Tuesday, 22 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mrs Kathryn Jean Sullivan made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Moncrieff, Queensland. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is unwell. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —I can assure honourable members he is. He will be absent from Question Time today. Any questions normally directed to Mr Keating should be addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the fact that the Treasurer will address the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington next week, does the Prime Minister share Senator Walsh's view that another commodity price slide will see the IMF knocking on Australia's door? Mr HAWKE —No. Of course I normally do not answer hypothetical questions, Madam Speaker, as you know, but let me make this point: neither I nor any other responsible commentator is predicting an imminent further terms of trade collapse. The important thing for the present I would suggest, as I have repeated for some years, is, as I said at Surfers Paradise on 26 August: The past few years have served to highlight the structural weaknesses in the Australian economy and its vulnerability and inflexibility in responding to external shocks. From day one my Government has set about tackling those weaknesses, through both macro-economic and micro-economic policy tools. Fundamentally the task demands attitudinal change. As such it is a task which government cannot successfully perform alone. It is one which requires the understanding and application of the whole community. Having said that and having endorsed it again today let me note that the Australian people have shown a very commendable capacity, under the leadership of this Government, to do the things that are necessary to cope with those economic realities. I would have no doubt that, were the very unlikely event of a further catastrophic decline in our terms of trade to occur, we would as a nation do the things that would be necessary to meet that challenge-as we, as a nation, so magnificently did in the terms of trade collapse of 1985-86. I think it is not inappropriate to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer made quite clear in his actual Budget Speech his awareness of the continuing challenge confronting this country. The Leader of the Opposition, as has become his wont, is quite incapable of quoting accurately when he seeks to make his attacks upon members on this side of the House. I have had the opportunity of reading the transcript of his rather pathetic Press conference this morning. Of course, he misquoted the Treasurer. He has the Treasurer talking about the new golden age when the Treasurer in fact was referring to a golden age of economic change. Indeed, that was an accurate statement by the Treasurer, particularly when we contrast the tremendous achievement and redirection of the Australian economy under this Government with the poverty of decision-making and direction under our predecessors. I want to point out in this context that the Treasurer, in his actual Budget Speech, signalled quite clearly and unequivocally the need for the nation to understand the longer term nature of the challenges confronting it. Let me quote from page 3 of the printed Budget Speech. The Treasurer, after talking about our very considerable achievements, rightly said: They have exceeded the expectations of almost everybody. It is very appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition should be reminded that the Treasurer also said: Madam Speaker, as successful as we have been, the magnitude of our trading problem is such that we still have a long way to do. The big trade deficits since the early 1980s have built up a substantial foreign debt burden. Our external deficit, although falling, remains too high. To reduce permanently our debt burden we must go further in reducing our dependence on overseas savings by lifting the level of Australian savings. It is quite clear that the Treasurer was perfectly and properly aware of the longer term nature of these problems confronting the Australian economy. As for his attendance at the IMF meeting, when he goes there he will be welcomed, as he has consistently been welcomed from 1983, as an outstanding Treasurer, a Treasurer who has produced change in this country which is beyond either the concept or the delivery capacity of those opposite. It will be a welcome which will be consistent with what was said by overseas commentators and markets during the election campaign: they hoped and trusted that Keating would return as Treasurer in a Hawke government and they expressed their unbridled concern that, in the election, the control of the Australian economy should fall into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. Fortunately, the good judgment of the Australian electorate mirrored the judgment of those overseas. Mr COURTICE —Has the Attorney-General been informed of the resignation of the Queensland Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Graham Parker? Was Mr Parker on the National Crime Authority (NCA) as a representative from Queensland? Does Mr Parker's concession of corruption undermine the workings of the National Crime Authority in Queensland? What measures does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the work of the National Crime Authority is not undermined? Can the Minister state who appointed the former Inspector Parker to the position on the National Crime Authority? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Madam Speaker- Mr McVeigh —Madam Speaker, I take point of order. These matters are sub judice matters in Queensland. It is inappropriate-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. Mr McVeigh —Well, let's talk about Al Grassby. Let's talk about Grassby. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Groom will not shout at the Chair. I call the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question relates to the operations of the National Crime Authority. I am advised that Mr Parker resigned from the Queensland police force on 16 September and later made some admissions of corruption. The National Crime Authority, of course, comprises three members. But in the course of operating and carrying out its functions it liaises with all State police forces. The representative from Queensland is known to be whoever occupies the position of Assistant Commissioner (Crime and Services). In this case it was Mr Parker. The Assistant Commissioner (Crime and Services) is appointed by the Queensland Government. Once it makes that appointment, the appointee is the person who acts as liaison officer with the National Crime Authority. I understand that Mr Parker filled this role during 1986 and for a short period this year. During this period he attended three meetings of the Authority's operations conference and, in accordance as I understand it with practice, when the officers attend those meetings of the operational conference they are briefed as to what might have happened or might be happening in respect of certain references. I cannot make any further comment in respect of other matters which might certainly concern operational procedures, but I would like it to be known that there is close liaison between the NCA and what is known as the Fitzgerald inquiry. One of the NCA's references has some interest in that inquiry. So there is frequent liaison between the inquiry and the Authority. But from the point of view of what might be deemed to be infiltration and matters of that nature, I am advised that the NCA is certainly reviewing the situation to see whether there are some procedures that might need to be undertaken to ensure that there is no interference with the efficiency, privacy and secrecy of its operations. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise of a family package designed to lift Australians out of poverty and ensure, in the Prime Minister's words, that `by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty'. Is it a fact, as Senator Walsh asserted at the Society of Labor Lawyers conference, that under the package 20,000 low income Australian families will face effective marginal tax rates of up to 110 per cent, thus destroying any incentive for these families to try to improve their earnings, and effectively condemning them and their children to remain in poverty? How does the Prime Minister reconcile the reality of the family package for these 20,000 families with his solemn and unequivocal election promise? Mr HAWKE —I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has addressed the question of child poverty. Let me make it very clear that prior to the package that we have introduced this Government had already taken major steps to tackle the problem of child poverty in this country. Since coming to office we have directed our attention to the appalling situation that we inherited as a legacy of seven years of conservative neglect. I remind the Leader of the Opposition also that since coming to office the additional pension benefit and family income supplements payable to low income families have been increased by 70 per cent from $10 to $17 a week per child. The mothers guardian allowance has been doubled from $6 to $12 a week and rent assistance has been increased by 50 per cent from $10 to $15 a week. Nevertheless, we as a government recognise that more needs to be done to reverse the callous neglect of the previous Government. The number of children for whom additional pension benefits was paid rose by nearly 50 per cent in the last three years of the coalition Government, owing to the dramatic increase in unemployment which flowed from its inappropriate economic policies. During the seven years of the conservative Government, the additional pension benefit was increased only once, and that was by $2.50 a week, and the mothers guardian allowance was increased by only $2. The first substantial step in achieving our goal will be the introduction in December of the new family allowance supplement (FAS). This will be paid at the rate of $22 a week per child, plus an additional $6 a week for children aged between 13 and 15. That is a very large increase from the maximum rate of $17 a week which is paid under the current additional pension benefit and family income supplement (FIS), which the FAS replaces. We acknowledge also that families who are renting privately are particularly vulnerable. These low income families will also be eligible for rent assistance of $15 a week. The fact is that the FAS will benefit some half a million Australian families and over one million children. I acknowledge the element of the introduction of this plan to which the honourable gentleman referred and, of course, we were concerned about that aspect of it. However, in the totality of our attempt to bring about a substantial improvement in this area of abysmal neglect by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in those seven years, we have formulated a scheme which has been welcomed, and strongly welcomed, by the people in the community-the social welfare practitioners who have been face to face with the dramatic problems caused by the neglect of the seven years before we came to office. They acknowledge the problem that can exist in the area to which the honourable gentleman referred. But in the totality of bringing in a scheme calculated to benefit one million Australian children, the judgment of the welfare community is that, historically, this is the greatest single step that has ever been taken by any Australian government to address this fundamental social problem. Mr BILNEY —Madam Speaker, may I compliment you on your beautiful suit. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you-but you already have the call. Mr BILNEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Can the Minister inform the House about the effects on the average pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer, the average pay as you earn employee, of the introduction of the Australia Card? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. It is true that many crocodile tears have been shed and much misinformation has been spread about the effect on the privacy of the ordinary PAYE taxpayer as a result of the Australia Card. I point out that the ordinary PAYE taxpayer not only will benefit from the enhanced privacy provisions provided under the Australia Card Bill and the accompanying privacy Bills but also, in addition, will be the biggest beneficiary of successful reductions of fraud in taxation and social welfare areas. When the PAYE taxpayer considers his present privacy position and looks at how his position will be enhanced, both by the Data Protection Agency and by the privacy Bills themselves, he will see that that is so. I think it is fair to say that the average PAYE taxpayer has very little opportunity to evade tax. His employer ensures that he meets his tax obligations every week or fortnight. Many PAYE taxpayers are on award wages or publicly known salaries and, therefore, the information on their levels of income is already readily available. PAYE taxpayers are required to provide the Australian Taxation Office with an annual income tax return disclosing the details of their income. The record of a person's income is built up over many years. The only additional information required to be reported to the Tax Office by the ordinary PAYE taxpayer under the Australia Card legislation is a person's Australia Card number. Yet the prophets of doom and all the-- Mr Porter —What about the cost to them? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. He has already interjected three times. The Chair has taken note of that. Dr BLEWETT —The prophets of doom and all the alarmists on the other side of the House believe that the Tax Office staff, who have an excellent record of protecting private information, will suddenly, because of the Australia Card, become less rigorous and more corruptible. Rather, it is the higher income earners, the pin-stripe brigade, who are best able-- Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —The Opposition becomes noisy immediately it is suggested that higher income earners are those who are most able to evade tax in this society. Mr Nehl —These are not from the pin-stripe brigade. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will not interject again. Dr BLEWETT —If, of course, Opposition members were prepared, as they have never been prepared, to examine with care the reports of the Commissioner of Taxation and the various reports of the commissions of inquiry that have been held into the taxation system, they would know that the chief sources of tax evasion in this society lie with those on higher incomes, because unlike the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer they have a variety of sources from which their incomes come: from employment, from investment in interest bearing accounts, from shares, from property, or from small business. It is these people who are able cynically to hide behind civil liberties protection about privacy, who seek to preserve that way of exploiting the tax system. It is these sophisticated tax evaders at whom the Australia Card will effectively strike. As I pointed out before, the Australia Card does not represent any invasion of privacy. Mr Downer interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Dr BLEWETT —In fact, the privacy provisions in the accompanying privacy Bills and in the Data Protection Agency are something that this society has not seen in terms of protection of privacy before in this country. Of course, the Australia Card will also attack the problem of welfare fraud. It will effectively prevent the kinds of cases that my colleague the Minister for Social Security illustrated. Mr Donald Cameron —You are lying again. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw it. Dr BLEWETT —It will also be effective in dealing with those cases of social welfare fraud instanced by my colleague the Minister for Social Security such as the Jansenberger case in which false identities, 53 in number, were used to take $379,000 out of unemployment benefits; the McKenzie case which involved taking $343,000 out of benefits-- Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is abusing Question Time. If he wants to make a statement he should do so. He should allow the Opposition the opportunity to put as many questions as possible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. Dr BLEWETT —I repeat that the use of the Australia Card will prevent such cases as the Jansenberger case in which $379,000 was taken in unemployment benefits over some two years; the McKenzie case involved a $343,000 rip-off from the social security system, or the Stutz case involving some $168,000. In conclusion let me echo the Prime Minister of New Zealand who said-- Opposition members interjecting-- Dr BLEWETT —I thought that the Opposition would be happy to see our antipodean colleague quoted. Let me quote Mr Lange: I see a civil liberty problem indeed when my taxes go to pay for bludgers. I see a civil liberty problem when other people avoid their responsibilities by using false identities. I see a civil liberty problem if you don't put in protections against the wrongful disclosure of information. All of those problems are addressed by the Australia Card Bill. Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Prime Minister, in the Treasurer's absence. I ask whether it is true, as reported in the Australian newspaper this morning, that: Senator Walsh, like most other Ministers, was informed about the virtual balanced Budget outcome only . . . the day before . . . the Budget . . . If this is the case, was Senator Walsh given the opportunity to make any `criticism of the Budget aggregates'? Was Senator Walsh informed of the estimates for revenue as well as expenditure before last Monday? Mr HAWKE —The participation by Senator Walsh in the process of the Expenditure Review Committee gave him a continuing picture of the trend of the outcome. It is the case that the Treasurer himself was not aware of the absolutely final outcome until the very latter stages of the process. Let me make this point in regard to Senator Walsh and his perceptions of the Budget process, as there has been so much misrepresentation about his position. To quote what Senator Walsh said-this is from the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 July: . . . there is a more general agreement about the target we have set than in any previous year. That was a quote by Senator Walsh. In response to the specific part of the honourable member's question as to the final outcome on the revenue side, the Treasurer himself was not aware of that final outcome until late in the process and that knowledge was shared by the Treasurer with his colleagues at the final stages. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the Minister advise the House of the potential implications for the dairy industry of the impending Australian Agricultural Council's considerations of future dairy marketing arrangements? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, as the House well knows, he takes a close interest in the dairy industry. Honourable members will be aware that the New South Wales Government has invoked the so-called comfort clause in the dairy marketing arrangements. This means that on Friday week the Australian Agricultural Council will vote on the future of the all-milk levy. While the proceeds of the levy are paid to dairy exporters, the main effect is to lift domestic prices for manufactured products to 30 per cent above export parity. At present, those products are above that level. I want to make it quite clear to the honourable gentleman that this vote can make or break the Australian dairy industry. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) has analysed various situations and shown that dropping the levy would make all dairy farmers in Australia, in all States, worse off. The average direct loss would be some $5,400 per farm. The greatest loss would be $8,900 in Tasmania, $8,000 in Victoria and some $3,400 in South Australia. Even in the other States, the so-called market milk States, there would be direct losses for each average farm. For example, in New South Wales, the lowest of the other States, it would still be $400. In short, no State Minister can make the industry in his State better off by voting down the all-milk levy. All this would do is widen the price gap between manufacturing milk and market milk, and it would inevitably result in a full scale, interstate milk war. This would erode market milk prices and so further compound the loss to dairy producers in all States. Again, various estimates are around for what the full impact of this would be, but the total industry loss as a result of the loss of the levy and the market milk premium could be anything up to $400m. Again, if that is translated to average values, one is looking at reduced income on a New South Wales farm of $30,000, even allowing for the cost of transporting milk from Victoria; and the loss to Victorian farmers would be $6,900 on average. It is understandable why a New South Wales farmer may think that he can trade off a possible loss of levy of $400 in order to save the $30,000 gained from the market milk premium. Frankly, that will not occur. The reality is that the abolition of the levy would not stop interstate trade. On the contrary, it would lead to the New South Wales industry being the biggest loser. I fervently hope that State and Territory Ministers recognise this fundamental reality before the meeting on 2 October and thus vote to continue the current arrangements. A third set of calculations provided to me by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics shows the potential benefits of deregulation to solve the industry's problems. The BAE estimates that the cost of regulation of the New South Wales industry could be around 6c per litre of milk produced, or $17,100 per farm. If this regulatory burden was lifted, the price to the consumers could be reduced at no net cost to the industry. There are a lot of options and a lot of matters that need to be discussed at this meeting of the Agricultural Council. Whichever way it goes, the dairy industry and the State Ministers for agriculture have to take into account very soundly and accurately the magnitude of the decision they may make because the all-milk levy must stay if they are to guarantee the incomes of Australian dairy farmers. Mr Hawker —I take a point of order. Will the Minister table the calculations of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics from which he was quoting? Madam SPEAKER —Is the Minister prepared to table the paper? Mr KERIN —I only have notes. I am quite happy to provide to the honourable member the full set of calculations. These notes are not calculations; they are simply sums. I can easily give the honourable member the calculations. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In an answer to a question in the House yesterday concerning Senator Walsh's comments on the 1987-88 Budget and the possibility of Australia going further down the Argentinean road, the Treasurer said: Senator Walsh has never put any views in the Cabinet to the line that outlays should be cut further. The Treasurer went on to say: Senator Walsh was making no criticism of the Budget aggregates. All he was doing was giving us a run again on his long run views on certain expenditure programs, views which have been broadly rejected in the Expenditure Review Committee over eight sessions. How can Senator Walsh be advocating cutting programs that are not justified on social justice and equity grounds and at the same time not be making a criticism of the Budget aggregates? Mr HAWKE —The position of Senator Walsh on this matter is quite clear. If honourable gentlemen opposite examine whatever transcript they may have of what Senator Walsh said in Perth on the weekend they will find that he makes no criticism of the Budget. Mr Peacock —Oh, that is rubbish. Mr HAWKE —Saying, `That is rubbish', is the measure of the capacities the honourable member will bring to bear on economic debate in this country. That is about the level of economic expertise we expect and get from the shadow Treasurer. I repeat: the Minister for Finance did not criticise the Budget. If honourable members opposite examine his statements they will find that he did not. The honourable member's pathetic attempt to call for the sacking of Senator Walsh is not surprising. At least I give the shadow Treasurer 10 out of 10 for consistency on this question of sacking because he tried to sack the Leader of the Opposition after the last election. He failed in his attempt to sack the Leader of the Opposition and any attempt by him to secure the sacking of the Minister for Finance will be equally futile. I understand why the shadow Treasurer sought to get the sacking of the Leader of the Opposition because on that the shadow Treasurer was on very sound ground. He has the view-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The question was specific regarding the Government and the Budget. If the Prime Minister wants to carry on like this I will take him on. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair will control the House, not the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HAWKE —The shadow Treasurer was right in trying to secure the sacking of the Leader of the Opposition because the shadow Treasurer rightly has the view, which he has expressed, that the economic policies of the Leader of the Opposition are a recipe for disaster for this country. In that respect the shadow Treasurer is right in his judgment about the economic incompetence of his leader. As far as the Minister for Finance is concerned, I repeat: he did not criticise the Budget and well he might not have criticised the Budget because it is a quite remarkable achievement. We have achieved a balance in the Budget as against what was promised by the Leader of the Opposition in the election-that is, that in three years he would achieve balance. We have achieved that in one year. Mr SCIACCA —Is the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support aware of Press reports indicating that Telecom Australia is shortly proposing to introduce a system of time charging for local telephone calls? Further, is the Minister aware that such speculation is causing serious concern particularly amongst the elderly, the disabled and volunteer organisations throughout Australia? Can the Minister assure this House and the public that Telecom has no current plans to introduce such a fee structure and that if such a scheme is introduced in the future it will take full account of the respective needs of different groups in the community? Mr DUNCAN —Madam Speaker- Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to page 145 of the Notice Paper which records the fact that I put on the Notice Paper on the first day the Parliament met a notice of motion condemning the Government for coalescing with Telecom on this matter. I ask you to rule that the question is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —It is a notice of motion condemning the Government; this question is seeking information. Mr Donald Cameron —Aw! Madam SPEAKER —But I think the honourable member has made his point. Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Government is well aware of the anxiety that exists in some sections of the community. Mr Howard —Have you got the right file? Mr DUNCAN —Will you hold your tongue. Opposition members-Oh! Madam SPEAKER —Order! I tell the Minister that the Chair will run the House, not the Minister. Those on my left will be silent. Mr DUNCAN —But it also needs to be recognised that Telecom has a massive capital investment in its local network. Local call areas in Australia are quite large by international standards and many untimed calls in Australia would be timed trunk calls in the majority of overseas countries. Further, there is ample evidence that many who are heavy users of long duration local calls, especially business users, are not meeting a fair share of their costs and are thus being subsidised by other users. In particular, Telecom is taking steps to address the long holding time involved by people using data services. Telecom naturally conducts periodic reviews of its tariffs and the timing of local calls is one of a number of options it looks at in reviewing the viability of the local network. However, at this stage neither Telecom nor the Government has plans to introduce timed local calls. If timing were to be introduced, opportunities would have to be developed through creative pricing to allow all local call users-householders, the elderly, disabled, volunteer organisations and businesses-to satisfy their needs in an equitable way. Such an arrangement would also be subject to Prices Surveillance Authority scrutiny. I conclude by repeating that, at this stage, neither Telecom nor the Government has plans to introduce timed local calls. Mr SINCLAIR —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Minister will recall in Budget Paper No. 1 the forecast that Australian crude oil production will be roughly half its present level by 1991. Is the Minister aware of the assessment by the former Department of Resources and Energy that Australia's crude oil import bill, only $44m in 1985-86, could reach $3 billion a year by 1992-93? In view of the implications of this enormous blowout for the current account deficit and the Minister's announcement that a national energy policy paper is expected to be published towards the end of 1987, has any detailed analysis of the macro- economic impact of the downturn in Australian crude oil production been made? Is this analysis a factor in Senator Walsh's concern about possible International Monetary Fund intervention in the future management of the Australian economy? Mr KERIN —I am fully aware of the various estimates to which the Leader of the National Party refers. It is a well known situation that as the Bass Strait resource peters out we will need to import more oil. Part of the basis for the Government's decisions on giving an excise holiday for on-shore producers of oil, plus the other policies we have adopted in respect of deregulation, off-shore bidding and resource rent tax which, for certainly some discoveries, is an incentive and allows development is very much the reason to which the right honourable gentleman has referred. I am quite sure that our balance of payments situation had nothing to do with any matters that Senator Walsh was referring to. I think the right honourable gentleman should also be aware that when the North West Shelf comes on stream through the mid-1990s there will be a large degree of cancelling out in our balance of payments. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Administrative Services tell us the future of the Anzac Rifle Range in south-eastern Sydney? Mr WEST —Honourable members will be aware that some time ago the Government decided to dispose of this area from Commonwealth ownership. I can report to the House now that the Federal and New South Wales governments are in broad agreement about the future land use planning criteria for this area, which will be binding on the successful tenderer for this very important and historic area. There is a mutual desire by the Federal and New South Wales governments to provide additional residential sites in south-east Sydney and to conserve the very historic and important headland area for the future recreational use of the people of Sydney. Bearing all that in mind, the Government has decided to dispose of the area as a total package and the requirements on the purchaser will reflect the broad agreement with the New South Wales Government on the future of the property that I have just talked about. There will be three planning zones. There will be open space and conservation areas on the eastern and southern foreshores and the headland. The central area will provide for active recreation, including the potential for tourist development. Perhaps a major international hotel could be part of that central part of the property. Probably most important of all, there will be a residential portion of about 15 hectares on the western side adjoining the existing residential areas. To give the House an example of how this area could be utilised for residential sites, we assess that up to 500 units of medium density housing could become available there. That is very important in today's situation in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Sydney. The Government has already agreed that the Bicentenary full bore rifle shooting championships should proceed early next year on the range under the auspices of the New South Wales Rifle Association. This decision will remain unaltered. So this very important and historic site in the south-eastern areas of Sydney will be freed up by the Government's decision for recreational development and open space purposes, for residential site development and also for possible tourist development. I am sure that the Government's decision in these matters will be welcomed by the New South Wales Government, by the local councils involved and by the local residents and other residents of Sydney generally. So I say to the Opposition: Eat your heart out. Mr LLOYD —I refer the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to the greatly increased cost burden facing the Australian beef industry in undertaking new chemical residue testing to maintain Australia's beef exports. Why has the Minister so far refused to accept or acknowledge that the Federal Government has an automatic responsibility to share at least on the existing 50 : 50 basis with the industry the increased cost of that residue testing as part of the export inspection arrangement? Mr KERIN —If one is talking about export inspection and residue testing one is talking about two different things. Mr Lloyd —They are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not interject. The Minister is answering the question. Mr Lloyd —I am just correcting him. Madam SPEAKER —You do not have the leeway to correct him. Mr KERIN —If one is looking at administrative niceties one could well term the cost of additional testing a compliance measure just as stainless steel is required in meat abattoirs. The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is basically that we are still working out the exact regimes of testing although we have now arrived at an agreed situation. I will be talking to the Cattle Council of Australia this afternoon. It has only been in recent days that we have got that agreed situation. In terms of looking at the various costs involved, the costs of testing, where there are still voluntary payments for lot testing and the extent to which we need continuation of lot testing will need some ongoing discussion. I am prepared to look at any proposal on its merits. I cannot be confident, in the light of current budgetary constraints, of a substantial topping up of the $10m the Government has already agreed to provide for the integrated action plan. As I said, I remain open. When we see a clear need for public involvement, I believe that I will be able to take something forward. But this is very much an industry problem and, to the industry's great credit, instead of trying to attribute blame and trying to find out who shall pay, the industry, from the producer through to the abattoir level and to the workers in the industry, has set about trying to get on top of this problem to find the most effective means of dealing with it. Mrs HARVEY —Will the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel inform the House of the decision handed down last week by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal on field allowance? Further, will the Minister inform the House what other measures are being taken to improve conditions of service for Australia's service men and women? Mrs KELLY —First of all, I congratulate the honourable member for Hawker on being the first woman from South Australia in the House of Representatives. Mr Howard —That is not right. Mrs KELLY —For the Australian Labor Party. This question is almost a case of one maiden to another, so to speak. On 17 September I announced that the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal had decided to raise the field allowance from $4.01 to $12 a day. The field allowance compensates for uncomfortable living and working conditions experienced in the field while undergoing operational training. The increase has been very well received by the forces. Other allowances will soon be reviewed. As well as these reviews, the Government has been quick to fulfil its promise to establish what we call ADFILS-the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service-which is a support network of professional officers throughout Australia, and community development officers will be located in areas where there are concentrations of defence families. Currently we are appointing to those positions a staff of 49. We now have two service people and we are appointing 47 civilians in that area. Captain Marci'a Chalmers has been appointed Director of ADFILS. Captain Chalmers was previously the Royal Australian Navy's Command Personnel Services Officer in Sydney. She will now run ADFILS from a central co-ordinating unit at Defence Headquarters. Her assistants in the co-ordinating unit have been appointed. They include Mrs Roslyn Hughes, an experienced community development officer, and Major Irene Gibbons, who has served in four postings as an Army community services officer. Applicants for the community development co-ordinator positions have been interviewed, and will be in place by late November. The remaining staff will be recruited in a phased program beginning on 3 October. ADFILS will serve a very important purpose and I am sure it will be welcomed greatly by service members and their families. Mr WILSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is our immigration policy one aspect of population policy? If so, does the Minister agree that, like immigration policy, overall population policy should be non-discriminatory? In view of the fact that, as a nation, we are not giving birth to a sufficient number of children to replace ourselves, will the inquiry he is establishing be called upon to examine the extent to which tax, social security and other policies discriminate against Australian-made population growth? Mr YOUNG —Of course, I would like to see all honourable members doing more to help. I know that the right honourable member for New England is over the hill but there are others with great potential. We cannot discuss population projections in this country without discussing the impact of immigration and the changing policies of the Government, year by year, because we have a yearly program. Of course, all the projections are based upon what those people carrying out those projections believe to be the Government's decision this year, next year and the year to come. In fact, if honourable members have a look at the booklet that I am releasing tomorrow they will see that the projections are based upon maintaining a stable intake of around 120,000 to 130,000 migrants each year and what impact that will have on our population to the years 2020 and 2030. As honourable members would know, the average age of migrants to this country is five years lower than the average age of Australians; so migrants help to keep the country a little younger as well. But it depends very much upon the Government's decision year by year. Honourable members would know that, about four years ago, our migration intake was only about 70,000. With the agreement of the Parliament-not just of this Government-we have increased that number to 120,000 this year. I noticed that the Opposition in its policy statement at the election was prepared to say that it would have an intake of 145,000. We have not accepted that. Nevertheless, it would have another marked impact upon population projections were we to proceed at that level. But the honourable member for Sturt will be pleased to know that the review that I will announce tomorrow will take all these matters into consideration. It has very much been given an open charter in regard to its terms of reference because it is an important aspect and it would be stupid, to say the least, to have a review of this nature of such importance and to say to the people either on the committee, or those people presenting submissions to the committee, that they do not have the right to talk about the importance of our population and the impact upon it of any migration decision we will be taking. I hope that honourable members opposite, perhaps from their Opposition immigration and ethnic affairs committee, will look at whether they might have some ideas about putting a submission before the committee themselves. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Christmas Island Services Corporation annual report for 1985-86. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island financial statements and reports for the period 18 November 1985 to 30 June 1986. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, I present the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) for the year ended 31 March 1987, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —Yesterday, in response to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on new secured housing finance commitments I said: Seasonally adjusted the number of loans for both dwelling units to be constructed and the number of newly constructed houses purchased actually declined during July. The figures are down on last month and down on July of last year. Last year was one of the worst years on record for new housing starts. Whilst most newspapers reported that statement accurately, the Canberra Times, in an article today headed `Finance for housing stays fairly steady', stated that I had said: . . . seasonally adjusted figures showed a drop in the number of loans for construction of new dwelling units- that is correct- purchases of newly erected houses- that is correct, but it then added these words: and purchases of established houses. I did not say that. In fact, whilst loans for established dwellings have dropped, if one compares the July and June figures this year, they have not dropped if one looks at the period July this year and July last year. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred specifically to the policies that I, as Leader of the Opposition, had put forward during the last election campaign and their impact upon the Budget deficit in the event of the election of a coalition government. He sought in his answer to continue the quite erroneous claim that has been made repeatedly by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) over the past few weeks that in the event of the election of a coalition government there would have been a Budget deficit on this occasion of between $3 billion and $6 billion. That claim is utterly and completely incorrect. It is based upon a totally false misrepresentation of the net contribution to reducing the Budget deficit of the expenditure and revenue proposals put by the Liberal Party of Australia during the election campaign, which yielded a figure of $270m as a contribution towards the reduction of the Budget deficit. What the Treasurer neglects to do, and what the Prime Minister neglected to do is, of course, to make obvious allowance, in regard to any deficit under a coalition government, if it had been elected, for the other revenue and expenditure items. The Prime Minister, incidentally, acknowledged today, in relation to the revenue, that the Treasurer was not even aware of it until a few days before the Budget was brought down. I remind the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that at no stage was the totality of the May expenditure measures proposed by the Government the subject of any promise to repeal or reverse by the coalition parties if they had been elected. Therefore, I utterly reject this continued canard of the Government that if we had won the election the deficit would have been billions of dollars higher than that of the Government. The reality is that if we had been successful in the election campaign our policies would have made a greater contribution towards the reduction of the Budget deficit than did the Government's. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —by leave-In the 1987-88 Budget the Government announced that it would delay the start of the next funding triennium for higher education until 1989. Today I want to explain more fully the reasons for that decision in the context of the Government's longer term plans for development of the higher education system. Specifically, I wish to relate the Government's decisions on funding for higher education in 1988 to the strategy it intends to pursue in the 1988-89 Budget context and beyond. In other statements in the Budget context the Government has made clear its determination that our education and training system should play a central role in responding to the major economic challenges which still confront us. The ongoing adjustments required in the structure of our economy will place a much greater premium on technical knowledge and labour force skills, and likewise on quality, innovation and technology. These attributes will also be a vital factor in our productivity performance and in the speed of our adaptation to future changes in economic circumstances. We can no longer rely on established practices and institutional arrangements to meet these needs. Our traditional attitudes to education and skills formation in Australia have been conditioned by an economy which has been able to rely more on natural resources than on human skills to support our living standards and national development. Just as these circumstances have changed dramatically, so too must our attitudes and practices in education and training. This is not to dispute or belittle the achievements of the past, rather, to signal the need for further progress, at a rapid rate, beginning now. While improvements will be needed in all aspects of our education and training arrangements, the performance of our higher education system is of particular importance to the Government's objectives. Our universities and colleges of advanced education are the main source of the highly educated men and women so essential to our continued economic growth. They provide the scientists, engineers and technologists we need to develop and maintain a modern industrial structure, as well as the teachers needed to expand the skill base of the work force and to educate the next generation. We must also recognise the crucial contribution made by our economists, historians, philosophers and others in the humanities as Australian society works its way through the complex range of issues arising from the shift in our national economic circumstances. The research activities of higher education are also vital. Universities provide the bulk, of basic research in Australia and together with advanced education make key contributions to applied research and development. Moreover, they train the young researchers who will be prime sources of the innovation and technological development needed for Australian industry to achieve and maintain greater international competitiveness. For these reasons the Government is strongly committed to the further development of our national higher education system. Equally, however, it is determined that planning for such development should extend beyond the interests of individual institutions and their clients, and be consistent with broader national interests and objectives. Priorities will need to be set accordingly. Attitudes and some traditional arrangements will need to be changed. For reasons I will discuss shortly, the Government is not convinced that a perpetuation of our current funding arrangements for higher education would be in the best long term interests either of the higher education system itself or of the nation generally. Over the next 12 months, therefore, we will be embarking upon a process of policy development and consultation leading to the establishment of a new set of arrangements for Commonwealth support of higher education from the beginning of 1989. In the meantime, the Government has decided to treat 1988 as a year outside the normal triennial funding process. Overview of the Higher Education System Our higher education system is a major national resource. Its component institutions-19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education across Australia-cater for a student population of 391,500, and employ a total of some 68,000 staff. Total expenditure on higher education exceeds $2,500m per annum, while the replacement value of our public higher education facilities has been estimated at more than $5,000m. Since 1974 the Commonwealth has invested over $31 billion in higher education on behalf of Australian taxpayers. In the 13 years since the Commonwealth assumed full financial responsibility for higher education in Australia we have seen the number of students grow from 249,500 to 391,500, an increase of 57 per cent. Although the evidence is not clear cut I believe that we have also seen an improvement, over this time, in the socio-economic balance of the student body. The unfortunate legacy that is disguised by these figures, however, is the sharp decline in youth participation in higher education which occurred under the Fraser Government. The policies of that era were dominated by cost-cutting considerations alone, and a notable absence of any vision of the future. As a result of those policies, participation in higher education by young people aged 17 to 19 fell from 11 per cent in 1975 to 9.6 per cent in 1982. Had the higher rate been maintained, an additional 11,000 young people would have been undertaking higher education at the time that this Government came to office. By contrast, and despite continuing financial constraints, the Hawke Government has sought to increase youth participation in higher education through steady and sustained growth; to improve the opportunities for participation in higher education by disadvantaged groups; and to make higher education institutions more responsive to the needs of industry. Substantial progress has already been made towards achieving these objectives: an extra 43,400 higher education places have been created in the four years since 1983, with a higher priority given to strategic disciplines such as engineering, science, computer science and business studies; by 1985 we had restored youth participation rates in higher education to their 1975 levels, and this year some 120,000 17- to 19-year-olds are undertaking higher education-a participation rate of over 11.5 per cent, the highest level ever recorded in Australia; participation among groups traditionally under-represented in higher education has also been increased. An extra 1,000 places for Aboriginal students have been provided since 1984, the proportion of women in higher education has continued to rise, and growth has been focused on outer metropolitan and regional areas with low participation; links between higher education and industry have been strengthened both at the peak level and through initiatives involving particular institutions. There has been encouraging growth in the turnover of commercial research and consultancy arms of institutions, to around $100m per annum. While the Government is justly proud of these achievements-and I acknowledge the very great contribution made by one of my predecessors, Senator Ryan, in the achievements that I have mentioned-it recognises that a great deal more remains to be done. We continue to lag behind our international competitors on a range of significant measures of education and training performance, including the rate of retention to the end of secondary education, the level of youth participation in higher education, and the proportion of the work force holding post-school qualifications. Historically, also, we have given insufficient attention to the composition of our national skill base, and to the need for skills which directly contribute to the productive capacity of our economy. The Government has already begun to act upon these matters, but the recent sharp shift in our economic circumstances demands that the pace of change be quickened. A prime objective must be to achieve substantial increases in higher education participation, especially by our young people. The need to rectify the neglect of the late 1970s and early 1980s has left us now only slightly advanced on where we were in the mid-1970s in relation to youth participation in higher education. Many other countries, in the meantime, have passed us by, or have widened their previously existing advantage. We now languish towards the bottom of the league of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in this aspect of our educational performance. We need to recognise the potential costs of this situation to our national economic performance. It is more than coincidence that the world's most successful economies over recent years have given a high priority to basic education and vocational preparation of their young people. Australia has not seen this relationship so clearly, but the time has come to do so, and to act accordingly. There is a growing realisation on the part of young people themselves of the benefits to them of further education and training. In labour market terms, for example, the unemployment rate for persons holding degree-level qualifications stood at only 3.1 per cent in February 1987, compared with 11.6 per cent for those without any form of post-school qualification. The average duration of unemployment is also substantially less for those holding formal qualifications, while incomes and occupational status are significantly above the norm. In the face of these realities it comes as no surprise that there is a resurgence of interest by young people in furthering their education. Retention rates to Year 12 at school have increased dramatically and are continuing to rise, while the number of young people transferring from Year 12 to universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education (TAFE) colleges is increasing. Some 61 per cent of Year 12 students now proceed directly from school to further studies, while a further 14 per cent defer for 12 months before resuming their studies. This resurgence of interest in education has coincided with a demographic bulge in the youth age group, which will have its peak impact on demand for higher education in the period to 1990. Taken together, the effect of these school retention and demographic pressures has been to create unprecedented demand for higher education places. Despite the substantial growth in places made possible by the Hawke Government's policies since 1983, our higher education system has still not been able to respond fully to this increase in demand. In 1987, for example, between 13,000 and 20,000 qualified applicants were unable to secure places in our universities and colleges of advanced education. This shortfall persists at a time when there are significant shortages of graduates in a range of key higher education disciplines. There is an urgent need to remedy this situation. Looking to the longer term, we need to consider also the further growth required in our higher education system to satisfy our future economic and social objectives. A plausible projection for the end of the century, if we are to close the gap on our international competitors, would see retention rates to Year 12 rising to around 80 per cent, with appropriate provision being made in the higher education and TAFE systems for this expanded pool of school leavers to proceed to further post-school study. This would require a major expansion of higher education places for youth, possibly of the order of 75,000 places by the turn of the century. At present average values, this would entail an additional commitment of community resources of around $750m per annum by the year 2000. In current budgetary and economic circumstances, however, it is simply not feasible to achieve quantum leaps in participation in higher education by providing quantum leaps in public expenditure. Indeed, past increases in resources, seen as the Government buying additional places at marginal cost, may have had the perverse effect of removing motivation for higher education institutions to consider how they might best employ all the resources actually or potentially at their disposal to meet demand. The problem was seen as one for governments alone rather than for the institutions. However, it is not. The Government is prepared to play its part in the process of growth and improvement, but so also must the other key parties in our higher education system-the institutions themselves, State governments, the private sector, staff and students. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr DAWKINS —I acknowledge the very great interest of the honourable member for Kingston, and his great support of the statement as it unfolds. To the extent that further additions to resources will be necessary, the funding base for higher education will need to be considerably broadened. The implementation of these and other measures will require changes in at least three important areas: changes in attitudes, to reflect national imperatives and to ensure that the education system is more flexible and capable of responding quickly and positively to national needs; changes in processes, in the way of doing things, to enhance our ability to produce quality graduates with necessarily limited resources; changes in structures, to remove impediments to change and barriers that dampen innovative approaches. As part of this process of change we will need to give much closer attention also to the issues of quality of output and distribution of effort in our higher education system. Even with the best information on likely technological and structural change, we cannot confidently predict the types and mixtures of skills that will be needed in the future. The emphasis, rather, must be on broad and transferable skills, and attitudes which equip the work force to adapt to and influence change. This applies both to `generalist' courses in the humanities and social sciences, and to more directly vocational disciplines such as engineering and commerce. The extent to which our higher education institutions are able to influence and respond to emerging skill requirements will be directly influenced by the involvement of industry in course design and monitoring. Industry must also play its part in turning the broadly-based skills imparted through higher education to the particular requirements of the work force. The pattern of higher education enrolments has altered significantly over the past decade. In particular, enrolments in teacher education courses have declined as a proportion of total higher education enrolments, while increases have been registered in other vocational fields such as economics, commerce, computer science, applied science and engineering. Even so, our efforts in a number of these areas remain inadequate to meet even our current labour market needs, let alone to provide for likely future growth in demand for skills. We should look to the example of other countries in this regard. Japan, for example, has reaped the benefit of an educational emphasis which anticipates the requirement for persons with higher levels of technological skills and knowledge as an integral element in its overall industry development strategy. In Australia, by contrast, the links between educational and industry policies have traditionally been weak, and while there have been recent significant shifts towards study in engineering and technology, these have occurred from a very low base. As a result, the proportion of our new university entrants enrolled in technology-based disciplines is still less than half of that in the United States, which in turn trails Japan. An increased priority for technological studies in higher education will need to be accommodated within an expanding system which protects the important place of the arts, humanities and social sciences. The Government recognises the essential contribution made by these disciplines to the quality of our skill base and culture, and will not relinquish its commitment to their support. The quality of graduate teaching and research training also needs to be enhanced, through measures such as a greater concentration of effort, increased mobility of both students and staff, better links with industry, and the attraction of additional sources of financial and other support. The flexibility of the higher education system is another issue of concern. Our institutions are increasingly caught up in a web of administrative and industrial entanglements which limit both the speed of their response and their attention to more substantive issues. The constraints imposed by the academic tenure system are another obvious source of rigidly. We need to address such issues directly and deliberately, where necessary using funding arrangements as a primary lever for reform. The Government will provide leadership and national direction in this process. In short, the Government believes that important changes are required in our higher education system to improve its response to a range of priority national objectives. The achievement of these changes will require a close examination of existing barriers and the identification of new policy responses to overcome them. Indeed, the capacity of the Government to provide additional resources necessary for the expansion of the higher education system will depend on the response of institutions and those who work in them to this need for change. The Government's Plans The Government will give a high priority to these matters between now and the 1988-89 Budget. It will be examining the range of issues involved and seeking input from the education sector, from business and unions, and from the community at large. To assist in this process, the Government intends to issue a policy discussion paper on higher education towards the end of 1987 as a basis for consultation and community comment. Following consideration of responses to this paper, the Government will present its long term policies in the form of a major policy statement on higher education, to be finalised in the 1988-89 Budget context and implemented from the beginning of the 1989 academic year. I have decided to commission the policy discussion paper from within my own portfolio. The Secretary to my Department will establish a task force, with participation by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Consultations will be held with outside bodies as appropriate. The discussion paper will confront the range of concerns the Government holds about the current performance of our higher education system. Specific issues to be addressed will include: desirable rates of growth in higher education, the resources required to achieve this growth, and the appropriate division of responsibility for providing these resources; general productivity issues in higher education, including the scope for more effective utilisation of teaching resources and more efficient use of our massive investment in capital facilities and equipment; the scope for further improvements in efficiency from rationalisation of the operations of institutions involved in multi-campus teaching and amalgamations of smaller institutions, bearing in mind the importance of an adequate range of higher education opportunities in regional centres; more effective use of limited resources by eliminating the `me too' approach to course developments in institutions and promoting greater concentration of effort in teaching and research. There is too much unnecessary duplication of course offerings resulting in small, uneconomic classes; in other cases again, courses provided are of dubious merit and value of the community; better definition of each institution's role and mission in teaching and research within a co-ordinated framework of national objectives and priorities. For example, not all institutions can be funded for research and a substantial number will not be; equally, no one institution will be funded in future for research across all of its activities; the future of the present `binary' system of higher education, and removal of any distortions which this entails; future funding arrangements, for example, should be based on agreed priorities for institutional activity, and performance against those outcomes, rather than on the vagaries of classification or nomenclature; without prejudice to academic freedom, means of providing greater flexibility in the use of staff resources in higher education, including for example: reform of the tenure system for academic staff, together with an increased emphasis on term appointments; schemes for selective early retirement, as a means of freeing up existing resources; staff management and appraisal systems in higher education, which should give appropriate emphasis to teaching performance as well as research capacity as a basis for appraisal; provision of greater incentives for performance, including the scope for greater flexibility in remuneration arrangements; a range of measures to better distribute resources across the system, based on efficiency criteria and incentives to achieve defined results. Over time, for example, the basis of funding should be shifted away from the current focus on input costs to a more competitive system which emphasises specified outputs and measurement of results, and allows institutions to bid for new places on this basis; means of enabling institutions to increase revenue from private sources and hence their ability to deliver services, bearing in mind the Australian Labor Party's policy of opposition to tuition fees; collaborative course arrangements with industry in a range of disciplines, along the lines announced recently in the information technology arena; reform of institutional management and decision-making processes, including changes to the operations of governing bodies and academic boards and the improvement of management systems, particularly at the middle management level; Commonwealth-State relationships in higher education, and the problems created for institutions by divided responsibilities and accountability arrangements; the place of private institutions established under State auspices within the overall framework of higher education provision, and the relationship between public and private institutions; the balance in our approach to postgraduate education, especially at the doctorate level, between intensive but highly specialised programs on the one hand and a more broadly based and multi-disciplinary emphasis on the other; future requirements for teacher education resources in higher education, having regard to demographic trends, likely further increases in school retention rates, and the need for greater attention to mathematics and science within the secondary education curriculum; the appropriate relationship between higher education and TAFE, especially in matters such as the provision of higher education in small regional centres and arrangements for credit transfer between the sectors; the potential for providing increased higher education opportunities through external studies arrangements and possible rationalisation and concentration of existing providers of external studies. Many of these issues have been considered in the context of the recent Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. The Government agrees with many of the directions recommended in that report, which provides a useful base for future policy discussions. The Government has also considered some of these issues in relation to research in higher education, as part of its examination of proposals to establish an Australian Research Council (ARC). The Government has decided that we must concentrate our research resources and plan for strategic directions in the future with defined objectives in mind. The ARC will be the key source of advice on means of increasing the effectiveness of research expenditure in Australia. We will be examining over coming months the appropriate pace and extent of transfer of research responsibilities to the new Council. There is a limit, however, to the scope of government action. Much will also depend on the commitment to change on the part of the higher education system itself. Many within the system do accept the need for rapid change, and I have been heartened already to receive their encouragement and support of the Government's directions. On the other hand, there are those who have a vested interest in protection of the status quo, regardless of the wider national interest. We will not be deterred, however, by the entrenched attitudes of a few, and I am sure that we will find in the academic community generally a real concern for the future economic performance of the country and a desire for change in the role of the higher education system in responding to national needs. I will be actively seeking the views of concerned people on all of these issues in coming months. Pending the resolution of these issues we must maintain the momentum that has been built up over the past four years. The last thing the Government would want would be to have 1988 considered as a pause in the development of the system. It will not be a year for standing still. Some 5,800 additional places for young school leavers will be sought for 1988. Funding will be provided for an extra intake of 3,500 to 4,000 students-the highest level of intake funded since this Government came to office-and the remainder will be sought by adjustment to the profile of intakes by institutions. In addition, we have taken some early steps in the process of reform. Research funding will be less the exclusive province of the universities, and some existing research funding will be re- directed through targeted schemes. The Government will also relax the prohibition on fees for a limited range of post-graduate courses involving professional upgrading for people already in employment, as for example in the case of specialised post-graduate courses for medical practitioners. This latter measure responds to requests made by a number of institutions which wish to expand their course offerings and revenue base. Fees will be charged at the discretion of individual institutions, subject to my approval, and the Commonwealth will not reduce the level of its general funding for institutions on account of revenue generated by these fees. Full details of our Budget decisions for higher education in 1988 are set out in the attached Guidelines Statement on Higher Education Plans for 1988. I table the statement. