cut spending on essential `English as a second language' education . . . She then went on to say: It is all very well for MPs like Dr Andrew Theophanous to profess to represent the Greek Community or Mr Ian McPhee to bemoan Budget cuts in spending on multicultural programs . . . the facts are that this much repeated concern for the ethnic community was not translated into action when vital votes were taken in Federal Parliament. Madam Speaker, as I have been named-I know you cannot- Madam SPEAKER —Debate the issue. Mr MACPHEE —I know you cannot protect the entire Opposition, and that I cannot debate the issue, but I just make the point that in this House I have led the charge against the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. I have been supported by my colleagues here and in the Senate. At no time did they sit with the Government on this issue. On the contrary, they defeated it at the second reading stage. It is an outrageous lie-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that. Mr MACPHEE —I will say that it is an outrageous misrepresentation by a leader of a political party to say that we have facilitated the amalgamation. On the other two matters mentioned, it is well known that we have taken the view that those measures were a part of the Budget and that it was proper for us to criticise them but to let them pass as Budget measures. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHARP —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHARP —This afternoon during Question Time the Minister for Health was asked a question by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro which related to a coalition drugs task force survey which had indicated that the Government's campaign against drug abuse had been a flop. During the answer that the Minister for Health gave, he made a number of assertions. Two of those were that, firstly, I had not visited drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment facilities within my electorate and, secondly, that I have no interest or sincerity in the matter of drugs. May I just clear the record by saying that there are three drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment centres in the electorate of Gilmore. The largest of them is-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get on with his personal explanation. We do not want a geography lesson. Mr SHARP —The largest of them is We Help Ourselves. I have visited that facility on a number of occasions. The other one is Oolong House. I have also spoken with and held discussions with the Director of that facility on a number of occasions, the last as recently as just a few weeks ago. The other facility is the Rectory at Kangaroo Valley. I have worked very hard to ensure that the funding for that is maintained despite the fact that the Government has tried to cut it out. On a number of other occasions I have expressed my interest in the drug matter in a sincere way, by, for example, introducing-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is going on to debate the issue. He has made his point. Mr SHARP —I am not, Madam Speaker. I am literally just trying to establish my credentials as to my sincerity, which is the second part of the personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —You have established your credentials and your sincerity. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr Young —This is like Blue Hills. Mr HOWARD —While your mob keep doing it it will keep going on. During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) quite wrongly and falsely claimed that the Opposition's policy on privatisation and my commitment to it specifically were based on the proposition that any proceeds from the sale of public assets would be used to finance either taxation cuts or expenditure-in other words, current consumption. I draw the House's attention to the fact that in the speech I delivered to the National Press Club on 28 August 1985 I dealt in some detail with the principles of the Opposition's approach in this area. In particular-this is relevant to the misrepresentation by the Treasurer-I had this to say- As I have said before, it would be entering a new fiscal fool's paradise to use the proceeds of privatisation to finance current consumption. The proceeds of the sale of government assets should be used to reduce our existing national debt and for no other purpose. That was an explicit statement of the basis of our approach and in every single statement made on behalf of the Opposition since, either by me or the shadow Treasurer, we have repeatedly said that. I have not witnessed in this House for months a more deliberate and monstrous misrepresentation than that by the Treasurer. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not go on to attack any member of the House within his personal explanation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter of parliamentary procedure. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, yesterday during Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton): The honourable member will rip off another sheet of paper if we are not careful and stamp his foot and throw his handbag at us. The implication of this remark is deeply insulting. Hansard records no immediate action by you, Madam Speaker, prior to an objection on a point of order by the honourable member for Mackellar. You then required the Treasurer to withdraw. The evidence of the Treasurer's use of such insults is legion and I seek to table an updated version. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Young —No. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr TUCKEY —What are you frightened of? Madam Speaker, on 23 February 1987 the following words- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I thought we might wait till-- Madam SPEAKER —I think we will ignore the interjections. They have been going on all day. The honourable member for Mackellar might like to be quiet. Mr TUCKEY —On 23 February 1987 the following words were said in the Parliament: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. You would not give Kristine a lousy thousand dollars, would you, to pay for- Then concurrently with your words `Order! I warn the honourable member', I said `the wedding expenses. That is you, you mug'. Your words then continued: `for O'Connor. I name the honourable member for O'Connor'. I have altered the text of the quotation slightly from the printed record to reflect accurately the Hansard tape. The Hansard tape clearly indicates that my statement concluded concurrent with your issued warning. The naming came after I had ceased, and I have requested Hansard to make this adjustment. Madam Speaker, the purpose of my seeking your indulgence is to ask again for your definition of personal attacks and the clear penalty that will apply. Will the action of withdrawal clear the slate, or will the remark of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), `but the damage is done'-that is recorded on page 582 of Hansard-be taken into account and an appropriate penalty, such as suspension, apply, as it did in my case? What, in your opinion, is the significant difference between the Treasurer's insulting and unsubstantiated remarks of yesterday and my substantiated remark that indicated no more than that the Treasurer had reneged on paying expenses incurred upon his entering an oral contract-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —which he subsequently broke and in fact then denied in an attempt to avoid a clear financial commitment? Dr Theophanous —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! May I-- Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I have one paragraph left. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell wishes to raise a point of order. I am sure the honourable member, who is always asking that others be required to sit down, will sit down. Dr Theophanous —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor sought your indulgence to raise a matter of procedure. He is now abusing the forms of the House in fact to smear the Treasurer in the context of raising a point of procedure. This is merely a smearing exercise on the part of the honourable member for O'Connor. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat. I reply to the honourable member for O'Connor by pointing out that very often in this House things happen on which the Chair sits in judgment. It very often depends on the context in which they take place, the mood of the House and the tone of voice used. When the honourable member for O'Connor was suspended from this House by the Chair for 24 hours it was the culmination of a number of times that the Chair had spoken to the honourable member for O'Connor during Question Time. Maybe he was not communicated with by name but certainly he was by my looking at him and saying `Order!', as I do to the honourable member for Mackellar quite often. He will say that I take his eye occasionally. I eventually named the honourable member for O'Connor for defying the Chair. He also, in my opinion, was on the verge of intruding again into the personal life of one of the members of this House. I deplore many of the phrases used on both sides of the House, some of which to my left are audible to me and which I do not appreciate. I attempt to be flexible and at times pretend not to hear some of them. I cannot do this with all of them. If, in the normal thrust and give and take of political life here anyone is offended, as the honourable member for Mackellar was by what the Treasurer said, the Chair will sit in judgment and may request a withdrawal. But I do not feel that the honourable member for O'Connor can contrast the uproar that occurred in the House on the day that he was named by the Chair with what took place yesterday. I call the Clerk with petitions. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —I have called the Clerk with petitions. I have had enough points of order. I have called the Clerk. Mr Hand —Could I ask-- Madam SPEAKER —No, I am sorry, I have called the Clerk and I am going to stick with the Clerk. The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards 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 showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and 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: (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 petitions therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 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 introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. That a public inquiry be conducted and a diplomatic approach be considered for the migration of the Nicolae Malan's family: wife Elena and children: Nicolae and Elena, to be allowed into Australia. by Mr Cadman. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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 Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landscaping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government: (a) Reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to the present plans. (b) Consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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 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 workers 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 treaty would: be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament; impede the development of new nuclear weapons; decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy; inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the nuclear test moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear test moratorium and comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian 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. by Mr Staples. 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, members of the International Organization of the Political Dissidents from Communist Countries, as follows: Your petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray that a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of the Marin Chirita (brother) to be allowed into Australia. by Mr Cadman. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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. You 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 and Administration Charge of $250 for higher education student in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact of the Prime Minister's broken promises on the living standards of all Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —Just after Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) called a Press conference and ended one of the more farcical periods of Australia's recent political history. After two or three weeks of public agonising and speculation about the possibility of an early election being held, the Prime Minister, parading his most self-righteous and unctuous manner, said that after a lot of agonising he had decided to do the right thing by the country and not have an early election. I have to say on behalf of the Opposition that if ever anybody thought the Prime Minister could be taken seriously he would have been totally disabused by his behaviour over this matter. The Prime Minister's decision yesterday had nothing at all to do with the interests of our country. It had nothing at all to do with the implementation of the economic policies that are needed to bring about recovery in Australia. It had everything to do with the survival of the political skin of Bob Hawke. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the economic, political and social future of Australia. If honourable members want an example of the supreme hypocrisy and double standards of the so-called great man, the Prime Minister of Australia, the person who publicly agonised for two or three weeks on the steps of Parliament House each morning, saying `I really want to go the full term but it might be in the interests of the country if I don't', let us have a look at a couple of his quotations. Let us remember the background. This was the Prime Minister who promised not to go early in 1984 but went early. This was the Prime Minister who swore on a stack of Bibles, week after week, that he would not go early this year and then started publicly agonising over it. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on the Sunday program only on 22 March this year. It is an absolute gem, an absolute pearler, of the Prime Minister's hypocrisy. This is what he had to say: One of the problems that has arisen is that the Opposition not only destabilise themselves but they have prostituted- listen to this hypocrisy- the political and economic debate by putting up economic nostrums and stupidities that really are destabilising. That sort of instability they have created is doing nothing for business confidence in this community and that is a concern. In other words, the Prime Minister was saying that our behaviour was causing concern in the business community. He said that on 22 March 1987. But what did he have to say yesterday, appropriately on April Fools' Day? He used his serious voice on this occasion. He was trying to look very much the laid back great man yesterday. This is what he had to say as he announced that there would be no early election: We are living in very volatile times and damage can be done to the exchange rate- he ought to know about that- therefore to interest rates- he ought to know about that- quite quickly. If you had a situation where the country were in an election mode for something like two months, broadly speaking, quite an amount of damage could be done in those terms. I don't think it was right to run this risk. Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards Living Standards In other words, the man who on 22 March was saying `I might have to have an election because of the damage the Opposition is doing to business confidence' on 1 April was capable, with a straight face, of saying to the Australian public: `I am not going to have an early election because of the damage it might do to the economy and to the business community'. No wonder that man blushes not when promise after promise is broken by his Government. No wonder that man is regarded as having dishonoured all of the major promises he put to the Australian public in 1983 and 1984. The Prime Minister did not go to the election yesterday because he knew that he would be defeated because of the high interest rates, the high taxation, the collapse in family living standards, the destruction of rural Australia and the fact that his Government is run by the trade union movement. I tell the Prime Minister that those issues will be around in September; they will be around in November; they will be around in January; and they will be around in March of next year if he has to be dragged screaming on the last possible day to face the jury of the Australian public. So the Prime Minister need not imagine that by the charade that he went through over the last couple of weeks he can escape the judgment of the Australian people on those issues. Those issues will politically hang the Prime Minister as surely in six, nine or 12 months time as they would have hung him on 9 May if he had had the courage to go to an election on that date. The reason more than anything else why those issues would have hung the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister is no longer believed as a politician in this country. He has a precious concern for his integrity. So precious it is that he literally bristles whenever there is any suggestion at Question Time that he might not be telling the truth. But when one combs through the record and examines the political scorecard of this Government and what has happened over the past four years-we have now had just over four years of the present Prime Minister's stewardship-one finds no fewer than 32 major promises made by the Prime Minister that have been broken. Mr N.A. Brown —How many? Mr HOWARD —Thirty-two. Instead of taking the time of the House to go through all of them, I have done better than that. I have compiled the top 10 Hawke disposable promises. They make absolutely fascinating reading. For example, let us go to something that strikes at the heart of every Australian family-home ownership. What did the Prime Minister have to say on that? He said: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. He said that on 13 November 1984. What has happened to that promise? It has gone out the window. Home loan interest rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent in December 1984 to 15 1/2 per cent. A record number of people are on public housing waiting lists. Is it not incredible that this Government, which is supposed to look after the battler, has more people waiting for public housing-almost double the number-than were waiting for public housing in the last year of the Fraser Government? That is the record of this Government's compassion and concern. That is why the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the self-styled leader of the Australian Labor Party left wing, says that poverty and suffering by low income earners have increased under the Labor Government. That happens to be true, and no more has it increased than in the area of public housing. Disposable promise No. 2 concerned interest rates, a subject the Prime Minister is a real expert on when it comes to breaking promises. Do honourable members remember his memorable promise on 20 November 1984? He will hear a lot more of this between now and whenever he is dragged screaming to the polls. He said: At present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future we will harvest the crop. We all know that the Prime Minister's performance on that has been an abysmal failure and retreat. Let us move on to promise No. 3. In 1984 the Prime Minister said: We expect inflation will be less than five per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below five per cent. He was wrong again. He did not even have an error factor of 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent; he had an error factor of 100 per cent on that promise because since he made it, inflation has doubled. We now have the scandalous situation that, while countries such as America, Britain and Japan have inflation rates at 2 per cent or less, the Prime Minister and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) have given us an inflation rate of about 10 per cent-double that which existed four years ago-which is the worst, relative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, for more than 25 years. The list continues. On petrol prices, on 5 March 1985, the Prime Minister said: Any fall in Saudi prices must be passed on to Australian motorists in lower petrol prices. One can ask any farmer or motorist around Australia what has happened to that disposable promise. The fifth promise concerned youth traineeships. The Prime Minister said: In the coming year, 10,000 traineeships will be made available . . . Our aim of 75,000 young people in traineeships will be achieved in the bicentennial year. He has only seven months to go before he has to achieve that. He is a long way behind. By September last year, a year after the promise, only 2,025 young people had found work, and of those only 58 per cent were to be found in the private sector. I move on to promise No. 7. The Prime Minister, in his policy speech of 16 February 1983, promised to maintain the value of the dependent spouse rebate. That promise was also broken. The rebate has declined by 16 per cent in real terms under his prime ministership. The value of the family allowance has declined by 20 per cent in real terms under his prime ministership. That was another shattered promise of the Prime Minister. I turn to another very explicit promise. The explicit promises of the Prime Minister-the ones where he points his finger and says `I want you really to understand this; I want even you to understand'-are the best and they are the most embarrassing when they are broken. I ask honourable members to listen to this one: And I now give this undertaking-that for the term of our next government, the Medicare levy will not be increased. That promise was made on 13 November 1984. In the 1986-87 Budget-the second Budget of his new government-the Medicare levy was increased. Then we had that marvellous economic centrepiece, the trilogy, on which he went to the 1984 election campaign. He said this about the trilogy: In our next three year term of Government the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product. That promise has been broken twice already by the Government. The Treasurer says that the trilogy is now of no account. Mr Hunt —The trilogy is dead. Mr HOWARD —It is dead; it is irrelevant. He says that we should forget about it; it is of no account. Yet it was the centrepiece of the election campaign for the Government in 1984. I know that my colleagues the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) remember the way in which the wine growers of this country were deceived in 1983 by the promise: Labor has pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise on wine. That promise has been broken to the factor of 2,000 per cent, because the Government has imposed a 20 per cent tax on wine. Now we come to the bobby-dazzler of them all, the most memorable promise. It will never be forgotten; the Prime Minister will never be allowed to forget it: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentations and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. That promise was made by the Prime Minister on 16 February 1983. On 19 September, without a blush, the Prime Minister's Treasurer introduced a capital gains tax. I have mentioned the top 10 of the broken promises. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, is very good at dishing out documents; so he can have a copy of the top 10 of the broken promises. I see that the Minister does not want a copy. He is getting petulant. That is what is done with tax returns, too; they are thrown in the waste paper basket. Even in terms of the Government's ideological bind, we have had broken promises. Today, we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer being caught out on tearing up the anti-privatisation policy of the Australian Labor Party. Government members sat in stunned-mullet silence when the Treasurer admitted that, if we have to sell assets to reduce our overseas debt, we will do so. That was the bottom line of what the Treasurer said. He is in favour of privatisation. All of that nonsense about it being economic vandalism goes out the window. This Government did not have the guts or the courage to have an early election. It did not have the courage to have an early election because it knew that its broken promises on interest rates, taxation, family living standards, health care and in so many other areas-- Mr Hunt —And Rod Cameron told him so. Mr HOWARD —Rod Cameron told him so, and it would have been to his great and complete electoral doom. All I can say, on behalf of the Opposition, is that although 9 May may have gone away as an election date, those issues that will be the political death of this Government have not gone away. They will be just as good for us in September; they will be just as good in November; they will be just as good in January; and they will be best of all in March next year. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.27) —The House of Representatives has been sitting for the past three weeks and this debate provides an opportunity for the Opposition to nominate a topic of its own choosing for the House to debate. The interesting thing about the past three weeks is that they have been, unquestionably, the most miserable three weeks in the life of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). His dismal speech confirmed absolutely the misery that he has been experiencing. Indeed, the speech that he has just given ensures that these three weeks will end with a very appropriate whimper. One might have thought that the point of the debate and the Leader of the Opposition's point in bringing the debate to us was, in some way, to draw attention to the record of this Government. What it was all about was a desperate attempt to diminish the importance of political promises. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is not now, nor will he ever be, in a position to make believable promises to anybody. He spoke for some time about the changes of policy which this Government has had to propose and endure. The important thing about the changes that we have had to propose is that we have done so unambiguously because of the circumstances confronting this country. We have not tried to deceive the people. We have not tried to cover up in relation to the changes that have had to be made. We have said to the people of Australia: `When we came to office and when we were re-elected to office, the circumstances confronting this country were very much different from those which now confront us'. Do the people of Australia want a government that clings nostalgically to policies which we know would only complicate the problems confronting us, or do they want a government which has the courage and the integrity to say: `The circumstances have changed. Therefore, in the national interest and in the interests of every single Australian, we as a government are prepared to adopt policies-perhaps not those which we anticipated earlier-which are right, correct and appropriate for the times during which we rule'. The reason the Leader of the Opposition is so galled by this question is that he knows that no one will ever believe anything he says. I do not believe that anyone ever has, but there are two particular reasons why no one ever will in the future. The first reason no one will believe him is that many of us, and many Australians, have a very vivid recollection of his stewardship of the position of Treasurer in this country. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! There are too many interjections on my left. Those members who are interjecting will cease interjecting, or they will be warned. Mr DAWKINS —Very few Treasurers in this country have the opportunity of an uninterrupted period of seven years in which to superintend the economic circumstances, the economic policy, of Australia, and yet that dismal seven-year period, punctuated with disappointment, ended in absolute defeat not only for the Government but for the man who was Treasurer for the whole of that time. So many people remember the tatty economy that this Government had to inherit from that Treasurer. They know that there was double digit inflation; they know that there was escalating unemployment; they know that there was ballooning government expenditure; and they know that what we had in prospect then was a deficit of a size which had never been contemplated in the history of this country. Not only was that the case, but also there had been a deliberate attempt to cover up the reality just before the election when the then government tried once again as it had on so many previous occasions, to pull the wool collectively over the eyes of the people of Australia. Well, the people were not fooled, and they will not be fooled again. So, the people do remember how dismal that period of the Leader of the Opposition's treasurership was, and therefore they are never likely to believe anything he says about economic policy or anything else. There is another perhaps even more fundamental reason why no one will believe this man and why he will never be able to make a believable promise. Not only does he lack authority over the coalition; he lacks authority over his very own party. Let us consider for a moment the circumstances of the coalition. He is, if nothing else, a coalitionist. He wants the Opposition parties to go into the election, whenever it is held, as a coalition promising to be a coalition government, if the parties opposite are ever elected. But what he knows, and what he knows very well, is that he will not be in a position to make any commitments on behalf of at least a third of the Opposition, that is, half of those who belong to the National Party-because hardly any of its members were here to listen to him today, as they voted with their feet and walked out on him as they will later walk out of the coalition-and a significant number of people within his own party who harbour very great concerns, very great anxieties, about his ability as a leader and the policies he is trying to formulate. But more serious than that, we know, as we knew on earlier occasions, that if the Opposition parties ever get into office this man will be incapable of standing up to the bully-boy tactics of the National Party. for the whole seven years that he was Treasurer he was not able to get anything through Cabinet unless it had the support of the National Party. I took the opportunity, during a very interrupted answer I gave today, to table a document which set out in some detail the sorts of issues on which the then Treasurer was defeated in Cabinet-not defeated by his own colleagues, but defeated by the junior coalition partner. In 1979 he put forward proposals to clamp down on family trusts. We knew at that time, and I am reminding the House now, that his original proposal was cut in half because the National Party wanted nothing to do with the taxation of family trusts. As far as the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System is concerned, which the previous Treasurer has claimed to be the most magnificent demonstration of his policies, the most magnificent jewel in the crown during his period as Treasurer, we know that he was unable to make a centimetre's progress with the implementation of that report because the Leader of the National Party at the time said that he would have nothing to do with it-he would have nothing to do with the deregulation of interest rates, nothing to do with concessions to particular industry sectors and nothing to do with the floating of the dollar. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I seek your guidance as much as anything else. I understand that there is a convention that one does not use the Cabinet documents of a previous government-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —So the previous Treasurer, desperate to have something to show for his tatty period of office, wanted at least to do something with the Campbell Committee report. It took a Labor Government and a Labor Treasurer to do that, because he could not get it past the National Party. Then, at the time of the 1984 election there was a funny omission from the honourable member for Bennelong's costings of the Opposition's policy. He had omitted to put in the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. As soon as the Leader of the National Party discovered that, it took only a day for that to be reactivated as an extant policy of the Opposition. In more recent times we have had a repetition of something which happened much earlier in relation to consumption taxes. We know that before the 1980 election it was very much the policy of the then Treasurer to introduce a consumption tax-a retail turnover tax, it was to be called-which he wanted to introduce in order to bring about some change in the structure of the taxation system. He stomped around the country explaining the virtues of this change; yet it was the National Party again that said: `Not on your nellie will we be having a consumption tax'. Therefore, the then Treasurer had to back down, as he is now about to back down as he again attempts to resuscitate an idea to expand the indirect tax base. It is not just those in the Leader of the Opposition's own party whom he is worried about; it is primarily those within the National Party. Then, when the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is apparently mounting some challenge, who is it who is brought out to defend the Leader of the Opposition? The person brought out to defend him is the man who tormented him during his period of office-none other than Doug Anthony. The person who humiliated him in office has had to be brought out to protect him in opposition from a suitor for his job. What is the reason for this? There has to be some explanation why someone like Doug Anthony would come out to support the Leader of the Opposition. The very clear reason is that the National Party knows that it can live with the present Leader of the Opposition, and it knows that because it knows that it can dominate him. He is not a Liberal leader; he is a weak and spineless leader who will always be trodden on, always stood over, by the National Party. That is why he cannot make any promises. The only promises he can make are those which the National Party is prepared to endorse. This presents an interesting question. Our Treasurer (Mr Keating) has spent time enough talking about the credibility gap of the Leader of the Opposition. We have before us $16 billion worth of unrepudiated promises which collectively would add $16 billion to the fiscal deficit of this country. This is the man who also pretends, simultaneously, to want to reduce the size of the deficit. As has been pointed out often enough, that represents a $16 billion credibility gap. I am delighted to see the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) here because on his very own he has been responsible for additional promises representing some $780m in relation to additional expenditure and taxation changes, and just the other week the Executive of the National Party made further commitments in relation to taxation policy, adding something like $22 billion to the fiscal deficit. So, what we have to look at is not Liberal Party policy itself but, more importantly, what the National Party says, because that is the tune to which the Leader of the Opposition will eventually dance. Our promises have been explicit and out in the open. But we now know that the Liberal Party has a secret set of promises which it hoped to keep away from the people of Australia, which it hoped would not interrupt its miserable quest for power and which would be unveiled during the first 100 days of office. Its promises are: Cutting pensions; abolishing all employment programs; abolishing the first home owners scheme; abolishing the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax-two of the most important measures to reintroduce some equity into our taxation system-cutting bounties to manufacturing industry; abolishing the superphosphate bounty; cutting Medicare; increasing charges for pharmaceutical benefits; increasing the eligibility age for the female pension to 65; selling the Commonwealth Bank-putting at risk all the savings of the people of Australia-selling Qantas Airways Ltd; selling Telecom Australia; selling Medibank Private; abolishing the lump sum superannuation tax; and then, the great one, right at the end, preparing for a general strike. That final promise really typifies the attitude of these Opposition parties. They do not seem to recognise that, in the circumstances confronted by Australia at the moment, we need more than anything a period of stability and policy consistency. The Labor Party and this Government offer at least four more years of policy consistency in order to deal with the very real circumstances confronted by the country. It is only this Party and this Government which have been prepared to face up unabashed to the circumstances confronting us. We have levelled with the people of Australia and said that, not as a result of anything we have done but as a result of the circumstances the world has wrought on us, we have had $6 billion taken off our national income. We seek to ensure that the necessary adjustment and burden of that is shared equally across the community, but we have none of that from the Opposition. It wants a period of such turmoil and such division within our society that it predicts that within the first six months of office it would have a general strike of such proportions, throwing the country into such turmoil that a new election would be necessary. These people want, as a matter of deliberate policy, to tear up the very great progress we have been able to make in regard to industrial relations stability and industry reform. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Assent to the following Bills reported: Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on the proposals for the variation of the plan of the layout of the City of Canberra and its environs-the eighty-ninth series-together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The report I have just tabled deals with the eighty-ninth series of variations to the city plan. This special series of variations contains only one item, namely, the deletion from the city plan of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street and minor additions to and deletions from the plan in Bunda Street, Ainslie Avenue, Akuna Street, Ballumbir Street and Petrie Street to provide further development by the Canberra Building Society of sections 38 and 53 and part section 56 for offices, retailing and car parking. The variation proposes the degazettal of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street to permit the development of an atrium to cover the space between the city's two major shopping malls, Monaro Mall and the retail complex proposed for section 38. The atrium will integrate these two malls into one large centre which will provide improved retail facilities for both local and regional shoppers as well as providing a focus for community entertainment and tourist activities. The National Capital Development Commission and the developers argued strongly that this development was of critical importance to the future growth of Civic as the dominant retail centre. The proposed development scheme is based around three levels of retailing comprising two full scale department stores, a full scale supermarket, a discount department store and specialty shops and incorporates an office tower. There are also overhead pedestrian walkways and car parking areas. The total scheme involves a floor space of nearly 67,000 square metres of leasable floor area and is undoubtedly the largest private sector development ever in the Australian Capital Territory. The development of sec- tion 38 is part of a general proposal for retail development in Civic Centre which had been under consideration since the late 1950s and early 1960s. It is considered essential in terms of providing a compact intensive and lively shopping environment in a dominant city centre. The development conditions include the objectives that the development must ensure the early restoration of Civic as the premier retail centre in the region and that it must offer a variety of retail tenancies, including a major department store. This development will consolidate the commercial development in Civic, complement existing retail functions and add to activities outside normal shopping hours. The Committee's investigations of this development promoted great interest and debate from residents of Canberra and business groups. Concern was voiced about the rate of development of Civic and anticipated employment levels and the impact this was having on not only Civic but also the whole of the metropolitan area. The Committee is concerned about the rate of development which has occurred in Civic in recent years and the number of building approvals which have been granted and recommends that an undertaking be made between the NCDC and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services that no more government offices will be located in Civic Centre until the NCDC has concluded a thorough review of the Civic Centre policy plan and associated developments. The Committee also examined the impact of releasing such a large amount of retail space in Civic simultaneously together with other developments that are coming on-stream in the next two years. It considers that initially there will be an oversupply of retail space with resulting problems in trading conditions for some retailers. This will be compounded, undoubtedly, by the completion of the Tuggeranong Town Centre and expansion of the Belconnen Mall. There will have to be a readjustment in trading patterns throughout the Australian Capital Territory. However, the question of supply of retail space should be determined by market forces. It is inevitable that some adjustments will have to be made and it is probable that there will be a reassessment of some present high rental charges in the market. We hope that occurs. The Committee does not think it has a role in providing assessments of the economic viability of such ventures, as these are a matter for private sector investment. Another consideration raised concerning this development was the impact it will have on the visual axis from Mount Ainslie to City Hill, which forms part of Walter Burley Griffin's plan to provide a series of avenues radiating from Mount Ainslie to Black Mountain. The arguments advanced are set out in the Committee's report. It was concluded that an appreciation of the axis could well be enhanced with the construction of a glass atrium providing sight lines in both directions as part of the development. Some of the major discussions during the Committee's hearings centred around traffic movements and parking issues. The Committee examined these areas in detail and concluded that, in the interests of pedestrian safety, there was merit in closing Ainslie Avenue. However, the Committee does not consider that sufficient consideration has been given to existing traffic movements in Civic in relation to where traffic originates from or its final destination. The proposed Monash Drive and other proposed access roads for Gungahlin would reduce traffic pressure in Civic, but the Committee is concerned that the routing of traffic from Monash Drive down Ainslie Avenue would add to congestion in other roads when Ainslie Avenue is closed off. It is also recognised that this will increase pressures in streets adjoining suburbs such as Reid and Braddon. The NCDC has provided the Committee with further information relating to the effect of increased traffic movements on lead pollution levels and this is contained in an appendix to the report. The Committee is greatly concerned by the lack of proper provision of car parking in Civic Centre. Preliminary plans for satisfying the need for car parking in and around Civic, which have been long overdue, have now been provided to the Committee in this report. However, in an attempt to alleviate pressures on commuters, the Committee recommends that a trust fund account be set up and administered by the Department of Territories by the end of 1987 to enable revenue generated from parking fees to be redirected to the policing of parking restrictions, provision of further parking facilities and expansion of the ACTION bus fleet. It is the Committee's hope that these problems are of a short term nature and therefore it also recommends that regulations governing the trust fund should provide for its termination three years from commencement unless there are specific reasons for its continuation beyond this period. In conclusion, I would like to stress that this development is a very significant proposal which constitutes the largest single private sector investment in Canberra's history. This development is important for the future of Civic Centre, the Australian Capital Territory and the south-east region of New South Wales. It is important for Canberra's continued development to broaden its economic base and this project will provide employment opportunities, increased tourism potential for Civic and Canberra, and greater opportunities for recreational and cultural pursuits in Civic Centre. It will provide the Australian Capital Territory with a heart-what people have been wanting for so long. The major shortcoming which has been highlighted during this inquiry is the question of an overall policy plan for Civic Centre. As a consequence of its appearance before the Committee, the NCDC has agreed to undertake a Civic plan review, to revise land use and transport policies which are no longer relevant, and give a more accurate indication of the development of Civic and Canberra during the 1990s. The Committee therefore recommends that the NCDC make public by June 1987 a revised policy plan for Civic Centre outlining the likely consequences of the present level of development on future planning intentions and setting out in full the implications of this development on traffic flows and parking. Included in this revised plan must be an environmental assessment of the total impact of all development in Civic. Finally, I would like to point out that during the Committee's extensive investigations of this proposal and in evidence taken from 29 witnesses over two days of hearings, no one was opposed in principle to the development of section 38 and associated car parks. Although concern was expressed about the timing of the development, its size and perceived lack of environmental assessment, I think that the Committee in its investigations is now satisfied that with the undertakings it has obtained from the NCDC most of these objections have been satisfied. I thank the members of the Committee, and the clerk and the staff of the Committee for their assistance in the preparation of the report of this inquiry. I recommend the report to the House. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —by leave-I will not repeat everything the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has said about this complex inquiry but I will emphasise a few points. The Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory supported the application relating to Ainslie Avenue and section 38 because development there will substantially increase and diversify shopping opportunities in Canberra. It will certainly increase the attractiveness of Civic for other recreational activities. No one appearing before the Committee opposed the development, although many questioned its size and its timing. They also criticised the lack of sufficient complementary infrastructure facilities and the lack of an environmental assessment of what had been happening in Civic overall. The background to the controversy is that there has been much faster development in the Civic Centre than was envisaged in the 1982 Civic Centre policy plan. Yet without the plan being revised, there would be insufficient infrastructure, such as car parking, roads, or upgraded public transport, to cope with the increase in office space and employment. There has also been controversy and protest over the use of suburbs surrounding Civic-particularly Reid and Braddon-in regard to the disruption caused by overspill car parking and increased traffic flow through those suburbs generated by increased employment without the necessary adequate infrastructure being provided. So section 38 became the focus for all the dissatisfaction with what has happened to Civic. There were many excellent quality submissions to the Joint Committee about these issues. As I did at the public hearings, I publicly praise the people and the groups who commented on these issues for their careful research, comprehensive discussion of the issues, and rigorous analysis. Like the honourable member for Canberra, I particularly express my appreciation to the staff of the Committee for the difficult work they have done in preparing this report. The Committee carefully considered the evidence from the developers, for the National Capital Development Commission and from the Department of Territories as well as that from the critics. The report recommends the closure of Ainslie Avenue as proposed, but a number of conditions. There are two main reasons for agreeing to the closure: The commercial value of the project, and the preference of many people for more pedestrian areas. I talked with many people about the issue, and the majority supported the closure of Ainslie Avenue to traffic between Monaro Mall and section 38 so as to create a pedestrian precinct. If the area is set aside for pedestrians, it will not be a particularly major step to allow the two buildings to be linked. The plans to minimise the interference with the vista are attractive, and I hope that both the roof and the sides of the area can be predominantly glassed so as to maximise visibility. Even if this happens, the vista down Ainslie Avenue to Mount Ainslie will still be interrupted and a barrier will be placed in Burley Griffin's plan. But the line of the boulevard and tree plantation was broken 20 years ago when the Monaro Mall was built, so that reduces the significance of the vista now. Like many in the community, I regret this interruption to the Burley Griffin plan, but I think that the other factors justify the closure. The size of this development will contribute to an over-supply of retail space in Canberra, for at the same time as section 38 is being built, the Tuggeranong Town Centre will be built, and approval has been given for further expansion in Belconnen. It was surprising that no retailer protested about the effect on the size of the section 38 development on retail market conditions, but it is not the job of the Committee to regulate retailing; that is for retailers themselves. However, I will certainly remind small retailers of this when they complain to me about the over-supply in a couple of years, as I am sure they will. The important aspect of this report is that it includes a number of recommendations by the Committee and commitments by the NCDC and the Department which will go some way to coping with the problems of the excessively rapid growth of office space in Civic which has already occurred and which will curtail future office construction. One of the most important commitments is that the NCDC and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services have agreed that no further leases for government office space in Civic will be entered into beyond commitments already made. This means that the justification for further office development will be removed. Sites have been identified in Belconnen and in Tuggeranong for new offices as well, allowing renewed dispersal as the metropolitan plan prescribes. I hope that this government decision will encourage developers considering construction of offices on the Town House Motel site and the Canberra Times site to decide not to proceed. It is clear that the buildings already under construction or committed will lead to an over-supply of office space within the next 12 to 18 months, as was publicised in the Canberra Times this morning. Secondly, the Commission and the Department of Territories have undertaken to construct an additional 3,300 parking spaces by the end of this year and a further 1,200 over the following two years. This is in addition to the 3,000 parking spaces associated directly with section 38. This will still not be sufficient but will be a major increase. This preparation of new car parking spaces is long overdue. The current shortage of car parking spaces in Civic is the clearest indication of the problems caused by the Commission's failure to either apply its 1982 Civic policy plan or to revise it so as to take account of the rapid increase in office space. Thirdly, the Commission has agreed to prepare a revised Civic policy plan, and that is to be published by June. The Committee requests that included in that policy plan be a comprehensive environmental assessment of all the impacts on Civic and the surrounding suburbs of air pollution. I am concerned about figures cited by the Commission in a letter to the Committee, which has been tabled with this report, which show levels of lead above maximum permissible levels for substantial periods of the year in peak periods of the day. This problem must be directly addressed. The first step is an environmental assessment, and when that is produced the community will have the chance to review it and to comment on it, and the Committee is likely to do likewise-depending on what it says, of course. The important thing about the preparation of a new Civic policy plan, which is to be published in June, is that it will give people the opportunity to comment further on any remaining inadequacies they see in what is happening in Civic. These three steps are major changes in policy and there can be no doubt that the inquiries into section 38 and into the metropolitan plan by the JPC have added substantially to the pressure for those changes. This report takes account of all the evidence presented by both proponents and critics of the section 38 development. The conditional approval will minimise the damage while allowing the benefits to occur. Not everyone will be satisfied with this, but if we take account of all the issues involved the report must be recognised as a reasonable decision. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro) —by leave-The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) are in the chamber to present some very important reports from the Publications Committee and the Standing Committee on Expenditure. It must seem tedious to them, as it does to me and members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory from as far as Queensland and Western Australia, that we have to look at the parking problems, traffic lights, school crossings and other events in Canberra. It is to the discredit of the Senate in this Parliament that it failed to pass legislation which would have enabled the people of Canberra to elect their own local government. It is important that we consider these matters. It is particularly important to me as the member for Eden-Monaro, which is adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory, to be represented on the Joint Committee and ensure that the area around Canberra is represented in some quite critical decisions. Mrs Kelly —It is represented very well too. Mr SNOW —I thank the honourable member for Canberra for pointing out my record on that Committee. As I pointed out to the Committee, there was in the reports to the Committee a certain lack of understanding of the impact on Queanbeyan of development in Canberra and the impact on Canberra of things that happened in Queanbeyan. It is disappointing that no consideration was given at an earlier stage to the development of shops in Queanbeyan when we were considering a development in Canberra. As the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) pointed out, we cannot consider retail expansion from the point of view of retailers and whether there are too many shops or too few shops. It is very important that we look at the development of the whole sub-region, not just Canberra itself. In that context Queanbeyan needs to be seen as a major regional centre-Queanbeyan and Canberra. Queanbeyan people shop in Canberra and Canberra people shop in Queanbeyan. When we look at parking, as well as retail space, we ought to be considering what happens over the border. All too often we have ignored one another over the years. Serving on the Joint Committee, I have tried to stop that. I point out that the Chairman of the Joint Committee, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), and I have supported the appointment of a Queanbeyan City Council Mayor to a development authority. I pay tribute to the Queanbeyan City Council and other surrounding areas for getting away from the insular attitude of seeing themselves as part of Canberra. We should ensure that Canberra does not see itself just as a centre that is isolated from the rest of the region. I believe that this sort of decision will reflect the importance of Canberra not only to the people of Canberra but also to the region and the importance of the region to Canberra. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the seventeenth report from the Publications Committee, which has been sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —I ask for leave of the House to present a copy of a letter from the Auditor-General dated 24 March 1987 concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `An efficient organisation or an efficient audit', and to make a short statement in connection with the letter. Leave granted. Mr MOUNTFORD —I present the letter. I have tabled the Auditor-General's interim response to our report because, and only because, he requested that his response be presented to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The Auditor-General refers to certain words used in the Expenditure Committee report and the tabling statement of Sub-committee chairman, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), says the Committee conclusion and Mr Beale's observation are wrong, and, because of this, concludes that these comments are damaging and are offensive to himself and his senior officers in their unjustified reflection on their integrity. This interim response from the Auditor-General was considered by the Expenditure Committee yesterday. The Committee, after deliberating on the matter, indicated that it stands by its report and the tabling statement of the Sub-committee Chairman, Mr Beale. Briefly, the Committee is right and the Auditor wrong. Therefore, the Australian Audit Office has to live with the Auditor-General's own conclusion that certain words we have used reflect on the integrity of the auditors. The Australian Audit Office was given our written comments which challenged the validity of Audit paragraph 2.4.1. Apparently the auditors had original calculations which supported the paragraph but chose not to give these to the Committee. The relevance of what was given was then challenged at the 27 November 1986 hearing by the Sub-committee Chairman but the response clouded the issue. In these circumstances the strong comments were aimed at the poor quality of the evidence and are justified. The Auditor-General's interim response promises a full response to our report. After we receive and study this we propose to meet with him to discuss his response to this Committee report and his responses to other Committee reviews of other efficiency audit reports. The Committee recognises that the Auditor-General plays a very important role in the accountability process to the Parliament. The Expenditure Committee also has an important role in scrutinising the quality of public administration. During the meeting referred to in the previous paragraph I intend to initiate a full and frank discussion which will attempt to maximise our respective roles. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-fifth Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Mexico from 7 to 12 April 1986 and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WILSON —The report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the seventy-fifth Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Mexico City, Mexico, from 7 to 12 April 1986 has just been tabled by me. That Conference was attended by 452 members of parliament from 94 different countries. It took place only a few months after Mexico City had been rocked by an earthquake of severe intensity which destroyed large parts of the city. It is to the credit of the organisers of the Conference and the positive attitude of the Mexican people that the Conference proceeded on schedule with noticeably little inconvenience to delegates. Along with Senator Colston, who has tabled this report in the Senate I, too, would join in congratulating the Mexican National Group of the IPU on the dedication of its organisation, on the facilities it provided for the Conference and on the extent and content of the social program that it organised for those attending the Conference. At the Conference three topics were chosen for discussion. The first dealt with the arms race, disarmament, international terrorism and hotbeds of tension in the world, efforts of the Contadora group in seeking to arrive at a peaceful solution to the conflicts in Central America. A third item was discussed. I have deliberately left out the second item because I want to speak on it at greater length. The third topic was a supplementary item and it focused on the tensions in the Middle East. I return now to the second topic. The second topic considered by the Conference dealt with the advancement of developing countries through international trade, science and technology, the advancement of the welfare of mankind in general and, in particular, the health and well-being of the elderly. I speak of this debate because I was interested in its subject matter. It was a very interesting debate which dealt with two very important topics. One was the implications for all countries around the world of the ageing of their populations and the manner in which countries and governments can cope with ageing populations. Sometimes, as it was pointed out at the Conference, this topic is approached on a scaremongering basis, but it should not be approached in that way; it should be tackled as a challenge because for years countries have been endeavouring to ensure that greater proportions of their populations have the opportunity to live for at least three score years and 10. Ageing populations will involve a reorganisation of our economies because there will be larger and different groups dependent upon the current work force. Unless countries tackle that problem early, they will find that they will be confronted with difficulties that will be of a far greater order than if they make an early start. The second aspect of the debate dealt with world trade, with particular emphasis on developing countries. It was interesting to discover that some members of parliaments from the industrialised countries of Western Europe and the United States of America were concerned about the impact of their current protectionist policies, with particular reference to the subsidisation of agricultural produce. Australia is faced with grave problems as a consequence of the corruption of international markets. Dr Harry Edwards —Do you mean to say that they are beginning to see the light? Mr WILSON —As a result of discussions, I believe that the honourable member is correct; members of parliaments are recognising that what their governments are doing is wrong. As a result of that recognition, the Australian delegation to the Seventy-Sixth Conference that followed sought to have this question debated as a supplementary item. Although that proposal received strong support, it was not the chosen item. But I am pleased to inform honourable members that as a result of the vote that took place at the Seventy-Sixth Conference, our proposed supplementary item has been placed on the agenda for a conference to be held later this month. At this conference the question of the deleterious effect on world trade of the subsidisation of agricultural products will be discussed and debated by parliamentarians from over 90 countries. I draw this to the attention of the House in this statement because sometimes it is asked: What is the value of attending conferences such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union? The problem of international subsidisation of agricultural products is so serious that this country has to approach the resolution of it on all possible fronts; government to government, bureaucracy to bureaucracy and parliamentarian to parliamentarian. I express my disappointment that as we have been preparing for the conference to be held later this month, the support and effort that government departments have put into providing the necessary background material has not been up to the standard necessary to reflect the nature of the problem as it affects Australia. As was suggested in a report following a visit by parliamentarians from this place to the United States some years ago, the Government has now recognised the importance of the political processes of our closest trading partners. The Government has appointed an ambassador with responsibility for the Congress, rather than for the Administration. But the departments have apparently failed to understand that conferences such as those held by the Inter-Parliamentary Union are places where members of this House, on an issue about which all honourable members from every party have a common concern, could help to advance Australia's interests. The area in which the mistake has been made is this: The information given to us had a heavy emphasis on `you are hurting us'. True, those countries which subsidise their primary products are hurting us, but a large part of the world thinks that we can cope, because we are an affluent country in their eyes. Another part of the world which is subsidising products does not appreciate, except for the few members I spoke about a few minutes ago, that these policies are hurting them also. Conferences such as the one I will be attending in a few weeks time will give us an opportunity to bring to the attention of the countries of the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan not merely the fact that their policies are hurting us as a result of the corruption of international trade but also the fact that the electors of the great majority of the members of their parliaments are being hurt by their subsidisation policies. Their non-farmer electors are paying very high taxes and consumer prices to provide subsidies which in many respects, having been provided, are never recouped on the goods that are stockpiled in warehouses throughout Europe, the United States and Japan. This is not an occasion to talk at length on this matter, but I felt it my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the House to demonstrate the usefulness of such a delegation and to urge upon the Government the necessity of providing such delegations with effective and full support in representing the interests of Australia at parliamentary conferences, so that through the members of parliament we can one day, sooner rather than later, achieve a change in the policies that are so seriously hurting our economy. In conclusion, I thank my colleagues on the delegation-Senator Colston, who led the delegation, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton)-for their assistance, support and company. It would be remiss of me not to make particular reference, and express appreciation on behalf of myself and my colleagues, to Mr John McCarthy, Australia's Ambassador to Mexico at the time, and our thanks to his willing and competent staff. Many of them worked well beyond the call of duty. I place on record the appreciation of the delegation to the Ambassador, to Beverly Morrisby who provided secretarial assistance to the delegation and worked very long hours, and to the drivers who met the delegates and conveyed them from their hotel accommodation to the conference centre. I also add my thanks to Mr Tom Wharton of the Senate staff, who acted as secretary to the delegation, and to Mr Geoff Crawford, who accompanied us as our foreign affairs adviser. Finally, I say how pleased the members of the delegation were to be accompanied by the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Alan Cumming Thom, who attended the conference of the Association of Secretaries-General of Parliaments which was held at the same time. Debate resumed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.20) —Prior to the debate being interrupted, I was explaining to the House that the Opposition will move an amendment to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill at the Committee stage to ensure that the call-out provisions applicable to the reserves would be available in circumstances of natural disaster. This is in no way designed to contravene the provisions of section 51 of the Defence Act, which places a ban on the use of the Services in connection with industrial disputes. It is intended to embrace a situation in which there could be a requirement for the use of reserve forces either on the Australian mainland or in Australian territories because of cyclones such as Cyclone Tracy. There are a number of other aspects to the Bill. The only matter with respect to the reserves that remains in residuum is that, within the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), there is a suggestion that the present integration of reserves within the Force as a whole is something new and something peculiar to the Australian Labor Party. This is arrant rubbish. Of course, it was begun long since, under a coalition government. There is no doubt that the reserves have a critical role. It is my regret that the Government has not extended the role and capability of the reserves beyond that which is now enjoyed certainly in the Royal Australian Air Force and in the Royal Australian Navy. I also say to the Minister that I believe it essential that he provide for greater training days permissible for each of those in the reserves, not only in the case of call-out but so that the reserves can properly fulfil that additional responsibility which declining numbers in the regular forces requires. There are a number of other provisions within this legislation to which I want to refer. The first relates to a suggestion that there will be a new type of permanent employment within the Services. The Opposition welcomes this. There has certainly been a problem in a number of categories. Indeed, I have long correspondence from a number of people who have served in different areas of the Services. One piece of correspondence received more recently suggested that we should have a specialist air crew scheme. As everybody will know, people in the Services train to the point of proficiency in their particular category, whether it is to sail a ship, fly a plane or whatever. If they are any good at it, they will inevitably be promoted to fly a desk, which is absolutely useless to the Services-so much so that at the moment we have 33 fighter pilots to fly the 75 about to be equipped F18 aircraft; there are about three times as many fighter pilots flying desks in `Fort Fumble' on the other side of the lake as there are available to fly our Mirage or F18 aircraft. That is a situation which, quite demonstrably, should not be allowed to continue. As I explained before lunch, frankly, the Minister has failed totally to comprehend that his White Paper is no more than a grandiose idea, if he cannot provide the personnel and money to implement it. At this stage the Opposition is highly cynical about the Government's preparedness or ability to do that. Unless the Minister gets his act together with respect to personnel, the forces will be more notable for their resignations than for their recruitment. The whole of the Minister's involvement with personnel has been to deny them the same terms and conditions of employment as are available to everybody else in the Public Service. The Australian Labor Party pretends that it is in some way a great champion of the employee. But, frankly, it has not shown any of that in its attitude towards members of the defence forces. We certainly think that there is a role for long term enlistment. Indeed, as I have explained, I commend to the Minister the idea of a specialist air crew scheme. Without going into the extensions that are now to be involved in this legislation, I believe it is a pity that more flexibility has not been provided in terms of billets. One of the problems with long term enlistment is that people who go to about 13, 15 or so different posts in the course of a 20-year service career will, of course, be disadvantaged as against their colleagues in other fields of employment. There is no doubt that families and children suffer and something needs to be done about it. I believe that providing for permanency in certain categories and for longer terms in service billets is a way by which that can be overcome. That, again, is a matter of man management and an area in which the Minister has failed abysmally. We have no difficulties with the Defence Force discipline provision. It provides only for sentencing to be exercised in an alternative way to that carried out at the moment, that is, either by court martial or by a Defence Force magistrate. There are provisions within this legislation relating to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits legislation. As in so many fields, I am afraid that the poor old Government has fallen flat on its face. During the discussion on our matter of public importance this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) contended that broken promises are becoming symptomatic of the Hawke Government's performance and approach to the people. That is true, too, of defence. We all know that the immediate past Minister for Defence, now the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), made undertakings prior to the 1983 election with respect to servicemen and women's entitlements under the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. Before we had been subjected to more than one of the Government's Budgets, we found that there was an increased tax liability which disadvantaged those who took their commutation-in other words, those who sought to draw a capital sum on their resignation from the Services. I do not believe that is either acceptable or desirable. While it has since been modified, it took about three years for the Government to get its act together. Of course, it still has not got its act together in terms of giving to servicemen and women the same sympathetic salary treatment as it gives to just about everybody else who receives some sort of Commonwealth pay envelope. There are other areas of difficulty. The Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, in particular Major-General John Whitelaw, has drawn my attention to the fact that there is yet another disability in the amendments to the defence force retirement and death benefits scheme-we will seek to change this at the Committee stage-which is that it denies to the widow of a service pension beneficiary, in respect of any children of the marriage, the right to continue to receive a pension if the male pensioner married after his retirement. Frankly, given the circumstances that servicemen and women retire far earlier than anybody else, this restriction is unacceptable. I believe that one of my colleagues will say a little bit about the matter. But it illustrates yet again that the Government has not understood that people in the Services treat the DFRDB scheme as a genuine way by which they can move from a uniformed to a civilian career. This Government does not understand that. It has treated them harshly. They are worse off than when this Government came to office. There is no excuse for the Government not being more generous than it is. In fact, the amendments in this legislation are fairly minor. There are a number of things that should have been done that have not been done. That is one of them. Another of the problems is that we have the continuing consequence of the 2 per cent discounting last year of the DFRDB entitlement. There is nothing more disgraceful. This Government arbitrarily has taken from servicemen, and indeed from other Commonwealth superannuitants, an entitlement that was theirs by virtue of a contract entered into at the time that they were recruited into the Services. That 2 per cent continues to be a disadvantage to servicemen and women. We had hoped that the Government, in its next reference to the Defence Force Salaries Tribunal, would have ensured that there was no lingering consequence of the removal of that 2 per cent. In other words, it is not just a matter of the Government having cut the 2 per cent off once-forever after, the entitlement of servicemen, in the way in which the formula works out, will be cut off by 2 per cent every subsequent year. That is yet another way in which this Government is treating servicemen and women of Australia with a complete raspberry. It is absolutely appalling. The Labor Party is by far the worst employer in Australia for anybody in uniform. It is no wonder that servicemen and women are leaving the Services in droves. Unless the Government improves its act and understands that there needs to be comparability between civilian and service employment, there will be no servicemen or women at all to provide the necessary backup for the highly sophisticated defence equipment that is part of the White Paper program and about which other members and I have spoken in the course of the last little while. A further amendment in the legislation to which I want to draw the House's attention relates to changes to the Supply and Development Act, in this instance to ensure that there is an ability to transfer employees from the Government Aircraft Factories to the private company-Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd-that will take over the GAF for the purpose of both the offset program and the F18 program. There are several things I want to say about this. First, we on this side of the House are delighted to hear that the Government is progressively looking at defence assets, as indeed it is looking at other areas of government-owned corporations, to determine whether they could be run better by the private sector. The announcement by the Minister for Defence about Williamstown Dockyard and Cockatoo Island Dockyard certainly is a step in the right direction. Let us face it: In 1987 we can no longer just afford to continue to operate defence assets on the basis that they worked well between 1939 and 1945. Circumstances are different now and it is important that the build-up of defence procurement is not restricted within the public sector at a time when we badly need to enhance our design and manufacturing capability in the private sector. We welcome those two decisions. A number of other areas seem to have been totally ignored. We have been worried for a long time that there seems to be an excessively generous treatment of some people in the public sector concerning superannuation. It is important to establish the maximum comparability of superannuation entitlements. In this Bill there is no suggestion of portability of pensions from one area to the other. I presume that under the Supply and Development Act amendments of this legislation, superannuation entitlements will be capable of transfer from the public to the private sector. If not, they should be. If there is to be an acquisition of public sector corporations by the private sector, we on this side of the House anticipate that employees will have the opportunity to acquire shares in those companies or enterprises and that their superannuation and other employment related benefits will be transferred. It is common sense in business. Why the devil cannot this Government approach the running of statutory corporations and authorities in the same way as anybody in the private sector would? I was interested this morning to see a letter from a namesake of mine. I do not know him but obviously he is a man of some distinction. Mr Graeme J. Sinclair, the Managing Director of Parish Engineering Co. Pty Ltd of Moorabbin, Victoria, wrote a letter which appeared in the correspondence column of the Australian Financial Review of today's date. He commented on the Government's buying policies. He highlighted the difficulties in government purchasing and the degree to which the private sector is disadvantaged in the way in which present government purchasing programs are implemented. We on this side of the House have said that on our election to government there will be radical changes in the tendering process, certainly as it affects design and development and defence procurement. This Government has not changed those procedures. There is no financial delegation. There is no flexibility in financial arrangements between the Department of Finance and the Department of Defence. Those are some of the major inhibiting factors in getting value for the taxpayers' dollar in the defence vote. We all know that there is a need to improve those practices. Mr Graeme Sinclair comments that one of the real difficulties is the way in which the Government denies a fair opportunity for Australian industry to participate in government procurement programs. He referred in particular to the decision on the Swiss air trainer. He said: . . . the specifications were changed, I suspect deliberately, ruling out the Australian-made trainer. The Minister for Defence pretends that he is a great man because of the equipment he is going to buy. Yet he buys the Swiss trainer and denies Australian industry and Australian engineers any opportunity of providing some input into the design, even when the Defence Department and the Royal Australian Air Force laid down the criteria which the Government tendered upon. As Mr Graeme Sinclair said, the specifications were changed, deliberately ruling out the Australian made trainer. Now we are in the idiotic position where, having got the Swiss trainer, it has to be changed at inordinate cost to meet the RAAF's flying requirements. This example is illustrative of the problems in this Government's running of the Department of Defence. Frankly the sooner the Government goes the better. A further part of this legislation concerns the termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund. Generations of men and women in the Services have been provided with a tremendous facility by the Service canteens. They have provided a place where many in their off-duty hours have been able to enjoy companionship and general bonhomie and have been able to meet and know people from different areas of life. That is one of the few real pluses at a personal level of being in the Services. At this time of the termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund I pay a compliment to all those who for so long have done so much to help so many in this way. They have been a tremendous group and I think all of us in this House appreciate the contribution that those people have made over the years through the Services Canteens Trust Fund. I will move several amendments in the Committee stage of this Bill. In general, the Opposition supports this legislation, particularly the amendment concerning the call-out provisions of the Reserves. However, it does not believe that the amendments go far enough. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.35) —In rising to support the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill I am reminded that someone once said: `Cynicism is the sanity of madness'. I must admit that I did not really understand what this meant, although it did have a good ring to it. It is only since coming to this Parliament that I am beginning to understand it. The Opposition spokesman on defence, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), today shedding crocodile tears about the top-heavy nature of military administration, government procurement policy and other aspects I think illustrates this point. The right honourable member for New England was Minister for Defence. During his tenure of that office he did absolutely nothing in the areas he now laments. The present Defence Minister, Kim Beazley, the honourable member for Swan, is undoubtedly the best Minister for Defence we have had in a very long time. Whilst I would not like in any way to detract from his ability, it is unfortunately true that it is the dismal past performance of previous Ministers that make him a Hyperion to a satyr. This Minister is the first person for a long time-certainly since the 1939-45 war-to give any sense of direction to our defence thinking or to set objectives and priorities, whether the Opposition agrees with them or not. Without any policy in place it is very difficult to have a coherent disagreement. When we have directions set by the Minister we are able to analyse them and put perhaps countervailing points of view. Trying to do this without a policy in place is like trying to build a building with bricks of blancmange. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is another example of the efforts being put into defence by this Government. Every clause of this Bill is an essential amendment. Some of the changes are long overdue. I am an unabashed supporter of the Army Reserve. In my electorate of Kalgoorlie I have Norforce, which operates in the north and provides a very competent surveillance service. I have the Pilbara Regiment, which is doing sterling service in an area of vital economic importance to Australia, and I also have in the goldfields C Company of the Royal Western Australian Regiment. The men of this regiment are of excellent standard and I believe they are a tribute to Warrant Officer Class 1 Roger Warren, who has been primarily responsible for their training. Warrant Officer Warren is a Regular Army soldier and is an example of the close co-operation and support that must exist between the Regular Army and the Reserve if Australia's interests are to be truly served. In my allotted time I want to devote my remarks to the aspects of this Bill that affect the Army Reserve. This is not to belittle the other important aspects of the Bill but rather it is a measure of my priorities. It is my belief that in these days of gee whiz technology, expensive hardware and toys for the boys, the necessity of a good army is overlooked. If any potential aggressor knows that he can run the gauntlet of our air power and sea power and land unopposed upon our shores, he may be tempted to take the chance. The existence of a well-trained, mobile and committed army raises his costs exponentially. The Army Reserve is an essential element of self-reliance. Shortened reaction time, local knowledge and sheer economy of the Army Reserve are just some of the points that make it such an asset to this nation. In Australia today we have a very good Army and I say, without equivocation, that in terms of sheer professionalism and integrity I believe it is well ahead of the other services. These amendments will make it easier to call out the Reserve in a situation less than that of a declared state of emergency. As the Minister said, in low level contingencies governments would be reluctant to take the seemingly reactive step of declaring a defence emergency and so perhaps escalating tensions. I therefore believe that this amendment is welcome. I suggest to the Minister that if the good work inherent in this Bill is to be capitalised upon, we need to increase manpower in the Reserve and make sure that more man-days are available. In the past the tendency has been to cut man-days of training as man power increased. Greater opportunity should be given to inter-corps and inter-service training, as this would broaden the scope and the capacity of the Army Reserve. It is my belief that we should be less bashful about using section 51 of the Act. It should be broadened to allow the Reserve to be called out in times of civil emergency. If it has to be paid for, I would willingly accept cuts elsewhere in the defence budget. It may require additional legislation to ensure the co-operation of private sector employers in such a development. An extension of this idea is the use of military capacity in the construction of military infrastructure. For example, remote airfields are essential for our defence. I can foresee the Government being held to ransom by the private sector for the construction of an airfield in, say, Cape York Peninsula, where environmental aspects are often very unpleasant. Army construction units have the capacity to do the work. We must consider the use of these resources and look into this aspect very thoroughly. Many other projects could be of national advantage but at the moment are not economically justified in a strict commercial sense. Remote bridges, and even the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, might be in this category. In the United States such initiatives are taken as a matter of course. It certainly makes sense to me to try to make training pay rather than be just a cost. There is no better stone on which to hone one's skills than the abrasive nature of the real world. Within such a framework there would be room for the employment of private contractors with specialised skills and machinery. It is a bullet we should bite. At least we should give it due consideration. Another aspect of the Bill concerns me a lot; that is, the provision to set up Aerospace Technologies of Australia, a wholly owned government corporation. The Bill will allow the transfer of people from the Public Service to the new corporation without the trauma and cost of sacking, retrenchments, re-employment, et cetera. I am a very strong believer in the capacity of the public sector. It has been unwarrantedly abused in recent times. I have taken a very special interest in the Government Aircraft Factories, which I have visited on several occasions. When I have been there I have always been impressed with the dedication, knowledge and commitment of the unions to change. Many of them realised that work practices which were not good for the organisation had to cease. As I say, I was very impressed by their willingness to meet new requirements. Unfortunately, management is lacking. This problem has not suddenly arisen. It was inherent under previous Minist- ries. The sad truth is that one cannot get the level of management required for such an industry if one pays so little money. It surprised me that when representatives of the Western Aircraft Corporation appeared before one of our committees they said: `My word, you have an excellent facility here. It is probably the best in the world. You people in Australia can do absolutely anything'. They went on to say how much they looked forward to working in Australia and how good they thought our industrial relations were. That is not the story one hears from the Opposition. They also lamented the fact that all our very good equipment was so underutilised. Had this equipment been utilised years ago we would not have the present situation which exists at the Government Aircraft Factories. The chemical etching plant is probably without peer in the world, except for the McDonnell-Douglas facility in the United States. This facility could have been made available to the private sector. It really was not a viable option to sell it to the private sector. It is very unlikely that any single firm could have afforded the capitalisation required and it certainly would have given an advantage to one part of the private sector. The answer was clearly to make the service available to all. The same could be said of the electroplating plant. It is a great pity that these initiatives were not taken. Instead, we have tended to blame the workers and the actions of the unions for the restructuring that inevitably became necessary. I certainly believe that restructuring is necessary at Williamstown. I have had cause to visit Newcastle dockyards and talk with the unions there. When I visited the dockyards some two years ago I was told by the then management that the problems it had were not with the work force. It had a very good arrangement with the work force and felt that it was in a position to negotiate very well with the workers. It said that the problems it was having were with management and, in particular, with the Minister. Representatives of management lamented that they had asked the Minister for direction but he had not responded. Some two years later the same Minister is attacking the work force in the same outrageous manner, a work force employed by the worst of the New Right, a group of which I have had some experience. It appals me that a Minister in a Labor Government should treat the work force in such a cavalier fashion. The Minister for Defence mentioned military procurement. We must have our own defence industry in this country. We must have a future. I very strongly believe that, unless we have a future for all the citizens of this country, no matter how much money we spend on defence, it will be ineffective because, ultimately, defence rests in the hearts and minds of the people. If there is nothing worth defending we will not get the defence we require. There would be no reason to have it in any case. I do not feel like spending my taxes just to protect the privileged, entrenched self-interests of a very small minority. Prosperity has to be for the whole nation. Military procurement is one aspect of assistance to industry. It is my belief that no matter how much has been said by our forces in the past they do not really want too much industry in Australia. They would much rather pick and choose around the world-a little bit from here and a little bit from there. That is no way to build industry. I specifically exclude the Army. The Army's performance has been significantly better in this area. If we are to have a helicopter industry in this country there is room for only one manufacturer. If we are to have a helicopter industry in this country we cannot allow the armed forces to shop around the world to find some whirlybird that might suit their requirements or leave ourselves open to the peccadillos of a particular member of the armed services. The armed services must use the goods we produce. If we had a helicopter industry we would be able to export helicopters to some of the countries around us. China is probably the greatest potential export market for helicopters, as it has a real need for this means of transport. While undoubtedly it would demand an industry of its own in the long term, in the short term it would buy products from us and in the long term it would buy components. It is an enormous market. Part of the Chinese component market could be the basis for a very sound industry in Australia. As it is, we do not have any design capacity for helicopters. The procurement policy in this area has been a disaster. I have said something about it in the past. Notwithstanding, there is no doubt that this Government is working on procurement policy more suited to the overall national need than the policy of the previous Government, which simply let the military have entirely its own way. I get stuck for euphemisms when I speak in this House on occasions, but certainly it is uncharitable of the previous Government's Defence Minister to come in here and criticise the present Minister when our performance in all these aspects is so much better than the former Government's performance. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(4.49) —In these uncertain economic times, with the unwanted characteristics of high interest rates, enormous overseas deficits, appalling terms of trade and falling living standards, the personnel of our regular and reserve forces continue to leave their respective services at alarming rates. Frequently they resort to the only courses open to them: Resignation or refusing to re-engage as their current commitments expire. Pay, allowances and conditions of service are the principal causes of dissatisfaction. Whilst the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is a first step, much remains to be done. On the latest figures available, more than 1,000 service personnel left the armed forces in January 1987. Those resignations occurred at a time when quite extravagant measures have been adopted by the Government to bring the military profile to a much higher level in the public's perception. The latest statistics released by the Department of Defence show that 1,068 officers and those of other ranks left during January 1987, considerably more than the 444 who left in December 1986. Officer resignations more than tripled over the previous period. When one considers that the cost of training even junior officers probably runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars and the cost of training a Royal Australian Air Force fighter pilot exceeds $1m, the loss in monetary terms alone must be well in excess of $160m annually. Of the 143 officers who left in January, only seven had reached retirement age. The overwhelming majority of officers leaving the Services came from the hard core of experience-those of the middle ranks, the experienced professionals, who are mature, dedicated but increasingly unhappy when they are subject to the inexplicable reductions in flying hours, sailing time, exercises and firing programs. Their frustration is understandable. No amount of Government posturing and massive amounts of high level media advertising, done at great expense and using such high profile personalities as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), will remedy what are now very serious personnel deficiencies. Armed forces strength is now below 70,000 personnel, hovering at the lowest levels since the Vietnam War. The overall slight increases in the January number can be attributed to the usual larger than normal enlistments covering the annual intake of officer cadets and apprentices. We are spread too thinly to cover their wide-ranging commitments, commitments which expand under the Minister's tutelage. Worse, there is an increasing tendency to increase expenditure on the high technology end of the spectrum whilst ignoring the growing needs of an increasingly restive service community long denied adequate salaries and allowances, aggravated by poor conditions of service and with virtually no prospect of early improvement. It is no wonder they continue to leave in the numbers that they do. Unacceptable features remain in the reserves. During this Government's period in office which should, thankfully, be well and truly over shortly, numbers in our reserve units have fallen by 10,000 personnel. Leadership, that essential ingredient in any military organisation, remains at a high level. But the frustrations of managing forces constantly depleted in numbers and constantly frustrated by inadequate equipment and facilities, looms as a large intractable problem. The position cannot be expected to improve until the flow of funds increases, new equipment and state of the arts technology is introduced and proper incentives are established so that individuals who wish to serve are proud to do so, are respected by the community they serve and are rewarded adequately and properly for the tasks that they perform. The Opposition is grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate today on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I will now concentrate some of my remarks on the new provisions for peacetime call-out of the reserve forces; that is, in situations other than a declared defence emergency. On 22 May 1985 I referred to the need for urgent action to be taken on this very matter. I did so in the context of a discussion on a matter of public importance on the alarming rundown by the Government of the manpower, morale and effectiveness of the Army Reserve. At that time my colleague the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) and I, on behalf of the Opposition, highlighted the disgraceful manner in which this present Government has ignored the role, requirements and importance of our reserve forces, allowing them to deteriorate into a critical and inexcusable state of neglect. The point was made, clearly and indisputably, that the Government had exhibited a very real lack of concern for the future defence and security of Australia and Australians by failing to take any positive action to rectify the immediate problems confronting our reserve forces, such as inappropriate financial support, inadequate training facilities and opportunities, unsatisfactory recruitment and retention of personnel, and lack of sense of purpose-all factors contributing to a significant and intolerable decline in Reserve forces morale. One obvious and relatively easy to implement solution which was suggested for the Minister's consideration was: The intelligent reform of amending legislative restrictions on call-out of the Reserve for full time service . . . Serving members of the Reserve believe they should, and would, be called for service if required in circumstances short of war or declared emergency. Their employers also believe the Reserve is a meaningful part of our defence, and they too expect their employees, who are reservists, to be called for when needed. At no cost to the taxpayer, section 50 (a) (1) of the Defence Act can simply be amended to provide for the call-out of Reserve forces, or any part of them, for continuous full time military services in situations other than war or defence emergency. It has certainly taken the Minister some time to hear the bugle in regard to this relatively simple but nonetheless significant amendment to the existing provisions of the Act. But it is better that he should hear the bugle late rather than never. In his second reading speech, the Minister informed the House: The future holds very challenging prospects for the Army Reserve. He went on to describe its role of: real responsibility in defence of the north, a major part in maintaining expansion capabilities in tank warfare and artillery, and continued emphasis on integration and affiliation of Reserve and Regular units to enable the development of skills and knowledge-the future shape of the Army Reserve will, I believe, give its members an abiding sense of purpose. He spoke of much more relevant and responsible roles, including the identification and allocation of specific regional wartime tasks to particular reserve units for peacetime training, all of which would make them a much more efficient and effective force in times of war. Again, he emphasised that that increased responsibility and newly defined role would give the Reserve an increased sense of purpose which would foster morale. All this is most admirable. The initiative is long overdue. But simply by defining new areas of responsibility and by providing expanded, exciting and challenging roles for the Reserve, we cannot hope to provide solutions to many of the problems now facing this vital part of our overall defence capability. The fact is that unless the Government is ready, willing and able to back up its rhetoric with the wherewithal to ensure a well trained and properly equipped and maintained Reserve, the current problems of low morale, which are manifested in unsatisfactorily low retention and recruitment rates, will remain unresolved. Unless the Government is prepared to provide adequate resources and facilities to enable the Reserve to carry out its additional responsibilities-and this is subject to some conjecture, as this Government has not seen fit in the past to offer anything but unsympathetic and unrealistic consideration of the needs and problems facing this critical component of Australia's defences-then we are, in essence, wasting our time today. There is little point in passing legislation providing for the call-out of reserve forces in additional situations to those covered by the existing Act if there are no reserve forces left to respond or, if those that are left are underfinanced and, therefore, undertrained and underequipped. The proposed Opposition amendment which provides for a State to request assistance for the defence forces in dealing with a proclaimed national disaster is necessary to clarify the situation regarding those Defence Force units which include personnel from both Regular and Reserve forces. Without this amendment, the position of integrated units is unclear. This may lead to unnecessary confusion in times of civil emergency. In circumstances of proclaimed natural disaster, it would appear reasonable not to differentiate between the duties, responsibilities and availability of Regular and Reserve personnel serving in integrated units. If such units are able to render appropriate assistance in an emergency natural disaster-because of their specialised training, skills or equipment, for example-there should be no impediment in the call-out legislation which may prevent them from so doing. Although there are some misgivings about the ability and sincerity of the Government to ensure these new legislative provisions are adequately, appropriately and speedily implemented, the coalition welcomes the measures relating to call-out provisions of the Army Reserve forces. A similar reform was included in our coalition defence policy in 1984, and continues to receive our support. We will, therefore, not be opposing its introduction. However, we will monitor closely the manner in which the Government provides the additional roles and responsibilities of the Reserve forces so that the objectives of the legislation are effectively and efficiently achieved and do become realities rather than remain, through a lack of government commitment or funding, just another `would be if it could be' good idea. Earlier in this debate the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) mentioned the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association and the extraordinary attempts that some of its members make to keep both sides of this House informed on defence issues. We welcome the amendments to the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 included in this Bill, in particular the amendments to the definition of `widow' as shown at clause 37 (1) of the Bill. However, the opportunity should not be lost to correct an even longer standing wrong suffered by widows of those regular servicemen who married after separation from the Defence Force and before the DFRDB Act of 1973 was enacted. Corrective action would simply involve the repeal of section 65 (4) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and its replacement by the definition of `widow' as included in section 3 of the DFRDB Act 1973, as amended by the Bill, thus eliminating a long-standing anomaly. Section 65 (4) of the DFRB Act 1948-72 provides: When a male pensioner marries after his retirement, pension shall not, upon the death of the pensioner, be payable to the widow or in respect of any child of the marriage. It is likely that the above provision was included in the DFRB Act 1948 because the same provision is included in the Commonwealth Superannuation Act 1922. However, it was not realised that totally different conditions of service applied to contributors under these schemes. With the exception of invalidity, a public servant could not qualify for a pension before age 60, whereas in the Defence Force `other ranks' could qualify for a pension at the earlier age of 40 and service officers at the age of 45. At these ages many members of the Defence Force would have been contemplating marriage. Statistically, a reasonable proportion of Australians marry between the ages of 40 and 50. Indeed some service members purposely put off marriage until they retire because of the strains service life places on marriage and children's education. Apart from these moral and social considerations, members of the Defence Force contributed under the DFRB Act to the fund at one rate, be they single or married, throughout their service life. Thus when contributors retired and became pensioners, irrespective of their marital state, they were entitled to whatever benefits the Act provided at the same pension purchase price. Thus, if a married serviceman died after he retired and became a pensioner, his widow would receive a pension during her life. However, the widow of a DFRB pensioner who had married after the pensioner retired from the service would receive no pension, even though her husband would have contributed the same amount as a member who married while in the service. The Government is well aware of this iniquitous situation. In 1985 the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr John Brown) advised that section 65 (4) of the DFRB Act 1948 was under review within the Department of Defence. However, completion of the review was delayed by the requirement to address the impact of the Sex Discrimination Act on the DFRB and superannuation schemes. The Government has indicated its sympathy to those widows of DFRB pensioners who are not eligible to receive the widow's pension because of section 65 (4). Meanwhile, many widows of DFRB pensioners are denied pensions their late husbands paid for. The Opposition asks the Government to pursue the policy review as a priority, and we trust that any decision reached will be favourable to those deserving widows. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.06) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill amends a number of Acts dealing with defence matters. I refer firstly to the provisions relating to the calling out of the forces. Section 50a of the Defence Act 1903 provides that any element of the reserves can be called out for the continuous service by proclamation `in time of war or in time of defence emergency'. This provision was introduced in 1964 by the Menzies Government, which had regard to the then strategic circumstances, that is, the possible need to commit troops to a limited war in South East Asia. This Bill proposes to amend the Defence Act 1903 and related legislation to enable the call-out of the Army Reserve forces in situations short of a declaration of defence emergency and to enable those forces to be available to meet low level contingencies. Dr T. B. Millar, in a paper `The Defence Force Reserve' given at a conference in 1983 on `The Civil Infrastructure of the Defence of Australia: Assets and Vulnerabilities', had this to say: The Army Reserve today must be seen as part of the Army in being, with the same basic roles and functions as a regular army although usually only committed after the regular force has been used. . . In any concept of the defence of the Australian continent, which is our necessary current primary defence concern, it is quite essential that the Army Reserve be an integral and continuing component of that defence first. The Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces, chaired by the same Dr Millar, recommended in a report presented to Parliament in 1974: . . . the role of the Army Reserve be strengthened and given more immediate relevance by making the Reserve directly responsible with the regular Army for the ground defence of the Australian continent. The Hawke Government has acknowledged the force of this recommendation. The creation and development of Army Reserve regional surveillance units in remote areas is well advanced. Indeed, the 1987 defence White Paper of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) contains a number of proposals for greater involvement of reserves and a range of tasks including northern defence, mine countermeasures, tank warfare and artillery. Paragraph 4.106 of the defence White Paper states: Our requirements for land warfare cannot be achieved without extensive Reserve participation. Accordingly, the Army Reserve structure is being reviewed and changes will be implemented progressively . . . It will now. . . be required to contribute to operations which might arise in the shorter term as part of the total Army at a level commensurate with achievable degrees of training and readiness. This legislation ensures the availability of the reserves in credible contingencies. Dr Millar has stressed three reasons for the need for legislation for calling out the reserves, or a part of them, in situations other than war or defence emergency. First, he suggested the reserves and their equipment may be urgently required in a natural disaster. Secondly, he mentioned the situation of a low level threat such as a terrorist attack in an area where there may be one policeman but 30 men in an Army Reserve platoon. Thirdly, he suggested that the Government might decide, because of the international situation, to increase the standards of training of the reserves quietly and without signalling the kind of urgent apprehension characterised by a defence emergency. Dr Millar observed that there can surely be few other countries where the Government denies itself the right to call out its reserves for extra training or for civil emergencies. Paul Dibb, also acknowledged at page 158 of his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, that it might not be politically or diplomatically feasible to declare a defence emergency in a low level conflict. He also urged the need for legislation to permit restricted call-out of reservists in circumstances short of a declaration of a defence emergency. Dibb further maintained that it is precisely during a period of tension potentially leading to a low level conflict that some elements of the reserve forces would be most likely required. Although the concept of a single total force or one Army was recommended as long ago as 1974 by the Millar report, progress towards integration of the Regular Army and the Army Reserve has been limited. Indeed, the ready availability and capacity provided by the reserves are most important in the defence planning for the lower level conflict and more substantial situations. Clearly, the reserves are destined for a wider role as part of the total Australian Defence Force and are absolutely essential for the achievement of defence self-reliance for Australia. The Army Reserve's 11 Field Force Group, based at Jezzine barracks, Townsville, has a key role in providing effective surveillance in far north Queensland and has an integral working relationship with the Regular Army's 3rd Brigade based at Lavarack barracks, Townsville. I believe that 11 Field Force Group is, at present, the most viable and combat effective Army Reserve formation in Australia. Its units extend from Bamaga in Cape York to Gladstone-a distance of about 1,700 kilometres or approximately the same distance from Sydney to Townsville. I hope that 11 Field Force Group is soon established as a brigade to allow it better to perform the functions of a regional security force in north Queensland and, as required, in remote areas of Australia. The structure for a new 11th brigade should include a brigade headquarters; a brigade signals squadron; two infantry battalions, that is Townsville's 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment and Rockhampton's 42nd Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment; a regional force and surveillance battalion, that is, the Cairns based 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment; an engineer squadron; a transport squadron; a field ambulance; a field workshop; a supply company; and a combat supply company. At present, 11 Field Force Group, under the command of the outstanding Colonel George Mandford, AM, is rapidly developing plans and concepts to operate in north Queensland as a regional security force. This involves key point security, patrolling within the north Queensland region and quick deployment exercises from, for example, Rockhampton to Weipa for weekend activities in conjunction with patrols by the 51st Battalion, far North Queensland Regiment. These exercises and studies currently in progress have given all members of 11 Field Force Group a sense of purpose in belonging to an Army Reserve formation which is committed to national security. This sense of purpose is reflected in the 100 per cent turnout of troops for each activity and, most importantly, retention rates of trained personnel average around 85 per cent. The 1987 defence White paper has enunciated a firm and clear direction for the reserve forces. They will now have a very real responsibility for the defence of northern Australia. They will also have a major part in maintaining expansion capabilities in tank warfare with a regular Army tank squadron being converted to Army Reserve; increased artillery capability with the acquisition of 46 new 105-millimetre guns for the Army Reserve; and a significant role in mine countermeasures for the Navy Reserve. In addition, commercial pilots will be encouraged to augment the Air Transport Force and, above all, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, there will be `a continued emphasis on integration and affiliation of reserve and regular units to enable the development of skills and knowledge . . . and an abiding sense of purpose'. I stress that this legislation limits the use of reserves to tasks of direct national defence against an external threat to Australia. The legislation does not permit the call-out of reserves in aid to the civil power. For example, the reserves could not be used in relation to industrial disputes. Furthermore, the existing provisions contained in the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 relating to protection in civil employment, also apply to service under the provisions of this Bill regarding the calling out of the Reserve forces. I now refer to other provisions in the Bill. New section 123 of the Defence Act provides that members of the Defence Force are not bound by laws of the States or Territories that would require members to have permission to use, have in their possession, or register vehicles, vessels, animals, firearms or any other things belonging to the Commonwealth or to do anything in the performance of their duties as members. The new section will replace existing regulations under the Defence Act. The reason for incorporating these provisions in the Act is to avoid the possibility that the existing regulations might override Territory laws made at a later date. I now refer to clause 34 of the Bill. In column 2 of Table A or B in schedule 3 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, as amended, the term `elective punishment' refers to the more severe punishment that may be imposed on a convicted person by a superior summary authority or a commanding officer. These authorities may impose an elective punishment on a convicted person only in the circumstances described by section 131 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Normally this would occur where the authority has given the accused an opportunity to elect to be tried by court martial or Defence Force magistrate, but the accused has chosen not to exercise this right of election. The 1973 working party on the Defence Force Disciplinary Code recommended that an accused be allowed to elect trial in circumstances where the accused had entered a plea of guilty or where a summary authority considered that a higher level of punishment would be imposed on conviction. The Defence Force Disciplinary Act 1982 only allows the accused to elect trial where he has entered a plea of not guilty. But, under the present Act, an accused who has entered a plea of guilty and who has been convicted, cannot then be tried by another tribunal. The amendments contained in clause 34 of this Bill ensure that where an accused has entered a plea of guilty and been convicted, and where a summary authority intends to impose an elective punishment-being a higher level of punishment-the accused may elect to be punished by a higher tribunal. Other amendments include new section 36 which will allow a person to volunteer for service as a soldier for a fixed period or until attaining retirement age. The present enlistment practice provides for engagement for service for a fixed term and, on or before the expiration of an engagement, to re-engage for a further prescribed period. The present practice of enlistment contains a number of disadvantages, principally the inability of the Services to offer a guarantee of permanency to the more highly skilled members of the Defence Force. This amendment gives a much needed flexibility to Service administrators in their application of enlistment practices. The Bill also makes fresh provisions for a member of the Defence Force to elect discharge by giving the appropriate notice. The Minister's second reading speech on this Bill has already very adequately dealt with other important aspects of this Bill. To sum up, this Bill is further written evidence of the resolve and commitment of the Hawke Government-an authentic Australian government-to the all round improvement of Australia's defence forces. I contrast that with some of the remarks that have already been made in the debate on this Bill. As a member speaking in this House on defence issues, one of my disappointments is that the political rhetoric of some honourable members takes away the honesty of debate. I take this opportunity to highlight just some of the achievements of the Minister for Defence in two areas which are of vital concern to the Australian Defence Force. The first is pay and conditions of service for Service personnel. Every Service person in 1982 will vividly remember the callous and brutal disregard by the Fraser Government for Service personnel during the wage pause program when it denied them an increase in pay, despite a recommendation for an increase from the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. There were soldiers and airmen in my electorate whose families were denied a pay increase because of the Fraser Government's disregard for them during the wage pause program. It was the honourable member for Swan, the Minister for Defence, who introduced the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal to ensure that there was an independent tribunal to fix pay and service conditions for serving defence personnel. The Tribunal's decisions are binding on government. It was a landmark in Defence Force legislation in this country. Within a short space of time a reference was made to the Tribunal and it awarded a 5.9 per cent increase in pay to all defence personnel. Yesterday, the Tribunal passed on the national wage case increase to Defence Force personnel to take effect from 19 March 1987. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal has been sitting this week to determine certain conditions of service that may apply to Defence Force personnel. These are the real benefits brought in by one of the best Ministers for Defence that this country has ever had. On behalf of the service personnel in my electorate, I can assure the House that they are forever grateful for the initiatives taken to establish the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. So long as that legislation remains operative, Service personnel can have confidence that their pay and conditions of service will be determined by an independent tribunal whose decisions are binding on government. If one were to seek one great achievement of Minister Beazley, how could one ignore the commitment of $750m to upgrade Defence Force Housing throughout Australia? During the last parliament I was a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works. We visited Darwin to inquire into the upgrading of housing at the Royal Australian Air Force Base there. In all the years that I have been associated with the defence forces, I have never seen such poor conditions of housing for the RAAF personnel as I saw located at Darwin. Whatever the reasons may have been for neglect, it is unforgivable, because the defence personnel have always trusted the Government, as their employer, to do the right thing by them, to provide proper housing conditions. I am proud to say that Defence Force housing in the Townsville area is the best in Australia. I pay tribute today to the efforts of Colonel Peter Desmond, Commander, District Support Group, Lavarack Barracks, whose responsibility is the maintenance and continual upgrading of Defence Force housing for Army personnel. He has done an outstanding job. I take pride in welcoming any visitor to my electorate to inspect the conditions of Defence Force housing in the Townsville area. I congratulate the Minister for Defence on his indefatigable efforts to rebuild the Australian Defence Force. He has been outstandingly successful in ensuring that Australia has, and will continue to have, a strong Defence Force. The people of Australia thank him; they are obliged to him. Australians will forever be in his debt. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.25) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill before us today deals with a number of matters ranging from the call-out of reserves to the winding up of the Services Canteen Trust Fund. It deals, for example, with enlistment, discipline and retirement matters. I wish to comment on two items in particular: The sections dealing with the call-out of reserves and the sections dealing with the Defence Force retirement and death benefits legislation. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) made use of his second reading speech on this Bill to correct a basic deficiency in the recently tabled defence White Paper. That deficiency was its failure to deal seriously with the question of our reserve forces, military surge capacity, and mobilisation. There are only five or six references to reserve forces in the White Paper. Two of those-paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9-simply reiterate the brief comments in paragraphs 4.106 and 4.107. This Bill and the Minister's second reading speech are an initial but inadequate step to make up for the White Paper's deficiency. Let me comment on what the Bill does and its achievements before I comment on its shortcomings. For several years now the need for legal provision for the calling out of our reserves in situations other than a defence emergency or war have been recognised. The Minister is therefore to be commended for having obtained Cabinet action on the matter. A few years ago Professor T. B. Millar-who had chaired the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces, and who is one of Australia's most respected defence and foreign affairs analysts-identified three reasons why such a call-out provision was required. The honour- able member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) mentioned Professor T. B. Millar, but he did not mention the fact that he was very concerned about a particular call-out area which I will mention shortly. One reason Professor Millar gave was that there could arise a low level situation such as a terrorist attack, where reservists are at hand rather than regular forces. Another, and more important reason, he suggested, was that the Government might feel that the temper of an international situation was getting more troubled and that the country needed to augment the standards of training of the reserves quietly and without signalling the kind of urgent apprehension characterised by a defence emer- gency. This Bill is designed to allow a call-out in either of these two situations. Unfortunately, however, the Bill stops short of acknowledging legislatively the other reason Professor Millar and, I think, most Australians, recognise as legitimate for a call-out-natural disaster. As the member for the Federal seat of Macquarie, in the beautiful Blue Mountains, which regularly suffers bushfires and floods, I can assure the House that my constituents are well aware of the value such a call-out could be in extreme natural emergencies. We have had great help from the armed forces in the past. As the Minister notes in his speech, the Bill will only allow a call-out in the context of direct national defence in responding to an external threat to Australia's security. As the Bill includes safeguards against abuse of call-out powers by the Government in civil disputes, I find it unnecessary for the Government to exclude call-out of reserves for natural disasters. I ask the Minister to consider a further amendment in this regard. As I have said, the Minister used his second reading speech on this Bill to discuss generally the Government's view on the future of our reserve forces. Firstly, the Minister suggests: It has been under the Hawke Government that there has been a fundamental change in our conception of the role of the Reserve, reflected in such measures in recent years as integration and affiliation in the Army of Regular and Reserve Units, creation of Regional Surveillance Units in remote areas, and proposals for greater involvement of Reserves in a range of tasks including Northern Defence. He refers specifically to the North West Mobile Force-Norforce-and the Pilbara Regiment. I believe, as the honourable member for Herbert said, that the Minister can be justifiably proud of his ministerial performance as Defence Minister. Most recognise him as one of the country's best Defence Ministers, especially given the financial constraints he has faced as a Cabinet member. But I would respectfully remind the Minister that it was a Liberal Defence Minister, Sir James Killen, under a Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who established Norforce and the Pilbara Regiment and laid the foundations for the measures he refers to. Secondly, however, the Minister must know that the generally optimistic picture he presents in his speech of the role and morale of the reserves is unfounded. We have an inadequately trained, exercised and equipped Reserve Force whose morale could not be lower. The blame for that state of affairs rests solely with the Government. For example, Air Force reservists receive training mainly on less complicated aircraft because of inadequate training time allocated and because the active Air Force is not allocated enough flying hours for its own aircrews. The Australian people might be interested to know just how significant that problem might be if we turned to our Air Force-with the responsibility for our first and second layers of defence as outlined by the White Paper-in a crisis. The Air Force has a standing force of 0.08 crews per aircraft. It could drag together perhaps 4.5 crews per aircraft in an emergency but in doing so would leave serious gaps elsewhere in the Air Force. Qantas Airways Ltd by comparison has in recent years maintained around 13 crews per aircraft. That is worth thinking about. Thirdly, the Bill and the Minister's speech beg the question as to whether an opportunity has been ignored to examine and implement the significant changes in Reserve recruitment, training and roles which are needed for military self-reliance based on layered defence and deterrence. In the case of the Army, we have been told by defence analysts that it would take something like 2 1/2 to five years active preparation time to expand the present regular Army and our inadequately trained Reserve to a well trained 150,000-man Army and between four and eight years defence preparation time for it to be expanded to a well trained 250,000-man Army. An Army of at least 150,000 and possibly 250,000 might well be required even to cope with an intensive campaign of small scale raids. Of interest in this regard is that one study of warning times preceding all conflicts since 1939 found that the average warning time from the first indication of impending war to the firing of the first shot has been 14.3 months. For smaller conflicts of the sort more representative of what Australia plans for, the time from the first perception of threat to outbreak of conflict averaged only 10.6 months. Let us compare our mobilisation capacity with the capacities of the Swiss. Switzerland, with a population of only 7 million, has an armed force of 625,000, only 2 per cent of whom are on active duty at any one time. The remaining 98 per cent can be mobilised within 48 hours. Several years ago Dr Ross Babbage published a book on Australia's defence which got to the heart of this issue. The Minister and his advisers would be familiar with the work and with his ongoing research, which is all the more worrying to me, and I am sure to many Australians, given his failure to address the points that were made in that work. It is of central importance to boost the dimensions of the Defence Force that can be mobilised within a short period, such as four to six weeks. Given the rising costs of professional personnel, it is imperative that the proportion of the total defence budget allocated to personnel be expended in such a manner that it can produce a larger and more effective mobilised force-that is, lower costs per mobilised unit. Australia should examine well trained, part time or latent forces. Latent, non-active or part time forces are commonplace in other Western nations, including the United States of America. They can give more force units for the same cost as an all active force structure, or the same number of force units to be maintained at a lower cost. Overseas evidence suggests that both the readiness and exercise results of well trained latent forces matched those of standing regular forces. Fourthly, the Minister knows that the reason the White Paper treats the role and capacities of our reserves superficially, and the reason this Bill stops short of real changes, is that there has been insufficient planning to allow policy development in this area. Paul Dibb served us well by publicising this problem. His report indicated that attention to the means of delivery support for forces in the north was lacking. He revealed that the Department of Defence was unable to quantify sustainability due to deficient databases. He exposed our lack of practical understanding of the expansion of defence capabilities. When the Minister talks of the role of the reserves, he is turning hopes into assumptions. He knows the manpower, mobilisation and logistics sums just do not add up, and so do reservists. This is why they are not overjoyed at the prospects of what the Minister calls `exciting and challenging new roles'. Indeed, the Minister's speech and this Bill can only further disturb reservists, who fear that if they were obliged to fulfil their responsibilities in crises they would be ill-prepared and lack the support that they needed. Too many young men died needlessly in the Second World War because they and their country had not been prepared for the battlefield. I ask the Minister whether he has considered whether he would like to carry the guilt of needless losses in any future conflict arising out of a commitment to the battlefield of ill-prepared and unsupported reservists. Time constraints force me to move on to my other area of comment on this Bill, that is changes to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits legislation. The Opposition has indicated its broad support for the amendments proposed in this Bill affecting both enlistment, retirement and death benefits for service men and women. I want to raise one further amendment to the DFRDB legislation which I suggested to the Minister in private correspondence many months ago and which he has apparently chosen to reject. For 18 months now I have been corresponding with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr John Brown) and the Minister himself, on the question of commutation of retirement pay. In particular I have argued, and they have accepted, that under the DFRDB legislation personnel having more than 20 years service have their entitlement to retirement pay secured only by good health. I am talking in terms of the commutation rights. A serving member unfortunate enough to suffer illness or injury that subsequently results in an entitlement to an invalidity benefit claim A or B under the legislation is deprived of any entitlement to a lump sum payment of any nature. I first raised this issue in December 1985. Six months later the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence wrote and confessed, to my amazement: I am not yet in a position to comment on the discharge policies of the Air Force or to compare them with the policies of the Army or Navy. I put it to the House that such a statement reflects either departmental or ministerial incompetence, or a totally inadequate information system on policy and regulations in the Services. The Minister also wrote: Let me assure you that the Invalidity Benefits policy is under consideration. You will appreciate that the complex nature of this area and the extreme sensitivity of members to any suggestion that the commutation provisions will be varied makes an early resolution of the matters you have raised unlikely. Over the next six months I continued to pursue this issue. I had a private member's Bill drafted to address the relevant sections of the DFRDB legislation. The intention of the amendments was to provide a lump sum payment by way of commutation or other means when a member has completed 20 or more years effective service or has completed not less than 15 years effective service immediately before attaining retiring age for rank, and has lost his opportunity to obtain a lump sum payment by way of commutation of retirement pay as a result of a serious illness or injury resulting in a class A or B invalidity benefit being awarded. A lump sum payment or commutation equal to that to which the member would have been entitled, had he been able to retire in good health, I considered to be fair and reasonable. I sent a copy of that Bill, along with copies of my correspondence with the Parliamentary Draftsman, to the Minister. I asked him to consider the proposed amendments, along with others we have here before us today but which were being finalised at the time. The Minister wrote to me in January and concluded his letter by saying: The DFRDB scheme is a complex package of entitlements and as I have indicated, changes such as those proposed require careful policy consideration. Thank you for your interest in this matter and your suggestion concerning commutation rights of invalidity retirees. The matter is under consideration. However as you will appreciate there are some complex issues involved and an early result is not likely. Of course, that was the response I had received six months earlier. Now, three months further on, the Minister brings in a Bill which has ignored both the issue and my suggestions. I can only stress to the Minister the apprehension which exists on this matter at the Richmond air base in my electorate, where I believe the plane of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just touched down safely. I am sure he will be given excellent care and attention. Airmen are of the view that increasingly rigorous and sophisticated medical checkups are designed to save the Government money by robbing them of commutation. I know, and I understand the Minister knows, of one highly respected warrant officer who refused directions to take a medical examination required by RAAF regulations prior to retirement last December. To the warrant officer's surprise, the regulation and direction were simply not enforced. Because the majority of airmen require their commutation to re-establish themselves into civilian life-to put a roof over their head-any threat to commutation is seen as a major cause for concern and is most certainly a factor affecting morale. Extreme anxiety is rising among RAAF personnel who feel their future plans are threatened should they suffer the misfortune of becoming incapacitated. This is an especially real fear for floor personnel who are constantly being placed in risk situations. As a result, many experienced airmen not wishing to risk illness or incapacity and the subsequent loss of entitlement to commutation are resigning at their first opportunity. The consequence for the RAAF is the loss of highly trained and productive personnel and unnecessary cost and unproductivity whilst engaged in training replacements. More significantly, we now have the real danger of servicemen concealing illness at the risk of safe operations in order that their future retirement commutation be secured. I ask the Minister to go back to the file on this issue and consider including the amendments I proposed on commutation entitlements in this Bill. I ask him also to examine the suggestion I relayed to him a few months ago that the cost to the Government of the changes I proposed would have been the equivalent of half the cost of training an RAAF pilot based on 1984-85 invalidity benefit recipient figures. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(5.44) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill covers several areas of amendment to defence forces legislation. One of those provisions relates to the peacetime call-out of the reserve forces, to which much attention has been paid tonight. The Bill also covers the introduction of long term enlistments for soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel, and the extension of circumstances in which an accused member undergoing trial may have the option of being punished by a court martial or defence force magistrate. The amendments cover other areas as well. I would like to concentrate in this debate on the sections relating to the call-out of reserve forces, principally those in Division 4 of this Bill. I draw the attention of the House to my credentials to speak in this area. I served for nine years during the late 1960s and early 1970s as a member of the Citizen Military Forces, during which time it changed its name to the Australian Army Reserve. In many respects that was a quite valuable experience for me. Going in as an innocent youth, it helped me to mature and learn about myself in a variety of areas and to learn some skills along the way that I have been able to apply in other areas of my life. Of course, it also helped me financially at that time. It taught me much about the military, military minds and the life of the ordinary soldier or Defence Force serviceman or servicewoman and his or her family. I came into contact with a lot of people in that situation, particularly regular servicemen attached to the CMF or Australian Army Reserve units. I also saw very graphically the effects that the experience of going to the Vietnam war had on the individual soldier, his family and the armed services generally. I have maintained a close interest in the conditions of service of the defence forces since that time because of that experience. That was one of the reasons that prompted me to set up, in conjunction with the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) who is in the House, the Defence Forces Action Committee. It was an initiative of the members of the Hawke Government in recognition of the need for attention by back benchers, as well as government, to the conditions of service and situations that many service families find themselves in right around Australia. Mr Tim Fischer —Are you sure it is not just window-dressing? Mr STAPLES —It is not window-dressing, as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs called out. I expect that from him, as that has been echoed by several journalists. If he cared to talk to some of the people we have talked to in the Armed Forces Federation of Australia and many other organisations, he would find that they had that view at the beginning also, but in discussions with the Defence Forces Action Committee of Labor back benchers over the past weeks and months, that attitude has begun to turn around. I refer the Shadow Minister to some of the articles that have been written. We are determined to look after the people in our elec- torates. That is what it boils down to. I consider the insinuation of window-dressing to be quite false and rude, but I will let time tell the story. The record will speak for itself. I feel very strongly about this issue and about the situation of people in the armed forces, because so often soldiers, sailors and airmen around the world have been used as political playthings by international politicians. It is not the rich and powerful who suffer; it is the ordinary digger and his or her family who suffer, particularly in war. Days such as Anzac Day are important, not because they relive some great heroic battle, but because ordinary Australians were blown to bits or had their minds ruined, their families and futures ruined by political decisions. Ordinary Australians died and suffered because of that. The Australian Labor Party, in particular the left wing, holds that view very strongly and is very concerned about the people who have been involved in war and the effects on them. This is not a flag-waving, breast-beating or sabre-rattling exercise in the way we hear so much about defence and patriotism from the other side, but the Labor Party is concerned for the individuals involved. This Government's record on defence and determination to build Australia's defence capability should be recognised by those opposite. In many respects the contributions that have been made by those opposite recognise the role of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), but they should recognise also that we are building a defence capability for Australia which we have not had before-not only through the wise purchase of hardware but also through looking at and seriously doing something about the conditions of Defence Force personnel and their families, about training and, importantly, about industrial development, which is often forgotten in defence debates. Without an efficient, active and vital steel industry, without an efficient, growing shipbuilding industry, without a heavy engineering industry and without a car industry, we cannot have a defence industry, we cannot have a Defence Force and we cannot have Australia's self-reliance and defence capability. This Government has not only created jobs to help to build the economy; it has also built in a defence capability that extends right down to the civilian sector which, if it had to be called upon, would be able to produce the goods. This is in contrast with the industries that were left after the years of the Fraser Government and the governments that preceded it. While the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) is sitting in the House, another thing that comes to mind is that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, is very widely respected by the veteran community. He has achieved that respect against some considerable odds and disadvantages at times. He has shown tremendous commitment to the veteran community both in terms of fighting in Cabinet for them in times of severe economic restraint and certainly in dealing with the Vietnam veterans and the problems that they have had, whether they were volunteers or conscripts. When I first joined the Army Reserve, or Citizen Military Forces, during the McMahon years, we suffered from very poor equipment, poor training and poor morale. That is the way in which the Army Reserve has often been treated. We had old boots, outdated and obsolete equipment and our training was severely restricted. People would do well to remember back to 1939 when the Liberal and National parties' predecessors, the United Australia Party and the Country Party, were in government. How did they treat the militia? At a time when we were going into war with Japan and Germany-a war that we should have seen coming from miles away and on which action should have been taken earlier-people were training with broomsticks. We hear lots of huffing and puffing from members on the other side when it comes to defence. They talk about the Australian Labor Party letting Australia down. But the conservative parties let Australia down then, in a time of peril. They placed Australia in peril. People should recognise that. I was in Hiroshima last year and that prompted me to look at the situation of service personnel, of soldiers who were prisoners of war in Japan at that time, including prisoners of war who survived the bomb blast at Nagasaki. They survived the bomb but one of the things that really concerned them and hurt them the most was that, while they were working there as prisoners of the Japanese, under appalling conditions-conditions which the Japanese themselves suffered at the end of the war-they were unloading ships, working in steel factories as slave labour-- Mr Tim Fischer —And coal mines. Mr STAPLES —They were also working in coal mines. What hurt them was that they were handling scrap iron from Australia with `New South Wales Railways' stamped all over the rails. That is what hurt them-that the Australian government of the day, the UAP Government, the Menzies Government, the conservative government, had sent pig iron and scrap steel to our enemies. That is something that people should remember when they look at the record of the conservative forces in this country in their treatment of defence. This legislation gives the reserves-the Australian Army Reserve, the Royal Australian Navy Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve-for the first time a deliberate active role in Australia's defence and security. I believe the members of the reserve forces around Australia will welcome this new role, this new status and this recognition. Reserve messes around Australia will be excited by the new role that they have in Australia's defence and self-reliance. The Minister for Defence, in his second reading speech, said: . . . the future shape of the Army Reserve will . . . give its members an abiding sense of purpose. They will play a defensive role in key areas, particularly in the north, which will release regular units for other offensive operations. They will have roles in the southern States, protecting specific towns and strategic installations. The Navy Reserve will have a particular role in mine countermeasures and in keeping our important shipping lanes and ports free. This Government believes that the Reserves have a very distinct and specific role to play. It is part of our formulation of a realistic defence policy for Australia. We are looking at the Reserves to provide an integration and affiliation in the army of regular and reserve units. Within this new regime of Defence Force recognition for the Reserves, we will be creating regional surveillance units in remote areas. There are proposals for greater involvement of the reserves in a range of tasks including, as I have said, northern defence, mine countermeasures and tank warfare and artillery. We need efficient use of the community's resources and the Government's resources. We need to encourage those in the community who wish to make such a contribution. This legislation goes a long way towards doing it. We need the co-ordination of the military and civilian resources in activities particularly in areas such as transport, communications and, as I have said before, industry. This new role and status for and recognition of the reserve forces is part of a total force concept. It is timely, responsible and realistic. This Government has recognised that no longer will the reserve forces and the Army Reserve be able to be given the derogatory names such as chocolate soldiers, chocos, weekend warriors and cut-lunch commandos. That has gone. The reserves now have a specific role that they can be proud of and work towards. That should be recognised not only by this House but also by the whole community. They deserve our support because they do a very good job. Within the legislation are safeguards to protect the length of continuous service and also a definition of defence emergency. What is needed in this country in terms of expenditure on defence is a balance between efficiency and need. That is what this Government has done. Whether it be in the defence force action committee, with involvement of people such as the honourable member for Hughes, who I understand has invited the Minister for Defence to give a briefing on the defence White Paper in his electorate tomorrow, or whether it be in our record in the provision of hardware, or in strategic areas such as the White Paper has provided, it has been proved again that the Labor Government will provide the security that Australia needs, with well researched and developed plans to cope with the changes that occur regularly in our local geopolitical factors. We believe that building an effective defence industry will contribute to the development of other industries, and those other industries will contribute to the development of our defence. Never before outside the threat of war have we seen such preparedness, such readiness and the integration of these industries with our overall defence needs and those of the community. This Labor Party is building Australia's new economy and protecting our future. This legislation goes a long way towards developing that process. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.58) —The Opposition supports the basis of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill before the House this evening. But, of course, we do so with some reservations. I understand that the Leader of the National Party of Australia, our shadow Minister for Defence (Mr Sinclair), has foreshadowed some amendments that he will move at the Committee stage later this evening. It is pleasing to see legislation come forward from time to time that the Opposition can support. It is also interesting to listen to members of the Government speak in great praise of their Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I have been listening to the debate this afternoon. Many members on the Government side have praised the Minister for Defence as being the best Minister for Defence that this country has ever seen. I remind honourable members on the other side of the House that many Ministers for Defence in their time have been praised as the best Minister for Defence that the country has ever seen. While this Minister has been very busily going around patting himself on the back for some of the things that he believes he has achieved, it is worth remembering that all of the things that the Minister has been saying in this House over the last few months will end up only as so much hot air unless he can carry those things out and do the things that he says he will do. All of that depends very much on his ability to pay for such things as those contained in the defence White Paper that was before the House only a few weeks ago. If he cannot pay for those things, I am afraid that the present Defence Minister will fall into the ranks of nobodies in the defence area because he will have created so much more hot air without achieving anything. It is worth while for members on the Government side of the House to recall that all this Minister has actually achieved is just hot air, and until he can deliver the goods he is prematurely patting himself on the back. We have a number of things to be concerned about in the area of defence, and I am pleased we have the opportunity to debate them tonight. I am concerned about Australia's defence capabilities. I think it was about three years ago that the Chief of the Defence Force, General Sir Phillip Bennett, said in the Cross report that was tabled in the Parliament that Australia's defence forces could not cope with even a low level threat to our shores. The situation today has not changed. For that reason I believe that Government members patting themselves on the back about their defence initiatives is very premature. We are still incapable of properly dealing with a low level threat to our shores. There are a number of things we have not done. Our forces are very thinly spread. They are ill prepared. We have not overcome our lack of intelligence and early warning surveillance capability. If there was any military activity on Australia's shores it would virtually tie up the entire capacity of the Royal Australian Air Force just to keep up the supply of stores and ammunition to our Army and Navy. That highlights the fact that if the Air Force were engaged in any activity at present, within four weeks it would most likely run out of ammunition. We just do not have sufficient stores available to keep up what anyone would expect to be a reasonable effort if there was ever a threat to our shores. Also, the ability of the Royal Australian Navy to survive, let alone operate effectively, in anything other than a very low level threat scenario without proper air cover is very much in doubt. Since the axing of the fixed wing component of the Fleet Air Arm the Navy has been very disturbed about its ability to defend itself properly at sea. I am afraid that without an aircraft carrier the Navy is very naked to air attack and does not have sufficient ability to carry out anti-submarine warfare techniques. We have not addressed that problem properly. They are the sorts of things the Government has to look at. I am pleased to see that in the legislation before us tonight the importance of our reserve forces is properly recognised. I am very pleased that in the electorate of Gilmore there are a number of reserve units. In Cowra, Young and Nowra there are some very active reserve units. I was at the reserve unit in Cowra not so long ago with Robert Drew, who is in charge of it. I had an evening in the new mess which had been opened just that night and was able to present the unit, very proudly, with an Australian flag. I am pleased that these people are prepared to participate in our defence forces but I am disappointed-indeed, I think Australians should be alarmed-at the rundown in the personnel levels in our defence forces. We are losing record numbers of personnel from our forces. That should cause every one of us concern, not only from a financial point of view but also from a skill point of view. We are spending a lot of money on training, people are leaving our defence forces prematurely and that means that the investment that Australian taxpayers have made in the training of those individuals is not being taken to its full potential. We are getting people to a certain level of skill and they are then wandering off and using those skills outside our defence forces. We should be addressing that. To date, the Minister has not been able to come up with any satisfactory solution that will see the rundown on our defence forces' personnel levels stopped. Of course, our reserve units have had a severe rundown in their levels over the last few years. Admittedly, that rundown in the reserve forces has stopped and is now being made up, which is good to see. Mr Tim Fischer —They had to pay tax on their pay. Mr SHARP —The honourable member for Farrer is correct. One of the reasons why our reserve force numbers have run down is that this Government made a decision to tax the income that people in our reserve forces receive for their reserve activities, which was previously non-taxable. That is probably one of the principal reasons why the numbers in the reserve forces have dropped-a decision of this Government. Admittedly, the Government has recently reversed that decision. I am pleased to see that, but it also highlights the fact that the Government recognises that what it did previously was wrong. As a consequence, we are now having to turn-- Mr Fitzgibbon —What about this legislation? Mr Tim Fischer —He voted for it originally. Mr SHARP —I know; the honourable member for Hunter voted for that sort of legislation. He ought to be ashamed of himself because it was a disgraceful piece of legislation. Taxpayers are now having to fork out several million dollars in promotion to try to get people back into our reserve forces and our regular forces. The defence White Paper that was introduced into the House recently dealt with elements of our reserve forces. There were some good aspects to it but I have some doubts about it. Firstly, I do not think the White Paper has given a sufficient allocation of training days to our reserve forces. Secondly, I do not think there is sufficient funding available to provide our reserve units with the proper resources they need to occupy adequately the people within them. While speaking of reserve forces, I think it is also appropriate to say that I am disappointed at the attitude of this Government in relation to school cadet units. I am fortunate in my electorate of Gilmore to have three very good cadet units-one in Young, one in Cowra, and another in Goulburn at St Patrick's College. They have all been struggling against the best efforts of this Government to close them down. They are operating as a result of strong support from the local community, Returned Services League branches, parents and individual schools in those districts. I am very pleased that those units are still operating, but I am very disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to assist by, properly, funding our cadet units. I believe these units provide a very worthwhile activity for school children in Australia. When I look at all the other youth activities that the Government is prepared to fund, I see that cadet units have a very great part to play in our overall youth activities. The Government really ought to be looking at increasing funding for the school cadets. Call-out of the reserves is now to be permitted only in war time or in a proclaimed defence emergency. The amendment that the Leader of the National Party will be moving later tonight highlights the fact that there needs to be a provision within these amendments that allows for our defence reserve forces to be called out in a natural disaster. He will use the example of what happened in Cyclone Tracy. When we have a natural disaster such as that it is absolutely and utterly imperative to get all hands on deck. Anybody who can help, who has any skills, resources or training, should be able to be put to use immediately. Unfortunately, reading the legislation as it stands at the moment, it would appear that there is no facility for our reserve forces to be called out at the time of a natural disaster such as Cyclone Tracy. Our regular defence force are not able to get to certain parts of Australia immediately. Sometimes we have reserve units available on the spot that could act and possibly save lives and the loss of property. They have all sorts of resources such as communication equipment which could be used on the spot to help out. I hope that the Government will pick up this amendment and act upon it, because I think it is necessary. A question I must ask the House is: What will happen if the Parliament rejects a proclamation? I believe that to ratify the call-out of our reserve forces we will require a proclamation from the Parliament. Will that be done retrospectively? What will happen if it is done retrospectively and the Parliament rejects it? There are issues which require clearing up. This is not clearly spelt out in the legislation. I hope the Government will address that aspect. There are a number of reforms in this legislation. I would like to see a whole list of other reforms included in further legislation brought down by this Parliament as soon as possible. One of the reforms that I think is absolutely vital is in the area of defence force housing. I have a very large contingent of Defence Force personnel in my electorate of Gilmore based at HMAS Albatross. I am very concerned about Defence Force housing. I believe that some radical reforms are necessary. I would like to see the Government bring those reforms into the Parliament very shortly. Mr Tim Fischer —An authority is not an automatic solution. Mr SHARP —The honourable member for Farrer once again is correct. The creation of the Defence Housing Authority is nothing more than a window dressing exercise unless it can prove that it can actually achieve some goals. I am prepared to give it some time to prove its worth. However, I hope that people will not be fooled by the Government creating this Authority because until it does something it is nothing more than window dressing. I am pleased that measures concerning long term enlistment have been brought into the House. I think they will do some good for the defence forces. They will substantially boost the quality of life of people in the defence forces and particularly of their families. They will give the flexibility which is very much needed in our defence forces and help to retain some of the skilled personnel in the forces. The measures will also offer some security of employment for people in our defence forces, a matter which is very much of concern to them. Having witnessed the rundown of personnel at HMAS Albatross over the last couple of years-about 1,000 personnel have been chopped out of that establishment-I can understand the tremendous concern experienced by people in our forces when they do not have security of employment. The Defence Force retirement and death benefits provision in the legislation has raised a storm in my electorate and right across Australia over the last few months. The Returned Services League, the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association and individuals throughout my electorate have been lobbying me-and I know that other members of parliament had been lobbied very heavily-because of what they see as the horrifying act by the Government of taking 2 per cent off the pension benefits of retired defence personnel. These people believe that they justly deserve the full benefit and that the Government should not be able to reduce it. They believe that the contract of their employment has been broken, that there has been a breach of faith and that the 2 per cent ought to be returned to them as quickly as possible. I hope that the Government will address this matter when economic circumstances improve and that the 2 per cent reduction will be made up to our retired defence personnel. They believe that not only have they been cheated but also the money they contributed to the fund has not been properly distributed to them. This is also affecting morale, not only amongst retired defence personnel, but also amongst present active defence personnel. The measure will throw into doubt our ability in the future to get people who are prepared to serve our country and our defence forces. Other aspects of this legislation are praiseworthy. For example, I am pleased to see that the Government is prepared to privatise a number of the defence facilities it currently owns. It is interesting that the Government is acting in this area because so often it criticises members of the Liberal and National parties for suggesting that any government-owned operation should be sold off. We witness the hypocritical situation of the Government now selling off a number of government-owned corporations and bodies. Yet it still tells us that this is something nasty we will do when we gained office. I have no complaints with the Government's decision to sell off certain Defence Force factories and other support facilities. I believe that it is a good idea and highlights the common sense of privatising all sorts of government owned bodies. It is a recognition of the fact that private enterprise can so often do much better than government facilities and factories. I am pleased to offer support for this legislation tonight. I certainly will support the amendments which will be moved later in the Committee stage. Once again I remind Government members that they should stop patting themselves on the back and saying what a wonderful defence situation they have created for Australia. I do not think they have done so. I do not think their Defence Minister is the best Defence Minister Australia has ever had. The Government ought to be getting on with the job of improving our economy so that the things the Defence Minister has been talking about over the last few months have at least some hope of being put into action. If the Government does not get on with ensuring that the economy is in good shape, then all the White Paper and amendments will just be so much hot air. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(6.15) —I came into the House tonight to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. Instead, I found myself listening to a debate which ranged right across the spectrum of Defence Force matters. We have moved from Defence Force housing-the subject of legislation to come before the House shortly-to privatisation. Both of these matters are totally irrelevant to the debate. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who is now departing the chamber, said that following the White Paper the Government delivered recently the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and Government members should not be patting themselves on the back. I assure the honourable member for Gilmore that it is not necessary for the Minister or Government members to pat themselves on the back because the Press has done that for us. The White Paper tabled recently by the Minister for Defence is one of the most significant statements of strategic realities every produced in this country, said one newspaper. As a guide towards the achievement of Australia's independent national defence objectives the document is perhaps the clearest indication yet that Australia would defend itself against any military challenge. That it was received with general approval by interests such as the Australian Defence Association, the Returned Services League and other trenchant critics of defence policies indicates that it was cast in the right mould. Even the Federal Opposition-some members of which are more sincere and genuine than others-though faced with a parliamentary duty of probing for weaknesses, has paid the Minister for Defence full compliments, and so should every Australian. The Defence Minister presented a study which could have grave implications for the future well-being of Australian children and their children. It is a good, sensible White Paper. It pays proper regard to financial constraints. The nation can have confidence not only in the paper but also in the Minister and this Government. Tonight we have heard much criticism from the Opposition of Defence Force conditions. I guess that those criticisms are fair enough. However, the Opposition should be aware of one fact. We know of the conditions. We know of the deficiencies. That is why this Government commissioned the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses, why it has formed a spouses consultative group and the Government Defence Force action group. We have had numerous discussions with Lieutenant-Colonel Bob Copley, the President of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. We know all about the problems and the deficiencies. It is important for everyone to recognise that these deficiencies and problems did not suddenly spring up overnight. As everyone here would be prepared to admit, I am sure, they are of long standing. When I visited homes in my electorate occupied by Royal Australian Air Force personnel from Williamtown and when I see some of the shabby conditions which exist on the base at Singleton I am appalled. But these problems have not eventuated overnight-and not just in the last four years. It is obvious that there have been years of neglect and the problem goes back a long time. Blame can be laid at the feet of Opposition members. When they had the opportunity in government to do something about it they showed a total neglect. They had no concern at all for defence personnel. The honour- able member for Gilmore comes in here and says: `Reforms are needed'. But let me ask the honourable member for Gilmore, although he has left the chamber, whether he is aware that reforms cost money. I am sure that he is. Why were reforms not carried out and why were there not improvements of great magnitude in Defence Force housing when the present Opposition was in government-in the good times? The good times are when it is possible to carry out major reforms and improvements in conditions. In the good times when we were getting $3 billion per annum from our exports of crude oil from Bass Strait, when the world was crying out for our agricultural products, when our coal and iron ore was reaping in great monetary benefits from overseas, nothing was done. Now, when this nation faces the greatest problem it has faced since World War II, when we have lost up to $9,000m worth of income from the export of our commodities, and at a time when there is a need for belt tightening, those rabbits opposite say that we should be doing all the things in the bad times that they did not care a hoot about doing in the good times. How ridiculous that is. I suppose the honourable member for Gilmore would say: `What we should do immediately is spend $1 billion on improving the housing conditions of Defence Force personnel'. Would that not be wonderful? Instead of having a $16 billion credibility gap, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would have a $17 billion credibility gap. What nonsense has been spoken in the House tonight. I do not have very long to speak before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, but I have exposed those matters and the hypocrisy of the honourable members opposite, and I have the knowledge that in future months I will have regular visits to my electorate by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), because he is free from family obligations, and so on. He will be able to trip the light fantastic and come down to my electorate. I would welcome him, as I welcomed the Leader of the Opposition when he visited my electorate recently. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the very significant Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. Honourable members opposite, in their desire I guess to try to bring a great deal of criticism on the Government, have not dealt at length with various aspects of the Bill. I am very pleased that the Opposition supports the Bill. It is like everything else. Members of the Opposition criticise everything that we do but, when it comes to the crunch, they eventually come around and support our legislation because, when it comes to offering sensible, logical, alternative legislation, they do not have a thing going for them. Mr Hodgman —Have a look at the amendment to section 50f. Have you seen it? It has been circulated. Mr FITZGIBBON —It is always a delight to welcome the honourable member for Denison into the House when I am speaking. As outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence, the Bill contains a variety of amendments, some of which are of a minor nature. But it also contains some very important amendments which fall into six groups-namely, provision for peacetime call-out of the Reserve forces; introduction of long term enlistments for sailors, soldiers and airmen; extension of the circumstances in which an accused member undergoing trial may have the option of being punished by a court martial or a Defence Force magistrate; amendments designed to clarify the operation of the defence force retirement and death benefits legislation; provision to enable transfer of employees from the Government Aircraft Factories to Aerospace Technologies of Australia; and termination of the Services Canteens Trust Fund. Perhaps the most important amendment contained in the Bill, as other members have pointed out, to their credit, is that relating to the reserve forces. This Government recognises that Australians have a right to expect that their nation is able to defend itself, which is a daunting task given the vastness and harshness of our continent, the length of our coastline, the size of our fishing and resource zones, the distance from the mainland of our off-shore territories, the great expanses of water that surround us and the disproportionately small size of our population. The obligation for Australia to provide for its own defence is spelled out in Article II of the ANZUS Treaty. American expectations in this regard have been stressed by United States administrations since the late 1960s. The Government considers that basic self-reliance is the minimum that any self-respecting country should contribute to an alliance. In keeping with this notion of self-reliance the Government sees a much larger and expanded role for our Reserve forces. With regard to the Army, as stated in the policy information paper on the defence of Australia, the Government has decided-for the first time in peacetime-to strengthen our northern defences by basing major elements of the Australian Army permanently in northern Australia. That is quite a sensible suggestion, provided-as this Government intends-that a significant Army presence is left in the Singleton area of my electorate. But our requirements for land warfare cannot be achieved without extensive Reserve participation. Since World War II the Reserve has provided the expansion base for the Army. It will now, in addition, be required to contribute to operations which might arise in the shorter term as part of the total Army, at a level commensurate with achievable degrees of training and readiness. The Opposition should always listen when we use terms such as `achievable', because this Government is doing everything possible-gaining all possible achievements-in the light of our straitened economic circumstances. A major role for the Reserve is the protection of vital assets in the north or north-west of Australia. The future holds very challenging prospects for the Army Reserve, which will give its members an abiding sense of purpose. I believe that every reservist in this country will welcome the fact that he is making a positive contribution to this country's Services. The identification of exciting and challenging new roles for the Army Reserve will help overcome in a most material way what has been a repeated and well-publicised difficulty in recruitment. Existing legislation provides for Reserve forces to be called out, but only in circumstances of time of war, or proclaimed defence emergency. But this legislation will allow for the Reserve forces to be called upon to render continuous full time service in situations short of a defence emergency. The reserves will also be a major part of our capability to counter the more credible yet demanding lower level threat. As to what constitutes a lower level threat, we need look no further than at the threat to Australian trade by attempted interdiction of shipping on our trade routes and in proximate ocean areas. Australia's overseas trade routes are diverse and, whilst their comprehensive interdiction would be credible only in the unlikely circumstances of protracted global conflict, disruption to Australia's trade could occur in a range of other circumstances and, in particular, in those contingencies assessed as being credible in the shorter term. Important Australian trade passes through choke points in the archipelago to our north and these passages could be denied to us even during lower levels of conflict. The disruption to our shipping routes would have a serious affect on industries such as oil and petroleum, mineral ores, fertilisers and chemicals, coal, iron and steel. Some parts of Australia and some of our remote northern settlements are heavily dependent on supply by coastal shipping. Having said all this, the Army Reserve will have a critical role in the early assumption of the protection of key areas, releasing Regular units to conduct more offensive operations. Such key areas would include protection of the Darwin-Tindal region and the Learmonth, Derby and Cape York airfields. Specific regional wartime tasks will be identified and allocated to particular Reserve units for their peacetime training. This will greatly facilitate their effective use in time of war and, as an important bonus, give them an increased sense of purpose which will foster morale. For the Navy Reserve, as stated in the Minister's second reading speech, the Government has endorsed a significant role in mine countermeasures. For the Air Force Reserve, the Government will encourage commercial pilots to augment the Air Transport Force. Also there will be recruitment into the Air Force Reserve of the necessary maintenance personnel to provide sufficient backup should higher rates of flying be required from the RAAF. It is almost time to suspend the sitting for dinner. Rather than consider many other aspects of the Bill, I believe that it would be more sensible for me to conclude on that note, thus saving me coming back for a minute or two after the dinner break. As I have said, the Bill contains some very important amendments, the most significant of which would allow a much wider and changing role for those 27,000 members of our Reserve forces. I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence for his realistic approach and in creating a more efficient defence strategy with clearly defined priorities. I commend the Bill to the House. I congratulate those members opposite who have genuinely paid tribute to the Minister for bringing the legislation before the House. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.00) —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tim Fischer —There is no member of the Government in the chamber. Mr HODGMAN —No, there is not. That is unfortunate. I am about to address the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill and use what I thought was a very timely phrase-that Australia today is Australia asleep, because in defence terms the Government is undefended. I do not want to spoil the remarks I was going to make; but, if ever there has been a government which has adopted the policy of `she'll be right, Jack', it is the current Hawke socialist Government. If ever a country has been left underdefended, it is Australia today. As we speak in this chamber today-just 23 days before Anzac Day 1987, the seventy-second anniversary of Gallipoli-it is a matter of great shame and regret that, in my humble opinion, this great country of ours is not properly defended. I am in good company because the latest opinion poll I have seen demonstrates that 73 per cent of Australians do not believe that this country is properly defended. As I said in the debate on the defence White Paper, it is only in the last six weeks that the Hawke socialist Government has discovered that Cam Ranh Bay actually exists and that the Soviet presence in the Pacific poses a major threat to our national security. The great Sir Winston Churchill said that, of all the duties thrust on the shoulders of a parliamentarian, none is more pre-eminent than the duty to defend the nation. I have to say, from bitter experience, that far too often today I see the symptoms which were prevalent in the world in the 1930s and the years leading up to World War II. I see people who joke about defence; I see people who say that there will be no threat for 15 years; and I see people who say: `Let's take the easier course, the course of appeasement'. I feel in my heart right now that Australia is going through a period in its history like Pearl Harbour all over again. Mr Cunningham —But you are in uniform. We'll be right. Mr HODGMAN —I am very proud of the fact that I am back in uniform; but I have to say that I am sad, as is my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly)-and I think all Australians are sad, including the honourable member for McMillan-to know that last year the number of defence forces personnel in uniform dropped below 70,000. I am sure that the honourable member is as sad as I am that in January 1,056 persons resigned from the defence forces. This is a curious debate because we have a Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to whom I owe and will give allegiance under the Naval Defence Act of 1910-and a Minister, I might say, who has the respect of a very significant number of the members of this Parliament. I think he is a very good Minister. That does not mean that I agree with him on everything and it certainly does not mean that I agree with the decisions that are forced on to him by Cabinet colleagues who may take a less conscientious view towards defence than they should. This Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is very wide-ranging and, whilst the Opposition does not oppose the passage of the Bill, I want to place on record my support for the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Defence and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) with respect to proposed section 50f, dealing with call-out provisions for the reserves, and join with the views that have been expressed that that provision ought to be widened so that if a situation develops where the Governor-General deems it appropriate, following the proclamation of the Governor of a State or the Administrator of the Northern Territory, the Governor-General may by proclamation call out at any time any part of the Reserve forces for continuous full time service. Many Australians would be surprised to know who the Commander-in-Chief of Australia's Defence Force is. It is not a matter of an Act of Parliament or a regulation; it is a matter of the Constitution. His Excellency the Governor-General of Australia is the Commander-in-Chief of the defence forces of this country. That is a very significant constitutional appointment and demonstrates dramatically the difference between the situation in this country, where the representative of Her Majesty the Queen, the Governor-General, is the Commander-in-Chief and the situation in the United States, where the President is the Commander-in-Chief. As I said, the legislation is very wide-ranging and would permit of a wide-ranging debate. I do not intend to indulge in such a debate; I just want to pick out some of the implications of the main provision of the legislation. Once again I find it sad that we have amendments to the Defence Act of 1903 dealing principally with the term of appointment of officers and the resignation of officers. I think the saddest memory I have as a Minister in the Fraser Government is of attending at Yarralumla and, at an Executive Council meeting, presenting a long list of names to His Excellency the Governor-General who then had to formally approve the resignation of officers from Australia's defence forces. We are losing our best young men and women. We are losing young men and women in whom this country has invested millions and millions of dollars. When this inane, stupid Hawke socialist Government decided to destroy the Fleet Air Arm and disposed of one of the most viable and valuable parts of our Australian defence component, what did we find? Australian Fleet Air Arm pilots were valued in the United Kingdom at over $1m apiece. That is how much they were worth in training and experience. If one wants to meet someone who was in the Fleet Air Arm one should go to the United Kingdom, where one will see them and be told that they were worth $1m apiece. Is there anything we can think of more tragic than disillusioned men and women in their mid-30s getting out of the forces because they do not see a future? The loss, the brain drain, the waste is something which would sadden honourable members of both sides of this Parliament. I have a brother who is a serving officer. We are never allowed to mention that because we must never mix the forces and the Parliament. That is precisely why I was in uniform yesterday-so that there was no suggestion that I was in the corridors of Russell on some parliamentary activity. I was there in my Naval Reserve cadet capacity. That is very important. In that capacity, as I said a moment ago, I owe total allegiance to, and I give it to, the Minister for Defence. In passing, I draw attention to clause 67 of the Bill. We have curtailed the time for debate but I just want to say again that I regret the fact that the word `Royal' seems to be disappearing almost all the time. I cannot completely blame the Hawke socialist Government for this because I have looked at the Naval Defence Act. If one looks at clause 67 of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 one will see the words `service of the Australian Naval Reserve'. It is the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. If one looks further back in the Bill one will see reference to `service of the Naval Emergency Reserve Forces', which again goes back to the Naval Defence Act 1910, amended as recently as 1971 with the establishment of the Naval reserve cadets, and again in 1975. There seem to be little gremlins around trying to take the word `Royal' out of our defence forces. I am not saying that this is an ambush, but if there is anybody in the Hawke socialist Government who thinks that he will try with the defence forces what that Government tried with the oath of allegiance when it tried to take out reference not only to the Queen but also to God-and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) who is responsible is at the table, upon whom vengeance will be wreaked before he is much older-from the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and the 3rd Royal New South Wales Regiment, he should not think for one moment that Australians are very enthusiastic about becoming a republic. The Royal Mail, as the result of the actions of extremist feminists and others who dominate the Hawke socialist Government, will finish up being called the Royal Person. We really have reached a ridiculous situation. What it does to my name and the name of my electorate is unspeakable. They say that Hodgman is sexist, so it becomes Hodgperson. I point out to them that `son' is sexist, so my name becomes Hodgperper. My electorate of Denison becomes Deniper. This demonstrates how the English language is being raped in front of our eyes by these extraordinary people. In conclusion, I do not often do this but I compliment the Minister for Defence. I think he is a very good Minister, but I also have to say that I think he has forgotten that sometimes in one's parliamentary career the stakes become so high that one should consider resigning. Frankly, if I were in the Minister's shoes, I would resign because I believe that he is being short-changed by a government which pays lip service to defence but which is not prepared to back it up with the real and fundamental necessity of funding. If people genuinely believe that Australia is worth defending, we have to realise that we will not get that defence at bargain basement prices on a shoestring budget. We will have to double defence expenditure over the next three years to give the defence forces of this country the chance of defending Australia in the event of the outbreak of war. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.14) —I join this debate with very great satisfaction. As a serving officer in the Army Reserve I am delighted that at last, after many years of effort, we have an amendment to the Defence Act which will enable the Army Reserve to be utilised and called out for service in situations short of a full scale war or defence emergency. Nevertheless, I support the amendment which will be moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) which makes the important point that there are other times, not necessarily defence emergencies, such as national or natural disasters when the reserve forces must also be utilised in support of the civil power. To give a very good example, in the town of Mount Isa we have an army engineering squadron element. The people who are members of that squadron are no doubt miners, but as the Act currently stands, in the event of a mining disaster in a place such as Mount Isa there is no provision to utilise both the physical and the human resources available in that particular unit. The real issue is somewhat more fundamental than that because there is a real weakness in this Government's proposal. The weakness lies in the fact that the Government seems to ignore the current reorganisation of both the Regular Army and the Reserve Army-a reorganisation which has as its very base the need to include in Regular Army units a significant component of our Army Reserve. That means simply that, if we are talking about the Regular Army field force component in a time of war or in a time of national emergency, this provision does not permit the field force to be able to call on that element of the Reserve in its service. In the circumstances where this amendment does permit units of the Reserve to be used, it opens up a very fundamental question which, regrettably, neither the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) nor any other member of the Government bothers to answer in this debate. The question which arises is simply this: How can one effectively call up part of the Army Reserve? That question goes to the very heart of what the Army Reserve is meant to be. It also draws into question the other difficulty that in both the First World War and the Second World War the whole issue of call-up became a major national debate. In both cases, as I recall, the issue was never really satisfactorily settled in favour of a national call-up in the armed forces, certainly at a time when they may have to serve overseas. The order of battle of the Australian Army as it is now developed requires the utilisation of significant elements of the Army Reserve battalions throughout Australia for the fundamental reason that, with the exception of one unit, there is not a single Regular infantry brigade up to strength in Australia today. The implications of that are extremely serious. Nobody should allow the Government to escape from his horrible statistical fact. My colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who spoke before me, said that our armed forces today in numerical terms are probably weaker than they have been for many years. We are told in the White Paper that the Army Reserve strength will be a total of over 30,000 men and women. At present it is well below 26,000-a significant shortfall. But it is not just a case of raw figures; it is much more than that. We have to look at the attrition rate among the junior and middle-ranking officers and among the junior and middle-ranking non-commissioned officers because it is from that cadre that the very quality and base of any Army expansion must be found. The regrettable fact today is that it is not there. What is worse, it is going fast. One of the reasons why the Army Reserve has fallen on such hard days in recent years is the nonsensical and narrow minded approach taken by the Government on the question of taxing the very minimal incomes of men and women who are prepared to give significant periods of their time in the service of the defence of Australia. Fortunately, late last year the Government retracted its earlier decision and reservists are now once again entitled to tax free salaries. But, in many ways the damage has been done. The Government has broken what traditionally has been an umbilical cord between this Parliament and all parties in it and the need to sustain at all times a viable Reserve component upon which the Regular Army could depend at times of national emergency, whether they be short of war or in times of war. I wonder how many members of this House are aware of the condition of the Regular Army and the Reserve at this time. For example, we have Norforce, based in Darwin. It is essentially a reserve unit and a very competent one. The Government is creating a new similar regiment in northern Queensland. It is integrating the Seventh Brigade in Brisbane with the First Division. The First Division is a regular division, the Seventh Brigade is a reserve brigade. The First Division comprises three regular brigades, but only the ODF in Townsville is up to strength and available for operations at seven days' notice. There are two other regular brigades in the Australian Army. Both are significantly under strength, to the extent that A Reserve battalions have now been added to the Sixth Brigade to bring it up to strength. Therefore, in a situation short of defence emergency, the A Reserve battalions would not be able to take a field unless they were able to take with them a significant element of the Army Reserve as well. The Seventh Brigade in Brisbane, which is now part of the First Division, faces the same problem. There is this fundamental folly that goes right through the entire approach, and it is simply this: For the Army to rely on a partial call-out as part of its battle plan is a strategic absurdity. It is one which has not been brought forward in this House until now, and one which the Minister has totally ignored in his second reading speech. If we are going to allow this proposal to erode the mobilisation base of the Army Reserve, we will create another set of problems. As I said earlier, to expand the Army in a defence emergency we must have the ability to build upon the Army Reserve officer corps and the Army Reserve non-commissioned officer corps. Yet if we are to take both those elements out of the equation, if we are to persist with what the Government is currently doing-namely, taking so many of the Regular Army warrant officers and senior NCOs out of Reserve battalions as a means of beefing up the remnants of what it has got of a Regular Army-we are effectively destroying the capacity of the Regular Army to build on the Reserve and we are certainly helping to destroy the capacity of the Army Reserve to be the base upon which that expansion in times of war can be achieved. All this adds up to a very sorry state of affairs. For example, if the Regular Army is to be placed on a basis where it has to be able to operate in relatively short terms, much of the Army Reserve at this stage is not able to achieve that. My division, the Second Division in New South Wales, has always been the body and the soul of the Army Reserve in Australia. It is the base upon which so many units have been drawn from what is Australia's largest State. We have two brigades of three battalions. We have now been told that two of those battalions are to be removed from the order of battle and integrated elsewhere. We do not know how that will take place. Once again, units in not only the Regular Army component of our defence forces but also the reserve component are grossly under strength. There are all sorts of ambitious intentions. For example, it is intended to place a brigade headquarters in Perth. But a brigade headquarters is not a brigade. This is the point that people tend to ignore. We can bring together odds and sods and bits of units from here and there and we can place them under the administrative command structure of a brigade headquarters-but we still do not have a brigade. The same thing applies for Adelaide, where it is proposed to establish another brigade headquarters. But again, that will not be a base in terms of actual units of the quality or the capacity at this stage to form a brigade in the real sense of the term. A new brigade headquarters is also intended for North Queensland. And so it goes on. The Minister for Defence has now joined us. I hope that in his summing up he will say how this proposal which is a very important and significant proposal, will effect the capacity of the Reserve to back up and fill up the number of units of the Regular Army which are so significantly under strength at this stage. In the First District, as I understand it, it is proposed to disband the 12/16 Hunter River Lancers. That was the intention, until somebody discovered that it also happened to be part of the Hunter electorate, which as far as the Government is concerned is somewhat sensitive these days, so presumably that will not proceed. We have the Third Battalion in Canberra. The Second is on the North Coast. The Forty-first Battalion is also in that area. We have the Nineteenth Battalion in the south, in the State-wide area, and we have the Fourth Battalion based in Sydney. Of those five battalions, two are going to go. The Army Reserve has been informed of that. With the departure of those battalions we are told that the rest will somehow or other be able to make up the shortfall which now exists to a very dangerous degree in our very front line Regular Army battalions. As I said-I emphasise this point-we should not take from the Army Reserve its capacity to train NCO's and officers who in times of national threat will be the very basis upon which any expansion of the Regular Army can be achieved in the short term, and equally importantly, if not more so, in the long term, they will form the nucleus upon which any major expansion of the Army utilising personnel who had no previous military experience will be based. We are not dealing with paper. We are not dealing with dreams. We are not just dealing with the plans of some political or military boffin over on Russell Hill. We are dealing with the simple fact that so many reservists believe that they are not respected in Australian society. They believe that they have not received from this Government any of the respect to which they believe they are entitled as men and women who are prepared to put aside a significant part of their private lives for the defence of Australia. These issues are of significance. They are issues upon which the future of this nation will depend. I regret to say to the Minister in my final remarks that the Army Reserve today, by and large, has extremely poor morale, it still remains inadequately equipped and, above all, it cannot afford at this time to face the reality of being expected to flesh out regular battalions unless it is also given the capacity to train and maintain the very reason for its existence. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(8.27) —As the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) said, this has been a wide-ranging debate, but I did not think that it should have been so wide as to allow the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) to raise such matters as shipments of pig iron from Australia just prior to the entry of Japan into the 1939-45 war. It may have been ill-advised at that time, but it certainly was not done so that it would be turned into manufactured items which could be used in the conflict against Australia. I do not think that the honourable member for Jagajaga could say to us, at this time, that the iron ore that is being exported today may not be used, recycled and then used against Australians in an area of conflict. The honourable member stated that he felt that his left wing faction of the Labor Party had a special and unique moral attitude towards conscription and the sending of our young people into areas of conflict. I have to remind him that it was the left wing, communist-dominated elements of the waterside workers who stopped loading ships that were taking supplies to Australians in a theatre of war. Conscription was reintroduced early in World War II in Australia on a full-time basis. Eventually the area for service was extended to Australian territories in the Pacific. The distinction between the conscript and the volunteer remained a source of bitterness and tension throughout that war, despite the fact that conscripts and their units distinguished themselves in combat. The attitude to conscription by these Service people may be questioned, but not their courage once committed to the hostile environment of operational duties in a zone of conflict. It may be opportune to remind the House that on 3 October this year some 30,000 veterans from the Vietnam war are expected to be taking part in a `welcome home' parade-something, unfortunately, that they did not experience when they returned from that theatre. I congratulate the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League on being the sponsor. At the end of World War II a brigade group drawn from the forces in South East Asia went to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. It became the basis for the creation of a standing army, known as the Australian Regular Army, which provided forces for the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the war in Vietnam and the confrontation conflict between Malaysia and its allies and Indonesia. Citizen Military Forces were re-established in 1948 on the traditional part time basis of evening parades, weekend bivouacs and a fortnight's camp of continuous training with a regular Army cadre. Volunteers, militia, citizens forces and citizen military forces have all been based on drill halls or training depots within the geographic area of recruitment. In 1964 legislation was enacted to permit the Citizen Military Forces to be called out for continuous service, by proclamation, in a time of defence emergency. This allowed the forces to be committed in circumstances short of war, but the provision has never been put into effect. The Citizen Military Forces are essentially a geographically based force in conditions short of mobilisation. This is in sharp contrast to the regular Army, where facilities can be sited in accordance with national priorities and members can be posted to any part of Australia or overseas at any time. I note that in the second reading speech the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) indicated that the Army Reserve will be allocated vital installations and infrastructure in the north to defend in times of emergency. This single sentence indicating intent must, of course, be backed up with action. A low level threat would have a shorter lead time than a major attack and the commitment of reserve forces must be predicated on their being adequately equipped and trained to meet the threat. In addition, the force must be capable of being deployed speedily and in a state of preparedness to meet its commitment. While these forces are readying for deployment, the regular forces will also be deploying to meet the threat. A former Army Reserve transport expert, Noel Tucker, argued that the C130 Hercules force is incapable of quickly positioning and then resupplying a battalion group of 1,000 with 112 vehicles under favourable conditions. It would take about 10 days to move the force from coast to coast, provided it did not have to go into action on arrival. Such a force could cope with a logistically complete enemy force of little more than 200 and would have supplies for about four weeks. No provision is made for bad weather, aircraft loss or unserviceability and it is assumed that fuel and servicing facilities will be available at the destination. Meanwhile, our reserve forces are mobilised and awaiting deployment. How is it to be done? The civil air fleet can be utilised. However, that capability can be limited, especially if suitable airfields and handling equipment are unavailable in the operational area. Before any of the Reserve force roles outlined by the Minister can be relied upon to contribute to the total force-that structure of the Army to which he referred-they need to be examined closely and tested. The training of our reserve forces must be directed towards responding to the threat. For the training to be realistic and effective, it is necessary for those specific units to carry out their respective roles in simulated or realistic exercise situations. This would demonstrate whether that which is allotted as a role on paper is achievable in reality. It would also give planners a chance to iron out the operational and administrative bugs. The 13 lines devoted to the Reserve forces in the White Paper are, I hope, not directly related to the emphasis the Government places on the Reserve or its importance and relevance. Historically, Australia has retained a small permanent military force, supplemented by a citizens militia, citizens force or Reserve force. The concept of an integrated force, for example one army comprising regulars and reservists, or total force as the Millar's Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces preferred to see it, must be thought out fully and well planned. They must also continue to train together on exercises. I think this is vitally important. Having served for some years, from 1951 to 1954, with the Citizen Military Forces, I know how important it is that they do go out with regular forces to get the required training. A fundamental weakness in the concept is related to the fact that a part time citizen soldier is highly unlikely to achieve the degree of training available to his counterpart in the Australian regular Army. As I said before, if we are to rely upon a Reserve unit to meet its possible future commitment in time of low level threat, training must be adequate and related to the defined role. There are factors which militate against efforts to achieve integration. The traditional strength of the Reserve forces-in this case the Army-is in their regional associations. The need to have the Army units located within the normal travel range does not lend itself to the Australian regular Army requirement for large unpopulated training areas and the desirability to be located in strategically important regions. This can be offset by more use of annual camps and participation in major exercises but, as the Millar report indicated, cost is a major limiting factor in integration, and we accept that. There is also the factor that employers would be required to give that time to their employees to take part. The new role of the reservists requires that they acquire skill at arms to a level sufficient to perform the allotted task. I believe that presents the biggest problem to the planners in converting intentions into achievements. I recognise that time is limited and that it was required that we get this Bill through earlier today. I thank the Minister for allowing the people who had put their names down to speak to finalise their speeches. I will leave the rest of my speech, but I will just refer-because we are talking about legislation and about means by which we are going to introduce these amendments within the Defence Act-to a writing of the French War Ministry in the 1930s by General Andre Beupre. I will quote this to make sure that what we are doing will be achievable. Mr Humphreys —This is General Beazley here. Mr CONQUEST —The honourable member will like this one. General Beupre stated: At the Ministry of War, the General Staff commanded in theory, but had not the money, the administration, the personnel or the equipment; the Permanent Secretary had the money and the administration, without the responsibility of command; the various departments had personnel and equipment, but neither money nor command. The Minister stood at the head of all this, but could achieve nothing without obtaining unison from the whole orchestra, the complexity of which helped to paralyse all initiatives. The ensemble possessed only one force-that of inertia. It is to be hoped that we are not seen in the future as having followed a similar path. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance. The honourable member for Hinkler, who has just resumed his seat, was giving a superb speech, and we should congratulate him on that. My point of order is that he has got a great speech here which he could continue. He has had to curtail his very excellent remarks. Would it be possible to have the rest of his speech incorporated in Hansard? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -That is not allowable. There is no point of order. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.37) —in reply-I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate. I want to thank particularly-apart from the people on our own side-the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). Of all those who participated in the debate from the other side it seems to me that he is the only one who has actually comprehended what the White Paper means for reserves, has identified the problems associated with it and has put forward a series of suggestions as to what the organisational problems are going to be. In most of the suggestions that he has put forward he is quite correct. I do not think I could fault his speech or any of the warnings that he put forward in regard to what we need to do with the reserves and what the dimensions of the problem are going to be. They are substantial. I thank him as the one member on his side of the House who actually said something to me that I might learn from. I thank the speakers on our side of the House for their defence of what is a very important initiative put forward by this Government. When it comes to confronting defence issues Opposition members seem to have completely disaggregated minds. What I have said about the previous Opposition speaker does not go for his immediate predecessor, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I tried to tot up the positions as he ran through them. If he was suggesting that we should fill out those brigade headquarters with brigades and keep them at war scales on a permanent basis, which is what he seemed to be arguing for, the Opposition has just added about 50,000 men to its list of promises. In the current financial climate, it would be some achievement for a government to secure an additional 50,000 regulars or reserves for the armed Services, and it would be rightly accused of wasting money. That speech completely missed the point about what the reserves are involved in. The reserves are shifting their roles from an expansion base where we anticipated that the attention of the Army should be devoted to the capacity to expand rapidly to some 250,000 to 300,000 men to the circumstances in which the priority of the Government is the capacity of the Army to respond immediately to the most likely threat. This raises the sorts of problems that the honourable member for Hinkler spoke about, not the sorts of problems that the honourable member for Bradfield spoke about. The Opposition's support for what we are doing in this regard is welcome. It had repeated opportunities to do it when it was in government, but it would not confront the problem. This has been an obvious requirement for the reserves since 1964. Had this requirement for the reserves been brought into being in 1964 we might not have had the very debilitating debate we had in this country on the issue of selective conscription for a portion of an age bracket in the 1960s. We could have avoided that debate and given the reserves a role which at that time they certainly sought. There has been a question in the mind of the honourable member for Bradfield as to whether this Government honours the reserves. Mr White —How do you explain the great reduction of reserves during your regime? Mr BEAZLEY —Let me tell the honourable member about the trends that have occurred in the reserves-- Mr White —Downwards. Mr BEAZLEY —It is not. Mr White —Downwards for four years. Mr BEAZLEY —No longer, I am afraid to say, for the Opposition's political purposes. Mr White —I am delighted to hear it. Don't lecture us about-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —In 1981 we had a massive expansion of the reserves. The numbers went up to something like 33,000 in rapid order, but at the best of times only 15,000 were effective. It was a complete mess. Nobody worked out what the reserves were supposed to be doing, nobody gave them a purpose, except that they ought to be there. That was the theory; they simply ought to be there. That totally maniacal piece of planning, imposed upon the Department of Defence by the then Australian Government, has made planning for the reserves that much more difficult ever since. The fact of the matter is that the difficulties we have experienced with the reserves have turned around. They have turned around for a variety of reasons, not least because this Government is providing the material evidence that we take the reserves seriously. We should not underestimate the significance of this measure, in terms of the reserves sense of self-regard. This measure will make the reservist a soldier. For a very long period there has been a question mark in the minds of members of the public as to whether that is the case. In some sections of the defence forces there has been a question mark as to whether that is the case. If it is not the case after this legislation is in force and the purposes to which we will put the reserves are implemented, it will be a very sorry country indeed, because we will be putting the reserves in the front line. If they cannot perform we will be in some considerable degree of trouble. The point about this entire exercise comes to the second of the reasons why the reserves are beginning to understand that they are honoured and appreciated by the Australian Government and the Australian public. It relates to the purposes to which they will be put. Some of them have expansion based roles and increasingly the reserves are moving into the areas, such as the tanks, which are clearly expansion based components of our armed forces. Those sorts of functions will be important for the reserves to perform, but in addition to that they will be providing other vital functions. One of the interesting features of the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities is that when Paul Dibb was set to do his work, there was a general assumption among defence commentators that if we were looking for savings, there was a material possibility that the standing Army could be reduced by a considerable amount and also that the reserves could be reduced by a considerable amount. Paul Dibb defined what was meant by `a low level threat'. It had never been defined, in a planning sense, for any government for 40 or 50 years. It had never been comprehended. When he saw what a low level threat would mean-some of the things that a low level threat would mean were mentioned by the honourable member for Hinkler-Dibb said to me: `You don't have a requirement for 30,000 effective soldiers; you cannot cut them to 22,000 or whatever; you need about 60,000. There is only one way you are going to get that and that is if the reserves have real, material roles'. Being presented with that was a considerable lesson to the Government. There is no other way that this country can be effectively defended, unless we rely to a very substantial degree on the reserves. We can step back from the Army, because that is not the only service in which reserves serve. We also have reserves in the Navy and the Air Force. The Air Force has done a very effective job of integrating the reserves into its day to day activities. In many ways, the reserves there have a well settled position. In the case of the Navy, one of the giant holes in the Australian defence capability is largely going to be filled by reserves as the years go by. That is in our mine countermeasures program. That is the most sensible way to threaten this country, if someone wanted to start off a low level escalation of a conflict. Until we started to introduce some of the measures we have been introducing, that was one of our areas of greatest vulnerability. It is not possible within an affordable Budget to produce a situation in which all our ports are protected by a substantial number of purpose designed naval vessels served by regular naval personnel. We can all sit down and say that there may be a need to do that, and I would agree that there is a need to do that, but it cannot be done. The finances are not there to do it. The people who will have to do it with ships of opportunity will be those in the naval reserve. In another service, there is a front line function performed by the reserve. Mr Young —A very good point. Mr BEAZLEY —I am glad to see the Leader of the House in here; it is always nice when he puts in an appearance. I will divert slightly from the legislation, because there was a very broad ranging abuse of the Government's defence policies, particularly of our alleged treatment of service personnel. Let us go through exactly what this Government has done since it has been in office. The Opposition operates, with one or two honourable exceptions, with a completely disaggregated mind in public policy. We have a presentation from the Opposition about the need for massive cuts until, as one National Party member from Queensland put it on one occasion, the pigs squeal or the pips squeak. With hairy-chested breast beating, it was claimed that this was necessary in order to be able to achieve the sorts of tax cuts we wanted. When Opposition members talk in a defence debate they always present the Government with a billion dollar wish list and tell us to get on with it. That is point scoring of a particularly dishonest variety, because they know that when they get into office they will not break the habit of a lifetime and spend money on defence. They will conform to the normal performance and not spend it, but they will be different from us. They will arrive without a plan. They will mess up the plans we have and they will wander around waving flags and achieving nothing except the material weakening of this country. When Opposition members talked, as they did, about what we have done for the defence forces and abused the Government for its alleged treatment of defence personnel, that needs to be borne in mind. In the last decade and a half only one party has introduced a wage freeze on the armed services-one party; no other. It was the party on the other side of the House that did it. Indeed, a reference that was supposed to go to the committee of reference for the determination of wages to take place, was not put before that committee, even though there were recommendations about that, until the wage freeze was brought down and the Minister of the day said: `I hope at the end of this wage freeze we will have a bit of a look at what ought to be done'. The wage freeze was put on before anything was done about wages. We put in a Remuneration Tribunal provision so that Ministers could not do that in the future. Members of the defence forces now have the same rights as any other member of the Australian community to have their case heard before a Remuneration Tribunal. They have no more rights to win their case than has any other member of the community, but they do have the right to put it before a tribunal, as has any other member of the Australian community. That is a reform that we have introduced. I suppose that the fruits of it have been seen for the Services in the 5.9 per cent increase that they got when the rest of the Public Service got about one per cent and when the wage claims on similar sorts of anomalies never exceeded 2 per cent. Just the other day that tribunal doubled the submarine allowance. It also extended to the defence forces the $10 increase that the rest of the country got. The Services have got, via the wages policy of this Government, the same as the rest of the community, and something better. Of course, that does not mean that they will win their claims before the tribunal any more than any other member of the Australian work force will win claims before tribunals; but they will be there. The question of defence housing has also featured in the criticisms made of this Government. Let me just say something about that. Only one party has placed a freeze on expenditure on defence housing-and for a three-year period-in the last decade and a half of our political history, and it has not been from this side of the House; it was from the other side of the House during the latter part of the 1970s and early 1980s. In the most desperate budgetary circumstances, we have substantially increased expenditure on defence housing in real terms-last year by 17 per cent. In implementing a program that we have devised of some $750m, that is a very significant step by a government in straitened circumstances. I wish that I had been Minister for Defence from 1975-1981. In a period when this country confronted no substantial balance of payments deficits, when there were substantial opportunities for sensibly placed expenditure to take place in the defence area, life would have been an awful lot easier than it is now. The problem for me now, and for any Minister for Defence in any government, is how to meet one's priorities in circumstances in which one will not be given the money that one would like. Of course, the problem that that poses is one that every politician hates, that is, if he wants to give something, he has to take something else away. That has been the situation that has been imposed on us since we have been in government. It is the situation that will be imposed on anyone over the next decade who wants to look seriously at the defence needs of this country. The failing Ministers over that period will be those who decide that the easy course is to leave everything in the Defence Department and defence establishment as it stands and simply keep postponing the things that they ought to do so that nobody's vested interests are seriously offended. The problem will be how to confront the potential laziness in the character of the average politican who will wish to take the line of least resistance. As we confront these problems over the years, we will be very substantially dependent upon what the reserves will do for us. As well as being potentially a very good soldier, in budgetary terms the Reserve member is also very cheap. Members of the Reserves are well motivated. They are as well motivated as anyone else in the community. They are often highly skilled. The challenge is to make expert use of that skill and that good motivation. I agree that that will require a lot more planning than simply is involved in 13 lines in the White Paper. In the policies that we will pursue that will be done. One thing that we are not going to do is to massively increase the reserves. Having checked the slide of large numbers of reserves out of the reserve forces, I hope that we will create a situation in which many of the reserve units will experience long waiting lists. I regard that as highly desirable. To have long waiting lists to join the reserves is a highly desirable situation because it means that the training days that can affordably be assigned to them will be spent not on training in basic soldiering skills or skills in the other forces; but in training for our requirements for the sorts of tasks that we have been outlining in the White Paper and in this legislation. I thank honourable members of the seriousness with which they have treated this issue in debate. I understand that we are to have a Committee stage, so that debate will probably proceed for another few minutes yet. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 21-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 22 (Insertion of new heading and sections). Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.58) —I move: Clause 22, page 10, proposed section, 50f, omit sub-section (1), substitute the following subsection: `` `50f. (1) Where: (a) otherwise than in time of war or defence emergency, the Governor-General considers it desirable to do so for the defence of Australia; (b) the Governor of a State has proclaimed that a natural disaster emergency exists in the State and requests the assistance of the Defence Force in dealing with that emergency; (c) the Administrator of the Northern Territory has proclaimed that a natural disaster emergency exists in the Territory and requests the assistance of the Defence Force in dealing with that emergency; or (d) a natural disaster emergency exists in a Territory (other than the Northern Territory) and the Governor-General considers it desirable to do so in order to deal with that emergency; the Governor-General may, by Proclamation, call out any part of the Reserve Forces for continuous full time service.''. There are two aspects of this clause that I would like to address. Obviously, I do not intend to respond to the comments of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the second reading, although there are some distortions in it that need to be understood. But, within the call-out provisions, there are two areas of concern to the Opposition. The first is that the emergency forces are being restricted in the manner of their call- out. We do not object to that, although we think that the object probably is to ensure that they and the reserve forces should be called out in the same circumstances. We are suggesting an amendment which, by adding an additional requirement, is designed to allow the reserve forces, as distinct from the emergency reserves, to be called out in circumstances where there is a natural disaster. We did wonder whether it would be a good idea to include the emergency forces. We have not done so only because it is something that I find a little difficult to determine in opposition. The purpose of the Reserve force call-out extension is that we think a number of events need to be taken into account when considering whether we should use the reserve forces. While such circumstances are not immediately foreseeable, I have suggested in this amendment that they should embrace events not dissimilar to Cyclone Tracy. Such an event could well take place in a State, particularly, of course in Queensland, the Northern Territory, northern Western Australia, or in one of the island territories of Australia. While one would hope that in the normal event this would not be necessary, if an event similar to Cyclone Tracy occurred, for example, one could foresee that if reserve forces were available in the area-say, Norforce or some other element of the reserves-it might well be more convenient for them to be used than the permanent forces in the area, or it could be that we would need to supplement those permanent forces. We believe that it is necessary for the call-out provisions to be extended in this sense. They are certainly conditions that do not amount to a defence emergency but to what we have termed a natural disaster emergency, and this would ensure that all available resources could be applied in those circumstances. As a consequence of this amendment we hope that the reserve elements called out will be dealt with sympathetically by the Government to ensure that the number of hours necessary to maintain proficiency and whatever in the unit to which they belong are not affected by the time that has been spent in the call-out, particularly if it is in a natural disaster emergency as distinct from an emergency relating to some type of defence contingency. I have expressed concern in this House on other occasions when I have said that the Government has dealt with the reserves parsimoniously on their training requirements. There is no doubt that the initial action by the Government to tax the reservists' pay-first halved and now finally restored to its proper position of being tax exempt-affected recruitment within the reserves. I am delighted that at long last the Government has recognised the disability caused by its action. It is disappointing that although the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal has been set up to deal with reservists' pay, the Tribunal really has not dealt with the whole range of circumstances in the way in which we believe it should have in the four years that the Labor Government has had responsibility for the defence forces. Although a wage freeze was applied it was not peculiar to the Services and it is a great tragedy that the Government took two years before doing anything about reservists following its election to office. That is one of the problems involved in recruitment. On the general character of the use of reservists, I put to the Minister that I think it is necessary that there be a change in the use of the reservists as set out in the amendment I have moved. As they will be integrated within the overall Australian Defence Force, it may be more appropriate to use reserve forces than permanent forces, particularly given that signal elements might be the preferred units to use. Therefore, I suggest that there be an extension in this form. The report of the Millar Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces is the basis for much of the planning of the future use of the reserve forces. I look towards an increased and enhanced role and opportunity for reservists generally. As I remarked earlier in my speech at the second reading stage, I believe we also should consider an extension of Army, Navy and Air Force reserves as each of those elements have been relatively small. Although there is to be a significant extension in the Royal Australian Navy in the minesweeping and mine search area, I believe that a great deal more can be done, particularly with available civilian assets. We could utilise people in the civilian area to build up the capacity in the defence forces. As an example I refer to Norforce, the reconnaissance unit in northern Australia. In that area I believe it is appropriate to use general aviation pilots and the masters of fishing vessels recruited into Norforce so that in their normal day by day operations they can put on a Service hat and report on any unusual movements they see. The capability of Norforce would be significantly improved in this way at very little expense. It might well broaden its ability beyond anything that is now considered. Given the unusual circumstances in the area, people flying in general aviation and serving on fishing trawlers and other private vessels operating in the area could be utilised to overcome the enormous difficulties of patrolling those large stretches of Australian coastline around the Timor Sea to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In that way the reserve forces could enhance significantly the permanent forces. I suggest to the Minister that an amendment along the lines I have moved is a way to ensure the appropriate utilisation of the assets available if a natural disaster emergency should occur. As I have suggested, the emergency forces might have to be used in the same way as the reserve forces. We are not moving specifically for anything in that area for I think that is more a matter for the Minister to consider. Whilst we do not intend to divide on the amendment, I put to the Minister that this type of extension seems a rational extension of a common objective of both sides of the Parliament-that there be a total integration of the reserve forces with the permanent forces in order to meet whatever type of contingency the Australian Defence Force might need to meet. The Minister, in his response to the second reading debate, spoke about low level threats. Of course, low level threats are one of the contingencies against which the reserves need to be prepared to make a contribution. I see such threats as being less likely than terrorist threats. One disability in the Defence Force is the degree to which the lessons of Kangaroo '83 on the co-ordination and co-operation with State police forces and the civilian elements of the national and State emergency services and the degree to which there is co-ordination between State legislation and Federal legislation have largely been ignored. While this matter might not be specifically related to this clause, the Government has been notably deficient in acting since Kangaroo '83 when the first exercise against low level contingencies was successfully conducted. Unfortunately, the necessary amendments have not yet come to light. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.07) —The Government will not accept the Opposition's amendment-not because it is without merit but because at this stage it is probably a little premature. The first factor that we have had to be conscious of in introducing this legislation is that it poses difficulties for the employers of reservists in terms of the Government serving notice on the employer that we assume a right, in the appropriate circumstances, to take his employee away no matter what he may think. There is a fine balance as to how far we should pursue this in changing legislation before a point is reached-although never openly admitted publicly, nevertheless in action conducted surreptitiously-where there is an active campaign of some employers against an involvement by their work force in reserve units. I must pay tribute to the enormously effective work done by the committee of employers that has so effectively assisted us in persuading employers that the tasks performed by our reserve forces are vital for national defence. To be quite frank, I do not want to have to turn it loose again to explain that employees ought to be drawn out on the same basis for national emergencies, which unfortunately in this country can be absolutely guaranteed to take place somewhere around the country virtually for four or fives months of the year. I think there would be a sufficient level of confidence among employers that reservists would not be called upon for even low level contingencies. When they are called upon for low level contingencies we are faced with major damage to national interests. Therefore, any reasonably patriotic employer ought to accept that call-out. Whether employees would accept call-outs for national emergencies, given their increased frequency, in the same way I think is highly problematic. If we were to accept the Opposition's amendment at this stage, some problems in the area of recruitment would be likely to emerge which would be very difficult to identify. We would like to see how the call-out propositions that we have put forward work in that regard before we did anything such as the Opposition has suggested. The second factor involves a question of economy. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) rightly identified that in calling out the reserves we actually call on a specific pay period, a training day. We find it convenient, for example, in most of the northern regiments to operate only about 30 training days a year. That may be regarded by some as inadequate, but I have talked to members of those units and their commanding officers and they do not ask for more training days simply because they are not confident, with the vast distances that their units have to travel, that they would not be able to get their men and women to be committed for a lengthier period. As the right honourable gentleman pointed out quite correctly, in those areas one would be highly likely to confront these sorts of national emergencies and training days could very rapidly be put upon in a substantial way. Honourable members opposite might say: `Give us an extra couple of hundred thousand training days to make up for it'. However, training days cost money and these are tough times. If we were to do that we would very rapidly start to eat up training days, which are quite desperately needed, and will be desperately needed over the next five years, to make sure that the reserves can do the tasks we are assigning to them. The amendment is well motivated and put forward for very sensible reasons but to carry it out at this stage would create diseconomies, and some difficulties in relation to selling the proposition to employers which the Government at this stage would not want to take on. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.11) —I wish to respond to one comment the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has made. The difference between calling out reserves and having the power to do so should be obvious. Take Cyclone Tracy for example. Had there been the power and the opportunity, there is little doubt that, instead of having to move people thousands of miles across Australia, reserves would have been called out. We are not saying that every time there is a cyclone elements of the defence forces or the Reserve should be called out. We all know how fortunate Australia was that Cyclone Tracy did not annihilate thousands upon thousands of people in Darwin. There was no legislative power to call out reserves at the time of Cyclone Tracy. The amendment we seek to make to the legislation is designed to provide that power. I refer the Minister to amended section 51d (1) at the beginning of clause 22, which states: Where the Governor-General considers it desirable to do so . . . That obviously means that the Executive Council, on the recommendation of the Government, and taking into account all the financial concerns the Minister has expressed, including quite obviously the paramount need to try to preserve the employment of the reserves and the status they would have in their ordinary workaday lives, would not call out the reserves other than in extreme emergencies. The amendment we have moved provides that flexibility. I put it to the Minister that between now and any debate in the Senate it could be well worth while to reflect further on this amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 23 to 49-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 50 to 57-by leave-taken together. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.14) —I refer to permanent employment, which I mentioned in an earlier speech. However, I will not pick up all the points I made in that speech. I hope that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) considers the idea of a specialist aircrew stream, which is nothing to do with Defence Force retirement and death benefits but which seems to me to be a way out of the present flight problems. A number of submissions have been put to the Minister on that. With respect to Defence Force retirement and death benefits I draw the attention of the Minister to a concern the Regular Defence Welfare Association has, to which one of my colleagues referred during his contribution. A letter from Major-General Whitelaw says: We welcome the amendments to the DFR&DB Act 1973 included in this Bill. In particular the amendments to the definition of ``widow'' shown at Clause 37 (1) of the Bill. However the opportunity should not be lost to correct an even longer standing wrong suffered by widows of those regular servicemen who married after separation from the Defence Force and before the DFR&DB Act 1973 was enacted. The corrective action would simply involve the repeal of Section 65 (4) of the DFRB Act and its replacement by the definition of widow as included in the DFRDB Act 1973, Section 3 as amended by the Bill thus eliminating a long outstanding anomaly. The Regular Defence Force Welfare Association has prepared a short paper on this matter which sets down its argument for this modification. Essentially, as I explained in my speech during the second reading debate, many widows of DFRB pensioners are denied pensions their husbands paid for. It should be remembered that whilst they are called pensions they are, in fact, superannuation entitlements. This is an area of the legislation the Government should look at. Because it would add to the expenditure under the Bill we cannot move an amendment. But there is a problem. I suggest to the Minister, to whom I will send a copy of this letter and the attached paper, that he examine the matter for future consideration. Without any doubt this amendment would help to remove what seems to be an anomaly. I have not examined it in detail and, therefore, I am not able to speak as a lawyer on it. But it seems to me on reading it that, at least in the circumstances of Major-General Whitelaw's submission, there is merit in the argument. I hope that the Minister and the Government consider sympathetically the proposed amendment. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.17) —I thank the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) for his intervention. I will take a look at his paper. The advice that comes to me in regard to this area of anomaly is that where widows of Defence Force retirement benefits pensioners marry after a time and become eligible for a special grant of pension, provided their circumstances are the same as those of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits widow and they are in `necessitous circumstances' or the benefit is `otherwise warranted', the provisions are applied beneficially. From the advice that has come to me people have not missed out on it. However, I will consider the proposition to see whether any- thing further needs to be done. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 March, on the following papers presented by Mr Beazley: Defence of Australia-A policy information paper, March 1987 Defence of Australia-A policy information paper, Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1987 and on the motion by Mr Kerin: That the House take note of the papers. Mr KENT(Hotham)(9.18) —When this debate was interrupted on 20 March, I was saying that for the first time in our history we have a defence plan we are able to put into action to defend our continent without relying or calling upon the help of powerful allies in case of a regional conflict. It is interesting to note that although for the first time in our history we have a defence policy which will enable us to defend out north so that the people in the north of Australia can feel safe, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the Leader of the National Party, and the Opposition spokesman on defence, attacked the policy. He was not alone in his criticism. He had the official Indonesian Army newspaper supporting him. The Indonesian Army newspaper wrote paranoid articles at the time the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was brought down as though we were preparing something that was against Indonesia's interests, whereas all we have proposed is to build our defence forces to enable us to defend our north from any eventuality in case of a regional conflict. I have read the Dibb report and it did not mention Indonesia. Yet somehow the Indonesians became suspicious. It is as though we do not have the right, as any other nation has, to prepare ourselves to defend out continent and our people. Last April I was a member of a delegation that visited Papua New Guinea. I talked to members and Ministers of the New Guinea Parliament. Officially, they would not venture an opinion which was opposed to Indonesia's nearness. However, when I talked to them privately after the official meetings, they expressed a tremendous fear of a neighbour with a population of 160 million. They said: `New Guinea has only just over 2 million people and next door there is a dictatorship-a military kleptocracy-which can be adventurous at any time. What are you going to do to help us just in case that regime becomes adventurous?' It is not as if that regime has not been adventurous in the past. The Indonesian regime was expansionist and is expansionist. The Indonesians went into East Timor and Irian Jaya-west New Guinea. God knows where they will stop in their expansionist policies if they encounter economic difficulties. Regimes similar to that in Indonesia always use such difficulties to try to allay their own problems. If they have problems internally they usually turn to external aggression. While we do not wish to have bad relations with our neighbours-we want to be friends-there is no doubt that the only way to keep a friendship with a power, whether to our north or wherever, is to have a friendship based on the mutual understanding that, if we extend our hand of friendship, it is not a sign of weakness, but that we have behind us something substantial in case that friendly hand is not accepted. Under no circumstances would I like to see my grandchildren growing up in a country which is undefended. We must prepare for any eventually in our region so we can deal with any emergency. That is exactly what the Dibb report and the White Paper are about. They are about building defence forces with high mobility so that we can be of assistance anywhere if our immediate strategic interest is threatened. The Opposition was always putting forward defence debates before an election was held. It said that the Russians were coming. It showed the yellow arrows coming from China and all over the place. Those debates were quickly forgotten. As soon as the election was over, no one mentioned defence again. In the past we have prepared our forces so that eventually, in some alliance, we could assist in some small way an imperialist power to fight a war some 20,000 kilometres from our shores. That is not good enough any more. If anything happens tomorrow in our region, we cannot be sure that anyone will come to our rescue, unless we are prepared to defend ourselves and unless our forces are ready to do so. It is a welcome change under the Hawke Labor Government to have a thorough and widely accepted review of Australia's defence and strategic requirements based on need rather than vote catching, one which has been adopted and outlined in the Government's White Paper. I would like to extend my congratulations to Mr Paul Dibb for providing this country with a thorough and intelligent appraisal of our defence needs. I also applaud the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for, firstly, recognising the necessity of dating our defence planning and, secondly, having the dedication and commitment to ensure that Australia develops a self-sufficient, effective and affordable Defence Force structure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mountford) Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.26) —I want to comment on four aspects of the White Paper. Firstly, I, like most others in the community, am concerned that the Government has not been willing to give clear budgetary commitments or targets for defence in this White Paper. The unanimous response by commentators on the White Paper has been `Where are the dollars?' Unfortunately, it must be assumed that the silence of the Paper on annual real term growth rates has been forced on the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) by Cabinet and is deliberate. Such silence is unacceptable. The Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities identified the need for a minimum annual real term defence spending growth rate of 3 per cent. No informed commentator challenged that figure. The Minister has now tabled a paper which requires more of the Defence Department and forces than did the Dibb report. Yet we have no `money-where-our-mouth-is' commit- ment. Let me state clearly how a responsible government should formulate Budget commitments and guidelines for Defence. It should determine what our interests are as a nation and how they are best to be pursued and protected. It should determine its defence budget on the basis of the realities of our international and regional strategy environment. Money should then be allocated on that basis, and not in the inverted fashion of setting a politically defined domestic budget and then determining which threats we will meet and which obligations we will jettison. It should remind itself and the nation that the defence of the country is, in the last instance, the most important of a Federal government's responsibilities and that, at the moment, programs which duplicate State responsibilities or are essential only in terms of favourable opinion polls are being funded at the expense of adequate Defence Force development. It should accept and explain to the electorate these words of Adlai Stevenson: There are no short cuts to security, there are only short cuts to defeat. Unfortunately, the Government is telling the people that there are short cuts. In his speech to the National Press Club on 25 March the Minister first asks: Would anyone here believe the Government if it had promised defence spending growth? All I can say to the Minister is, given this Government's record on promises, no one would have believed him; I agree. The Minister went on to argue that in `extraordinarily difficult budgetary circumstances' governments cannot guarantee defence growth. The implication is that there has been no political support in Cabinet in the past several years for giving defence the priority it deserves. I say again that the Minister's job is to create that support. Strategic and defence realities are objective, unlike the consumer demands that are crowding them out in Cabinet. They should not be traded off against domestically awkward Budget decisions. The Minister has announced capitulation on this matter. The White Paper and his recent speeches are a pre-emptive legitimisation of defence losses in forthcoming Budgets. The worst aspect of the Press club appendix to the White Paper, however, is the Minister's claim that further defence growth is not required to sustain a credible defence policy; that current levels of spending are adequate for a self-reliant defence posture. That may be a politically necessary statement. It is certainly not an honest one. It is nonsense. In fact, I believe it is dangerous nonsense. It is not just the opposition saying this, it is outside experts who argue that major and regular increases will be required just to fulfil the White Paper's promises. Consider the litany of Defence Force weaknesses reported in yesterday's Australian: The operational deployment force is understrength and lacks a dedicated-to-task air mobility and adequate helicopter lift capability; deployment of the ODF would tie up the total resources of our existing fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft; we lack long-range, anti-armour and anti-air systems and the thick-skinned ground mobility needed to protect ourselves or an airhead against the sort of high-tech weaponry that even a low level lodgment force would bring; there is a critical lack of first line missile and other war stores to the extent that the Royal Australian Air Force would run out of ammunition in the first four weeks at the levels of usage needed to win the air battle; and the Royal Australian Navy is in no position to operate independently in medium level conflict because of the lack of organised air power. In passing, let me say that we need a commitment to this kind of responsible defence budgeting as much from the Opposition front bench as from the Government front bench. The second inadequacy of the White Paper is in the area of service pay and conditions. For four years this area of defence policy-making has been neglected. This year service conditions began to emerge as an electoral issue. The Government's response was to set up committees, appoint consultants and make promises. The White Paper still does not reflect the urgency of the problems servicemen and women are facing. It still favours promise over substance, leaving unaltered the unacceptably low level allocated to this area in the Budget. Meanwhile the Government continues to oppose pay and allowance claims in the appropriate tribunals and has increased rent on housing. The problem is as Peter Young wrote yesterday in the Australian: . . . the Minister is increasingly isolated by a staff and bureaucracy which sees the services as just another job. Mr Young sums up the issue succinctly: This Government has exploited to the full the traditions of loyalty and uncomplaining professionalism of the services. It has rewarded them with a selective wage freeze, poor housing, rent slugs and tax imposts, pension cuts, delays in promised reforms and an erosion of conditions of service-and then expressed surprise at why so many are leaving. My third area of concern is the White Paper's failure to deal seriously with reserve forces, mobilisation and surge capacity. I have dealt with this concern in some detail in a speech on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. The fourth concern I have about this White Paper is that there is a total neglect of the social dimension of strategy-what a military historian, Michael Howard, calls `A forgotten dimension of strategy'. I refer to the attitude of the people upon whose commitment and readiness for self-denial operational, logistical and technical power depend. I refer to their willingness to maintain adequately armed forces in peacetime and their will to deploy and support them operationally in war. I refer to the articulation of the political objectives of our armed forces as a Western democratic nation. There is an increasingly successful effort in our schools, churches, town halls and media to persuade Australians that it is wrong to maintain military forces and wrong to maintain military alliances. The effort, I regret to say, is directed in particular at young Australians. The irony of this situation is that some of those involved in this effort are in fact recipients of government grants. These efforts must be matched by the Parliament and the Government. One response, I would suggest, would be for the Department of Defence to produce for high school students an education kit on the White Paper. I hope the Minister notes that suggestion. Another would be to examine the adoption of a legislated program for national security involving program examination via parliamentary hearings similar to the process of congressional security in the United States. Michael O'Connor has argued: The military and the Defence Administration have made only token attempts to engage the electorate's support... Yet that very elitism denies it the support it needs for the development of an adequate National Security policy and capability. National Security, like any other product of Government, must be marketed as well as managed. Such vigilance and concern for the social dimensions of strategy are required by the nature of Australian political life. We are a democracy. Like most other democracies we are, to quote Jean-Francois Revel, `in a state of intellectual and political indolence'. Revel argues: Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence, loathes being what is needed to counter them. It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminently evident. By then, either there is too little time left for it to save itself, or the price of survival has become crushingly high. It is the Government's duty to acknowledge that reality and to nurture the moral, intellectual and political basis for our future defence. Five key aspects of its message should be: Firstly, the Pacific region and its energy supply routes are increasingly the key to the international economy and are the source of political and military friction. The shift of power from the Atlantic to the Pacific is reflected in the Soviet intrusion of late. Australians must be made aware of the geo-strategic realities of their region. They must also be reminded of the fragility of peace in South East Asia and, now, the Pacific. Secondly, Michael Howard writes: There are certain recurrent patterns of power and of Imperial expansion in the past that have been too persistent to be ignored. I know of few occasions when small, wealthy and militarily weak states, involved in political rivalry with large and powerful neighbours on their frontiers, have retained their autonomy for very long. Thirdly, as Professor Richard Pipes has argued, the manner in which a government treats its own citizens obviously has a great bearing on the way it will treat other nations. A regime that does not respect legal norms inside its borders is not likely to show respect for them abroad. If it wages war against its own people, it can hardly be expected to live at peace with the rest of the world. Australia's own region is the home for many such regimes. It is the focus of interest of the Soviet Union, the prime example of the truth of Professor Pipe's argument. Fourthly, it is morally right for a community to defend the freedom and lives of its members, by force, if necessary. It is in fact immoral, having accepted that, to inadequately equip and maintain those who take up the responsibility for that defence. Lastly, the view that we should fear our friends, such as the United States, and that there can be no enemies whose demands cannot be accommodated, is a distortion of reality and history. The point which should be conveyed is that by the turn of the century our young people, as decision-makers, will face a region where the relevance of these comments will be unquestioned. They need to be informed, historically and morally, if the technology, logistics and operation blueprints in this White Paper are to be relevant in a decade's time. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.40) —I am pleased to rise in support of the defence White Paper. I know that my colleague, the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), who has a particular interest in defence, will be making some very intelligent, as always, and worthwhile remarks on the matter. I know that people in her electorate will look forward to that. It is interesting to follow the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) because he is a well meaning member of the Parliament. One observation I make about his contribution is that he talked about the level of defence spending. I think that is one of the problems we have got into in this whole debate about defence-we think that somehow qualitatively it is always better to be spending more on defence but we never ask the appropriate question whether the defence spending we are engaging in is the most effective. I say that with well meaning. I think it is a very important issue to address. I am pleased that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has spoken about that. The Australian community understands that these are difficult financial times. The Fraser Government attempted to set levels of defence spending and it was not possible to maintain those levels. For example, in the defence White Paper in 1976 there was an attempt to set a level of defence spending of 5 per cent real growth each year for five years. It lasted for one year. By 1977-78 real growth had fallen to zero. I am not choosing this debate to try to focus on defence in a very partisan way, but I do want to say that the important thing that the Minister for Defence and people on this side are addressing is whether or not we have a proper understanding of our defence responsibilities. They are looking at whether we are using our resources in the most effective way. That needs to be understood and I think the wider community does understand it because, as I said earlier, these are difficult financial times. It is important that we recognise that it is the quality and the commitment that we get from our expenditure that is significant. It is also interesting that the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, from our point of view, made some substantial advances. Paul Dibb concluded that a self-reliant defence posture can be achieved within the planning guidance of 3.1 per cent real growth, which was the basis of Department of Defence planning when he wrote his review. He did not, of course, conclude that it could not be done for less. As the Minister for Defence said in his speech, we are showing that it can. We on this side have heard the comments of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) but it is important to understand that we are concerned about the quality of defence spending and about having a defence focus. This defence White Paper offers a departure from the past. Many people who have come to this place with a great degree of political motivation will recognise that very often our past defence spending has been in relation to some perceived threat, some dreamt of threat or some external involvement, we have tended to beef up our defence commitment to try to meet that. But this defence White Paper sets about putting together an appropriate structure for defence during peace time while recognising that we may have to encounter hostile circumstances. At the outset, this defence White Paper is very sensible. It says that the Australian community has a commitment to defend itself. To some extent that has been understated in the past, but we need to say very strongly in the current debate that we have a commitment to defend ourselves. That is the first obligation. Defence self-reliance is what it is all about. Further to that, this White Paper offers a discussion of defence in depth. I would like to talk about what that means in technical terms. There is a recognition in this paper and in this Government of our allies and our regional commitments. They are very important matters because any defence strategy of the Australian Government and the Australian people must also recognise our alliances and our regional role. Previous speakers have referred to that. I reiterate that and I commend to the Australian community that within this White Paper there is an understanding that Australia has appropriate commitments within our region. The defence White Paper also pays attention to Australia's relationship with New Zealand. Many who have followed this debate in recent times will recognise that that has been a thorny area of defence considerations because of New Zealand's determination to take some decisions of its own. This White Paper very properly recognises that we can have our own alliance relationships with New Zealand while at the same time maintaining effective and stable alliance relationships with the United States of America. In my opinion that is a very important contribution, we have the notion of our alliance relationship and our regional involvement. I say to the Australian people and to this House that this defence White Paper makes a substantial step forward in our debate on and understanding of defence involvement. But I also go back to the point I made earlier when I quoted from a speech by the Minister for Defence. One of the important things to understand is that we are not simply saying that there are ideals in defence that we would seek to set out towards but that we should recognise that we have to be realistic and careful in our spending and planning. That is what this paper is all about. It is a question of self-reliance in defence and realising that it is not just a matter of spending more and more but recognising what that spending is aimed at. I will talk for a moment about some of the issues that I think are relevant. In talking about defence in depth, this paper addresses the question of intelligence. I note that there is a very important initiative here-the proposal to establish a satellite communications station in Western Australia near Geraldton. From the point of view of the honourable member for Brand and myself-we are both Western Australian members-this defence White Paper has that important understanding of the structure of our continent and our regional and continental defence involvement. That is very significant. This White Paper also pays attention to broad area surveillance and addresses over the horizon radar capability and the development of Jindalee. To what is coming towards us, it is important not only to have the intelligence that I referred to-satellite communication, our alliance involvement and the intelligence we share with our powerful ally the United States-but also to know what over the horizon radar capability we have. This paper also pays attention to the air surveillance and our airborne early warning capability. Our in-flight refuelling capability is also something that I think we ought to be signalling in this White Paper. These are important steps in understanding not only intelligence but also effective surveillance. Maritime surveillance is another important issue in the layer of defence that we are talking about. The Australian people would be pleased to know that this paper pays attention to the role of 20 P3C Orion long range maritime patrol aircraft. I say to the House and to the community that there is an understanding in this paper of the importance of intelligence, surveillance, anti-submarine surveillance and anti-submarine warfare. I suggest to the Australian community that this paper provides some important new initiatives in that respect because it looks at our resources, at the deployment of those resources and the achievable level of resources in the short term. The achievable level of resources, of course, relates very specifically to the arrival of our new submarines, which will replace the Oberons, and to the effective deployment of FA18s. This White Paper, in a very important way, has a lot of good news. It says that, in this sparsely populated continent we are not just looking at defending Botany Bay, on a sunny Sunday afternoon, as the Minister for Defence said in a speech recently, but at defending this continent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is a very important statement to make to the Australian people because, in a sense, it is reassuring. As has been the case in the past, it is not a statement made with the beating of drums in some frenetic endeavour to get involvement in some foreign expedition; it is a statement about what we have to do to defend the Australian people and to give them the sense of reassurance that this Government knows what it is about. The defence White Paper makes it very clear that we know what we are about. Another important issue to be addressed in terms of the defence White Paper is mobility. Again, attention is paid in this Paper to the question of helicopters. The development of battlefield helicopters-the Black Hawk helicopters-will be an important addition to the Australian Army in its ability to be highly mobile and highly effective. As the member representing Stirling in Western Australia-recognising that I represent Australia in the broadest possible sense-I am particularly pleased that this defence White Paper pays attention to mine countermeasures. It is true to say that this has been a vastly understated, untreated, and underrated issue in the past, but if one looks at some of our important strategic ports-and many of those are on the coastline of Western Australia-one can imagine the impact of the mining of those ports. We have seen recently the impact of the United States mining ports in Nicaragua. One can imagine the impact of mining in ports such as Port Hedland in Western Australia, or Sydney Harbour. This defence White Paper pays attention to how we would effectively deal with mine countermeasures. I am suggesting to the House and to Australians that this White Paper is a recognition of our capabilities and of our resources, both immediately and in the near future. It is not charting the unmanageable or the unattainable; it is laying down a plan for defence and a defence strategy which is entirely achievable given our resource base and given our regional and alliance commitments. In terms of that we not only have to thank Paul Dibb for his contribution, his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities presented to the Parliament last year, but also we must thank the Minister for Defence, his staff and the Department. They have put a great deal of work into what I think is viewed, not only within this chamber but within the other place and in the community, as being a very important statement about defence. At a more personal and local level, I know that the Returned Services League sub-branches within my electorate of Stirling are very pleased that they will have the opportunity to have a discussion in the near future-just before Anzac Day-with the Minister for Defence. They are able to engage in discussion with a man who they highly respect-as we all do in this place-and to engaged in an issue which they regard as important in terms of their past commitment to this country. From the reception that this White Paper has received from the RSL itself, from the defence associations, from the Australian Democrats, and from the media, I think there is much to say in commending this report. It seems to me that it addresses a number of issues that previously were either not addressed with a proper understanding of defence or were left out of our consideration completely. Other members wish to speak on this Bill and I want to give them some opportunity to speak this evening. I conclude by saying that we can reassure Australians that the Defence White Paper is an important document, an important statement about our defence capabilities, recognising our resource limitations. Ultimately, and importantly, it talks about defence self-reliance and defending this continent. It is a credit to this Government, to the Minister and to the people who have put work into this issue that this has been given such priority and has been addressed in such an effective way. Accordingly, I am pleased to commend the White Paper to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.55) —I am glad that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) has recognised the work that has gone into the compilation of the White Paper. I am afraid that the latter third of his speech was a classic example of words expanding to fill the time available, but he did have some real appreciation of the moves the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has made in the development of this White Paper. I believe the Minister is to be congratulated for the intellectual energy that he has brought to his portfolio. I am very pleased that he has exhibited a capacity to move away from the naive foreign policy attitudes which the Australian Labor Party brought into Government in 1983. When looking through this White Paper we see that the irrelevant posturings have now gone, for before us-I think it can be truly said-we have a well argued and a well presented document. The Minister states in the policy paper `The Defence of Australia' the full range of matters before the Government in the defence area: Policy, strategy, forces, industrial and scientific support, personnel, and associated resources. Tonight, I would like to direct comment to the issue of strategy and the special way the Minister manipulates the concept. He talks of defence strategy and associated military strategy. He describes this as `self-reliance set firmly within the framework of our alliances and regional associations'. He makes a major acknowledgment, a one-liner of overwhelming significance. This is it: The support they give us makes self-reliance achievable. That is the major gesture to the concept that Australia cannot go it alone, that we are dependent on a system of alliances. Yet for so long, so much of his Party has for years attacked the consistent support for alliance strategy, founded, framed, enlarged and sustained by the parties on this side of the House. Because of the acknowledgment of the role the alliance plays in our defence, and having in mind his limited employment of the word `strategy', I think it is important to open up the debate on a wider basis. Let us look again at our strategic environment, the environment which dictates the responses we have to make if we are to give adequate guarantees to the people of Australia that Australia can defend itself. The strategic environment is conditioned by the fact that Australia is centrally positioned by her geography to supply critical support to Western security interests in the Indian Ocean and the Western and South Pacific, because the outcome of security issues of those regions fundamentally determines the nature of the residual problem left for Australian defence. As the Minister correctly states, this area is one where no regional power has the capability to mount a major attack on Australia. Within that framework he discusses the defence requirement of contingencies of a major attack. But I submit that this does not describe the process by which the residual is a problem we can adequately-given sensible processes-cope with. Major attacks are not merely those which are held at bay by estimates of success. They are deterred by a mix of factors, not least by the diplomatic environment. Here, I believe that the Minister has shown skill and acumen by his emphasis at a time when we are making estimates of defence needs and not expectations. In this section his statement notes that we are fortunate in having near neighbours with peace-loving intentions and a policy of retaining that relationship as an important aspect of our diplomatic effort. It is useful to note here that this positive aspect of our strategic environment is the outcome of sustained policies and interaction and support with our neighbours on the issue of defence. Here at last is the confession by a Labor Government that the defence co-operation policies, and the diplomatic policies of coalition governments, have resulted in a neighbourhood environment which considerably enhances the security of our nation. That is exactly the outcome predecessor governments of the coalition worked for and developed over many years. It is fair to note that there are growing pressures on the stability of South East Asia, notably the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay. Here I draw to the attention of honourable members to page 13 of the Minister's distributed text. The Minister is talking about the dimension of our continuing co-operation with the United States. I quote the Minister because not only is the passage a major confirmation of coalition government policies but it offers a sound basis for consolidating public opinion in support of our alliances. The Minister says: This Government has had several opportunities to view the situation afresh and has concluded that there is substantial political value in our co-operation. The Soviet Union's naval and air presence at Cam Ranh Bay is a significant concern for Australian defence policy. The Soviet Union does not enjoy naval and air dominance in the region, and in the event of global conflict its military assets in Vietnam would be very vulnerable to US forces in the region. Nonetheless its presence is an adverse element in regional security. Its primary significance lies in the political influence it provides the Soviet Union. It gives added importance to our defence co-operative activities in the region, particularly our maritime surveillance of the South China Sea and the north-east Indian Ocean, and our naval deployments to the region. That is a quotation from the Minister. I ask the House to note the start of it: This Government has had several opportunities to view the situation afresh . . . Having taken those several opportunities, the Minister has, to his credit, come to the conclusion that the policies that were put in place by the coalition were, in fact, correct. The Minister also makes it quite clear that New Zealand Defence policy subtracts from the total sum of allied capacity to balance the Soviet buildup. The word `buildup', I acknowledge, is one that the Minister avoids. The fact is that New Zealand has not got the message that most Australians regard the New Zealand Government as doing in defence security what her citizens are doing here in unemployment security; that is taking a free ride. It is a matter of some perplexity that the New Zealand Government can continue its approach in the light of the overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union is penetrating the New Zealand region of primary strategic interest. What the Minister's statement in effect demonstrates is that the New Zealand disease should not rub off on us, although it is sad to remind ourselves that the Minister felt obliged to go to such a considerable length to demonstrate the negative contribution that New Zealand is making to the allied security profile and the stability of our strategic environment in the Pacific, a region now under primary threat from the Soviet Union. The essential fact is that the stability of the Asia-Pacific region is not something to be taken for granted. The great economic benefits we desire from the region are accessible only if the region maintains its inherent security strength and the United States continues to sustain a confident view that the active presence of her strength is not only necessary for the United States but is also perceived by its allies to be necessary for their security. The element of mutuality in our interests with the Association of South East Asian Nations and Pacific Forum nations in the Pacific and Indian oceans is a fundamental one. It should not lose emphasis because of the copious eccentricities flowing from New Zealand. Moving on from a discussion of the issues in our strategic environment, I point out that the steady development of a growing capacity for self-reliance has been a growth much sought after by our allies, particularly the United States. We see in the statement by the Minister the justification for those decisions once questioned by his Party. As we know, the Government has been in office for four years. It is only reasonable to accept that there will be new decisions required, but what are those decisions? It is hard, I submit, to come to grips with an answer to that question on the basis of the documents produced. The Minister knows that the economic situation places any form of defence purchase in jeopardy. We know that defence is being traded off for other demands. The Government has, quite clearly, brought our dollar into international disrepute. It is not only the mortgagees who are finding the high interest rates and the low dollars a problem; it is also our Department of Defence because modern defence equipment is extremely expensive, and our dollar simply does not buy as much as it once did. Thus the defence purchases from the United States, so highly praised by the Minister as a supplier, have to be slowed down. The Government finds that it cannot be specific about re-equipment. Particularly is this true in respect of the Navy. We know that submarines are to be the new investment, but we look in vain for specifics. When will the Government make a decision on the type of submarine? When will it say how many? When will it say where they will be built? When will it say when they will come into service? I call on the Government to be more specific about future re-equipment proposals. A White Paper needs to come to grips with the basic issues. Industry is being kept in suspense and key service personnel are resigning because of the dithering and the uncertainties. Not even the country of source of the submarines has been decided-Germany and Sweden are contending. Why is there not a clearer situation to report to this House instead of the generalities that have been produced in the White Paper? The weakness is that the Government believes in something it cannot afford. Will it now come forward and say what we can afford and why? Let us stop the shilly-shallying and get on with the business of decision making. That is the job ahead that needs to be done, but the Government simply cannot get its act together. The reality is that self-reliance is no more and no less a policy of doing the best we can within the framework of alliance priorities. Despite some claims that the Minister invented the concept of self-reliance, in fact he did not. My colleagues in this House will know that the idea of self-reliance is present in all coalition policies and has been so for many years. We do not see the advantage in pretending that Australian defence priorities are capable of being met other than in the context of an alliance. As the Minister now recognises, such a concept demands a recognition of the world responsibilities of the United States. It involves an understanding that the role of the United States in Europe is not divisible from the responsibilities of the United States in the Middle East, or the Pacific or Indian oceans. There is, thankfully, in this statement a long awaited departure from the irresponsible approach of many of the Minister's colleagues. The plainspeak injunction `We need to get our act together' is one which applies to the issues now emerging in the Pacific. It is to be hoped that the reflections of the Minister demonstrated in his statements will be given much more general reception by his Party. It is really not good enough that he be left to carry these issues to his Party on his own. The time is coming when strategic developments in this region will not wait for the differing viewpoints opposite to compose themselves into a whole-hearted support for the alliance. If there is one thing to emerge from the White Paper pluperfectly clear, it is the Minister's and, hopefully, the Government's understanding that we exist in the defence field only in the context of an ongoing alliance. Self-reliance for Australia demands that that alliance be maintained and at all times strengthened. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.06) —It pleases me very much to be able to contribute to this debate tonight. Under discussion is perhaps the most significant statement about the defence of Australia ever submitted to the scrutiny of the Australian people. A decade of debate about the defence requirements of this country has finally gelled into a coherent strategic plan. It is enormously significant that the comprehensive document tabled in this House for discussion has been put together under the guidance of my colleague from Western Australia, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). His capacity in the defence portfolio has long been recognised and acknowledged, and I am proud to reiterate praise for him here tonight. I would like to open my remarks by noting the great significance of the defence White Paper for people in Western Australia. I was born and grew up in Western Australia, so I know how strongly Western Australians feel about having a substantial part of the Defence Force in their State. We are very isolated in anyone's terms, but we feel quite frighteningly remote when we perceive Australia's defence forces being concentrated on the eastern seaboard. This was the case for so many years during which all the requests and lobbying for an effective presence in Western Australia seemed to fall on deaf ears as far as Canberra was concerned. Under this Government things are changing. Western Australia has been given a major role to play in the defence of Australia. The White Paper outlines a defence strategy based on the concept of `defence in depth'. This involves giving priority to meeting credible levels of threat in Australia's area of direct military interest. I want to stress that this does not mean that we are to become an aggressive or expansionist nation. Although there are both defensive and offensive aspects of the military capabilities detailed in the White Paper, the emphasis is on discouraging potential enemies from escalating attacks rather than the mounting of macho displays of military prowess. As I say, `defence in depth' gives priority to the ability of the Australian Defence Force to mount operations capable of defeating enemy forces in our area of direct military interest. Given this priority, the logic of basing significant operational forces in Western Australia in inescapable. One particular aspect of this new focus on the defence capabilities of Western Australia has very important ramifications for the people in the electorate of Brand. Before I examine the implications of the development of HMAS Stirling, I want to look briefly at the White Paper's proposals for the north of Australia in general. The White Paper recognises that the strategy of `Defence in depth' requires military superiority across the land, air and sea in the north. This entails the use of airfields at both Learmonth and Derby in Western Australia, as well as Tindal in the Northern Territory and Cape York Peninsula in Queensland. It involves the construction of a network of up to three over the horizon radars in the north to maximise the effectiveness of our surveillance activity. An essential part of this new strategy is the development of a highly flexible mobile force across the whole of the north of Australia. With this in mind, the Government has started a detailed study on the possibility of relocating a brigade to the north. Should such a move take place, it would mean taking anything from 6,000 to 10,000 service personnel, dependants and support workers up to the north of this country. The new emphasis on the north also means a far more active role for the Reserve units currently stationed in the south. Obviously, the impact of an operation of these dimensions on the families of the men and women involved is going to entail very careful scrutiny. However, before I talk about the Government's concerns in this area, I want to turn my attention to what for me and the people in my electorate is one of the most significant aspects of the new strategy for the defence of Australia. It has been one of the highlights of my time in this place to be able to take back to my elector- ate the news that the notion of a two ocean Navy is about to become a reality. Of course, it has been recognised for many years that there is a need for the Navy to operate from both the east and the west coasts. Up until now, however, historic, strategic and economic factors have kept the fleet fairly solidly anchored on the east coast. Over the next 10 years this is to change drastically with the home porting of major fleet units at HMAS Stirling. This decision follows the recommendations of the fleet base relocation study conducted by the Department of Defence. The study reported that the development of HMAS Stirling for up to half the fleet would be a sensible planning objective to be achieved progressively. A few weeks ago, the Minister for Defence announced that the Federal Government would adopt this recommendation and move half the fleet to HMAS Stirling. The White Paper explains the rationale for the move in these terms: It will enable the Navy to more readily develop expertise in areas in which it would need to operate in contingencies that could arise in shorter timescales. Ships operating in the strategically important areas of the north and north-west and supported from HMAS Stirling will gain a substantial increase in their effective operating time. I probably do not need to describe to honourable members the pleasure with which news of the relocation has been greeted in Rockingham and neighbouring Kwinana. For the benefit of people who are not familiar with the region, we are talking about an area of Western Australia which has been badly hit by the slump affecting industrial centres. The work undertaken by the Rockingham Chamber of Commerce and the local government authorities of Rockingham and Kwinana has been very effective in attracting new light industries and tourism to the region. With the arrival of half the naval fleet, all these activities will receive a boost which, quite frankly, will be greater than many of us concerned with the local economy had ever dared to hope. The relocation recommended by the fleet base study report and endorsed in the White Paper under discussion here tonight will see a total of $330m invested in the Rockingham area over the next 10 years. That is $33m each year, which is a massive commitment by any standards. The development that is going to take place in the Rockingham area is actually larger than any single mining venture in the north of Western Australia. We are talking about a boom which will bring the long sought after prosperity that the region so richly deserves. I think it is worth pointing out to honourable members that the news has not been welcomed by the Rockingham community solely on economic grounds. The Navy already plays a significant role in Rockingham and there is widespread agreement that the Defence Force makes a good neighbour and a willing and effective participant in local affairs. Just one example that springs immediately to mind is the way the Navy participated in the `Bridging the Gap' employment project when it was first established a few years ago. Another point I think it is vital to make is that the Federal Government has taken the decision to move half the naval fleet to Western Australia at a time when the financial restraints on spending programs are extremely stringent. The fact that the decision has been made now shows this Government's absolute commitment to making long term essential improvements to Australia's defence capability. It is a commitment which will hold firm as long as we remain in Government. It is a commitment which heralds a new era of defence strategy in that it recognises Australia's unique situation in the enormous strategic region to which we belong. It is a commitment which will be worked out during 10 years of progressive development towards self-reliance in the context of co-operation with our strategic allies. Let me turn again to the development of HMAS Stirling. I have already referred to the fact that the project is on a larger scale than any of the State's mining ventures. The figures bear this out. The Minister for Defence has stated that up to 1,000 people could be directly engaged in construction. Even more significantly, some 3,000 extra Navy personnel, wives and dependants could be expected to generate an increase in demand for consumer goods and services of $50m annually. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.15) —I wish to take the opportunity tonight to talk about the Government and its approach to the most important time in Parliament, Question Time. I have been here for over six years, which is long enough to recognise a government in decay. When governments run out of good news, when they can no longer engineer questions from their back bench so that they can announce progress or good news in the community, they invariably turn on the Opposition. They regiment their back bench to throw them questions that are aimed at tipping a bucket on the Opposition. This is not new; I saw it in the decline of the previous Government and I guess, if one were to study the history of this Parliament, it would have happened many times before. The most remarkable thing about it is that in the Government in which I participated there was not much co-operation from the back bench in being regimented, as I watch this Government's back bench being regimented into asking dorothy dix questions. Question after question is asked. Government members never get the opportunity to represent their constituents and ask the sorts of questions that they expect them to ask in their interests. Government members have to ask questions which allow Ministers to make statements. Mr Campbell —When did you last ask one? Mr TUCKEY —This week. Government members have to ask questions as they are instructed. They obviously accept that form of regimentation. It is entirely up to them that they continue to do it. It is a sign of a government in decay. We are now down to a situation where less than 10 questions are being answered in 45 minutes. This is a disgrace because most of the time the Opposition in particular is seeking information from the Government. The Government is so convinced that it has to have this confrontationist approach to the Opposition that it never thinks that some of these questions might be aimed at seeking information on behalf of the Australian people. The Australian people are entitled to know what is going on, what the Government's plans are, whether there is a future for falling interest rates, and other things which affect people daily. This Government does not want to answer those questions. Today we tried to find out whether the Government had plans to sell off many national assets which it now proposes to sell to repatriate this massive $24,000m debt and reduce, hopefully, the $8,000m worth of interest that must be paid this year from taxpayers' money. That is double-edged, because when the Government is paying $8,000m in interest, we find that home owners, credit card users, farmers and small business people are having to pay interest rates of 20 per cent. So that is a very good reason why members should have their questions answered, and answered properly. Evidence has been brought to this House by the Standing Committee on Procedure, which was looking into this issue, that in places such as Canada 40 questions can be answered in 45 minutes in some circumstances. We are getting 10 questions answered. We either have the most voluble Ministers in history or a very frightened group of Ministers who are not prepared to answer questions. Anyhow, the Government has totally regimented the members of its back bench, who are totally subservient. They never get to ask a question of interest to their own electorates. That never happened under the previous Government. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —It had better be a good point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair decides on points of order in this place. Mr Cunningham —The honourable member for O'Connor is casting aspersions on the Whips' officers in this Parliament in claiming that the back benchers are regimented. That is totally against the Standing Orders and it should be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair was listening very carefully; there is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —No point of order, Madam Speaker; that was plainly frivolous. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair decides that. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, and I am entitled to say that that was frivolous, time-wasting and should be punished. It is not punished because the honourable member is over there. Another point I wish to make-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is coming very close to reflecting on the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —There were other reflections on the Chair today; that is the final point I want to make. There was total contempt of the Speaker today, firstly by Ministers and eventually by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not go into that side of it. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I am not speaking about you. I am speaking about members of the Government and I am entitled to do that. I am entitled to say that the Prime Minister threatened you as he left this place today. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is not entitled to say that the Prime Minister threatened me. He will withdraw that remark. Mr TUCKEY —Well, I will withdraw it, if you do not believe it happened. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.20) —I wish to speak tonight on the food irradiation question which is currently being discussed in the West Australian newspaper. The fifth annual World Consumer Rights Day was observed on Sunday 15 March with the theme `Food-in the consumer interest'. Most honourable members here would be aware of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also hosted a Press conference that week to discuss consumer affairs and prices. But, as I said earlier, I want to speak about food irradiation. The United Nations guidelines for consumer protection list food, water and pharmaceuticals as areas of essential concern. The guideline on food focuses on food security, food standards and food safety. But the range of food issues is really much wider, covering additives, hormones and pesticide use in the food chain, as well as fast foods and nutrition, packaging and consumer information. The seven rights associated with World Consumer Rights Day are as follows: The right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to be heard, the right to redress, the right to consumer education and the right to a healthy environment. Mr Peter Fisher —What about the right to eat? Ms JAKOBSEN —Some honourable members opposite should think about that more often. Tonight I want to spend a few minutes talking about the consumer interest and consumer rights in the context of food irradiation. It is my firm personal opinion that irradiated food is not safe. I do not believe that consumers will have a meaningful choice in the purchase of irradiated goods; nor do I believe that consumers are being given a fair hearing on this question. There will be no redress for consumers if irradiated food proves subsequently to be unsafe. Very little consumer education will be provided and the environment may well be polluted as a result of the widespread use of this process for treating food. According to an article in the Guardian newspaper of Saturday 7 March 1987-I believe the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) also mentioned it earlier this week-which was written by its medical correspondent, Andrew Veitch, the British Medical Association's Board of Science recently ruled that irradiation used to sterilise food might cause genetic mutations in children, would destroy some nutrients, and would still expose consumers to the risk of food poisoning. The Board called for a full scale international investigation before the process is legalised. Australian consumers and medical practitioners should also be insisting on such an investigation. Mr Peter Fisher —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is that there is presently an inquiry being conducted by the House of Representatives into this issue. Surely nothing could be more public than an inquiry such as that. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member does not have a point of order; he has a point of information. Ms JAKOBSEN —I thank the honourable member for Mallee. I am aware of that inquiry. In fact at the end of my speech I intend to mention it. At a recent meeting of consumers I attended, which was called `Mothers and others for world peace'-some honourable members opposite are not for that-it was obvious that most people are worried about the prospect of feeding their families anything that has not been properly cleared for use. This article simply proves that my concerns and theirs are warranted and wise. No one wants to see another thalidomide incident. Why should Australia rush into this process when there is little demonstrated benefit in it for consumers and when a number of overseas countries are now expressing considerable doubts about its safety? The British Medical Association said that the British Government's advisers, headed by Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin College, Cambridge, failed to exclude possible long term medical effects on consumers. Dr John Dawson, head of the BMA's science division, said: It is important that we should be careful about introducing new techniques for treating or sterilising food. If a new technique is introduced, it would have to show a worthwhile benefit on a risk-benefit analysis. The Board of Science feels such a benefit has not been established. Dr Dawson also said that `there are clear adverse effects to set against the benefits'. The Board of Science gave considerable weight to the results of an investigation in the 1970s involving Indian children who were fed irradiated wheat. Scientists found genetic mutations in the children's white blood cells, which might have been cancerous. When the children stopped eating the irradiated wheat, the cells returned to normal. The British Medical Association's Board of Science found that the process does not prevent all forms of food poisoning either. The people of Australia do not want to be treated as guinea pigs, as these Indian children were apparently treated. I am aware of the inquiry that is currently being carried out by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I am very pleased that that inquiry is occurring and I intend to make a submission to the Committee later this year. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.25) —Tonight I pay tribute to the work of Mr Jack Sonnemann and to highlight the level of social concern by several well-known Australian companies, and the lack of concern by some other companies. It is interesting that the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) was talking about the right to a healthy environment. I want to speak about the right to a healthy environment, but on a slightly different topic and one on which we hear very little from the Government. Mr Jack Sonnemann is the Executive Director of the Australian Federation for Decency. He is doing what this Parliament should have done long ago. He is fighting the violent and pornographic video industry. At the same time he is pointing the direction towards a healthier, more fulfilling and rewarding lifestyle for Australians. This man and his wife team have not sat around and bemoaned the fact that violent pornography and homosexuality is undermining the fabric of people's lives. Rather, he has begun to harness the energies of thinking and caring Australians to confront head-on the dehumanising and money-grabbing industry based around the hideousness of violence and the degradation of sexual desires. His team of workers has grown to over 15,000 people. Only last week, while talking to public meetings in Tasmania, another 1,000 people joined his organisation. These people, linked together in a federation, have begun quietly, systematically and purposely to rid Australia of the perverted and violent videos and pornographic literature, in an attempt to make Australia a more dynamic community. I will refer to some of the instances where there has been success by this group of people. This is a reply to one of the members of the federation from Qantas Airways Ltd. It states: I would like to thank you for taking the time to write to Mr Yates concerning Qantas advertising in Penthouse magazine. He has asked me to reply to you on his behalf. When we sit down to plan any advertising campaign in Qantas, we aim to achieve a cost effective media schedule in relation to our target audience. Penthouse reading audience showed a high percentage of readers in the professional managers category, our prime target group. However, your letter was one of many which prompted me to cancel this advertisement from future appearances in Penthouse or similar magazines, in other words denying the Penthouse magazine group the funds from advertising. That is a good, positive way to go about handling this type of situation. It is interesting that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has also advertised in such magazines. He says: Playboy is just one of the magazines which has been selected as it is cost effective and will achieve a large male readership. There was certainly no acknowledgment by the Minister that he would withdraw advertising in that magazine. In that sense he shows a lack of social conscience. I now want to refer to Arnotts as another company which had a letter written to it about the sponsorship of Mistral's Daughter. In its reply it states: In many circumstances we cannot control the specific placement of advertising within programs. But on this occasion we did not review the program content critically prior to sponsorship. As a direct result of your correspondence, I have issued very firm guidelines to our advertising agency to ensure that the company does not sponsor any program which does not portray traditional family values and therefore may offend some members of our community. There are several companies-K-Mart (Australia) Ltd is another one-that have decided that they will not sell any more videos on sexual trivia and so on. I think Jack Sonnemann and his group are doing a tremendous job in getting rid of these videos and the pornographic material which is evident in our community. Mr McGauran —They have our support. Mr MILES —They certainly have our support and they have very wide support in the Australian community. As members of this Parliament we should recognise this problem and do much more about it. Dr THEOPHANOUS(10.30) —Madam Speaker, this evening a large number of members of parliament from all sides were privileged to have dinner with and hear answers from Oliver Tambo, the President of the African National Congress. He directly answered some of the basic issues that have been raised in a scurrilous fashion by a small number of people who have been trying to challenge the visit of Mr Tambo to Australia. It was important that the case of the ANC be presented. It is interesting that those opponents that have tried to attack the ANC during the recent visit of Tambo have resorted to the most scurrilous personal attacks. Unfortunately, two of those opponents have been members of this House. Yesterday they resorted to the most outrageous tactics in attacking the President of the ANC and seeking publicity for themselves. Mr Tim Fischer —This is a free country. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is a free country, all right, but that does not permit members of parliament in this place to spread the most outrageous lies and misrepresentations. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that word. He knows he is not allowed to use such language. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Well, they were the most outrageous misrepresentations in relation to the reputation of Oliver Tambo and the African National Congress. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calwell will withdraw the word. The Chair asked for a withdrawal. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I withdraw the word `lies'. Madam Speaker, they were the most outrageous misrepresentations in relation to this matter. The African National Congress is a multiracial organisation which is committed not to the domination of South Africa by the blacks but to a multiracial society. It is committed to achieving a society in which a number of political parties can, through a democratic system, pursue the contest for power. It is not an organisation which is promoting the abolition of the whites, as was the misrepresentation made yesterday by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). In their disgraceful performance yesterday they had the impertinence to describe Oliver Tambo as a thug. If certain people want to come into this House and to identify themselves with the racist South African regime and to become apologists for it, they are entitled to do so. But they should be blunt and honest about it rather than pretend on the one hand to oppose apartheid and on the other hand oppose anything which will replace that system. The position of the Australian Labor Party on South Africa has been clear. For the last two years I have had on the Notice Paper a motion that calls for the release of Nelson Mandela and for serious negotiations to take place between the South African Government and the representatives of the black people-not only the ANC but other groups as well. The resolving of this situation is in the hands of the South African Government. It could resolve the situation tomorrow. It was mentioned by Mr Tambo tonight that all the South African Government has to do is to release Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners and allow the ANC and other groups to function legitimately and to participate in the political process. They are the only preconditions required for serious negotiations to resolve the South African crisis to take place. The honourable member for Parkes and the honourable member for Fisher ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way in which they attacked Oliver Tambo. Such behaviour is an absolute disgrace and it has no place in a democratic society. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.35) —Honourable members will recall that on Tuesday 31 March I asked the esteemed Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones) to explain why, when the Commonwealth last year took over the marketing arrangements from a private enterprise firm of Royal Australian Mint coin collector sets, the price sky-rocketed by 76 per cent. Honourable members will further recall that the Minister took the question on notice. He has now given an answer and I invite honourable members to peruse the answer when it is published in Hansard. It is an extraordinary answer which reveals the utter hypocrisy and inconsistency on price surveillance of the Government and the Minister, who is not really a Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Honourable members will appreciate that the answer, as is to be expected, is couched in the most obscure gobbledegook imaginable, which has become a hallmark of this Government as it seeks to avoid giving answers to real questions. As best we can ascertain, there are two reasons for this massive 76 per cent increase in price since the private enterprise arrangement was terminated last year. Firstly, the Minister, in his answer, states: The major reason for the increase in the price of uncirculated coin sets in 1987 is that the costs of producing these sets have increased significantly in recent years. In recent years! The enterprise was terminated last year so it has really been only about six months. If the Government is going to blame increased prices in production, why was Jaggard Coins (Aust) Pty Ltd able to absorb these increases and keep prices at a reasonable level? Bear in mind that the 76 per cent increase has occurred in only a matter of months. The second reason given as to why there has been this massive increase-wait for it-is that these coins are rare and the Commonwealth is entitled to make a windfall profit. Let me quote exactly from the Minister's answer: It is reasonable for the Commonwealth to seek to capture at least part of the scarcity premium attached to these sets. We have the Commonwealth admitting in a written answer, from the most bumbling and incompetent Minister who could have been chosen for this role, that the Commonwealth is seeking to exploit the scarcity of a product to the detriment of consumers. Mr Peter Fisher —Just like fuel. Mr McGAURAN —Yes, just like fuel. Does that mean that it is open slather for all Government monopolies such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post or for private enterprise retailers-- Mr Blunt —They sell them cheaper in Japan. Mr McGAURAN —I understand from the honourable member for Richmond that these coin sets are actually 30 per cent cheaper in Japan. So here we have the Commonwealth deliberately fleecing-and there is no other word for it-the consumers. It is in black and white. A new level of morality has been injected into the market-place: If goods are scarce one is perfectly entitled to rip off consumers! The hypocrisy, the total inconsistency and the stupidity of this Government's approach to prices is revealed. Of course, we thank the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices for this very revealing information. What would one expect from the man who bungles his way through a supermarket with a camera crew in train and drops goods, does not know prices-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN —No, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry. I thought the light had gone out. Mr McGAURAN —Madam Speaker, it has been a long session and one is forgiven for slight oversights. Let me go back to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. He had a camera crew following him around to record faithfully his words and his actions. Where did they end up? Before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. And we get some pontificating from the Minister complaining about his poor treatment. This Minister is ill-equipped, but we have some sympathy and understanding for him. It is a most obvious treacherous deception for this Government to profess concern about prices when, by its own admission, it is reasonable for the Commonwealth to seek to capture at least part of the scarcity premium. In other words, the Commonwealth, in total defiance of its own proclamation, is ripping off consumers. Surely this Government cannot sink any lower. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.40) —I rise tonight to expose the Opposition's lack of sympathy for the people of the Hunter Valley, particularly its coal industry workers. The Opposition is preaching such nonsense as the total deregulation of the coal export market, which would have disastrous effects on the Hunter Valley coal mining industry. It would lead to mine closures, it would harm the economy of the valley cities and towns and it would throw thousands of miners on to the unemployment scrap heap. We learnt about the sympathy for the miners held by the Opposition in last week's Australian Financial Review, which disclosed some of the policies which would be pursued by the Opposition should it ever be sufficiently fortunate to regain government. One of its plans is the abolition of the Joint Coal Board. I pursued the matter with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and with various government officials. I can give a categoric assurance that, in spite of the Opposition's attempt to put the boot into the miners, the Government has no plans to abolish the Joint Coal Board. The Joint Coal Board is a joint authority established by parallel legislation of the Commonwealth and the New South Wales governments. The two governments reviewed its operations in 1984 and chose not to vary its powers. It was, however, agreed that the Joint Coal Board should be reconstituted to comprise an independent Chairman and members representative of the interests of those employed in the industry and of New South Wales coal companies. The present Chairman and a member representative of employees were appointed in October 1984. Steps are under way at present to appoint a member representative of New South Wales coal companies. The Joint Coal Board makes a substantial contribution to the coal industry, which is Australia's largest export earner. Its functions include mining, engineering, geology, supervision of the opening and closure of mines, the provision of workers compensation insurance in the New South Wales coal industry, the promotion of coal exports and the collection of data on the coal industry on a national basis. The Joint Coal Board has been deeply involved in the establishment of the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Council. It promotes the use of coal in developing countries through a training scheme in Newcastle and operates a welfare fund for the benefit of the New South Wales coal mining communities. Various charitable organisations, schools, libraries, police boys clubs-all kinds of worthwhile organisations within the Hunter Valley-have benefited from donations made by the Joint Coal Board. Aside from these considerations and the Government's wish not to introduce an element of instability into the industry, the Hawke Labor Government would find it difficult to withdraw unilaterally from the joint arrangements with New South Wales. Both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have undertaken not to take action without the prior concurrence of the other to repeal or amend any of the legislation establishing the Joint Coal Board. So I can give the miners of the Hunter Valley, the south coast and other areas this very clear mess- age: Under a Liberal government or a coalition government not only would they have an attack on their rights and working conditions but they would also have put into effect such disastrous policies as the abolition of the Joint Coal Board and the total deregulation of the coal export market. This Government will not have a bar of those two proposals. I am quite sure that when it comes to the next election, whenever it is, the coalition parties can expect very little support from the coal miners, particularly in the Hunter Valley. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.45) —I wish to make some remarks tonight about the difficult part of the parliamentary day that is called Question Time. Referring to House of Representatives Practice, one notes on page 500 that the Speaker has no power to require a Minister to curb his answer to a question without notice. House of Representatives Practice goes on to state that in many instances Speakers have requested Ministers to give their answers in the form of parliamentary statements. I have felt the frustration, as have many Opposition members, of the Government's abuse of Question Time by the use of excessively long and abusive answers, most of which are prepared and are given without relevance to the questions which are asked. Your inability, Madam Speaker, to prevail upon Ministers to shorten their answers and to make them relevant has served only to encourage Ministers to pursue their abuse. Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have sympathy for your position in this matter. One only has to look at this week's record of Question Time to see that on Tuesday, for example, the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) gave an answer on rehabilitation services. He could easily have made a statement. No previous statement had been made. It was a lengthy answer. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), answering a question on family assistance, was interrupted twice by points of order on relevance. He was answering a prepared dorothy dix question typical of those Government members are prepared to accept in a planned Question Time where members of the Government are limited to asking prepared questions of the Government. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) spoke about housing finance. His answer should have been a statement. In fact the Minister on that occasion read a Press release of his own. Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the second speaker tonight on the adjournment debate to deal with an issue which I think goes to the very heart of your position in the chair, Madam Speaker, and how you are handling that position. You work within the Standing Orders. This attack is certainly aimed at the Chair and should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair is listening carefully to the honourable member for Mitchell and may have a few words of its own to say later. Mr CADMAN —The Prime Minister spoke on small business. The Treasurer spoke on economic performance. The Minister for Community Services, again, spoke on nursing homes. That is a matter of Government policy which deserves debate by the Parliament. The Minister should have made a statement on that important matter to all our electors. We are prepared to debate any of these statements. On Wednesday the Treasurer went on at length about the Australia Card. There were three points of order regarding relevance of his reply to the question. Today was particularly difficult because, Madam Speaker, despite your comments to Ministers, they chose either not to hear you or to pursue their answers to questions, as is their right under Standing Orders, provided that they are relevant. The Opposition is concerned that the authority of the Prime Minister over his Ministers in this regard should be absolutely paramount at Question Time. Unless the Prime Minister and his Ministers are prepared to co-operate with us and with the Speaker, Question Time becomes unworkable for all us and the level of frustration grows. One only has to compare the number of questions asked in Question Time under this Government with what happened under the previous Government. In the last three years of the Fraser Government an average of 13.8 questions were asked per Question Time. In the last three years of the Hawke Government 11.6 questions have been asked per Question Time. So we have dropped an average of two questions a day through the conscious behaviour of Ministers. I was going to read the most recent edition of what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said in abuse of individuals in this House. It happens day after day. There are pages of these comments which I regard as an abuse of Question Time but which cannot be controlled. The Opposition has put down a notice of motion-and a sensible one, too-requiring short answers of three minutes with an extension available for another two minutes if it is appropriate or if the answer is complex. The Government has not produced statements which can be debated. I believe that the House deserves the authority of the Prime Minister in support of the position of Speaker-your position, Madam Speaker. We will co-operate with any reasonable suggestions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.50) —I will respond to a few of the comments made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). The way in which Question Time in this House is run by you, Madam Speaker, is quite good, but we do have disorderly behaviour by members of the Opposition. Last week the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), tore up bits of paper and really made a fool of himself. Those are the sorts of things that disrupt the House. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) swaggers up to the microphone in Question Time. That is the sort of thing that turns this chamber into the type of place that it should not be. It is Opposition members' behaviour that actually degenerates this Parliament. I would also like to talk about the behaviour of, I think, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). He quoted from a newspaper article which stated: Bob Hawke lets New Zealand supply Australian armed forces with dairy products while the rest of us are told to buy Australian. The honourable member quoted from a letter which appeared in the Sun newspaper. That was not correct; it was totally wrong. It is a fabrication. All dairy products supplied to the Australian Army come from Australian companies. That is what I have been told and that is what I believe to be correct. The honourable member should check out his facts. Mr McGauran —Who told you? Mr CHYNOWETH —The chairman of the country task force. Opposition members interjecting- Mr CHYNOWETH —Honourable members opposite might not be able to believe their shadow spokesman on agriculture. Mr McGauran —Why doesn't he tell us himself? Mr CHYNOWETH —Because he has not got the call. That is why I have said it. I wish to speak about a very unprofessional- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Tonight we have had two honourable members speak about the abuse of Standing Orders in this House and the disrepute into which the House has been drawn. I remind all honourable members that there is a standing order that makes it out of order for honourable members to converse or to interrupt another member who has the call. I call the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The main subject on which I want to speak tonight concerns some very unprofessional journalism which appeared in the Saturday Extra section of the Age of 14 March 1987 under the heading `Frankston's Clash of the classes'. Even in that headline there is a certain amount of bias on the city of Frankston. It states: THE GOLD CAR will probably wend its way up Olivers Hill to Mount Eliza after the shopping is done. Mr McGauran —Tell us about dairy products. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I do not intend to warn the honourable member for Gippsland again. Mr CHYNOWETH —It continues: The sun might catch it as it rises over the crest and then disappears into the vegetation. It will only come down again to shop, perhaps to visit the dance club one night a week or to pass through on its way to the big city . . . Once among the trees on Mount Eliza, Frankston proper is forgotten. Even that statement is not correct. The article continues. Take a sudden plunge from this rarefied altitude. Not five kilometres away is a part of Frankston that many locals consider to be, metaphorically, below sea-level and like the lower circles of Dante's Inferno, beyond redemption. It is an area known to many and visted by few outside those who live there. Forest Pines Housing Commission Estate. That is not correct. The people of Forest Pines are a great group of people. They have struggled for many years to get over the bigoted and biased attitude that has been demonstrated against them by some journalists and people who do not know what they are all about. It is a very close community. Its members have worked hard. They have been great supporters of many things that have happened in the Frankston area. The article went on to say that there are no trees, that it is a barren area and so on. Once again, that is not correct. There is a part of Frankston, at the end of Excelsior Drive, which is the original heath land. It is the last piece left on the peninsula. The residents of the Pines community are working hard to make certain that the area is kept for all times. I support them in that bid. It is a very good community, and I will not take the sort of slander that is coming through newspapers and from various people who are trying to denigrate members of Forest Pines. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.55) —I speak tonight because it strikes me as entirely appropriate, both at this time of year and in the present climate, that the Parliament should rise for a three-week period by taking a bipartisan look at what is the most pressing crisis facing Australia, that is-- Mr Cunningham —In the Opposition. Mr ANDREW —I think that that is a most unbecoming interjection, given the tone of my remarks. I refer to the crisis facing every farmer across this nation. My remarks were intended to be bipartisan, but I am prompted, after the interjection by the honourable member for McMillan, to remind the House of how inappropriate it was for the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) to claim that the electors of Hunter have been directly disadvantaged by the Opposition's policies. In fact-I say this reluctantly because normally I would have consulted the honourable member for Hunter before I made these remarks, and he has left the chamber-I would have thought that the honourable member for Hunter, gregarious and pleasant fellow that he is, would be the one person with the least reason to be critical of the Opposition's policies, given the impact on his electorate of the wine tax that this Government has imposed three times, that could well cost him his seat. In that context, I felt that his remarks were rather inappropriate. I now turn to the dilemma that is facing every farmer across the nation. It is something he will have to come to grips with by the time we return to this House; that is, the decision whether or not to sow a crop this year and, if he chooses to do so, what he will sow it with, and how he will pay for it. Then there is the fundamental decision: Having sown it, what is he going to get for it? Nowhere is this decision being felt more acutely than on the Eyre Peninsula in the electorate of the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). I freely acknowledge that he is aware of the dilemma because he joined the chairman of the rural task force, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), in a tour of the electorate of Grey and the region of Eyre Peninsula. Australia's farmers are an important part of our total trading environment. We are the world's sixth largest farm trading nation. We have 170,000 family farms, but the number is declining at an average of 2,500 every year. Principally, this is happening because of the interest rate bill that every Australian farmer has to service. Because of the marginal nature of the country on Eyre Peninsula, and because it has been opened up recently, this dilemma has been felt more acutely. In March this year, 13 farmers chose to abandon their properties leaving 22,000 hectares of productive land unoccupied on the Eyre Peninsula. Values of farms in that area of South Australia have been reduced by 30 per cent over the past two years. As every farmer across Australia knows, wheat prices have crashed by $30 a tonne, largely as a result of the subsidised sales by the United States and the European Economic Community. I acknowledge that some of the fault rests with farmers who have made what might be determined as rash decisions, but it would be quite unfair to dismiss the dilemma there. I acknowledge that some of the fault rests with banks which have been too free to lend, but it would be unfair to dismiss the decision there. Much of the fault must still be left with the Government whose policy has been to encourage high interest rates. Those high interest rates have done more than anything else to cripple farmers across Australia. Those are not the words of the Liberal Opposition; they are the words of the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan. Mr McLachlan, speaking for farmers across Australia, has endeavoured to address the burdens they face and to ask the Government to do something to address the intolerable burden of rising interest rates. Mr McLachlan has suggested that the Government could have reduced interest rates by cracking down on wages but was afraid of the trade union movement. Mr McLachlan recognises that the present rapid rate- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Barry Jones —Madam Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices)(11.00) —The criticism by the honour- able member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) of price increases for the marketing of the Royal Australian Mint's coin collector sets is not soundly based. He relies on a false analogy between the Government's declared aim to restrain prices for goods and services, in order to preserve the effectiveness of the prices and incomes accord, and the price charged for the Mint's coin collector sets. His analogies with the price of fuel and Telecom Australia charges are ludicrous. He resorts to personal denigration-an invariable indicator of a weak argument. I do not propose to follow his lead, except to say that I knew he was young but had not realised that he was childish. Price restraint is essentially aimed at household, institutional and industrial goods and services for general consumption where the goods are used up or consumed or depreciate in value in markets for which there are relative degrees of competition, perfect or imperfect depending on the actual goods and where they are sold. The price of a packet of Kelloggs puffed wheat or ready-wheats does not appreciate after it is put on the pantry shelf. The goods are consumed. The value of garden hoses, children's shoes and biscuits will invariably decline, and so will the price of cars, except in special cases; for example, vintage cars which are collectors' items. So in the case of general goods the price is rarely determined by a scarcity factor; but I would not expect the prices of racehorses, old master paintings, French imperial silverware, rare stamps or Royal Australian Mint coin collector sets to be determined by the Prices Surveillance Authority or by State legislation. The honourable member for Gippsland is not talking about general merchandise but about collectors' items-goods for which collectors are prepared to pay a premium because they calculate, or gamble, that the value will appreciate significantly. So, unlike puffed wheat, the scarcity factor is a major contributor to the price of collectors' items. It is notorious that collectables are rising in price at an unprecedentedly rapid rate. The sale of van Gogh's Sunflowers by Christies in London last Monday for $A57m, including the auctioneer's useful 10 per cent commission, is a dramatic illustration of this. That was three times more than the previous record price paid for a painting, Mantegna's Adoration of the Magi. No doubt the honourable member for Gippsland would have delivered some ill-judged remarks had the auction been held within my jurisdiction. Even more striking, in the case of Sunflowers, is that its 1889 selling price was the equivalent of $A65 and its 1934 selling price about $A5,000. In establishing the prices to be charged for collector sets, regard is generally had to trends in their cost of production, packaging and marketing, trends in sales and demand and trends in prices charged for similar products by other countries. Overall, the objective is to achieve an optimal rate of return on taxpayers' funds employed in numismatic coin production. Within that broad criterion, the following considerations were particularly important in establishing prices for 1987: For proof sets, there had been a 10.5 per cent decline in sales in 1986, following a price increase of $4 per set in that year. As a result, it was considered optimal that there be no further price increase in 1987. For uncirculated sets, in distinction to the proof sets, costs of production, and in particular packaging costs, have increased considerably in recent years and have not previously been fully reflected in the prices charged. A survey of relative prices charged for such sets in other countries also indicated that Australia's product has been significantly underpriced. In the United Kingdom and Canada, for example, uncirculated sets are marketed at around one-third of the price of proof sets, whereas in Australia they are selling for only around 10 to 11 per cent of the price of proof sets. For example, in 1986 the proof price, including postage, was $49; the uncirculated cost, including postage, was $5.50. In 1987 the proof price has remained the same, at $49, and the uncirculated price has gone from $5.50 to $9.70. There was a very high demand for uncirculated sets in 1985 and 1986, reflecting the fact that they were, along with proof sets, the only source of some coin denominations produced in those years. In other words, it is not as if one were buying something out of X million or X hundred million coins, but in many cases-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. As no other Minister has risen, he may continue. Mr BARRY JONES —This is expected to be the case in 1987 and has resulted in a rapid increase in the price of the 1985 and 1986 coin sets in the secondary market where prices of up to $70 are reported to have been realised. Against the background I have given, it was decided to increase the price of Australia's uncirculated coin sets in 1987. Far from being exorbitant, it would seem on the basis of the information I have given that even at $9.70 the uncirculated sets are still significantly undervalued. It is ironic that there have been complaints about the rise in the price of the uncirculated sets when the market value of these sets is up to seven times higher than the sale price. On equity grounds, it would seem reasonable that the Commonwealth should seek to capture at least a part of the scarcity premium attaching to these sets for the benefit of taxpayers generally who, after all, provide the resources necessary for their production. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 28 April 1987, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 April 1987: Excise Act-Declaration pursuant to section 78b, dated 11 March 1987. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to sub-section 6a (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 27 March 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4654) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Further to question No. 4046 placed on notice on 22 May 1986 (a) have more than 3 months passed since the question was first placed on notice, (b) when can I expect an answer to the question and (c) what does this delay say about the efficiency of the internal reporting system in his Department. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to question No. 4046 appeared in Hansard dated 17 March 1987 at pages 990 and 991. (Question No. 5097) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Is the Government's policy with respect to the construction and operation of rotary wing, amateur-built aircraft in Australia different to that in other countries, including the USA; if so, why. (2) What are the reasons for a distinction between amateur-built rotary wing aircraft and fixed wing aircraft. (3) Is there a distinction between the operation of ultralight helicopters in Australia and the operation of gyrocopters; if so, (a) what are they and (b) why are there distinctions. (4) Why are amateur-built rotary wing or ultralight helicopters not permitted to operate under the same conditions as Australian ultralight or amateur-built aircraft. (5) Will his Department introduce an amateur-built or ultralight rotary wing category of operations if not, why not. (6) Has his Department received any applications to import or design or construct an ultralight or amateur-built rotary wing aircraft; if so, were the applications granted. (7) If applications were not granted what were the reasons for refusal. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's policy with regard to the construction and operation of rotorcraft is in general similar to those of other countries. However, our policy with regard to amateur-built helicopters does differ from that of the USA. There are two distinct categories of rotorcraft (`rotary wing aircraft'); helicopters, having rotors driven by an engine, and gyroplanes, having an engine-driven propeller and using a free-spinning rotor for lift. Helicopters are much heavier and more complex than gyroplanes. The former may not be constructed by amateurs in Australia whereas the latter may. Most other countries also allow the construction of amateur-built gyroplanes and a few, including the USA, allow a limited number of amateur-built helicopters to be constructed. These have not had a good safety record and consequently Australia has taken a conservative approach in not allowing amateurs to build such aircraft at this time. (2) Amateur-built fixed wing aircraft are relatively simple to construct and are generally within the capacity of the amateur to build in private premises. Helicopters are significantly more complex than small aeroplanes in design, and there are many more parts and components which, due to the very high levels of stress they will be subject to during flight, are very sensitive to proper quality control during manufacture. There is also conclusive evidence that helicopters are many times more prone to serious defects than aeroplanes as a class. For these reasons helicopters are required to be built under approved factory conditions. (3) There are no `ultralight helicopters' flying in Australia. The differences in the categories of rotorcraft are as described in (1) above. The operation of gyroplanes is addressed at (4) below. (4) Gyroplanes, the only amateur-built rotorcraft accepted in Australia, are treated similarly to ultralight aircraft in that they are not required to meet any airworthiness standards nor are their pilots required to hold pilot licences. They are therefore only permitted to operate under much the same limitations as ultralight aeroplanes. For example, in both cases there are restrictions on area of operations, weight, and maximum height. In contrast, amateur-built conventional aeroplanes are constructed under supervision to a similar standard to factory-built aeroplanes and must be flown by licensed pilots. Therefore they are permitted to operate freely under the same conditions. For example, they are permitted to operate within controlled airspace and land at licensed aerodromes. (5) Gyroplanes, which can be described as `ultralight rotary wing' aircraft, are already permitted. These aircraft may be amateur-built. Amateur-built helicopters are not permitted for the reasons already stated. (6) Some gyroplane kits are imported to Australia and other types are designed and constructed here. Construction is oversighted and approved by the Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association. There have been a number of applications to import light helicopter kits but these have not been approved. (7) The applications to import helicopter kits for assembly in Australia that have been received have not been approved for the reasons outlined in (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 5235) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: When will the Minister answer my question No. 4927 placed on notice on 20 November 1986. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to question No. 4927 was published in Hansard of 25 March 1987, page 1539.