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission will be bringing forward advice in the next few weeks on the detailed allocation of funds for 1988 consistent with these guidelines. Before the end of 1987 I expect to receive a final report from the task force chaired by Mr Charles Halton which I have appointed to report on advisory arrangements and structures reflecting the integration of employment, education and training matters into a single portfolio. I will be giving early consideration to the recommendations of this task force, including those relevant to higher education, with a view to prompt introduction of any revised arrangements. In summary, there are critically important challenges ahead if Australia is to achieve the standards of intellectual capacity essential for success in an increasingly competitive world. The Government has committed itself to working towards change within an expanding system. In turn, it expects the commitment of the higher education system to accept the need for change and to co-operate in its implementation. I am confident that this commitment will be forthcoming. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —by leave-I was looking forward very much to the statement by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) because this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House on the subject of education, having the Opposition responsibility for that subject. It is a topic in which I have taken a very deep interest for a very long time. While I was reading the Minister's statement, which he kindly gave me two or three hours ago, my disappointment took me back about 30-odd years. It took me back to 1952 when my higher education began at the University of Sydney where I started in Engineering I. One of my lecturers was Professor K. E. Bullen, the world famous seismologist. The Parliamentary Library has had a devil of a job finding the actual quote-I thought it was from Lewis Carroll-but Professor Bullen in chapter 10 of his book Introduction to the Theory of Mechanics has a heading `Interlude'. At the top of the chapter he quotes Lewis Carroll: It may be right to go ahead, I guess It may be right to stop, I guess; Also, it may be right to retrogress. Basically, that is what we have got in the Minister's statement today. The Minister has given us an enormous build-up Mr Bilney —Come on, Jim, be fair. Mr CARLTON —I will explain what I mean by that. I do not mean it in the sense that the honourable member is implying. If he will just wait a minute I will explain. The Minister had given an enormous build-up to this statement. I had observed in the Minister's private briefings to the Press, and in various remarks he had made and in the reluctance with which he gave answers in the House where he represented his predecessor, that he had really got hold of the basic needs of education in this country and that he was determined, in short order, to start doing something about them quick smart. I hoped that we would have the first fruits of that rethinking here today, but all we have in this statement, unfortunately, is a decision to set up a departmental inquiry, to have a White Paper, to have a whole year of delay and discussion, to wind up the triennial process for higher education funding at the end of this year, to have a bicentennial break and then, presumably as a result of announcements the Minister will make in the Budget session next year, have the new order begin in 1989. What really disappoints me about this is that all the fundamental thinking that is needed to take the decisions to change the education system has been done, not only by the Opposition but also by various official bodies, funded or not funded by the Government, and by various observers of the higher education scene. In fact, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) itself, in its publication at the end of last year on efficiency and effectiveness in higher education, made a number of recommendations, as the Minister acknowledged in his speech today, which addressed the issues that he is now asking his department head and his task force to look at. So the speech the Minister has made today fundamentally acknowledges that there are changes needed in our direction. Broadly speaking, the Opposition agrees with the objectives that the Minister is saying we should pursue. The general direction he suggests is correct, and if he wants to see a clear statement of these objectives all he has to do is read the policy prepared by my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) for the last election campaign. They are all there. Those objectives have been argued for by the Opposition, forcefully by Senator Peter Baume and by the honourable member for Tangney, for ages, and they have been fought tooth and nail by Senator Ryan. That is the history of the matter. Everything was there, all ready for the big changes to be brought in by this new Minister and implemented immediately, and today we have an announcement of a departmental inquiry followed by a White Paper, followed by a statement of intention, followed by budgetary changes and followed by things that will happen the year after the bicentennial year. The Minister in the course of his address took a swipe at the coalition governments and their hand in the development of higher education in this country. The first direct involvement I had in trying to contribute to policy development on higher education was when I was President of the Student Representative Council at the University of Sydney and Vice-President (Education) of the National Union of Australian University Students. It was my responsibility to draw up the students' submission to the Murray inquiry. The Murray inquiry, as honourable members who are old enough to remember it will know, was the foundation of the total renaissance of higher education in Australia, which was led by the Menzies Government. Subsequently the Martin inquiry extended these changes into other areas. So the whole basis of modern higher education in Australia was brought in by a coalition Government. All that occurred, I must say, after I left the university. People came on after me in vastly increased numbers and had a wider variety of courses and greater opportunities. The number of people attending universities almost trebled, and it was all due to the innovation of coalition governments. In relation to the second period of coalition Government under Fraser-and that Government has been attacked also by the Minister-we have to remember that what happened during the Whitlam period of government created the most extraordinary maelstrom of upset, concern and dislocation which had to be dealt with by the Fraser Government. Nonetheless, that Government did an enormous amount to overcome the worst excesses of the centralisation proposals of the Whitlam Government, and I might say that those centralisation problems have led to many of the basic difficulties we have today-the problem of lack of resources and flexibility of resources on the part of institutions; their lack of individual capacity to take initiatives; and the overwhelming control in detail of the Australian Universities Commission, followed by the CTEC. There is a whole stack of things, some of the symptoms of which are still identifiable and in fact are mentioned in the Minister's speech, which are a direct result of Mr Whitlam's education policies. I draw attention to the fact that during the period of the Fraser Government, to take one particular example which is in line with the objectives the Minister says we must now pay more attention to, we saw an extraordinary expansion of technical and further education, pursuing the very kind of industry and occupational objectives which the Minister correctly says we should be following now. I was directly involved in education myself as a member of the Myer committee into the funding of centres of excellence in Australian universities, which was another Fraser Government initiative to extend research funding into areas where it had not previously gone-into research efforts of a particular size and excellence. I must say that particular initiative was opposed by the Australian Labor Party (ALP). During Senator Ryan's whole period of office she attacked that program and tried to destroy it. That was one of the innovations of the Fraser Government which was rejected by the incoming Government. I do not think the Australian public will be served one little bit by going back over all this history. Let us agree in this House, let us agree with the Minister, that there is a requirement to upgrade the performance of our tertiary institutions. I agree with him on that. I agree with him that they are some of the most rigid institutions in this country. Their practices have built up over the course of a century or more, in some cases, and some of the worst practices of the older institutions have been carried on by the new ones that have been built up since. We all know what those rigidities are; in fact, many of them are detailed in the Minister's statement. But basically it will not do any good to go back over too much of the past, except where it can help us to avoid similar errors in the future. Let us be grateful that the Minister has undergone a recantation of his former beliefs and policies and has repudiated very clearly the policies Senator Ryan has pursued over 4 1/2 years. Let us be grateful that he has endorsed many of the policy directions of the Liberal and National parties, the ones we have been arguing for, against Senator Ryan's determined opposition. But let us also note that apparently, if the terms of reference for the inquiry are persisted with as they appear in the statement, they will, because they contain certain fatal flaws, deny him the achievement of the valuable objectives he is trying to achieve. The two basic flaws in the terms of reference of the inquiry, as I see it, are these: the first relates to how to reform the institutions themselves. Will the institutions be reformed better under a closer supervision from a central authority run by the Federal Government or will they reform better if they have to respond more directly to the demands of their immediate consumers? It is not impossible that the inquiry and the discussion that comes out will lead to the correct decision when the inquiry recommends to the Minister on what is to be included in his White Paper. However, although it will not be impossible it will be jolly difficult because the wording and phraseology of the Minister's statement and the terms of reference tend to imply that the existing views of the CTEC, as to its coverage of these institutions and its control over them in detail, would need to be extended in order to bring about the changes that are needed. In other words, these institutions would continue under these terms of reference to bid for resources from a single central authority. All the bureaucratic control and centralisation that goes with that, and has gone with that since Whitlam, would be increased and intensified if the general direction of this paper were followed. I hope that will not be the case because I believe it is essential that we move much more, as indicated in our policy formulated before the last election, towards a consumer driven system where the institutions have to respond flexibly; not to some central authority handing out dollars for bids from institutions but something that addresses itself to the real needs of the consumers themselves. The Minister acknowledges in his statement that it is awfully difficult to determine what skills and occupational directions will be required for the years ahead. We certainly believe that the more the consumers themselves determine that, with whatever advice they are able to take, the more chance we have of having a flexible and responsible tertiary system. The second flaw that we see in this statement relates to the funding of the institutions. Here the Minister is in a particular difficulty because we all know that the Minister is in favour of an expanded stream of money from the private sector and from fees from students, to be precise. We know that that is the Minister's view because he has left his footprints all over the place. Even in the private Press briefings that he has undertaken in recent days he has made it absolutely clear that he agrees with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Senator Walsh made his views absolutely and abundantly clear to that marvellously private non-Press infiltrated meeting of Labor lawyers in Perth over the weekend. I could not possibly imagine a more open place to say something. Can honourable members imagine a group of Labor lawyers keeping quiet, even if the Press were not present? Senator Walsh made it absolutely clear what his views are and we know that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, who is seated on the front bench, has the same views. He announced in his statement that the Australian Labor Party's unbreachable commitment to no fees is being broken a second time. The first time it was hidden under the title of a higher education administration charge. That was the first breach. Senator Walsh took great satisfaction from the fact that he got that through the Cabinet a year or two ago. Mr Bilney —No. That is not a fee. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member says that it is not a fee. Does the honourable member remember the old Australian Democratic Labor Party's description of a duck? If he says that the higher administration charge is not a fee he will have to explain to all those thousands of students who have gathered all over the country how it is not a fee. I think he would have to go back 2,500 years to get the kind of philosophers who would be able to demonstrate that it is not a fee. Mr Brumby —Tell us about a duck. Mr CARLTON —I will come to that later if I have time. But the second breach of unbreachable Labor Party policy occurs in this very statement because we are to have fees for post-graduate studies. I apologise for going back a little once again but I just could not resist it. In 1981, it so happened that the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training was the shadow Minister for Education in this House. My colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), who has just come into the House, who was then the honourable member for Farrer and Minister for Education in the Fraser Government, introduced a modest proposal for fees for post-graduate studies. The present Minister for Employment, Education and Training, said: It is a direct breach of a promise. That is why we will be opposing that particular legislation. But he went on to say: Another point that has to be made is that the Government is intent with this legislation on re-establishing the principle of tertiary tuition fees. It is intent on re-establishing a fee collecting mechanism . . . That is why we- that is, the Labor Party- are intent on opposing it . . . If passed, he said; . . . it would be a quite simple matter for it in the future, without much fuss or bother, to extend the application of fees to include a vast array of other classes of students. That reason, if no other, is sufficient for us to oppose vigorously the re-introduction of fees. The shadow Minister for Education at that time said: It is not just a question of the impact of fees on the admittedly relatively small group of students to whom they apply; it is the question of preventing the re-establishment of a principle which this Government would have no hesitation in extending to include other groups. That is what the present Minister said when he was attacking the honourable member for Hume, the then Minister for Education, back in 1981. Those words will be read with great interest around the campuses of Australia when students know that this is the second breach of the unbreachable commitment in the ALP platform which is referred to in the Minister's statement. It is referred to in the Minister's statement with the intention that it will be ignored and it is the earnest hope of the Opposition that it will be ignored to the extent that, ultimately, the Government will be forced to accept our policy of allowing the institutions to charge fees for courses at their discretion outside the free area provided by scholarships or by other direct forms of government subsidy. It is simply unacceptable that students are denied access to places which are available to foreign students on those terms and conditions. It is unacceptable that students should be denied those entries, and it is equally unacceptable that the institutions should be denied the flexibility that they would get if they were able to charge those fees for additional positions. Dr Theophanous —Unacceptable to whom? Unacceptable to those who do not believe in equality. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member should ask Senator Walsh and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training who believe in equality. We are talking about the capacity of more Australians, over and above those who now go to the universities, to get into those places. This Government is denying additional student places. The Government has given students the capacity to go free to the university-all the people it currently allows to go-and there are increasing numbers year by year, so why deny the institutions the flexibility? The Minister said in his statement that, currently, there is a shortage of up to 20,000 places and, by the end of the century, if nothing more is done, the shortage will be 75,000 places. The facts of this matter stare us in the face. In this Budget a pause has been introduced into the whole of the higher education policy while this Minister tries to persuade a reluctant Labor Party to face economic reality. Whilst he tries to do that and whilst he has this inquiry, which is unnecessary because we know the answers, there will be a pause for a year during which the Minister says that 5,800 new places will be allowed for. When we examine the figures we find, unfortunately, that it is not really 5,800 new places at all. Only 3,500 to 4,000 places are being funded-that is all-and somehow the CTEC will conjure up the other 2,000 out of thin air by a rearrangement of part time places. How that will work nobody knows. On Budget night I looked at the Budget Papers to see how this would work and it was not there. I have looked in the Minister's statement and it was not there. Mr Dawkins —Read volume 2; volume 2 will tell you. Mr CARLTON —The CTEC has been asked to try to work it out. Mr Dawkins —Yes, that is right. Mr CARLTON —That is not an answer. I do not know how the CTEC will conjure up 2,000 places out of nothing. Who will be disadvantaged? Somebody will have to be. If we look at page 101 of Budget Paper No. 1 we see the record since 1983 of increases in places in universities. I remind honourable members that 1983 was a very bad recession year; we had international recession, drought, and very severe financial difficulties. In 1983 the change on the previous year of university places and advanced education places was 2.9 per cent, which is a Fraser Government figure. It was 2.9 per cent again in 1984 and 1985 but it was increased to 3.8 per cent in 1986. It dropped to 2.6 per cent in 1987 and the Minister announced that the figure for 1988 will be 2.1 per cent. So we had a 2.9 per cent increase in 1983 and we will have a 2.1 per cent increase in 1988. And this is in the face of a shortfall of 20,000 places. So 20,000 students will not be able to get into the institutions and we will have a deficit of 75,000 places by the end of the year. The Minister, instead of doing something about it this year, and instead of going on and achieving the objectives which he has obviously now found have to be followed-not the objectives that were put out by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan)-has had a change of heart and has to go through the charade of waiting a whole year while the Labor Party sorts itself out on the issue of university fees. We hope that the Minister will not be snowed by centralised bureaucratic operations and that he works out some way, along the lines of our policy, of getting the institutions to be able to take the necessary and flexible decisions to meet the needs of their true customers. The true customers are not the CTEC and not the people writing letters to the vice-chancellors and the heads of colleges of advanced education. The real customers are the students themselves, on whose future Australia's future depends. I will not go into this matter in any more detail now because the time for discussion has virtually expired. This will be a most interesting debate. I very much welcome it because I can see in the Minister's statement the glimmering of a way out of our problem. If he can only overcome the Australian Labor Party's total devotion to central control and its total antagonism towards any form of fee structure to be applied by the institutions themselves, we have a chance of taking Australia's higher education system to a further level of development along the lines that had developed under Menzies and Fraser. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. I will not take too long. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), made what I thought was a thoughtful contribution. I will not go into all the criticism that I wish to make, but there is one point to which I should respond because he quoted what I said during an earlier period in relation to fees for post-graduate studies. The very great distinction between that and what we are here allowing is that the then Minister for Education was requiring institutions to charge fees for second degrees and post-graduate studies and reducing their level of funding by an amount which he anticipated they would collect from fees; that is, he was imposing a fee on them and reducing the amount of Commonwealth assistance to the institutions. A very great distinction needs to be drawn between that and what we are doing. We are saying that if institutions wish to charge some fees in relation to a very much more limited range of post-graduate studies, for people who are basically already in employment, we will allow them to hang on to any revenue that they collect. We will not reduce their grants. In other words, the overall level of funding for the institution will go up, whereas in his case it would have remained static. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has gone past the stage where he was making a personal explanation. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Lloyd,Mr Jull,Mr Miles,Mr Peacock,Mr Ruddock and Dr Wooldridge. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur,Mr McGauran,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products; (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation. (Electron Beam, X-ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Martin. 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'' as there is a disturbing uncertainty regarding the possible health effects of this process on humans. This process has also been shown to reduce the nutritional value and affect taste, colour and texture of food, thus necessitating further unwanted additives. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate (a) the ``Food Irradiation'' process by State Governments, and (b) the dumping of irradiated food products on Australia, to the detriment of our food producers. We call on the Government to impose an immediate moratorium on all aspects of ``Food Irradiation'' in Australia. We urge extreme caution in processes involving radiation, where there is evidence indicating possible detrimental health effects. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of Cobalt-60, Caesium-137 or other radioactive substances. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. To the Speaker and 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 Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar,Mr MacKellar and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian Legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson electorate respectfully shows that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Halverson,Mr McGauran,Mr Martin and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr McArthur and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors and updates information on every person in Australia''. (Report, 4.55, page 148.) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless reintroduced, that the members of the House without regard for party unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser,Mr Rocher,Mr Shack and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of 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 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Downer. 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled-The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth; That whereas the Federal Government has determined to proceed with the introduction of a national identification system to be known as the Australia Card, the following citizens of Australia express their concerns at the potential violation of civil rights and democratic freedom posed by such a national identification system and urge that the Government not proceed with its planned introduction of the Australia Card. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles and Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty of the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalities, and close the Customs barrier to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because any one can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. 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 time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of Rural Women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker, and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, noting that: the South African occupation of Namibia was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 1971; South Africa, in defiance of international opinion, continues to illegally and brutally occupy Namibia and to enforce the system of Apartheid in that country; Australia, as a Member of the United National Council for Namibia, has special responsibilities towards the people of Namibia; call upon the Australian Government to immediately: withdraw diplomatic recognition from the racist South African regime and close their Embassy in Canberra, extend full diplomatic recognition to the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representatives of the people of Namibia, institute total and mandatory economic, sporting and cultural sanctions against both South Africa and Namibia, provide substantial material and financial aid to SWAPO to assist in their work with refugees and in their ongoing struggle for independence, pressure the South African regime in all ways possible to withdraw from Namibia, allowing free and fair elections in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 435. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the undersigned believe freedom of thought, expression and choice is in jeopardy by the action of minority groups, to ban the sale and hire of video movies with a rating of `R' classification notwithstanding that such `R' movies could be shown at cinemas and on television. 2. That examples of titles of video movies with `R' classification include such well known movies as: `One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' (Jack Nicholson) `First Blood' and `Cobra' (Sylvester Stallone) `Dirty Harry' and `Sudden Impact'-(Clint Eastwood) (`Make my day!') `Midnight Express' `The Godfather' `Apocalypse Now' (Marlon Brando) `Crimes of Passion' (Kathleen Turner & Anthony Perkins) `Mad Max' (Mel Gibson) `The Deer Hunter' (Robert De Niro & Meryl Streep) 3. That we the undersigned believe that very little thought has been given to the devastating consequences of the economic impact on the video retailing industry of banning the sale and hire of `R' rated movies. 4. That we the undersigned are concerned video library members, all over the age of 18 years, many of whom are parents who believe that they should retain certain basic freedoms namely: (a) the right to view video movies of their own individual choice and not that imposed by Governments or minority groups; (b) the right to exercise their own discretion and control over their own childrens viewing habits in lieu of the control sought to be imposed by Governments and minority groups. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: That all legislation proposed to the banning of the sale or hire of `R' classification video movies be immediately stayed pending: (a) an informed public debate on an issue which in essence involves freedom of thought, expression and choice; and (b) a thorough review is made of the economic impact of banning `R' classified movies on the video retail industry. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your practitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the French Government is preparing its base at the Kerguelan Islands 3,500 km south of Western Australia, in readiness for an atomic testing programme. All radiological contamination from atomic testing would be brought to Australia by the Roaring Forties winds and the prevailing westerly ocean currents, resulting in severe damage to our environment and lifestyles for millennia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House: Call upon the French Government to immediately abandon plans of using the Kerguelan Islands as their proposed nuclear testing base. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should oppose any legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Your petitioners respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Identity Card, to be called the Australia Card, and a National Identification Numbering System, is not in keeping with the established rights, privileges and customs of the Australian people. It is, therefore, the will and desire of the said petitioners that the proposed legislation be neither introduced in its original form, nor amended in any way, but totally withdrawn. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly object to the Government's decision to sell Australia's uranium to France and elsewhere particularly in view of: all dangers to humankind inherent in the nuclear industry; continued nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific by France. We regard the Government's proposed action as a complete negation of its stated policy for a Nuclear Free Pacific and request that the uranium is not sold and that all uranium mining ceases forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth (closure of social security offices at Corrimal, Warrawong & Dapto). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will (keep said offices open with full services as at present 21, August 1987). And your petitioners as dutybound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The August 1st changes to Medicare Benefit rebates are unfair to patients, such as those with chronic disabilities requiring consultant physician or after hours consultations. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Amend the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act to restore the original rebates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take the necessary action in the Budget to reduce the likelihood of Australia being faced with intervention by the International Monetary Fund if there was another commodity price slide. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.58) —The Opposition raises this matter of public importance today because of the divisions in the Government between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Those divisions go to the core of government and, precariously for Australia, to the core of economic policy. This is not some slight spat; this is a division of deeply held and differing views. It is no coincidence that the Minister who is spelling it out as it is, warning of the dangers, is the Minister who is not seeking the leadership of his Party and our nation. The tape of the Finance Minister's remarks is now available. It was not available yesterday. Among other things, he said that, first, on the macro-situation, Australia is certainly not out of trouble. Secondly, he is concerned about complacency and a lack of political courage. Thirdly, he believes we may go further down the Argentinean road. Fourthly, he believes that if there is another commodity price slide, our situation is so perilous that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would knock on our door again. Fifthly, he correctly says that a country with a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country which has few options, and he spells them out in terms which are similar to those of the Opposition, namely, to cut ongoing expenditure. Sixthly, he then homes in on what he says is the fundamental cause of our problem, namely, the current account deficit: we are consuming more from abroad, including, of course, the interest we have to pay abroad, than we have been selling abroad. That is precisely what the Opposition has been saying. The Finance Minister's criticisms cut through the facade the Treasurer has crafted over the Budget like a canopy and go to the thrust of our criticism, namely, that this Government is stalling the pace of adjustment and thereby placing the economy at risk. There is entrenched division here and it manifested itself yesterday in the Treasurer's public criticism of the Finance Minister and, according to reports, of the Treasurer's private demand to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that Senator Walsh be sacked. This is a great and tempting field to furrow for any opposition, but I simply put it before the House today-this division and fight among the two-for behind the division is the very well-being of every Australian man, woman and child, and it goes to the very future of our country. I believe that it is not the stuff of petty politics-to simply banter about what Walsh said and what Keating said. We must look behind it. The petty politics, if you like, or the politics themselves, can follow the substance. That substance is that, according to the Finance Minister of this country, Australia is close to being in a parlous economic state and, should commodity prices fall, Australia is close to having the International Monetary Fund knocking on the door again. Some state of affairs! Essentially, the issue concerns the pace of adjustment. The Minister for Finance, by advocating the removal of spending programs, is trying to force the Government to respond more quickly to our foreign debt problem. The Treasurer, on the other hand, is moving very slowly. There is absolutely no sense of urgency in this year's Budget-none at all-and it is a very political document. The Finance Minister is concerned about the economics. The Treasurer is obsessed about the politics, as well as being concerned about the economics. Mr White —Leadership. Mr PEACOCK —In this Budget, the politics have dominated the economics for the very point that the shadow Minister for Defence raises. Senator Walsh is reported as warning: Certainly, if there is another commodity price slide, the IMF will be knocking on the door again. How right he is. We ought to note that Senator Walsh is concerned about hearing from the IMF again. I emphasise the word `again'. Has the IMF been knocking on the door already? Basically, by failing to move more boldly in cutting expenditures last week in the Budget, the Government has opted for the easy way out-a very slow pace of adjustment. Indeed, it is only forecasting an improvement from $13.5 billion to $11.5 billion on the current account deficit. There is absolutely no margin for bad luck or mistakes with this type of adjustment. It is, to put it succinctly, an incredibly risky strategy. There is a paragraph in Budget Statement No. 1 that points out the very dangers of delaying the adjustment on the external account-one of the few in this carefully crafted Budget Statement No. 1 that gives any sort of a warning about the state of the economy. I quote from page 49 of the document: On the other hand, the longer the adjustment period, the greater is the build-up in foreign debt and the greater the call on future income to service that debt. Prolonging the adjustment period also means greater vulnerability to further shocks that are adverse to Australia's external performance (for example, a further deterioration in the terms of trade or export demand), and involves a more searching test of the patience of foreign creditors. Dr Theophanous —That's out of context. Why don't you read that in context? Mr PEACOCK —My, Government members are quick, are they not? I thought that I heard them parroting things being out of context yesterday too. They talk about context; this is it in a nutshell. It is exactly what Senator Walsh and those on this side of the House are worried about. Australia's AAA credit rating has already been downgraded under the Hawke-Keating Government. One would think that that would move the Government to a faster pace. That downgrading was a rational response by the international financial market to our high level of foreign debt and the inadequate pace of adjustment. Both foreign and domestic investors were quite unwilling to finance the binge of private and public consumption expenditures brought about by the Treasurer's first few Budgets. Let me remind the House that the Government's first Budget deficit was $8 billion in 1983-84, followed by another huge deficit in 1984-85. These deficits swallowed Australia's domestic savings and forced us as a nation to borrow overseas and run up a huge foreign debt. The decline in our terms of trade in 1985 was not, as the Government has argued, the cause of our external problems. It only exacerbated an already serious situation. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, evidently because of a lack of political courage-in the words of Senator Walsh-have exposed Australia to the dangers of a continued buildup in our foreign debt. Obviously, if things go wrong-I will cite a few things that could go wrong, and they are hardly exaggerated examples-such as imports rising by more than projected, a disruption to world trade such as illustrated by what the Americans are doing in Congress at the moment, and/or an outbreak of industrial problems in Australia and exports not rising as much as anticipated, a downturn in world economic growth or a fall in commodity prices, we would be in deep economic trouble. Can any member of this House say that any of those cannot occur? No. Each or any number could occur. In the event of such an adverse outcome, we face two choices: a dramatic turnaround in our economic policy to correct the external balance or, as Senator Walsh has said, intervention by the IMF. We have not raised this spectre; the Minister for Finance has. Both these choices are draconian, to say the least. A dramatic turnaround in economic policy would cause major disruptions in the economy. Obviously this means increased unemployment, increased interest rates, a fall in the exchange rate, increased taxes and sharp cuts in government expenditure. We would, essentially, have to revert to crisis management. Ordinary Australians would be thrown out of work, have their incomes cut and, once again, we would be called upon to tighten our belts. That is a great way to manage the economy, is it not? Why not take more decisive measures now, as we have said and as Senator Walsh advocates? After all, we would be in a position, if those events occurred, to weather the storm. As to the second alternative, if the International Monetary Fund intervenes, we really will have reached the bottom of the barrel. The IMF would demand dramatic changes to our economic policy. In effect, the Government would have to yield sovereignty over our economic policy to an international body. Let me remind honourable members that the intervention by the IMF to which Senator Walsh referred is not the same as simply borrowing from the IMF under the compensatory financing facility. Many Australians probably do not realise the indignity of yielding economic control to the IMF. Every three months we would have to report to it our progress in monitoring fiscal and monetary policy. We could be forced to make large changes to wages policy to restore our international competitiveness. In short, we would be joining all those countries, many of which are in the Third World, that have accumulated huge international debts and are in hock to the IMF. Australians do not want that scenario. I am sure that members of this Parliament do not want that scenario. Members of the Government were not elected to allow that scenario to occur. Yet that is the very scenario that the Minister for Finance has drawn to our attention. Why not put our house in order, as the Opposition has advocated? How can we gain the respect of the international community if we cannot manage our economy properly? In short, Australians want to be able to look after themselves and to be in a position to help others. There is no way we can do this without accelerating the pace of adjustment and reducing the risk of ending up as just another one of the international basket cases. After all, Senator Walsh, no less, said: A country which has a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country with few options. Few options, indeed; we simply do not have the luxury of accommodating the short term political desires of the Treasurer. It cannot be said, either, that the remarks made by Senator Walsh on Saturday were simply an aberration. I recited yesterday the sorts of things he pointed to. I recited again today elements that developed further as we heard the tape of Senator Walsh talking about the IMF and other issues and the macro setting not being sufficiently right. It cannot be said that his remarks were an aberration, because on 7 August he raised publicly the issue about making quality cuts, as he expressed it, in government expenditure. He said on this day last month: We have not been moving as quickly as the externally imposed circumstances demand. After adjusting for asset sales, the Government has cut outlays in the Budget by only 1.2 per cent in real terms. In June 1983, not long after the election of the Hawke Government, the net foreign debt was approximately $23 billion. By June of this year net foreign debt had nearly quadrupled to $83 billion. That is quite apart from the debt service ratio which has increased dramatically. We are now putting aside approximately 19 per cent of earnings from exports of goods and services just to service our debt, and the situation will not get much better in this financial year. We will continue, as the House knows, to accumulate net foreign debt at about the rate of $1 billion per month. In conclusion, apart from the reference to the IMF, Senator Walsh also drew the analogy with Argentina. Let me quote from this interesting book Australia and Argentina: on Parallel Paths written by Tim Duncan and John Fogarty. At pages 162 and 164 they state: Stagnation is a dreadful experience. Argentina is one of the few products of the Industrial Revolution to have suffered it, and it is perhaps the only modern society to have converted itself from an optimistic community of European immigrants to a Third World country during the life of a generation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.13) —I suppose that in all speeches of this kind there has to be some tiny element of truth. Of course, that element was quite evident when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that he was not seeking the leadership of his Party. That is thoroughly appropriate coming from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because the same certainly cannot be said of him. I will say this for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: I think he is regarded with some benign good humour amongst the broader electorate and remembered with some affection for his role as Minister for Foreign Affairs. But since that day, in his new role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, everybody realises that, although he might pontificate and try to sound like a shadow Treasurer, basically he is a deputy leader who somewhat reluctantly sheaths his stiletto while he waits for his Leader to stumble and fall. Mr Peacock —Come on! Get with it. Mr HOLDING —I am happy to get on with it. I will say this for the honourable gentleman: I give him 10 out of 10 for gall. There he was, standing in here bleating about this Government putting the economy at risk. He was part of the previous Government. Let us look at the record of this bunch of failures opposite. We are told that we must not mention the record of these men opposite who now talk at a time when the average Australian is looking forward to some hope of economic prosperity as the result of work done by this Government and this Treasurer (Mr Keating). We must not remind these honourable gentlemen opposite of the situation that was inherited by the Hawke Government when it came to office. Let us recall it. When we came to power in March 1983 inflation was running at 11.5 per cent a year. Economic growth was but a fond memory, and over the financial year 1982-83 the economy had actually contracted. Ten per cent of the work force was unemployed. The prospective Budget deficit had blown out to a massive $9.6 billion. Industrial disputes were at an all time high. Company profits had fallen to historically low levels choking off investment spending. A huge rise had taken place in unit labour costs, and an overvalued dollar was causing devastation to our whole manufacturing industry. That is the record of the failed Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is now Leader of the Opposition. It is no wonder the honourable gentlemen opposite want to leave this chamber. They do not like to be reminded of the situation that this Government found itself in when it came to office. Do not let any of the honourable gentlemen opposite, Mr Deputy Speaker, have the gall or the political dishonesty to walk in here and talk about placing the economy at risk. With a coherent economic policy and being prepared to face up to and take the hard decisions, it took years for this Government to sort out the economic mess that we inherited from honourable gentlemen opposite. The decisions that were made were not easy. We made the decision to impose an assets test. We made the decision to impose a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax. Every one of those hard decisions was opposed by the honourable gentlemen opposite although they knew that these measures were the only way in which we could bring back some measure of equity and justice into our taxation system. Day after day in this Parliament they warned the Government that these measures, taken together or singly, would bring it down. That was their position. When we went into the last election, what was their promise? What was their economic strategy 10 weeks ago? Where would Australia have been, where would the average Australian family have been if we had listened to the snake oil policies put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? We can all remember them. The Opposition's position was simple. It said, `Don't worry about the balance of payments. Don't worry about the economy; we'll give you tax cuts-a fistful of dollars'. And how was it going to be paid for? Ten weeks ago the honourable gentleman opposite, who talked about the economy being in jeopardy, said that we could have tax cuts. And how were they going to be paid for? They were to be achieved by massive cuts. Then, of course, it was quite improper for anybody to suggest this. Not only did members of the Opposition get their figures wrong but also we were not to ask them where the cuts were going to be made because that might cause some unhappiness in the community. Do we not remember the Leader of the Opposition going on television and radio saying, `In the first week of a Howard government, we will sit there and make cuts right across the board. Don't ask us exactly where'? Mr Peacock —Ask Senator Walsh. Mr HOLDING —I will come to Senator Walsh, do not worry about that. At this stage, I want to remind the Opposition of its fiscal record. There is not a honourable member on that side of the House who can stand up in this House and talk with any degree of political or economic credibility about the recent Budget, because the reality is that the Treasurer produced a Budget which, for the first time, virtually, was balanced. Mr Donald Cameron —He cooked the books. Mr Peacock —He cooked the books. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting, as will the honourable member for Moreton. Mr HOLDING —I do not mind members opposite bleating. Bleat they may well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not up to the Minister to mind, it is up to the Chair. Mr HOLDING —I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me remind the House that we have waited with some patience, because the Budget has now progressed some distance. I would have hoped and thought that if the Opposition were so concerned about the Budget package, we would have heard, either from the Leader of the Opposition or from some of the so-called fiscal spokesmen-I do not blame the honourable member opposite because nobody regards him as a fiscal spokesman-of an alternative economic strategy. Where is it? The Opposition gets terribly excited. It is an Opposition that lives off headlines. It picks up the paper on Monday and, goodness me, Senator Walsh said something at the Labor Party conference and Opposition members come in here and live off it for a couple of days on the basis that it is a substitute for their economic policy. Does anybody recall the alternative economic statements that could have been made by the Leader of the Opposition? This was an opportunity, if the Opposition believes that these cuts can be made, for it to tell us where and in which area they can be made. I will say this for Senator Walsh: like any Minister for Finance, he makes every Minister in this Government justify every line of expenditure. He has had many wins and he has had a few losses, which is what one can expect from a responsible Minister for Finance. Mr Peacock —What about the IMF? Mr HOLDING —Let us talk about all of those things. What is the basic attitude of an opposition without credibility and without a coherent economic policy? I will say this for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: he has said that he will take the Opposition's taxation policies in another direction. He has not told us which direction, but it will be another direction. He is trying to move away from the lamentable policies that were adopted-the stay cool economic remedies of his Leader in the last election. The fact is that the Budget produced by the Treasurer has-this Government has consistently argued this-allowed Australia to embark on a long-term process of economic reconstruction and progress. That had to be done in 1983 and accelerated in the wake of the collapse of our terms of trade in 1985 and 1986. That process has been underpinned by progressive fiscal reform. We have not shirked-not this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), not this Treasurer and not this Minister for Finance. On not one occasion have they shirked telling the Australian people the truth about the nature of our financial problems and about the necessity and urgency to embark upon the task of remedying those problems. Let me quote the words of the Prime Minister in his speech addressed to the Australian Financial Review post-Budget dinner. He said: . . . tonight I want to comment on the contribution the budget makes to our longer-term task of economic reconstruction, an aspect which can too easily become lost in the post-budget euphoria. Mr Peacock —On the road to Argentina. Mr HOLDING —I would not want to know what road the honourable member is travelling down, or what road he has been on. The statement made by the Prime Minister is a statement made at a dinner at which he was saying very simply-- Mr Braithwaite —What about a banana republic? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member should get back to reading his comics. It is all he is fit for. Mr Peacock —At least he reads them, not just looks at the pictures like you do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Dawson should be quiet. I warn the honourable member for Dawson. Mr HOLDING —The reality of the situation is that there is no way in which the Opposition can interpret that candid and forthright statement by the Prime Minister as doing anything other than saying to the people of Australia through a group, the financial editors, `Look, the Budget has been a remarkable success, but it should not be regarded as a panacea. We cannot afford to be complacent and we cannot resile from the real tasks of economic reconstruction, which were necessary and which had to take place given the failure and problems that we inherited from the Opposition'. What has been the result of the policies adopted by this Government? Mr Peacock —What about Senator Walsh, Argentina and the IMF? You told us you would tell us about him. Mr HOLDING —Go and sharpen your stiletto. Johnny is not doing too well. Investment is picking up, especially in plant and equipment and manufacturing. Exports are picking up, especially exports of manufactured goods. Interest rates are falling without undermining confidence in our exchange rate. Our current account deficit is falling and in 1987-88 it will be down 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Economic growth is being substantially underpinned by net exports. The Treasurer can be proud of his Budget. The Prime Minister can be proud of his achievements, and the Minister for Finance can be proud of the role that he has played in helping this economic reconstruction. I will say this: we can stand on that record and we can go to the people of Australia on that record. The guilty men opposite have no economic philosophy, no economic history and come into this House living desperately off the latest newspaper headline. We reject this motion as being nothing more than a waste of the time of this House, and as not contributing anything to a serious analysis of the economic problems that this Parliament has to face. The Treasurer has produced a Budget of which he can be proud. It is time we had an Opposition in which the Australian people could take perhaps a little measure of pride. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(4.28) —I will come back to how proud the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can be some aspects of his Budget! The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) was true to form with his customary mixture of abuse, smart talk, irrelevance and telescopic memory. I remind him that his side has been in power for the last 4 1/2 years and the problems with which we are coping are of its making. The Minister has not in any way answered the Opposition's matter of public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to take the action reasonably necessary and prudent to reduce the likelihood of Australia going down the Argentinean road. I take this opportunity to complete the quotation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was prevented from completing, the final paragraph of which was: The point of comparing Australia with Argentina is to show that there is another option for the Australian economy which may interest people as much as the splendid visions inspired by Japanese, Scandinavian or North America experience. That option is economic stagnation. We are confronted with an historic split between the two top economic Ministers in this Hawke Government, and the ultimate losers will be the Australian people and the future of this country. One is a Treasurer, presenting a Budget to which the Minister referred in his concluding remarks as a model, actually a patina of fiscal rectitude and reaping a euphoric market response, and the other is a Minister for Finance showing some responsible consistency, some continuing recognition of the Treasurer's banana republic perception of more than a year ago-has he forgotten all that?-and of the characterisation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at that time of the Australian situation as akin to war. That recognition at that time resulted in a significant thrust of government policy towards encouraging the process of adjustment of the Australian economy in coming to grips with its massive current account deficit imbalance and our vast and relentlessly rising overseas debt. The Opposition's point, and I suggest Senator Walsh's also, is that that impetus is not maintained in the policy settings and Budget thrust of 1987-88. It should have been maintained. The adjustment process is a continuing process over the foreseeable future. It will be a long haul, as I have often said. Not to maintain the impetus is an abdication of the Government's responsibility to the Australian people. The utter priority is to push the pace of that adjustment as rapidly as possible lest, hostage to the rest of the world as we are, conditions in the world economy change-commodity prices stop rising, the ready flow of money from abroad to finance our excessive national spending abates and we are left exposed and vulnerable to economic disaster and, as a last resort, the administrations of the International Monetary Fund. Let me state once again the nature of the difficult, not to say the perilous situation this country is in which was so played down by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. The central economic issue confronting the nation is the persistent massive current account deficit, our spending more on imports and interest on debt than we are earning in exports. We are living beyond our national means, putting this nation further into hock by the order of $30m to $50m every day. I say to the Australian people that from this time yesterday to this time today we have run up an extra overseas bill of $30m to $50m. Mr Hunt —No wonder Walsh is upset. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is no wonder. He can see the difficulty. We pay for that by borrowing overseas in one form or another, thereby adding relentlessly to our vast overseas debt. At the same time inflation is still at 9 per cent, way above that of our trading partners, unemployment is over 8 per cent and new business investment is at the lowest level for many years, compounding our exposure and vulnerability. That situation is unsustainable. The essential strategy to meet the situation is to restrain our private spending on every day goods and services and government spending, thus increasing national savings relative to the nation's income and production; to increase productivity and competitiveness; and to push resources into increased investment and production of exports and of Australian goods to replace imports, and in that way to reduce our reliance on foreign borrowings-all as a matter of urgent priority. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer today have focused on the balanced national Budget as underlining that the Government is pulling its belt in as its contribution to the process I have just suggested, of spending less and drawing less on national savings. I do not suggest that there is not a significant improvement in the fiscal, the budgetary situation. But to underline the inadequacy of the Treasurer's and Government's approach, to point up the gloss given to the reality of what has been done, indeed, the patent dishonesty of a whole series of statements and claims in the Treasurer's Budget Speech, let me-- Mr Hunt —Senator Walsh has blown the cover. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —He has. Let me look at the contribution on the spending side to the achievement of the `balanced' Budget. The Treasurer claimed there was a `2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending'; `the biggest cut in the 35 years for which comparable records are available'; and `a cut in outlays of $3,500m'. What is the substance of that? It is all set out in Budget Paper No. 1 at pages 66 to 71. There are two items that hit us in the eye among the hundreds of mainly tiny snippets of spending cuts from forward estimates of expenditure-not actual expenditure. The first is general purpose payments to the States which are cut by $1,000m; $1 billion, a cut in real terms of upwards of 4 per cent, which I would not dispute. When we work it out, Commonwealth spending in real terms on this Government's own activities will actually increase slightly. Just cut payments to the States, that is the easy way. The second-and this is the real gloss and misleading point-is asset sales. Yes, you heard it. The proceeds from asset sales of $1 billion are shown as a negative outlay-for goodness sake! The projected billion dollars of assets sales of such things as Commonwealth land in Tokyo and the ambassadorial residence in Paris make up nearly one-third of the vaunted cut in Commonwealth spending. That may be an international convention but when the sales are of that order in relation to the change in spending, it is nothing other than a tortuous use of language and is patently dishonest to trumpet $3 billion plus of cuts in government outlays. In plain terms that the man in the street can understand, the proceeds of the sales are an addition to revenue-albeit their true place in the Budget scene is as a component of the financing of the real deficit, not as a factor conditioning reducing the deficit. The truth is that the Government has fudged the whole thing. Tragically, and I believe Senator Walsh agrees, the Government has passed up the opportunity for some meaningful cutting of excessive government expenditure, thereby passing up the opportunity to push ahead in the absolutely crucial adjustment process to which I have referred. That process is the central issue before us and is hardly addressed. Growth, while we rely on the rest of the world to continue to pick up the tab for our national overspending, our living beyond our means has been put before a more rapid containment of the current account deficit and the debt problem. What this amounts to is that we are about to lose a year in the long haul of containing the current account deficit and our overseas debt, the long haul back from the Argentinean road to a path of sound economic development. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.38) —We have just heard from an intellectually bankrupt opposition whose whole argument has been based not on anything which it has been able to conceive of but on supposed reports of comments made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at a private function. This is the best the Opposition can do in attempting to come to grips with our economic situation. We have heard a lot of comments from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) such as `Australia is about to be overtaken by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'. Let me tell the Deputy Leader something about this. The only thing the IMF will do in Australia is to learn a lesson from this Government about how to get out of trouble. Since the Budget the stock exchange has soared, interest rates have come down and the general economic situation is brighter than it has been for many years. All the indicators show this. What are we told by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? We are told that there is some problem in that the IMF is about to intervene in Australia. What rubbish! The fact is that the Government has come down with a balanced Budget, for the first time in 17 years, something which was never achieved under seven years of Liberal-National Party Government. What is important about that is that it is having an impact on interest rates and general economic conditions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition enumerated six points on which he supposedly agrees with Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh made some private comments. Senator Walsh is one person within a government. We in the Australian Labor Party believe in solidarity in government and we believe in a united approach. The united approach came out in the Budget which was presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week. This Budget was along the right track in a number of directions, but it was along the right track in a number of directions only because we had the courage to reject the approach of the New Right as advocated by our opponents opposite. They were opposed to the very things which allowed us to balance the Budget. They wanted no capital gains tax, no assets test and no fringe benefits tax-they did not want any of the things which allowed for a fiscally responsible situation to be achieved. Honourable members opposite then come into this House and say, `Well, now that you have achieved this situation we had better find something that is wrong with it'. According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we have not cut enough in government spending. How would he know? He would not even know half the programs that exist in the Commonwealth with his experience in these matters. He would not know the impact of programs and program cuts on ordinary people. We in this Government are not Thatcherites. We do not believe in monetarism; we do not believe in cutting government programs simply for the sake of cutting programs irrespective of their social consequences. The social consequences of cutting the kinds of programs which were suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who was rejected by the Australian people because he was going to cut all those programs, would have had a devastating impact in a number of ways-the poor would have become much poorer and the rich would have become much richer. There would have been massive increases in unemployment-the very thing which occurred under the Fraser Government, especially in its last two years in office when it disgracefully threw 300,000 people out of work. Do members of the Opposition think that the return of these sorts of programs which would cut everything in an irresponsible fashion would result in increased employment? Certainly not. It would result in increased unemployment and we would have a similar situation to that in the United Kingdom, of unemployment at disgraceful levels of 12 to 15 per cent as it has been during the period of the Thatcher Government. Those are the kinds of policies which those opposite would put before us. We have heard a lot of nonsense today about Australia being on the Argentinean road. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition know anything about Argentina? Does he know of the substantial differences between the Argentinean economy and the Australian economy? Of course he does not. Does he know of the difference in the social system? We have had a lot of lambasting from the Opposition about a situation which is in no way analogous-Argentina and Australia. This is not to say that there are not problems. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has pointed them out. Of course there are problems, but those problems are being countered in a sensible and responsible fashion. It is easy to suggest a devastating approach to the current account deficit-that is, an approach which brings on a recession; an approach which will devastate the economy and create massive unemployment-just to solve the current account problem. That is what honourable members opposite want. We are not going to give it to them because we are going to undertake an approach which is a sensible one and which will solve that problem without also, at the same time, destroying the social fabric of this country, creating massive unemployment and all those other things. We are not in any way running away from our responsibilities in relation to the current account deficit. On the contrary, we are putting into place some very important policies which have not even been referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the two debates on this issue; namely, industry policies and industry development policies to develop our export industries and to reduce our reliance on imports. In the long term the only way in which we will be able to resolve this problem is through the restructuring of our economy in a sensible and graduated approach. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tried to make a great deal out of Senator Walsh's speech. The Government's position is clear. The Government has not accepted the representations of Senator Walsh on these matters because we have put into place a philosophy and an approach which work-an approach which is leading us to a very substantial resolution of problems. I say to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), that it is an approach that he will not find in any of the economic text books. The previous approach is based on a very important resolution of the crisis; it is based on co-operation and consensus within the community and not on confrontation of the kind which the honourable member and his Party would bring into this country. Honourable members should look at what happened in the United Kingdom when the approach that they are advocating was put forward. The whole nation was divided; workers were against employers; there was social division; and, as I said before, the poor were getting poorer and the rich were getting richer because of this factious regime. Dr Harry Edwards —That is under you. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member says, `What are you doing?'. Has he not heard of the poverty package, the package of assistance to families? This is one of the greatest reforms brought forward to assist families in poverty. We brought this forward not only as an election commitment; we brought it forward because we are concerned with the current account deficit and the external problems of the economy. But we are also concerned to ensure a quality of life for our people, a redistribution of wealth and income so we will have a more just society and the resolution of problems through an approach which is humane and which will be able to resolve our crisis. If the Opposition had not, years ago, abandoned any attempt to restructure the Australian economy, we would not be in the position that we are in now in relation to that restructuring. But we will achieve this restructuring and we will resolve those problems in a humane way which does not adopt the policies of those opposite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Ms Crawford: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Before I call the honourable member for Lowe, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(4.48) —To be permitted by the consensus of the ballot box to serve in the Parliament of a great democracy is at once a very great privilege, an enduring responsibility and also an exciting challenge. Within the atmosphere of constantly unfolding human drama which is parliament I hope that, with the aid of my colleagues and the members of my electorate, I may be able to differentiate between the theatre and the realities. I need to remind myself that this great stage, Canberra, its Parliament and its bureaucracies, is not an end in itself but rather a means-an instrument for the betterment and progress of humanity. I see it as our main task to create an optimum environment in which individuals and families are free and able to develop their potentials to pursue the careers of their choice, to seek the endless adventures of mind and body, to explore the arts and to assist the underprivileged while zealously preserving the dignity and the freedom of all. Democracy is clumsy, noisy, combative, frustrating. It is the eternal despair of those, the electors, who watch and listen to its endless byplays. In Churchill's words, `It is the worst of all systems of government, except for all others'. Of all systems, it best understands the human spirit and best assists the needs and the strivings of the free man and the free woman. In its finest sense, it must seek to provide equality of opportunity for all. There must be no sense of paternalism, no suggestion that the government knows best, no second class citizens. I hope I will never forget these eternal precepts. I wish to express my thanks to the electors of Lowe for the very great honour they have bestowed on me and to the many voluntary workers who assisted me in the campaign. I acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Michael Maher, in both State and Federal spheres and I wish him well in his future. I remind myself that the electorate of Lowe derives its name from Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke, a remarkable Englishman who, in his brief eight years in Australia in the mid-1800s, made a unique contribution to public life and to the nature and character of our future nation. He played an outstanding part in bringing about self-government, in the opening up of land to settlement, in the cessation of convict transportation and in improving the conditions of convicts. In regard to the improvement of conditions for convicts, it occurred to me that perhaps at the next redistribution we could commemorate the efforts in this regard of a recent New South Wales Minister and rename the electorate `Jackson' but I suspect that it would not be widely popular. Robert Lowe, however, was an untiring reformer. He has set a redoubtable pattern to follow. The Address-in-Reply debate is the Parliament's response to the address delivered by the Governor-General at the opening of Parliament last Monday week. The address is prepared and written by the government of the day. Its purpose is to project a broad framework of the Government's policies and programs during the life of the Parliament to be fleshed out with later legislation. There are really very few opportunities in the Parliament to study and debate the broad overview; to observe the full orchestration and to analyse the stated priorities. I welcome this opportunity. In so doing I am only too conscious of the massive learning process confronting me. In that, I am a very willing and eager student. There is for us all, and for each generation, one overriding priority: this is the prevention of any nuclear conflict or any major conventional war which might escalate to attempt nuclear resolution. Against a world history marked in almost every generation by military conflict, our challenge to outlaw war is unprecedented, but nonetheless imperative. There can be no nuclear war which is limited, no winners in a nuclear conflict, no protection for non-combatants or for so-called nuclear free zones. All political parties-indeed all sane individuals in Australia-are anti-nuclear war. They differ only in the methods of achieving the goal, not in the goal itself. I strongly believe that we must upgrade the anti-nuclear debate in quality and factual integrity of argument and in the continuity and prominence of the message. The current Washington talks on the elimination of all intermediate nuclear force weapons are encouraging. Achievement of this goal would certainly be a useful start. But it needs to be paralleled by significant reductions in the conventional forces in Europe so as to achieve a more equitable balance between the Warsaw Pact forces and the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. High on the priorities of all of us must be the scrupulous preservation of the environment. I hope and trust that our new Minister responsible for the environment learns to appreciate that a wilderness is more than just a parking lot with no white lines marked on it. Some welcome focus is now being directed towards the protection of the world ozone layer in order to resist the dangers of the greenhouse effect-the shrinkage of the polar ice caps, overheating of the earth's atmosphere, the rising of sea levels and the destruction of vegetation. I welcome this, but much more attention both locally and world-wide needs to be given to the prevention of acid rain. This is largely the product of the release of sulphur and nitrogen gases from coal-fired electricity power stations. Acid rain is massively destroying forests, lakes, flora and fauna and is damaging to human health. By contrast, the timber fellers, chainsaw and axe, although important, are puny in their destructive outcome. We need a broader, more vigorous and long range approach to the conservation of many of the world's resources and of Australia's resources, but particularly the non-renewables. Because oil is now in temporary glut and low priced, the world is again on an oil burning spree, forgetting the lessons of the mid-1970s when there was an oil crisis. It is unmindful of the fact that known reserves are severely limited. In Australia we have failed to conserve and to convert even though our known indigenous supplies of oil are falling sharply and sadly. Exploration too has markedly fallen away. Our future generations are not going to thank us for our profligacy in resource usage. The world is burning coal in ever-increasing quantities, often very inefficiently, as though it had a never-ending supply. If not for conservation, then surely for good housekeeping we must use our resources more skilfully and more sparingly to keep down our costs. Domestically the task of government is to ensure satisfactory living standards, the opportunity for jobs and careers of choice and the adequate relief of the underprivileged. Surely no nation or government can remain complacent with an unemployment rate which has established itself at above 8 per cent over the last four years and which is predicted to remain at that chronically high level for the next three years. No country or government can accept as inevitable chronic youth unemployment as high as 20 to 25 per cent with individual periods of unemployment averaging a year and growing. It is demoralising to the individual, inhibiting of valuable talents and destructive of striving and enterprise. With high chronic unemployment human dignity suffers as well as living standards. It is a confession of failure of us all and intolerable in both the short and the long term. Why are our living standards falling? In simple terms, Australia has been costed out of world markets, not by countries with lower wage structures but by those with higher productivity. `Productivity' is probably the single key word here. Quite clearly, as we have heard so many times today, we are going down the Argentinean road. Incredibly, many of the countries which are out-competing us, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, have very few if any natural resources of their own. They have to import raw materials from countries such as Australia, often at great cost and over great distances. Yet Australia has everything going for it-an equable climate, adequate land, the capacity for virtually unlimited electric power generation, pretty well every important mineral, an educated work force, and a wage package which is not too appreciably higher than that of our competitors. Also, Australians have shown on many occasions their capacity for initiative, skill and application when the opportunity has been given to them. Why then are we not competing favourably with the outside world? That is the essential question to be analysed and to be discussed with the whole Australian community. When all Australians fully understand the real nature of the problem and their vital part in resolving it this country will be well on the way to recovery. For far too long we have pretended that governments can remedy things, given a mandate. The truth is that it is the people who must determine the level of Australia's productivity. For them to do so, they must be told the facts. Governments must drastically reduce the burden of taxation, charges and regulations upon industries and individuals. Industrial disputes must be more flexibly resolved at the work face. Inefficient work practices must go, by mutual consent and understanding. Managerial skills and technology need to be upgraded. Adequate rewards, by means of effective margins for skill, bonuses, profit-sharing and employee shareholding must be developed. What Australia urgently needs right now is a full and frank understanding of the nature of the problems, a clear outline of the task for each one of us-worker, boss, union, government and card subject-and the achievement of co-operation in place of confrontation. There is a real urgency to set our productivity at a genuinely competitive level. The world's two great industrial giants, the United States of America and Japan, face enormous problems of industrial trade and fiscal readjustment. Those readjustments, which must inevitably follow the presidential elections in the United States next year, may well be sudden and may well be savage. They must severely harm Australia unless we get our house in order beforehand. We can no longer rely on farming and mining to supply our exports and sustain our living standards. Food and fibres are in oversupply and are likely to remain so. Minerals are in glut; prices are low. Farming and mining are not, and never will be, labour intensive. Countries which rely on them predominantly for export earnings generally have low and declining living standards. The countries with rising living standards and higher employment are those with broad manufacturing and service industries; exactly what Australia must develop. We must strive to expand our manufacturing base. In particular we must process and upgrade our own minerals. There is no point in sending them off to Japan to be transported back here, having been processed. The decline in industrial investment must be arrested and reversed. For many years Australia led the world in major social reforms. Governments of liberal philosophy introduced a wide range of programs aimed at assisting families in health, social welfare, retirement, home ownership and education while preserving the dignity and striving of individuals. As one who has spent his working life in the health sphere in daily, indeed hourly, contact with people of all ages, of social and economic conditions and with all sorts of personal problems, I am deeply concerned that Australia's health services are rapidly declining in both quality and quantity and that it is the poorer people who are suffering the most. The great teaching hospitals which produce the new generations of health workers are in crisis. They suffer a huge reduction in beds, a major shortage of nurses and the loss, mainly through resignation, of many outstanding specialist physicians and surgeons. Waiting lists for elective surgery are huge and growing. The affluent may go to private hospitals but the poor, who are now second class citizens in the health sense, must join the queue often for a year or more. If the teaching hospitals continue to decline in quality and delivery the whole standard of medicine in Australia will suffer. This whole question is one which needs to be addressed urgently by both Federal and State spheres of government. In Australia the retention rates at our schools, colleges and universities fall far below those of other countries which compete with us, such as Japan and the United States of America. Prompted no doubt by the lack of job opportunities for early school leavers the year 11 and 12 retention rates are rising, but there is still a long way to go. Adolescence is always a difficult journey. We sometimes underestimate the problems of the young. There is a need in our high schools for more emphasis on pastoral care and counselling. Education must be made to appear more relevant and the students to feel a stronger sense of belonging and meaningful involvement. It must be the duty of government to ensure higher standards in both government and independent school systems. Parents must be encouraged to participate more actively and more meaningfully in the process. In early childhood development, probably the most critical period, the parents must be the prime and the vital educators. We must seek to beckon on, to develop self-competition in each individual, and to encourage the pursuit of excellence. There is an enormous human resource lying latent, waiting to be unlocked. That unlocking brings rewards and happiness to the individual and very great benefits to everyone in the sharing of the products of talent and striving. Australia is probably one of the most multicultural of nations. My electorate includes people of diverse ethnic groups and is a microcosm of multiculture-and so much the richer for it. In Lowe the main ethnic group is Italian, but alongside the Italians are Greeks, Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Indians, Chinese, Lebanese and many others. Australia and Australians, particularly in Lowe, are so much the better and so much more mature because of this intermingling of cultures and customs. Our indigenous Aborigines present for us a great challenge in human understanding and, above all, in the devising of policies which will ensure for them a dignified future. A traditional nomadic people skilled in hunting, foraging and tribal self-defence, their culture-so different from ours-is built on the extended family. Their religions, their rituals, their sacred grounds and artifacts, their dreamtime, are all motivated by the needs and actions of hunter, forager and defender-a purpose in living which the social security systems of our Western civilisation have effectively removed from them, leaving, in most cases, a void. Even in the outstations and homelands they can no longer return to past lifestyles. Western diseases and foodstuffs, alcohol, clothing and money systems have permanently intruded, along with a multitude of support systems. There is much that we can do to restore health, dignity, self-respect and purpose, but the essential starting point lies in sympathetic understanding. Perhaps that great Roman playwright, Terence, more than 2,000 years ago expressed best the challenge to us all when he said: I am a man, I count nothing human indifferent to me. Concern for and involvement in mankind are surely the qualities essential for those in positions of political and social influence, such as those of us privileged to be in this House. Our policies must be directed to that concern but always attuned to the genuine nature of human beings, and above all designed to bring out the very best qualities, talents and dignities of the individual. For us all it is people, not parliaments or institutions, who are our goal and purpose. People are always so much better than they or we tend to think they are. They respond magnificently if beckoned on and trusted. Australia's future, and the future of its families and individuals, depends vitally upon taking all the people into our confidence, explaining to them the sensible and desirable roles of governments, unions, management and people and seeking the unlocking of talents, initiative and striving. In that way our future lies secure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Petrie, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(5.05) —My time in parliament has commenced with the setting of the stop clock on the wall. My new career begins here and now. This moment, along with my marriage to Catherine Carew, and the birth of our daughter, Elena Carew-Johns, is the proudest moment of my life. Having protested so long to so many of my friends that I would never seek the life of a parliamentarian, here I stand, the member for Petrie. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the call, and may I congratulate all of my new colleagues, on both sides of the House on their election to this place. I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), his Cabinet, the Australian Labor Party, including my team in Petrie, and especially the voters of Petrie for sending me here. I have spent time before around the Parliament, as a former national organiser for the Australian Labor Party. In the period between 1978 and 1982 I was privileged to be tutored in the art of political organisation by the then National Secretary, David Combe, the then Assistant National Secretary, Ken Bennett, and the current Secretary, Bob McMullan-men for whom I have the highest regard. I have the distinction of being the first full time official of the National Secretariat to enter the Parliament. However, anyone who suggests that I have charted a new path into politics should think again. It did not take me long to realise that as far as the Party was concerned, at that time in opposition, not a great deal happened in Canberra. The great powerhouses of the Party are, and remain, the State machines. Nevertheless, I do observe that there is a cohesiveness and strength in our National Executive that is the envy of the conservative parties. It was Combe the entrepreneur and Bennett the organiser who ultimately guided me to this place as the forum which by its very nature turns ideas into practice. I hope that I have chosen wisely in coming here, in supposing that this is a place of influence. Colleagues, I know that with your help I will not be disappointed. I have always been fascinated by the different ways by which individuals arrive here. For some the journey is relatively easy, but for others it is a grinding and even debilitating path. My ride was relatively gentle, a mere 15 years after joining the Party in 1972-only months before Whitlam scored his historic victory. It should never be forgotten that without Whitlam there would be no Hawke Labor Government. Only the hard lessons of 1972 to 1975 could have prepared us for the mantle of incumbency-a mantle which we now wear so comfortably, and which we shall wear for many years to come. My education in economics and geography at Monash University in the early 1970s took place at a very turbulent time in the nation's affairs. When I first entered the Faculty of Economics I was asked why I chose the course. My answer was simple, `When I read the morning papers I want to understand what is going on in the world'. No longer the angry young man of the 1970s, the chip worn from my shoulder, I have come to an understanding of what is going on. Whilst no longer the idealist, neither am I the cynic. I cannot say what the `Class of 87' will achieve or indeed what I shall achieve. Whether it is to be a short brutish existence or a long and eventful stay, I cannot predict. I wonder how my mother and father now feel as they sit in the gallery. My father, who was born in 1902 in Tatyoona in western central Victoria, a third generation Australian, has told me of his humble beginnings; of he and his brothers living in a hut with a dirt floor, who, like young pups on a cold winter's morn, would huddle against the outside wall of the hut to catch the warmth of the sun. They would ride from Tatyoona, and later from Willaura, into New South Wales to sell rabbit skins, or at least I suppose until myxomatosis killed the trade. Then in the 1930s, Claude, like so many young men of the time, moved to the city, to Melbourne. It was there that he met an extremely young and attractive woman, Doris Thompson. She was born in a house in Kensington, a single-fronted working man's cottage, where later she and Claude were to make a home. Four sons followed, though not in quick succession: Raymond, Kenneth, Neil and me. It was only after leaving home and starting my own family that I appreciated the trials and joys that mum and dad must have faced in bringing up their sons. I well remember walking around the streets at home on a Saturday or Sunday, and hearing that characteristic whistle of Claude as he painted yet another roof in Kensington. And as Claude was having a break from his labours with a beer on Sunday morning, jealously guarding the roast cooking in the oven, mum would be at church. I think Doris must have guided nearly a dozen vicars through the Holy Trinity Church and she was, and remains, a stalwart of that church. I might say to you now, mum, that in me you have a son who, although rejecting organised religion, has nevertheless learned its key lesson. I do show concern for my fellow human beings. I thank you and all of my family for your love, your closeness and your support. While none of us can know the future, we can surely work for its creation. And so to Petrie, and what of its future? Petrie is an electorate characterised by one of the highest levels of Australian born citizens in the country. It is geographically divided between the northern suburbs of Brisbane and the Redcliffe Peninsula and is dissected by the Pine River. It is the Pine River, running as it does across the divisions of Fisher, Petrie and Lilley, joining Hays Inlet at the mouth of Bramble Bay and set within the larger Moreton Bay, with the great Moreton Island lying just off the coast, that is my primary concern today. The mouth of the Pine River, an area of great beauty and great environmental significance, is a wetland area; a living environment for rare native birds and migrating birds from the Northern Hemisphere, for the breeding of fish, and a recreation place for thousands of amateur fishermen and boating enthusiasts. The future of this region is in the balance. In some ways the future of Pine River holds the key to the future of northern Brisbane itself. Is it to become another Gold Coast, filled with the Hollywood hype, white-shoe brigade, in their glittery living coffins of concrete and glass? Or is it to remain an area for all the people, in its natural state, accessible to those who take the trouble to look, but also accessible in the minds of those who might not seek, but have the comfort of knowing, that a wilderness lies at their doorsteps? The threat comes from a proposal by Ariadne Australia Ltd which wishes to put a $300m, 7,500-inhabitant canal estate on the southern edge of the river. Ariadne's claim is that the estuarine environment of the river will be preserved. I object to the canal estate, not only on the grounds of environmental damage, but also on the grounds that waterways are for everyone. They are not to be privatised. The company's own plans clearly show that an entire stand of mangroves, and the associated wetland region behind it, will be torn away, cut, drained or filled, to allow for a land use of no productive significance whatsoever. When I was first taken to the area by local ornithologist Roy Sonnenburg, and shown the birds that nest, wade and feed there, I had to pinch myself to be sure that I had not somehow been transported by the magic of television to the Northern Territory and Kakadu. There were the jabiru nesting, the brolga feeding and the ibis, egrets and royal spoonbill wading. It is a pity that I cannot adequately show photos of these beautiful birds of the Pine River, or indeed even a map of the region, but unfortunately the Standing Orders of the House do not allow me to do justice to this environmental topic. To digress for a moment from my subject, and with great respect to the Speaker and the Clerks who have guided me in this matter, it is sad that the current Standing Orders, which of course are the product of the members of the House, do not allow for the adequate presentation of material. The means of presenting material in this place reminds me of the great cricket broadcaster, Alan McGilvray, who translated the 1938 tests from England from the London cables and gave to his Australian radio audience a description of play by tapping his pencil on the desk in his Sydney studio to represent bat on ball. It is time that our Standing Orders moved beyond the 1930s. McGilvray wrote. `The game is not the same'. However, I seek permission to table certain photographs of some of the most beautiful and rare birds of this region, namely, the jabiru, the brolga and the royal spoonbill, and two maps of the Brisbane region. One indicates the area covered by the Ariadne proposal and the other is the City of Brisbane Town Plan, statement of intent, which has the same area zoned as `non-urban fabric'. I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. Mr JOHNS —I thank the House. The area directly under threat by the developer contains substantial stands of mangroves and casuarinas, eucalypts and melaleucas, interspersed between freshwater swamps, salt marshes and tidal mudflats. It is not the classic beauty spot for the picnicker-mangroves are not particularly hospitable places. It is the sort of place where one might find David Attenborough squelching around in his gumboots, looking into the eye of the camera. But the environmental importance of such wetlands is simply not appreciated by the Brisbane City Council or the Queensland State Government. I am trying desperately to find a Federal handle on this issue, so that my Government, with its magnificent record of environmental protection, might come to the rescue. The Ariadne proposal was knocked back by the Labor City Council in 1985, but the current Liberal Administration turned a blind eye and let the proposal slide through to the State Minister with little adverse comment. So far as I know, the matter is before the Minister responsible for local government, for rezoning and ministerial approval. This is the sort of socialist intervention encouraged in Queensland-socialism for the few. So far as we are aware, Ariadne has systematically gained control of both leasehold and freehold land in the area and is seeking a slice of crown land as well. The area under threat covers some 500 hectares. The areas adjoining, that is, Hays Inlet and Kippa Ring, are habitat reserves under the State Fisheries Act. They are protected as areas of importance to fisheries. The two regions are contiguous; to encroach upon one might affect the other. In general terms, mangroves are protected by the Fisheries Act but, as explained to me by an official of the Department of Primary Industries, whether or not there is a reserve in the area, if the Minister wants a rezoning, the Minister gets a rezoning. Mangroves have all too often been assessed in terms of cheap real estate, to be `developed' by reclamation into desirable waterfront property. We now know that mangroves, and their associated wetlands, play an important role in the healthy functioning of an estuary. They act as a nursery area for juvenile fish, help stop erosion of the shoreline, and produce a large amount of organic matter used in the food web of the estuary. The destruction of the mangroves is known to reduce the supply of material to the food system, and rapidly leads to the destruction of the estuarine ecosystem, and consequently the loss of fish. Both the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation and the Queensland Sport and Recreational Fishing Council are totally opposed to this and other projects that destroy fish habitat. The Commercial Fishermen's Organisation claims that the Moreton Bay region is the third richest pocket fishery in the world, providing an estimated $80m feedout each year. It is clear that almost all forms of commercially fished marine life-fish, prawns, sand crabs, and the famous Queensland mud crab-spend part of their life cycle in the tidal mudflats. The mangroves also act as an important pollution buffer to Moreton Bay. In Lane's 1987 definitive edition of Shorebirds in Australia, Moreton Bay is noted as one of the key areas for shorebirds in southern Queensland. The point is reiterated that the coastal wetlands of southern Queensland have either been destroyed or are rapidly being destroyed and that there is insufficient information even to assess the impact of such destruction of shorebirds. Indeed, if the destruction of mangroves is barely justified in the case of productive operations such as the Brisbane Airport, and the various oil refineries, it is totally unjustified for housing. The one study of the wetlands of southern Queensland was undertaken by consultants to the State Government in 1975. Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey recommended the protection of almost all of the remaining mangroves, salt marshes and sea grass beds in southern Queensland. The canal estate is the most greedy, shortsighted and disastrous use of coastal resources. The Pine River area needs protection, and the best way to achieve that is for a moratorium on the destruction of any and all mangroves in Queensland, just as the enlightened New South Wales Government has done in that State. Not only do the mangroves have to be saved, however, but so must the adjoining tidal and wetland habitats. Any management plan for the Pine River, which must include the reserves of Hays Inlet and Kippa Ring, must protect the associated habitats of the mangrove. In fact, the recommended terrestrial buffer zone is at least 200 metres wide, which means that the Ariadne proposal, or any variation of it, would be absolutely out of the question. The Queensland Government is not known for its record of environment protection, and the fact that the authority for the protection of mangrove ecosystems is vested in three Ministers-those with responsibility for Lands, Harbours and Marine, and Primary Industries-means that no one person takes responsibility. Whilst the Queenslanders have been sensible enough to put aside some reserves, they keep their options open as it suits them. The hit or miss attitude of the Queensland Government is testified to in that it is the only State to fail to nominate wetlands of international importance to the Ramsar Convention-the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation agreement on the preservation of wetlands of international importance. While I am not suggesting that Pine River is a subject of international importance, Queensland's refusal to co-operate on the international convention, a most successful convention in Australia, does not leave one with a feeling of confidence that the less significant, but still mightily important areas, will be saved. But perhaps I do have a Federal handle on this issue. The Commonwealth has certain responsibilities under the Japan-Australia Treaty, the Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment, and, indeed, under the soon-to-be-ratified Australia-China Treaty. Under article VI of the Agreement each government shall: . . . endeavour to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of birds protected under the provisions of this agreement . . . in particular, it shall seek means to prevent damage to such birds and their environment. The China Agreement makes similar provisions under article IV. No fewer than 22 different species of migratory bird listed under these agreements feed on the Pine River wetlands, including the mongolian sand plover, Lathams snipe, and the fork-tailed swift. Although Pine River may not be an exclusive feeding ground for these birds, the destruction of the habitat at Pine River would be one more blow to their survival. My earnest hope is that the Federal and State Ministers could meet at the next Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and determine a strategy whereby the entire Pine River, Kippa Ring and Hays Inlet region could be preserved for all time. (Extension of time granted) I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young). The record of the Queensland Government on environmental matters, in comparison with that of the Federal Government, is like comparing my father's birth place to the new Parliament House. It is indeed remarkably humble. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.26) —I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) on their maiden speeches. I point out to the honourable member for Petrie that we will get on a bit better if he does not try to score points for his electorate by denigrating mine. In making my contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate, I wish to address some defence matters which are of importance to this country. At the outset I wish to congratulate the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) on her elevation to the Ministry. She has been given the very difficult job of looking after the conditions of service of defence personnel. It is an impossible job in many ways, and she is making it much more difficult for herself. There has been enormous wastage from the Services in the last few years-in fact, 25,000 in the last three years. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) referred to those losses as being good for morale. That is a disastrous start for a new Minister. She has a lot to make up, because by making those remarks she has become a laughing stock throughout the Services. She must also cope at the moment with the defence service home loans fiasco. I see that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is leaving the chamber. Mr Humphreys —I shall listen. Mr WHITE —I am not asking him to stay, but he knows exactly what I am talking about when I refer to the fiasco surrounding defence service home loans. Proposals to change this scheme were mooted in the Budget. The fact is that nobody knows what the scheme is all about. A bushfire is raging around most Regular Army units. Defence personnel are sending delegations to their non-commissioned officers and to their officers-something that I never heard of during my service. One regimental sergeant major told me this morning that it is something that he has never heard of, either, in 30 years. I will return to that matter in a moment. The fact is that the defence service home loan changes which the Government proposed in the Budget are one hell of a mess. They are causing great problems in an already debilitated Defence Force. Defence was barely mentioned in the address. It was not mentioned at all in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). That is understandable from a government point of view. The fact is that our defence capacity is declining. The conditions of service for our service men and women have deteriorated remarkably. The White Paper announced so proudly six months ago is veering off the rails. It is no wonder that the Government does not want any great mention of defence. It seems to me that the Defence Ministers are currently standing on the edge of a precipice. Mr Beazley, who I suppose is referred to, in these difficult days when one tries to decide who is responsible, as the senior Minister, seems to be gazing out across the valley to the mountains beyond, while the ground is crumbling beneath his feet. The ground to which I refer is the sinews of the defence forces-the men and women who constitute their personnel. Unless the Minister forgets some of those lofty and academic views that he has discovered and comes to grips with the fundamental problems which are affecting this country's defence forces, he will find, in a very short space of time, that he is the owner of some very good defence equipment all of which is quietly rusting away because there is no one with sufficient experience to man it. I urge the Minister to come to grips with the fundamental problems that threaten the capacity of our defence forces. I urge him, for a start, to come to grips with the defence service home loans issue, to which I referred a moment ago and which has caused so much unrest throughout the Services in the few days since the Budget. It must not be thought that we on this side of the House are in total disagreement with everything the Government does from a defence point of view. That would be very wrong. We are very conscious of the fact that what we are talking about is the security of our country. We agree with the broad strategy as outlined in the Government's defence White Paper. Thank God that it is somewhat different from the paper brought forward by Paul Dibb, which is known as the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. We have to thank the chiefs of the various Services and their advisers for taking the Dibb report, massaging it and presenting it as a worthwhile defence document. That is not being totally critical of Mr Dibb. I think that we owe him some gratitude for at least coming to grips with some of the problems that successive governments have dodged over the years. But it should not go unnoticed that, when the Dibb report was produced, the Minister for Defence was totally supportive of it. Yet within a few months he has done a double back flip and has said that the White Paper shows us the way to go. We are very grateful that he saw some sense in that. We agree, for example, with the concept of a two-ocean Navy, the planning and the establishment of bases for which is now under way. That will be achieved over a long number of years. We agree with the emphasis that has been placed on the north. Perhaps we would differ on the pace of development in those two projects. The big question on the White Paper is: can its proposals be funded? The paper is based on a real annual growth rate of 3 per cent. The Minister for Defence said to the Fabian Society in August 1986: The Dibb review points the way. Paul Dibb has used a planning figure of 3 per cent real growth. That is no magic figure. The Minister assured Australians that the proposals would be achieved on a 3 per cent real growth rate. The reality is that the 1986-87 Budget granted an increase of only one per cent in defence expenditure. In the 1987-88 Budget-the Budget just brought down-total defence expenditure is $11m less than that allocated in the previous year. The Government, by some cunning arithmetic and the use of price deflators and so on, says that the figure represents a decline of one per cent. The real facts are that there is a decline in defence spending of something approaching 6 to 7 per cent this year. The Minister now talks not about a 3 per cent growth but about the necessity for long term planning. The promise of 3 per cent real growth has disappeared. One of the points of very serious disagreement that we have with the Government on defence matters is that we reject totally the no-threat scenario that it tries to comfortably massage and present to the Australian people. We live in a difficult world and in a difficult part of the world. If one thing is sure in defence matters it is that the unexpected will occur. I refer to the problems in the Philippines, the recent problems in Fiji, those in Papua New Guinea-we may have to assist there-Vanuatu, New Caledonia and South East Asia. We have an increasing Russian and Libyan threat in this part of the world. We have lost our influence, to a large extent, in South East Asia and in the Pacific. Worse than that, we have lost pride in our defence forces. That attitude was engendered by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) during the Vietnam war and immediately after it. Since that criticism and denigration of the Services, they have never been restored fully to their proper place in the Australian community. We intend to make sure that the Services are restored to their proper place and that pride in the Australian defence forces is restored. To bear arms in the defence of one's country should be regarded as a matter of great pride, and not as some sections of the ALP would have it, particularly people such as Dr Cairns who, when he was in government, entertained Vietnamese in this country while our troops were still serving in Vietnam. We intend to restore that pride. The biggest problem facing the defence forces is that of manpower-the huge wastage and losses that they are suffering. In three years 25,000, over a total base of 70,000, have left the forces; that is, 36 per cent. There is not only enormous wastage in terms of re-postings, with the turbulence that that causes, but also an enormous loss of experience. When people who have gained some experience leave the Defence Force, enormous costs are involved in retraining replacements. The 20-year average loss of pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has been about 40 a year. Last year the figure was over 100. Technicians in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) are in desperately short supply, as are Army signals personnel. The average loss of male officers in the Services has been about 500 a year. In 1986, 800 officers left. An RAN officer retention survey carried out between November 1986 and March 1987 showed that 88 per cent of those surveyed believed that the erosion of benefits was wrong, was affecting them, and they were considering resigning. The problem is that 80 to 83 per cent of those leaving the Services are leaving before the 20-year period expires. In other words, they have enough experience to be valuable but they are leaving well before they have to do so. All the advice from the service chiefs to the Minister is that this is having a debilitating effect on the Services. A recent report by the Department of Defence to the Minister says: Positive action to redress the high wastage rate needs to be taken on economic and operational capability grounds. Yet the newly appointed Minister for Defence says that it is good for morale, when the service chiefs are out there day after day ramming home to the Government the message that the Services cannot withstand these losses, this wastage and this cost of retraining. Mrs Kelly says, `It's good for morale, you fellas, and you had better get used to it'. It is no wonder the Services have problems. Let me deal briefly with some of the costs that are involved, Apart from the lack of experience. By the time a pilot in the RAAF gets to his first squadron, the cost to train him amounts to $2m. By the time he has done about 1,000 hours and is becoming a very useful pilot, the cost is about $6m. Last year we lost over 100. To train an Army recruit to a basic level costs about $9,000 a year. On top of all this, in the Budget last week the Army is to be reduced by about another 730 personnel, and the Navy and Air Force by 100-odd each. This will cause increasing posting turbulence as the Services desperately try to plug the gaps that the Government has decreed will now be vacant. It will extend the average working week of the service men and women. It is already between 52 and 55 hours, and the Government is going to ask more from those people who are left. Mrs Kelly says that all this wastage is very good. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! On several occasions the honourable gentleman has referred to the Minister by name. He must refer to her by her portfolio. Mr WHITE —I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we have two Ministers for Defence and they have to be identified. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may refer to them as Minister Kelly or Minister Beazley, or whatever the case may be. Mr WHITE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister Kelly has a solution to these problems. We have had 10 or 12 recent reports on this problem, yet she appoints an adviser. Mr Rocher —Tell us who. Mr WHITE —The honourable member for Curtin is very curious and asks me who. It is none other than an ex-colleague of ours, Ms Mayer, the ex-member for Chisholm. Ms Mayer is going to point Minister Kelly in the right direction. Mr Rocher —But she will be stationed in Canberra? Mr WHITE —She will be stationed in Melbourne. Mr Staples —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the front of the daily Hansard where the Hon. Ros Kelly is referred to as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Minister. The Chair was of the mind that there was such a title but could not immediately bring it to mind. It was an interim arrangement which accommodated the situation. The honourable member for McPherson now being fully informed will meet the requirements of the House. Mr WHITE —As I am running out of time I will not debate the issue, but I understand that all Ministers were sworn in to administer a department and the honourable member for Canberra was sworn in as the Minister for Defence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is now acquainted with Minister Kelly's title and must refer to her as such. Mr WHITE —I accept your ruling on the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. So the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel appoints Ms Mayer who will have an office in Melbourne and some staff which will cost us about half a million dollars a year. Ms Mayer knows nothing about the Services. The Minister for Defence shoves off this enormous problem that he has on defence personnel to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who quickly looks around to find a defeated Labor candidate who lives in Melbourne and who presumably will stay in Melbourne where there are hardly any defence personnel at all. So the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel finds an assistant. I have no doubt that Ms Mayer has also found two or three assistants all of whom will give advice to the Government on matters which have been the subject of at least a dozen reports in the last 12 years. Mr Rocher —Is that affirmative action or jobs for the girls? Mr WHITE —It is called jobs for the girls. There are many other matters I wish to cover and I will in a later speech. We have an enormous problem in the Services. It is a debilitating wastage. The Minister for Defence has refused to face up to the problem. The Budget contains no measures to address any of these problems to which I will refer later. There is no allocation of money. The problem is that there is no balance between the expenditure on capital in defence terms, capital equipment, and the expenditure on improving the conditions of service. Mr Charles —What rubbish! Mr WHITE —How does the honourable member explain 25,000 people leaving the Services? How does he explain the fiasco of a defence service home loan that is out there in every unit in Australia now? When will that be fixed? Fifty-five members out of 70,000 are now eligible for an education allowance. The fact is that we do have an effective Defence Force in this country. But what concerns me and most members on this side of the House is that its capacity is declining. Until we get the major problem fixed-which is to look after the service men and women in the Australian Defence Force-its capacity will continue to decline and our security will be placed at increasing risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before I call the honourable member for Fisher, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(5.46) —It is a long way from Crosshouse, a small coal mining town in Ayrshire, Scotland, to Capital Hill, Canberra. While there may appear to be no link between two so vastly different communities, the destinies of both Crosshouse and Canberra have been touched by a remarkable man, a man who served on three separate occasions as this nation's leader; a man whose name is now immortalised by the seat it is my honour to represent. The division of Fisher bears the name of Andrew Fisher, Prime Minister of Australia, High Commissioner to England, founding father of the Australian Labor Party. Andrew Fisher's life story is one of achievement; achievement of human will over considerable hardship. It is a case study of how reason, logical argument and common sense will often prevail against those who choose emotion, fear and the irrational as the basis for argument. Fisher was born in Crosshouse, Scotland, in 1862. A son of a coal miner, he followed his father into the pits at the age of 10. Needless to say, mining was a hard life and the conditions endured by the miners were to leave a lifelong impression on Fisher. Despite the difficulties, Fisher managed to educate himself by attending night school. He became involved at an early age in union activities, and by the age of 17 had risen to become Secretary of the Ayrshire Miners Union. In 1881, the union called a strike which lasted 10 weeks. It proved disastrous and the union was crushed. For his part, Fisher was blacklisted by the victorious mine owners. The ban rendered Fisher almost destitute. For four years, he struggled to gain work of any sort. There is no doubt the experience convinced Fisher that the future of the labour movement was in direct political involvement. When it became clear that he had no future in Britain, he emigrated to Australia and settled in the Gympie district of Queensland where he gained work in the gold mines. As in his native Scotland, Fisher became involved in the trade union movement and the fledgling Australian Labour Federation, the forerunner of the Labor Party. Some eight years after his arrival in Australia, Fisher was elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly as a Labor member. Like now, Queensland was governed by a conservative squattocracy. One of the prime aims of the Queensland Government was to limit the influence of the trade unions and to ensure industrial harmony by prohibiting strikes and gaoling unionists. To this end, the Government passed the Peace Preservation Act which could be the model for the current industrial legislation of the Bjelke-Petersen regime. Needless to say, the Act was unsuccessful and was subsequently repealed by the Labor governments which dominated the State in the first half of this century. In contrast, confrontation was not Fisher's way. Despite the hardships of his early life, he did not embrace theories of class warfare. Instead, he sought practical means of improving the lot of working people by legislation on safety standards, workers compensation and minimum wage levels. In 1889, Fisher became a Minister in the Dawson Queensland Labor Government, which although it lasted only seven days, was the first Labor Government in the world. At the same time, the States were considering their stance on the question of federation. Fisher campaigned hard to convince firstly the Labor Party and then the general public of the value of nationhood. When elections were held for the first Australian Parliament, he successfully nominated for the seat of Wide Bay. In the following 14 years, he was to be involved in decisions which still affect the lives of millions of Australians. In a number of ways, the issues facing Australia in the years immediately after Federation parallel the issues today. In both instances, government was called upon to decide fundamental issues of the structure of government and its role in the economy. It is an interesting, and-I believe-a worthwhile exercise to reflect upon the choices and decisions made by Andrew Fisher and the Labor governments prior to the First World War. Of the decisions made, the most enduring were in the fields of social welfare and public enterprises. In the area of social welfare, the Fisher Government of 1910-13 can be credited with the establishment of the basic assistance measures of the old age pension, maternity allowance and the invalid pension. However, the measures were not as extensive as Fisher would have liked. In his speech in support of the Invalid and Old Age Pension Bill, Fisher told the House: Our Bill is not so liberal as I should like to see it. It is only because we are trammelled by financial obligations and tied by the dead hand of the Constitution that I am prepared to accept the Bill. It all sounds too familiar. If privatisation is an issue today, then it was the Fisher Government which put public ownership on the long term political agenda. In November 1911, the Parliament passed the Commonwealth Bank Bill. Although King O'Malley received much of the credit for the establishment of the bank, there is no doubt that Fisher, as Prime Minister and Treasurer, played a critical role in the Bill's drafting and passage through Parliament. The bank's savings business opened in July 1912 with agencies in all post offices. The first savings account was that of Andrew Fisher. The trading bank opened in January 1913, when it took over the Commonwealth Government's accounts. Its only capital was a Treasury loan of #10,000 which it soon repaid. Unfortunately, the same success was not achieved in the area of constitutional reform. Fisher considered the Constitution, although drafted only two decades prior to his Government coming to power, to be a `dead hand' on a reformist government. He believed that constitutional reform should be an ongoing process and, when speaking to the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Bill, said: Happily the Constitution is so framed that it may be amended by the people from time to time in order that it may keep step with their intelligence and enlightenment. For Fisher, however, amendment proved far from `happy'. In 1911, soon after his Government was swept to power with substantial majorities in both Houses, he proposed a referendum to extend the Commonwealth's powers over trade and commerce, control of corporations and monopolies and labour and employment, including wages conditions and the settling of disputes. The proposal was defeated, with only Western Australia voting in favour. Undeterred, he again submitted the proposals, this time separated into six questions at the time of the 1913 election. Again, the proposals were defeated, but by a much smaller margin. However, the negative vote contributed to the defeat of Labor at the poll by one seat. Although he was returned as Prime Minister soon after the outbreak of World War I, he was unable to produce the march of legislation of the period of 1910-13. Notwithstanding the failure in constitutional reform and the restrictive interpretations given by the High Court of Australia to Commonwealth Government powers, the Fisher Government set much of the policy framework which dictated the scope of decision-making in following years. Like the Fisher Labor Government, the Hawke Labor Government finds itself at a time of debate on fundamental issues in the areas of constitutional reform, the structure of government, and the role of government in the economic process. In December 1985, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) appointed members of the public to a commission to examine, review and make recommendations on the Australian Constitution. The Commission replaced the Constitutional Conventions which had been first instituted by the Whitlam Government in 1973. I fully support the cause of a modernised Australian Constitution which, as Andrew Fisher indicated, must be amended to keep step with changed circumstances. If Fisher thought the Constitution was a `dead hand' in 1908, there is no doubt that, 80 years later, it acts in many instances against the interests of the nation it was framed to serve. The scope of amendments required and the issues canvassed by the several advisory committees reporting to the Commission are too extensive for me to examine now. However, there is one area on which I wish to comment. Recently, the Advisory Committee on the Distribution of Powers reported to Sir Maurice Byers, the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission. The charter of the Committee was to report on the appropriate distribution of powers between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local government. Chapter 7 of the Committee's report concerns constitutional recognition of local government. The recommendation of the Committee is that local government should not be accorded recognition in the Constitution. The basis of this recommendation appears to be that constitutional recognition would impose upon the States and the Commonwealth a level of commitment which is not currently displayed. In particular, if the submissions of the then Department of Local Government and Administrative Service together with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations were accepted, it would require this Government and the governments of the States, first, to guarantee a system of local government in the States and Territories; secondly, to protect councils from arbitrary dismissal; thirdly, to invalidate laws which impair the capacity of local authorities to function; and finally to entitle councils to protection from the exercise of Commonwealth and State power to the same extent that the States are protected from the exercise of power by the Commonwealth. In short, local government would become, at least constitutionally, a genuine third level of government. The implication of this is that the distribution of power between governments would, over time, alter substantially as local government would assume an increased role in service provision in areas which have traditionally been the province of the States. The committee was unwilling to recommend such a change. In contrast, the Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management came to the conclusion that local government should enjoy constitutional recognition. In doing so, the Committee acknowledged that local government was a firmly established tier of government which provided essential services and facilities for the public at local level. While it accepted the desirability of constitutional recognition, the Committee did not recommend the form which the provision should take to extend the recognition. The two conflicting conclusions must place the Commission in somewhat of a dilemma. The recommendations it will make will, in my opinion, have in the longer term a very profound effect on the structure of government in this country. I am an unabashed supporter of local government. My experience of the system is a practical one, based on my service as a councillor on the Pine Rivers Shire Council, one of Queensland's largest, from March 1982 until last month. In Queensland, local government has enjoyed an excellent legislative framework developed essentially in the period between the two world wars. However, its effective operation has been hampered by a State government bent on ignoring local councils and imposing its own political will, especially in town planning matters. Two clear examples involved the use of ministerial rezonings to approve developments contrary to the provisions of the Brisbane City Town Plan. The first allowed the construction of the so-called `world's tallest building' which in the vein of the `Big Cow', `Big Pineapple' and Big Russ, continues Queensland's fixation on the oversized. The second allowed the establishment of the ill-fated Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Australia chemical plant at Lytton. In both cases, the wishes of the public-not to mention the set procedures involved in the Brisbane Town Plan-were overriden without right of appeal in any form. The number of occasions on which the Queensland Minister for Local Government has by-passed local town plans by way of ministerial rezonings has increased at an extraordinary rate in the last year. On all occasions, the rights of residents of a local community to appeal are removed. The ability of the local authority to impose even the most basic conditions on the development is also removed. The situation in Queensland demonstrates the paradox of local government. The States and the Commonwealth have over time handed over to local authorities a range of responsibilities which at the same time give the councils powers which the State governments are unwilling to let the councils use. There needs to be a careful appraisal of the distribution of government power in this country. I believe that a more regionally-orientated local government system, given a suitable legislative framework and financial security, can deliver services in a more efficient way than State governments. The most fundamental question which Australia will face in the long term surely must be whether the present three levels of government are the most appropriate way in which the needs and aspirations of the Australian people can be satisfied. Change to the structure of government will be gradual and difficult. However, in my opinion it is inevitable. Australians are overgoverned. The conflict between national interest and State jealousies is too damaging to let continue into the next 200 years. The starting point for change is at the level of local government. Local authority areas should be rationalised and regionalised. Its powers should be defined, and within those powers it should be able to make decisions without fear of divine intervention by State governments. The overriding touchstone should be the national interest, determined by this Parliament. It is against this background, I believe, that the case for constitutional recognition of local government must be viewed. Such recognition, if in an appropriate form, will safeguard its existence as the most efficient form of government, most amenable to democratic expressions of public will. I welcome the comments of the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) to the annual conference of the Local Government Association of Queensland. The Minister reaffirmed her strong support and that of her Department for constitutional recognition, although she did expressly state that this of itself would not bring major alterations to the present Federal system. This is the correct position, and I am hopeful that the Constitutional Commission will recommend change and that this recommendation will be taken on board by the Government and put to the public in Australia's bicentennial year. There is one final matter on with I feel obliged to touch, given that it was Andrew Fisher's Government which put public ownership on the political agenda. As I said earlier, it was the Fisher Government which established the Commonwealth Bank. The future of the bank and other public enterprises is now being debated. It is a debate which, I believe, is worth while, as no institution, be it political or economic, should be immune from scrutiny. Generally, I think government enterprises have played and continue to play a significant role in Australia's economic development. The Commonwealth Bank competes with private banks and provides an equivalent service, which some suggest is not enough to justify its ownership in public hands. In my opinion, government enterprises should not be restricted to fields which private enterprise does not wish to touch. If the Commonwealth Bank is profitable, its profits bolster Federal finances. There is nothing wrong with this. If the Commonwealth Bank is not profitable, then the examination should be on ways to make the bank profitable. I reject totally the argument that public enterprises are inherently less efficient than private businesses. In short, while I am willing to listen to arguments on the future of government enterprises, the onus is on those who propose sale or restructure to carry the debate and prove how the public will benefit by such changes. Finally, may I say that it is a great honour to represent the people of Fisher. As the first Labor member for the division, I wish to assure all residents of my commitment to act on their behalf regardless of how their vote was cast. As the youngest member of this Parliament, I hope to make my association with my electors a long one and to play a constructive role in the improvement of the quality of life of all Australians. Mr COBB(Parkes)(6.05) —In my electorate of Parkes is a town almost 400 road kilometres north of Dubbo called Brewarrina. It lies on the banks of the Barwon River and services a district largely renowned for its wool growing qualities. It has a population of 1,500 people, about 50 per cent white and 50 per cent black. Brewarrina leapt into prominence last month when an Aborigine, Lloyd Boney, hanged himself in a police cell. After Lloyd Boney's funeral a riot broke out in Brewarrina. This led the local coroner, Mark Olsen, to state that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had actively contributed to the cause of the riot. The allegations were denied by the ABC at the time. As a result of my own inquiries into what occurred, I can only concur that the behaviour of at least some sections of the media was unethical, unprofessional, at times suspicious, often distorted, sometimes appalling and perhaps even criminal. As a result, I believe the terms of reference of the royal commission should be extended to encompass a full investigation of the role of the media in this incident. At the very least I feel some sort of code of behaviour should be laid down as to how the media ought to conduct themselves in such situations. What happened in Brewarrina has highlighted that no longer should there even be any hint of news being allowed to be manufactured or distorted which can lead to lives being put at risk. But first let me recount some of the events that led to this. On 6 August Lloyd Boney was picked up in a police van and transferred into the police lock-up at around 4 p.m. He was picked up for breaching his bail conditions, namely, that he should not have been in Brewarrina; that he had to report at Goodooga daily; that he had to stay away from his de facto in Brewarrina; and that he was not allowed to drink. He had assaulted his de facto more than once in the past and had breached bail four times. In fact, he had a long history of 21 court appearances with 36 charges against him extending back to 1973. These were for various incidents including driving under the influence, stealing, assaulting a woman, malicious wounding, resisting arrest and so on. One source recounted that Lloyd Boney told one of the locals on the day of his arrest, `If the police pick me up then I will kill myself'. Although he had a high blood alcohol level on 6 August, Lloyd Boney was not paralytic from alcohol when apprehended. He got into the police wagon by himself and walked to the police cell unassisted. In fact, the police officer had hold of his arm to ensure he did not bolt as he was known as a runner. The cell door was left unlocked to give him access to the water tap in the exercise yard in case he wanted a drink. When the police officer returned to feed Lloyd Boney at 5.30 p.m. he was standing there with a sock around his neck, which was attached at the other end higher up the cell door. The policeman thought he was foxing at first as Lloyd Boney's feet were on the ground due to the sock that hanged him having stretched over time under the weight of the body. After poking Boney with his fingers the policeman quickly realised that Boney was dead and immediately acted to cut him down. The officer was naturally very upset. His state of mind was not helped by the 20 to 30 telephone calls he had to take that first night, demanding information and making threats to him, including death threats. The calls kept coming from every weirdo group in the country. He hardly slept during the first three or four days after the hanging. Two post mortem examinations were carried out on the body. This was the fourteenth death in custody this year and the forty-fourth since 1980. The location, number and circumstances must have triggered some sort of threshold with the media and the Government because it achieved nation-wide publicity and the Government has ordered a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I might add that four whites have hanged themselves in custody since Lloyd Boney's death and numerous others have tried to kill themselves. However, these deaths are not considered newsworthy. Not so Lloyd Boney's death. The ABC in particular poured a spate of journalists into the town. Despite all we hear of its budgetary restrictions it was apparently deemed necessary to have at least three of its crews duplicating the coverage; the ABC news, ABC radio and ABC Four Corners. There was concern in the town at the excessive publicity that was being given to Lloyd Boney's hanging. With all the journalists visiting the town and the talk of possible trouble there, the citizens of Brewarrina were fearful that this constant stirring would inevitably be self-fulfilling. Lots of outside blacks, some of them stirrers and activists, were also coming in to be where the action was. One policeman told me, `Media were walking up and down the street asking Aborigines how they were getting on with the police. Some Aborigines were saying how they were continually hounded for comments'. The policeman went on to tell me that unfortunately some Aborigines were often in trouble with the police and would say anything to the Press as their way of getting back at the police. To him there seemed little or no interest in obtaining the other side of the story. Others informed me that provocative questions like: `Are you fellows going to do something?; and `Do you think there will be any trouble?' were often asked of the Aborigines. At one stage the Shire Clerk, Ern Wilson, received a telephone call from a man who called himself Jim West and who said he was from the ABC. He tried to goad the Shire Clerk into going down to the park to get the Aborigines there to put out the fires. He hinted that, if he did so, he would be given time on ABC television. This should be looked into also. I found numerous citizens who claimed that the media, nearly all of whom are thought to be from the ABC, were buying Aborigines alcohol. I am not talking about shouting a few beers in the bar, though I would have thought that the media would have steered clear of doing even that. I have here three declarations from citizens stating people believed to be ABC journalists were buying cartons of canned beer and cartons of bottled beer and two-litre flagons of Royal Reserve Port for the Aborigines. I will seek leave to table these declarations at the end of my speech. In one of these declarations an ABC radio reporter is stated to have openly admitted buying `grog' for the Aborigines. I believe a written police report also confirms that Press groups were supplying the Aborigines with alcohol. People were, in effect, being encouraged by the media, and not always in an unconscious manner, to `perform', to `flex their muscles', and to `deliver'. Most Australians will find this latter-day `mirror and trinket' approach by the media abhorrent. Every decent Aboriginal person must have found the media's behaviour degrading to their race. To buy cartons of beer and flagons of wine, as ABC crew people apparently did, must have seemed to some to be virtually plying the more gullible Aborigines with liquor to get them to perform so a good news story could be obtained. It seems that more than one ABC crew was involved at some stage or other. Trevor Bormann, the leader of the ABC news team that was in Brewarrina, said on the Willesee show of 17 August in answer to a question as to whether they had bought the Aborigines any drinks: `We didn't pay them money, we didn't buy a white man a drink, we didn't buy a black man a drink'. Mr Bormann appeared indignant at being asked this question. I am not quite sure to whom he was referring when he used the word `we', as in `. . . we didn't buy a black man a drink', but, if he was defending the ABC, as I assume he was, it seems he was wrong. Some told me it was even his own crew that was involved. I do know that Trevor Bormann's crew flew to New Caledonia shortly afterwards and, lo and behold, filed back a news report that the leader of New Caledonia's anti-independence movement had blamed the Australian media for distorted reporting and for a violent confrontation that took place on the island. I do not have to tell honourable members that it was this same ABC crew that got exclusive footage of the Brewarrina riot on the Saturday night. Two Aborigines came to the motel where they were staying and alerted them to the riot. They raced off to film it and were granted an extraordinary immunity from any attack or missiles thrown throughout the duration of the riot. One policeman who was desperately defending his life during the riot told me of his amazement at the verbal tick-tacking between one of the Aborigines and Trevor Bormann and his crew. Comments such as: `Did you get that?', `Yes'. `Did you see him do that?'; `Right'; and so on were common. I am told by police that an ABC tape exists which includes such or similar verbal exchanges to which I have just referred. I trust a proper inquiry will take this tape into account. The actual day of the riot, Saturday, 15 August, was a sad one for Brewarrina. Lloyd Boney's funeral moved off around 12.30 p.m. Later the Aborigines started drinking in the park and lit fires there. At 7.40 p.m. a police vehicle was struck by a thrown bottle. At about 8 p.m. some Aborigines came out of the park, threw bottles and missiles at the hotel and shouted abuse, trying to get those inside to come out. At 9 p.m. the Brewarrina Bowling Club was attacked by the Aborigines with bottles and missiles. At 9.40 p.m. one of the two police, placed unobtrusively on the hotel verandah overlooking the park, reported that some Aborigines had again come out of the park and were throwing bottles at the windows of the Brewarrina Hotel. This was the start of the main riot. One of the first four police on the scene of the riot recounted to me an horrific story of events. They went down to stop the attack on the Brewarrina Hotel, believing only about 15 to 20 people were involved. However, when they turned up something like another 50 turned on them. Another four police arrived later to confront a total of about 70 to 150 Aborigines attacking them and the hotel. The numbers fluctuated as they disappeared into the darkness of the park and later reappeared with new supplies of stones, bottles, firesticks and steel bars. Bottles and missiles were thrown through the hotel windows-aluminium beer kegs too. The doors were smashed beyond repair. Every window was deliberately broken. Police vehicles were wrecked, one severely. The publican told me the damage to the hotel alone would be around $5,000. But it is what happened to those police during the riot or, worse still, what could have happened, that most upsets me. The police had only helmets and shields to defend themselves and a short wooden baton in their non-shield holding hand. The riot lasted a good 40 minutes. Terry McGregor from Coolabah, while protecting his head from one attacker, had the long bone of his lower leg smashed with a blow from a metal pipe swung by another Aboriginal. This caused a spiral compound fracture of the tibia. He fell to the ground and knew he had to crawl away quickly to save his live. However, while on the ground he was subjected to a barrage of bottles and missiles in a sickening, cowardly attack by the rioters. Apparently one Aboriginal was screaming, `Come on, we'll kill him'. It was only the courage of the other police who ran to cover him with their perspex shields that probably saved his life. Detective Constable Grant Connelly was struck a number of times in the face, causing injuries to his nose and mouth. His left leg above the knee was also badly injured. Both these policemen had to be flown to Dubbo Base Hospital where I took the opportunity to visit them. In a display of what some might call a modern version of traditional Aboriginal hunting skills, a steel fencing post was hurled through the darkness like a spear at another policeman. It penetrated his leg to the bone and severed a nerve which leaves that lower portion of his leg numb. Yet another policeman had a large lump of wood strike the top of his shield with such force that the shield struck the sergeant in the mouth, lacerating his lower lip and loosening his upper incisor teeth. This same officer had his right wrist damaged by a bottle, his right knee hit by a metal pipe and his lower left leg opened up badly by the same metal pipe. One policeman was attacked by another Aboriginal with a beer bottle. The bottle was smashed over his head and, shortly after, the Aboriginal leapt on the policeman's back and tried to force the jagged glass into his throat. I find it extraordinary that neither members of the ABC nor the Sydney Morning Herald who were present when this happened bothered to give an account of this incident. In fact, the Sydney Morning Herald reporting on the riot was laced with inaccuracies. Its editorial on the riot was no better. The list of injuries to the police present was extensive though, needless to say, they received scant mention in the media. The police feared for their lives-one I spoke to thought he would be killed. Some have had mixtures of nightmares, hallucinations and amnesia since their experience. There is no way our police should have to put up with such disgusting displays of behaviour by people who bring great shame to the majority of their race. I do not accept terms such as `frustration', `desperation' and `provocation' as sufficient excuses for these louts' behaviour. It was sheer good luck that someone was not killed. The police who defended the hotel in the course of their duty showed extraordinary courage and it would not be inappropriate for some suitable recognition to be made of their herculean efforts. Some media reports said the `whites only' hotel's racist customers on the top balcony of the hotel were shouting provocative abuse to the Aborigines across the road. Some even ran stories of a shot being fired at the Aborigines. The facts are otherwise. All people, irrespective of their colour, may drink at the hotel provided they behave themselves. The hotel closed about 8 p.m. on the Saturday night, a good 1 1/2 hours before the riot started. This was done to try to avoid any trouble which appeared to be brewing in the park opposite. Since early that evening two policemen, including an Aboriginal liaison officer, had positioned themselves unobtrusively on the balcony so as to observe any trouble that might eventuate. They were joined later by the hotel owners and a couple of friends who were at the hotel at the time. They deliberately remained inconspicuous so as not to draw attention to the hotel. Those on the balcony had no conversation with those on the ground below and no shot was fired from the balcony. Of course, a major question coming out of all these alcohol purchases in Brewarrina is: who was paying for it? One claim was made that the ABC may have used $1,000 to buy liquor for the Aborigines to work them up for the riot. I must admit that claim sounded a little dramatic to me-until some information came my way that I believe the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) or the royal commissioner should investigate. This concerned a member of Pamela Bornhurst's ABC Four Corners crew, a Deborah Harriet Richards. During her stay in Brewarrina she visited the Commonwealth Bank there. At this visit I am told she transferred $1,778.00 exactly from an ABC `locations account' with a number 083-249-092-022-221.085-3. She put that money into a savings account in her name-No. 605-440. From this account she was seen to withdraw $1,000 in ten $100 notes. All this would be on the records that the bank holds-- Mr Staples —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am concerned about the words that are being used in this debate by the honourable member. I refer to page 465 and subsequent pages of House of Representatives Practice, relating to proceedings before royal commissions and reference to specific persons. Considering the very wide nature of the remarks that have been made, now the honourable member is speaking about specific persons and evidence that could go before the royal commission, I believe that it is therefore bordering on-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister has made his point. The matter the Minister raised has occasioned the attention of the Chair. It is always a challenging point that the House exercise its right to be informed on matters which properly come within its compass and also not intrude upon the affairs of jurisprudence when it might result in justice being denied. But on balance-and there is a precedent by Sir Billy Snedden to support this ruling-the Chair is firmly of the view that the royal commissioners will not in the least be influenced by anything the honourable member is saying. Mr COBB —There are witnesses who saw her withdraw $1,000 in ten $100 notes. People told me they saw Aborigines in the main street of Brewarrina later with $100 bills in their hand-unique in Brewarrina in an off pension week. At first I thought this money was probably just a legitimate expense allowance or something similar. The only thing that did not ring true with me was why one would open an account in Brewarrina, and why one would take out $1,000 cash. I have never taken out that amount of money in my life, let alone in Brewarrina. It is not exactly the world's greatest shopping centre. My interest was quickened when I read a report that a Mr Bob Kearsley, who was reported to be a controller of news and current affairs at the ABC, denied that ABC personnel could have that sort of money to spend. When asked about the possibility of such an amount he reportedly dismissed the claims as nonsense, and said: Our people would not have the kind of money on them in the first place. Trevor Bormann said: Oh look we're talking about ABC money. I mean we get enough money to get ourselves a motel room. I think we had $100 contingency. The claims are ludicrous. If Mr Kearsley and Trevor Bormann are so adamant that they are right, I think that in the light of what took place in Brewarrina these financial transactions should be thoroughly investigated. If the claims are legitimate the girl deserves to have her name cleared. However, if taxpayers' money has been misused in some way that should be traced and exposed. The Minister must ask the ABC to reveal what sort of accounting procedures it used; what claims were made and paid; when this was done; have any amounts been repaid or adjusted; and, if so, when. I would particularly like to know whose money it was that was being used to buy the cartons and flagons of liquor for the Aborigines by ABC media men and women. Did it come out of their wages or was it out of their allowances, and therefore taxpayers' money? In the statement I wish to table I see that $50 and $100 notes were tendered for the purchases. I should hasten to add that not all of the members of the media behaved badly. For example, Barry Lowe of the Australian and Angela O'Brien of the Sun Herald are two who took a very professional approach. However, the reputation of Brewarrina has been raped by the actions of a section of media people. They came to town to get a story and they got it. It was legitimate that they should come to report a newsworthy event, but it was illegitimate how they went about getting that story. The media had their thrill in the two or three days each of the crews spent in Brewarrina. However, the town is left with a legacy of their visit that will remain for many years. It is hard enough to attract staff to work in the shire office, the school, the hospital, the banks and so on. It will be even harder after the town's reputation has been wrongly further damaged. The town is also left to live with the racial tensions from which it was remarkably free before the media `discovered' them. I return to my original proposition that some sort of code of behaviour needs to be spelt out for those who apparently cannot be expected to observe the normal tenets of reasonable behaviour and common sense in such delicate yet complicated situations. There also needs to be a full recognition of the almost aphrodisiac effect that the presence of the media in general, and television in particular, has on certain groups of susceptible people in society. In South Africa when the state of emergency provisions were applied the deaths fell from 50 a month to five a month. In one sense, the television cameras were killing 45 a month. There was an element of that phenomenon in Brewarrina. It was aggravated by the purchase of alcohol. A free Press clearly has responsibilities that go with the freedoms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable member foreshadowed that he would seek leave to table certain documents. He could fairly be denied the opportunity at the expiration of his time but the Chair is prepared to grant indulgence to the honourable member to put the question to the House, the matter being in the hands of the House. Does the honourable member seek leave of the House to table the documents to which he referred? Mr Cobb —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the documents tabled. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Staples —The honourable member has not given me the usual courtesy of showing the documents to me before seeking leave. Leave not granted. Debate (on motion by Mr Sciacca) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 8 p.m. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Wentworth, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(8.00) —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me begin by congratulating you on your re-election to the position of Speaker. I am delighted to be here as the new member for Wentworth. I want to thank all of those who have worked tirelessly to get me here and who in other ways have supported me over many years now. Wentworth is a really great electorate which offers the full range of economic, social and political challenges. I am honoured to follow what has been a succession of outstanding members for Wentworth. For example, my immediate predecessor, Peter Coleman, had a distinguished career as a journalist before entering parliament, was a distinguished Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales and, I suggest to the House, is one of the most underrated experts in foreign affairs and defence matters as well as having made a number of significant contributions to the development of conservative thought in Australia. However, in view of my background, I am sure, Madam Speaker, you will understand that I might more naturally associate myself with one or two of my other predecessors for example, Sir William McMillan, the first member for Wentworth. I read his maiden speech when preparing for this debate and I was attracted to and shared many of the ideas he expressed about freer trade and commerce, fiscal discipline, the role of unions and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and so on. More particularly I associate myself a little more with Leslie Bury who, as the House would know, was a professional economist, a practical banker and a businessman who worked at the International Monetary Fund and, as it happens, rose to the rank of Treasurer. Having mentioned a past Treasurer, I can easily move on to consider the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his 1987-88 Budget. I am delighted to be able to devote my first parliamentary speech to some comments on that Budget. While one cannot deny the generally favourable initial reaction to the Budget in the media and in financial markets, I suggest that one should not be surprised if this initial success fades, and indeed quite quickly, in the coming months. The Budget is not as good as it first appears. It has a disturbing air of unreality, a disturbing air of chicanery and demonstrates a disturbing complacency which is really quite unjustified, given our current and prospective economic performance, and particularly given the magnitude of some of our fundamental structural problems. The Budget certainly does not seem to express an appropriate degree of urgency about our current economic plight, nor to offer an adequate response to some of our economic difficulties-for example, the realities of our current world trading environment; our relatively poor growth and investment outlook; our excessive inflation; our very high level of unemployment; our persistent balance of payments difficulties; the level and burden of servicing our ever-growing international debt; the inefficiencies, inequities, complexities and burdens of our taxation system; the rigidities of our product markets; our excessive levels of protection; and the inflexibility of our wages and industrial relations system. Indeed, rather than genuinely addressing many of these problems the Budget seems to set out to create a series of illusions that would have us believe that everything will be all right. The main illusions are that the Budget is balanced, and that the Government has conducted the most wide-ranging and detailed review of government spending ever carried out which it claims has resulted in the biggest, yet apparently quite painless, cut in government spending in 35 years; indeed, it claims to have had some scope to offer a couple of new spending initiatives in this Budget. The Government would also have us believe that it has delivered sizable real tax cuts without any new taxes, and in fact that it has continued the process of tax reform. It would also have us accept that it has removed itself as a net borrower from financial markets and has set about to retire $2 billion of external and domestic debts this year. The implication is that our debt problem is on the mend. And all of this is to happen with stronger growth, more jobs, sufficient wage restraint, lower inflation, lower interest rates, more investment and less debt and without any further pressure on our balance of payments! Indeed, the Government anticipates a sizable improvement in our balance of payments. But, Madam Speaker, the illusions created in the Budget Speech are soon exploded, not only by listening to the senator in the other place but also by having a closer read of the accompanying statements-even though, I suggest to the House, they are perhaps among the most political and least objective accompanying statements I have seen in many years. Let me deal with each of the main Budget illusions in turn. First, the so-called balanced Budget. The media have justifiably concentrated on the one-off nature of certain revenue items, especially the $1 billion from asset sales, the $2.6 billion to come from profit of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the $212m from the minting of new coins. The Government's flirtation with asset sales could certainly be short lived, particularly the way the issue of so-called privatisation is being handled, and if the Australian Council of Trade Unions continues to have its way. The Reserve Bank has also warned us that we cannot expect it to continue to operate so profitably in the future-the scope for substantial profits does not exist in its accounts any more-and it has also expressed a very strong intention in its annual report not to continue to intervene as actively as it has in the past. This suggests, as a number of spokesmen from our side have said, that the Budget is probably closer to $2 billion to $3 billion in deficit rather than in balance. The second illusion relates to the suggestion of significant expenditure restraint. I would like to provide some facts at this point to back up some of the arguments of the senator from another place. If we initially take a longer term perspective of what this Government has done with government expenditure, we see that it virtually went on an expenditure binge in the first two to three years, shifting to restraint only in the last couple of years under considerable pressure from financial markets, evidenced by the collapse of the Australian dollar. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) noted in the House last week, if the real growth in government spending in this Budget had been the same as the average over the Fraser years, $22 billion less would have been spent. In claiming significant expenditure restraint, the Government makes much of two things: it says that there has been a 2.4 per cent cut in real expenditure in 1987-88 and it suggests that government spending has again fallen relative to gross domestic product (GDP). Of course, the so-called 2.4 per cent cut is actually only 1.4 per cent when we exclude asset sales, which reasonably cannot be considered as expenditure restraint. I also suggest that it is instructive to exclude payments to the States and other levels of government, and to treat them separately. This exercise is most illuminating. The Government's restraint on its own expenditure has not been anywhere near as great as the Budget expenditure aggregates would suggest. Indeed, it increases slightly in real terms in 1987-88, compared to the suggestion of a decline, and in fact it is only now barely back to the level of 1982-83, before this Government came to power, when measured relative to GDP. But even this suggestion of restraint is quite illusory. If we focus, for example, on the expenditure decisions in the May economic statement we see that the Commonwealth claimed that savings in its own expenditure, excluding payments to the States and asset sales, totalled about $1.6 billion. A careful examination of that statement suggests that about $700m of that amount was simply deferrals of expenditure, and $200m results from additional efficiency gains; that is, some $800m to $900m was deferrals and undefined efficiency savings; so only about $800m was real expenditure cuts, and that in a Budget totalling $78 billion. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that that is not much real expenditure restraint. Moreover, very few programs have been axed and virtually no functions have been cut out altogether. Since the May statement the position has become even worse. It indicates that the Government has virtually given up on expenditure restraint. New decisions since May add about $600m to government spending in 1987-88, expanding to add $1.3 billion in 1988-89. There is disturbing evidence that the Government has skewed its expenditure towards transfer payments and big ticket items such as health, education, social security and welfare and public administration, all of which increase significantly in real terms in this Budget. As I noted before, Commonwealth payments to the States and other governments have definitely been squeezed. Commonwealth expenditure on the States has fallen from about 10 per cent of GDP in 1982-83 to about 8 per cent now. But-and this is significant-it should be recognised that this restraint on the States has not been fully reflected in their own expenditure and therefore in aggregate government expenditure. The States have been able to sustain, or in some cases increase, their expenditure by exploiting various hollow logs-running down cash balances that they have built up through excessive previous borrowings in earlier years; asset sales of their own; levying their own, less conspicuous, taxes; extra borrowings; or whatever. I suggest to the Government that it is no good washing its hands of this State issue. The Federal Government has a clear responsibility for overall economic management. It is about time that it told us how it intends to make its desired restraint effective on the States. I suggest that this will prove to be one of the most important fiscal policy issues in the life of this Parliament. The third illusion relates to the claim that this Budget reduces taxation and continues the so-called process of tax reform. Again, if we begin by taking a long term perspective, if the Government had maintained the average tax rate of the Fraser years it would have collected about $16 billion less in taxes in this Budget. The truth is that this Government has basically balanced its Budgets since it has been in government by tax increases. It has raised revenue by about $34 billion and expenditure by about $30 billion and the difference is about equal to the deficit that this Government inherited in 1982-83. It is also instructive to look at what has happened since the Government's 1984-85 so-called taxation reform package. The Government has raised about $18 billion in taxes but it has given back only about $6.5 billion in tax cuts. That is $2 for the Government and $1 for us, which is hardly tax reform. All we have seen-it is typical-is new taxes and increased fiscal drag or rip-off through inflation. Clearly the suggestion of tax reductions and tax reform is illusory. There are significant real increases in provisional tax, company tax, fringe benefits tax, which will raise 33 per cent in real terms this year, and sales tax in this Budget. The overall real tax increase is about 1 1/2 per cent in this Budget. However, there were a couple of good features of the Budget in the taxation area. I welcome the reintroduction of negative gearing although I am amazed at the Government's capacity to sell that mistake as a positive rather than a negative, having now backed down on an earlier decision. And I welcome the review of company taxation which is essential if we are to resume some of our earlier prominence as an international trading nation or to take our rightful place as a significant financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region. The fourth illusion is the suggestion by the Government that it is retiring government debt. The Government claims that it will be able to retire about $2 billion in debt during this year-$1 billion in overseas debt and $1 billion in domestic debt. Will it really do this or is it just another illusion? The truth is that the Government intends to run down its cash balances by about $1 billion. These cash balances were built up last year by excessive borrowing. Effectively, the Government will replace overseas debt by that medium. It also intends to issue about $1 billion worth of new treasury notes. That means that it will be able to retire debt simply because it borrowed too much last year and because it is now substituting short term debt for long term debt this year. Yes, it is another illusion. Yet the suggestion in the Budget Speech is that our debt situation is getting better. If we look back into the accompanying statements we find this in Budget Paper No. 2: Australia's net external debt is likely to continue to rise faster than nominal GDP during 1987/1988 and a further rise in the debt service ratio is expected. The fifth illusion relates to the suggestion of wage restraint and its contribution to our improved competitiveness. The Government is far too complacent on wages. The Budget Speech states, for example: We must make sure labor costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. Yet in Budget Paper No. 2 the Government assumes for the purpose of its forecasting exercise that, basically, the two-tier system will run its full course. That means we will get a further first tier increase of 1 1/2 per cent, the second tier increase of 4 per cent will flow to most people, and the superannuation benefits will flow to a majority of wage earners during this year. As a result, the Government forecasts that average weekly earnings will increase by 6 1/2 per cent, which I guess represents labour cost increases of about 7 1/2 per cent or 8 per cent which is roughly double the average of our trading partners. That is hardly sufficient wage restraint and it is just another illusion. The final illusion relates to the macro-policy settings themselves and the outlook for the Australian economy. Far too much weight is placed on the Budget alone and far too little is said about wages and monetary policy. Macro-policy is to be considered as an integrated whole. While a genuinely balanced Budget would be welcome it could still prove insufficient if the other settings of policy are not appropriately supportive or consistent. So the key question is whether the whole Budget strategy hangs together. Of course, the Government says it does. I suggest that that is yet another illusion. In my view, the wages policy and monetary policy settings are far too expansionary to complement appropriately the Budget that has been brought down. It all hinges-and quite crucially as the Budget Speech concedes-on the balance of payments continuing to improve and sufficient capital inflow being sustained. In my view, this is the weakest link in the economic outlook described in the Budget. The Government is much more optimistic than I am on both growth and inflation. If my forecasts prove correct, it could be detrimental to our balance of payments. Even accepting the Government's forecasts on these parameters, the foreshadowed improvement in the balance of payments is most difficult to accept. It is hard to see the assumed zero real growth in imports if activity and investment, which has a high import content, are as strong as the Government suggests. It is also hard to see that exports will rise by 5.5 per cent in real terms again this year in what are increasingly difficult export markets with rising protectionism in the United States of America and the possibility of increased trade frictions between Japan and the United States. It is hard to see how the J-curve will be sustained, given that it peaked out about four or five months ago. It is hard to see the Government's optimism on world commodity prices especially as the United States is becoming more concerned about domestic inflation. Finally, it is hard to see capital inflow being sustained if inflation proves to be stickier, if wages growth continues to accelerate, if the Government continues to force down interest rates in Australia while they are rising in the United States and other countries with which we trade, if our international credit rating is downgraded again or if-and this is important- the other illusions I have referred to become more widely recognised in financial markets. The Government's Budget and its illusions are unsustainable. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is right; we should have cut expenditure more. I have an uneasy feeling of deja vu about this Budget, especially when I look back to 1984-85 when the Government was similarly awash with revenue, when it prematurely eased monetary policy against the background of a fundamentally weak balance of payments and a weak Australian dollar. In thinking about this Budget I was reminded of the great escapist and illusionist, the Great Houdini. Apparently at his funeral two of his pallbearers were the famous Hollywood producers Dillingham and Ziegfeld. As they were leaving the church with the casket Dillingham apparently whispered, `Hey, Ziggy, I bet you 100 bucks he's not in here'. Just as the Great Houdini was ultimately unable to escape death, so too will this Government have to face the reality of a market correction which will surely come when the full extent of this great illusion, the 1987-88 Budget, is recognised in financial markets. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(8.17) —I wish to begin by welcoming the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) to the House. I have a special responsibility to do so as the former candidate for the seat of Wentworth against his predecessor. He joins a long line of distinguished academics who have joined the Opposition ranks, including the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) and the former honourable member for Forde, both of whom I am pleased to count among my personal friends. I hope that as a former academic he can bridge the gap between academic life and the rigours of parliamentary debate. I wish him well in that rather difficult task. Having said that, I wish to speak also on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and I begin by reminding the House that the Governor- General, when speaking to the Parliament, stated: The Government recognises the importance of prevention as well as cure- in matters of health- and will continue to promote activities directed towards better health. It will be developing with the States the first comprehensive set of national health goals and strategies. I wish to turn my attention to that subject in this debate on the Appropriation Bill. The central thrust of my contribution tonight is that all members of parliament ought to be taking up issues of preventive health and, in particular, the major threat to public health in this country which is the use of tobacco and behind that, of course, tobacco advertising. I note that as long ago as 1977 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare recommended that government action be taken at the Federal, State and local level to ban the advertising of tobacco. I do not need to remind the House that the person who chaired that Committee was no less than former medico, Senator Peter Baume, a Liberal Party senator. That Committee made important recommendations for government action, most of which have not been acted on by successive governments of either political persuasion. My view is that people who are concerned about matters of public health and the use of tobacco, particularly its promotion among the young, ought to work relentlessly in the course of this Parliament to convince the Government to act for the implementation of a prohibition on tobacco advertising. My interest in this issue is not some newfound hobby horse. For the record, I want to make it clear that I have had a long-standing interest in the issue of tobacco advertising. I am proud to say that while I was an alderman on the Sydney City Council I was responsible for that Council adopting a prohibition on tobacco advertising on City Council property. I do not want to wear my heart on my sleeve, but let me serve notice to the tobacco industry that my resolve in this issue was intensified by the death of my father from a cancer which was caused by the use of tobacco. I make it clear that I do not intend to approach the issue in some zealot-like manner, but in a very calm, calculated and relentless manner, in order to awaken public consciousness about what tobacco advertising does to young Australians. I am also proud to say that I have had the opportunity to work alongside other campaigners on drug abuse issues-not just in relation to tobacco, but also hard drugs. I have, as you know, Madam Speaker, a great regard for the work of the Reverend Ted Noffs and also for the Australian of the Year, Dick Smith, both of whom have been trail blazers, I believe, in raising public awareness about issues of life education in an attempt to combat the drug menace. I, like Dick Smith, reserve for special criticism the advertising of tobacco companies which seeks to encourage young Australians to take up the addiction of tobacco. I will have more to say about this later. There is no doubt about the health effects of tobacco. The Drug Summit identified tobacco as the cause of 81 per cent of all drug deaths in Australia. Alcohol was responsible for 16 per cent of drug deaths, and deaths due to opiates amounted to one per cent of all drug deaths. As my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) has pointed out to the House, the so-called hard drug problem is, rightly, a major priority, but is massively overwhelmed by the magnitude of health problems constituted by tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses. The Drug Summit estimated that at least 16,600 Australians die each year due to tobacco smoking, principally from lung cancer, heart disease, strokes, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Other reliable estimates have put the death toll in excess of 23,000 people. The Western Australian Department of Health has estimated that half a million more Australians will die between 1985 and the year 2000 unless there is intervention by government. I ask my Labor colleagues to take particular notice of the statistics that show which groups in society have become the victims of tobacco, because there is clear evidence that working class people bear the overwhelming burden of smoking-induced illnesses and death. Builders labourers, storemen, council labourers and domestic service workers have the highest death rate from lung cancer, namely, 59.7 per 100,000, which is nearly three times the lowest rate, that for doctors, dentists and lawyers. Thus, Government members have a special responsibility in this area. However, I make it clear that deaths by tobacco usage affect all Australians, irrespective of their socio-economic background. It is perhaps for that reason that the Australian Labor Party national policy provides that we as a national government will, in co-operation with State, Territory and local governments, restrict the promotion, whether by direct or indirect means, of tobacco products and sponsorships. There are a number of initiatives which health experts and the medical profession have suggested that governments at the State and Federal level can take to reduce death and disease levels due to smoking. These include increasing the price of tobacco by fiscal policy, education programs in schools and the media, bans on all forms of advertising and promotion, and restriction on smoking in public places, including work places. It is true-and I welcome the fact-that these measures have been undertaken to various degrees by governments of all political persuasions over the last 20 years. But I believe it is time for back bench members on both sides of the House to take a far stronger stand on tobacco advertising and promotion. Through this expression of parliamentary support I believe the Government can be encouraged to act. I want to make my own position absolutely clear. I am intensely aware of the addiction which smokers have, and have never been an anti-smoking confrontationist. The number of times in my entire life that I have ever asked people not to smoke could be counted on the fingers of one hand, even though I do not like cigarette smoke. My personal attitude is that I normally put up with it, although I realise that my view is not shared by many non-smokers. My view is that if people want to smoke, it is their right to do so, irrespective of the consequences to their health, provided that smoking does not affect the legitimate rights of others. I want to make that absolutely clear because my campaign against the tobacco corporations is primarily directed towards discouraging new smokers-young kids-from taking up the addiction, and particularly to protect kids and adolescents from the effects of the tobacco corporations. It seems to me to be an indictment of the values of society that a drug such as tobacco, which is a known killer, can be actively promoted by slick, deceitful, corporate advertising practices. We in the Parliament have a political and moral responsibility to take action to stop this promotion. There is a mountain of evidence, Mr Deputy Speaker-I feel confident that you would share my concern on this issue-that tobacco companies target young children. I will give a few examples. The National Times reported last year that the tobacco giant Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd had set up a network to sponsor Australian rock groups, in a bid to extend its influence in the lucrative youth market, by spending up to $100,000 in only three months in promoting the Peter Jackson rock circuit in Sydney. The Cancer Council-backed national public health lobby group, called Action on Smoking and Health, has pointed out that both Peter Jackson and Alpine have been heavily promoted among the young. Peter Jackson's popularity increased 27-fold in three years, while Alpine nearly doubled its percentage of children customers. Both products are made by Philip Morris and they are the only ones sold in packs of 15. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations has produced a report which concluded that women and teenage boys and girls are the prime targets of cigarette companies' advertising campaigns. The Federation believes that tobacco companies see young children as their future market base and that health warnings do little to dissuade them from smoking. One does not have to be a psychologist or an advertising guru to understand to whom the tobacco and advertising companies are appealing, with youthful, glamorous, young male and female models, fast cars, exotic lifestyles, rock culture and small packets of cigarettes. Yes, you guessed it, Mr Deputy Speaker, members and mothers and fathers of Australia: it is your children who are being sought out as the future tobacco smokers of tomorrow. There have been attempts to prohibit tobacco advertising in the States, but they have been resisted by this fairly slick, well bank-rolled public relations campaign of the multinational tobacco companies. They have had political friends in very high places who have been prepared to defend their corporate interests and allow them to continue to promote their addictive drug. I believe with great conviction that the tide is turning and that public opinion will swing behind governments that are prepared to act, and have the courage to act, on this important public health problem. In April this year the Australian health Ministers issued a statement to the effect that the current application of controls on tobacco advertising were unsatisfactory and that attempts would be made by them, in consultation with the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, to seek an urgent meeting with the Media Council of Australia in an attempt to get some action. The Ministers said that, if this move were unsuccessful, they would have no option but to consider alternative regulatory controls. Dr Charlesworth —Hear, hear! Mr TICKNER —I know that the honourable member for Perth feels very strongly about this issue and has had the courage of his convictions to take a stand on this issue. It is my view that there is only one socially responsible regulatory control and that is for the Australian national Government and the States to follow the leadership of the Conservative Government in Canada and ban all tobacco advertising. It is not good enough for those who control Australia's major newspapers and magazines to wait for government action. Those people on the conservative side of politics who have a view about morals, ethics and proper corporate behaviour, I am sure, would share my view that they too have a role to exercise some social responsibility in business and to refuse to take tobacco advertising, in the same way as the Toronto Globe and Mail in Canada which has adopted a policy of refusing cigarette advertising. I believe that more and more parents are saying that they do not want to read advertisements about cigarettes because they are concerned that children should not smoke. Newspaper proprietors should take a lead on the issue. It is ludicrous that tobacco advertising is banned on radio and television and yet is able to be freely promoted in the print media. Australian of the Year, Dick Smith, is right; publishers should refuse to accept advertisements promoting tobacco and if they fail to act we, as members of parliament, have a responsibility to change the law to keep pace with community attitudes. Having said that, I turn to two other important points. The first is the subject of smokeless tobacco. Honourable members may be aware that I have raised the issue of smokeless tobacco before in the House. If any member wants to know what this substance is like, at the conclusion of my speech he or she is welcome to inspect the packet that I have. It is a tobacco that is put in the mouth of the user. Like a tea bag, it allows the tobacco to be absorbed into the system. According to international medical opinion, it is clearly a cause of oral cancer. On 27 May this year the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) answered a question which I had put on the Notice Paper. I asked two questions. The first was: Has the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommended that all forms of smokeless tobacco be listed as prohibited imports. The Minister's answer was Yes. The second question was: Will action be taken to implement the recommendations of the NHMRC in this matter; if so, when. I was delighted that the Minister's answer was: In recognition of the harm to health from use of these products, I have recommended to the Attorney-General that a ban on oral snuff and chewing tobacco manufactured in, or imported into, Australia should be introduced under the Trade Practices Act as from 30 September 1987. I await the final announcement by the Government that it has acted on that commitment given by the Minister on 27 May this year. Secondly, I wish now to give a very dramatic example of the credibility of the tobacco industry in Australia. The major proponents of the tobacco industry are organised through the forum of the Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd which recently made a submission to the Industries Assistance Commission. That Institute includes the major corporations of Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd, Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd, W. D. and H. O. Wills (Australia) Ltd and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Australia Inc. The submission drew a number of fairly devastating conclusions and made some assertions that ought to remove for all time any doubt that any member of this Parliament would have about the bona fides and credibility of those companies. The submission stated: The view that smoking is the cause of diseases such as lung cancer and heart disease is still an unproven hypothesis based on statistical evidence which at best can only indicate an association between smoking and ill health. No medical practitioner in Australia could read that submission without feeling revulsion and contempt, as I do. The submission went on to make an assertion which shows the morally debauched level that the companies will reach in an attempt to justify their industry and in an attempt to stop us, as members of parliament, defending the interests of public health. It stated: . . . it is sometimes argued that the government would save money in the absence of smoking since it would not have to pay certain sickness benefits to smokers and pensions to spouses of deceased smokers. Against this are old age pension savings which occur if smokers' life expectancy is lower than that of non-smokers. Can honourable members believe that? Those companies actually raise the argument that implicitly they are doing the community a service by causing the death of all those Australians and, as a result, this Government will not have to pay old age pensions. That is absolutely disgusting. I do not apologise for the strength of my language. It is about time that we, as members of parliament, who share common concerns about public health, swept aside this pretence and took a common stand to cause governments to act to stop this outrageous promotion of tobacco advertising. Mr BURR(Lyons)(8.37) —This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in the new Parliament and I would be grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would pass on my congratulations to Madam Speaker on her re-election to that very responsible position. I am sure that she will serve this House well in this Parliament. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have seen you in the chair. I am sure that you too will serve the House well in that position. I wish you well in it. I assure the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) that he is not alone in his concern about the effects of drugs of addiction in Australia. I concur with most of his comments; I have some reservations about some of them. I assure the honourable member that he is not alone in his concern about the effects of drugs of addiction in Australia; many honourable members on this side of the House equally share that concern. We are playing our part to alert the Australian community to the effects of drugs of addiction and to alleviate for future generations that scourge in our society. My colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and I have been very active in promoting the `Life. Be In It' education program and we intend to continue to do that. I am sure that other members on this side of the House are also playing a positive role. I am conscious of the fact that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) has been very active in alerting Australia to the effects of drugs of addiction. I assure the honourable member for Hughes and the House that this is a bipartisan issue and we share his concern. I assure him that, if there is any way in which we can attack this problem and deal with it in a bipartisan way, we on this side of the chamber will co-operate in every way possible. It is not a partisan political issue. It is an issue that is detrimental to the whole of Australian society. I am delighted to offer that response to the honourable member and I am sure that he will accept it in the sincerity in which I offer it. It is not that particular issue that we are here tonight to debate. The subject that we are debating tonight is the Budget that was brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week in this chamber. It is that issue that we have to address our minds to. I thought that the response to the Budget was very adequately summed up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he responded to it last Thursday night. In one section of his speech the Leader of the Opposition said: The past two days have seen an orgy of government self-congratulation and media hype, all of which has been based on the Government bringing down the deficit to only $27m. I am sure that all of us in this chamber, and people throughout Australia, are conscious of the fact that the Treasurer brought down a Budget which showed, on the bottom line, a deficit of $27m. From that point onwards, from that figure onwards, when people cited that figure of $27m, it seemed that the media, commentators and financial institutions lost sight of all other factors in the Budget. That was the only thing that they could concentrate on-the $27m at the bottom line. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right in saying that the Government indulged itself in an orgy of self-congratulations. All of us saw that in the headlines of newspapers throughout this country. Now that the dust has settled and people have started looking at what is really contained in that Budget and what it really means to the economy of this country, to the structure of our industries, to the structure of our society, I do not think there is so much hysteria about the one bottom line figure of $27m. We have to consider first how that particular figure was arrived at. It has been pointed out-and I am sure it is starting to hit home to people in the community-that that figure was arrived at by a very substantial sale of government assets and by Reserve Bank of Australia profits. While I do not disagree with the Government retiring government debt in that way-I think that is quite responsible-we cannot delude ourselves that the economy is now way back on the track and that we can all sit back and content ourselves that Australia is now in a new era of prosperity simply because we have one Budget figure showing a bottom line deficit of $27m. That is totally wrong and any who believe that to be the case are simply deluding themselves. In fact, it was Senator Walsh who pointed out in very dramatic terms to the community just how misleading that sort of assumption might be. While we cannot assume that the Minister for Finance in the other chamber could ever be on the side of the Leader of the Opposition, it seems that on this particular issue they are at one. I quote the headlines from a couple of newspapers in recent days. The Australian newspaper on Monday, 21 September says, `Minister criticises Budget'. On the following day, Tuesday, 22 September, the headline in the Australian reads, `Walsh warns of IMF intervention'. Admittedly, these are dramatic headlines, but what Senator Walsh is really alerting the community to is the fact that we cannot delude ourselves that all of a sudden we have entered a new era of prosperity. If we listen to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and much of the media comment that followed last week's Budget, we could easily be deluded into that opinion. That is not the case. We in this chamber, the Ministers of the Government and the people in Australia need to look very carefully at where Australia is at the moment and not allow ourselves to enter into that self-delusion. We have sold off government assets. The Reserve Bank has done very well in its trading profits. But those factors alone have not helped improve the level of the Australian economy. There is only one way, in my view, in which this country can be prosperous, and that is to work hard to produce and sell on the international market products that will return this country a profit. If we analyse the Budget we will find that there is no indication that that has happened and no indication that it may happen in the future. If we look at our balance of payments situation, it will be clear to us all in this chamber that this country has a very serious problem, and nothing in the Budget indicates that that problem is likely to improve in the future. Mr Braithwaite —None at all. Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Dawson. There is no indication that this problem will improve in the future. But that is where the real wealth in Australia will come from. Until the Treasurer can show us that there is likely to be an improvement in Australia's external balance, anything else that might be contained in this Budget is nothing more than self-delusion. The Minister for Finance, in very dramatic terms, went much further than that. He claimed that we were on the Argentinean road. Perhaps that is dramatic language and Senator Walsh may have gone too far. But what he is doing in making that sort of comment is the same as the Treasurer was doing a little over 12 months ago when he claimed that we were heading towards a banana republic. Those two Ministers were trying to alert Australia to the fact that we have a very serious problem, that we cannot delude ourselves that there is a new era of prosperity upon us and that we have a long way to go before that will happen. On this occasion the Treasurer seems to have lost sight of the economic goals that the Government, the Parliament and the country have given to him. It seems that the Treasurer is not acting responsibly in the way he is projecting the economy; rather, it is his political objective of wanting to be the next Prime Minister of this country that has overshadowed his economic management and his economic projections. It is commonly accepted around this place, and certainly in the Press gallery upstairs by those who follow closely political activity in this place, that the Prime Minister will retire before the next general election. We are all conscious of the fact that the position of President of the International Labour Organisation will become vacant during next year, and I wish the Prime Minister well in applying for that position. The question then arises: who will replace the present Prime Minister as Prime Minister of this country? I am quite sure that it is that question that occupies the mind of the Treasurer very actively. This Budget, in the way in which it has been presented, is not in my view an accurate reflection of the real state of the Australian economy, nor does it alert the community to the problems they must address themselves to in the future; rather, it is a political document designed to help the present Treasurer become the Prime Minister of this country. The Treasurer is not acknowledging his responsibilities to this country by acting in such a blatantly political fashion. The only way to get this country out of its present problems is to improve its productivity by showing that we can work hard and produce our products in competition with the rest of the world and sell them on the world market at a better rate and more competitively than do other countries with which we must compete. The Budget does nothing to help us down that way. In fact, it does not address in any way, shape or form the international problems that we face. I am sure that all of us are conscious of the fact that we have record indebtedness to overseas lenders. The Budget does nothing whatever to retire any of that debt. It does nothing to indicate that in the future that international debt will not rise even further. In fact, our present balance of payments position indicates that this country, Australia Inc., is losing money at the rate of about $800m to $900m per month. That money has to be borrowed by Australia from somewhere overseas in order to pay our current bills for the products that we are bringing into this country. That is an horrific situation. We see figures regularly published in the financial magazines and newspapers that indicate that the overseas indebtedness of this country is in excess of $100 billion. The latest figures are about $108 billion to $110 billion. I know that for people who might work in rather ordinary jobs in factories and offices around Australia, such figures are way over their heads. They cannot understand them or that what this generation of Australians is doing is living at a standard, a lifestyle, which is above what we are prepared to work for and earn, to live in relative luxury in this generation. But we are committing our children and our grandchildren to pay for the debts that we are running up because we want to live at a high standard of living. Effectively, that is what the Government is covering up. We are not prepared, and the Government is not prepared, to face the political reality that people in this country have two options: either we reduce our standard of living or we work a damned sight harder to pay for the standard of living that we want. At the moment we are doing neither. We are living at a high standard of living on borrowed money while committing our children and grandchildren to pay the debts off. This Government does nothing to address that problem. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in their contributions to the debate on the Budget have pointed out that there is an urgent need for the Government to address the problem of government spending. Nothing in this Budget does anything to reduce the levels of government spending or adequately address the program to which government spending is directed. We are simply assuming that all levels of government spending and all programs of government spending will be maintained, and maintained at their present level. What that is doing is guaranteeing or enforcing that taxation will remain at its present level or increase. In its May statement, the Government quite deceptively claimed that there were tax cuts on the way, and as I recall they were due to begin from 1 June. A lot of publicity was given by the Treasurer in the May statement to the fact that these tax cuts were on the way. However, if we have a look in this present Budget at the taxation collections expected during this present financial year, it is clear that there has been no real reduction in taxation. In aggregate terms, the levels of taxation collected by the Government will increase substantially. What the Government is doing is saying that it is not prepared to face the hard political decisions of cutting back on Government spending because it may lose political brownie points or votes, or its popularity in the opinion polls may drop. Because it is not prepared to face those political realities, it will force the taxpayer to pay more money, and that will make it look good in the opinion polls. That is not responsible economic management. The Government is now taking the problem into a further dimension of irresponsibility, in my view, particularly with the introduction of the personal identification card system. What that now means is that the Government is saying, `We want to collect more tax, and in order to be able to collect more tax, we are going to impose this personal ID card system on everyone in Australia. We are going to plug every tiny little loophole'. Those of us in this place who are conscientious will recall that the last Auditor-General's report, released about 12 months ago, showed quite clearly that a substantial amount of money, in terms of billions of dollars, was not collected by the Australian Taxation Office simply because of bad administration within the Office itself. It is my view that, if the Government is to be serious about the way in which it administers its affairs on behalf of the people of Australia, the first thing on which it should concentrate its attention is improving efficiency within the Administration. Surely it is much wiser to look at how it can respond to the Auditor-General's report and improve efficiency in the administration of the Taxation Office, so that legitimate taxation is collected through better administration, than to impose this personal identification system on all Australians, as the Government claims, for the reason of stopping tax rorts. What it does is make the assumption that all of us are guilty of tax rorts unless we are proven innocent by this personal identification card system. In my view, that is an unacceptable response. It does not improve efficiency-it merely covers up bad administration within that Department. I believe that this Budget as presented by the Treasurer is illusionary and deceptive, and does not properly address the problems that Australia is facing. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.57) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am sure that you will discharge your duties with fearless independence. This, the fifth Budget of the Hawke Government, is an affirmation of unbounded confidence in the destiny of Australia. Moreover, it is a balanced Budget. The Australian newspaper, in its editorial of 16 September 1987, summed up the opinion of many when it correctly observed: By balancing the Budget, the Government has thrown down the gauntlet to the private sector and the States. It has done all that could be reasonably expected of it. The pressing economic problems facing Australia-a chronic current account deficit on the balance of payments and declining business investment-can only be resolved by the private sector. For the first time in more than 50 years a Government will be paying back some of the public sector's overseas debt. The cut in spending in real terms is the largest in 35 years. Moreover, the Government has insulated low-income earners and the deserving from the brunt of its spending cuts. It has been faithful to its traditional supporters and is entitled to expect restraint from the unions in second-tier wage negotiations. This is a Budget for the benefit of all Australians and it is a Budget that has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Australians. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and join with millions of my fellow Australians in recording my appreciation of his outstanding achievement in bringing about a Budget of fairness and fiscal responsibility. The centrepiece of the fifth Keating Budget is the family allowance package. More than a million children will benefit from the package, which will provide a means tested family allowance supplement of $22 per week per child, and a higher rate of $28 per week for children aged between 13 and 15. This allowance will be paid on top of the existing family allowance. The family allowance package is the top priority of the Hawke Government during its third term. This package represents the first step by the Hawke Government to fulfil its historic pledge during the election campaign that by 1990 no Australian child need be living in poverty. However, as I have said, it is a Budget for all Australians. I shall now deal with the other important areas of the Budget. First, I refer to defence, as nearly 11 per cent of the Australian Army is based in Townsville, which is also the site of a major Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base. This Budget permits essential capital re-equipment to proceed as quickly as possible and places additional emphasis on defence force accommodation and conditions of service. The Department of Defence will spend nearly $7.5 billion in 1987-88, providing an average real growth in defence spending of 1.7 per cent a year over the first five years of the Hawke Government. Seventy-five million dollars will be spent on defence housing in 1987-88 and a further $60m will be committed this year as part of a program to upgrade single living accommodation. The most significant portion of this program is the upgrading of 39 accommodation buildings at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. The estimated cost is $16.7m. The Townsville program will convert 2,808 existing bed spaces currently in a four-man room configuration into 312 separate modules each comprising four individual bedrooms of about 12 square metres, a common room shared by the four occupants and a shared en suite. The proposed design closely resembles the intent of services scales and standards of accommodation and will also provide carpets and curtains in the bedrooms and common room, new built-in furniture, including a bed, desk, shelving and wardrobes, a change room per building for living-out personnel and a complete upgrading of building fabric services. The program is proposed to commence in 1988 and be completed by late 1992. It will provide permanent living-in accommodation which is comparable with community standards of privacy, amenity and security. Because of the size of the project, it is necessary to refer the work to the Standing Committee on Public Works. This is planned to occur in late 1987 or early 1988. To the 3,500 Army personnel in Townsville this is an important government initiative. The Budget also includes provision for the payment of $94m against the purchase of 39 Blackhawk helicopters to supplement the existing fleet of Iroquois helicopters. Deliveries are to commence in November 1987. These helicopters will be based at Townsvillle and will give the 3rd Brigade the capacity to airlift a company of soldiers equipped for combat. Work is already under way on the construction of facilities at RAAF Base Townsville for the introduction of the new helicopters. The Budget also includes provision of $14m this financial year towards the cost of these facilities and $1.4m for additional houses for defence personnel in Townsville. North Queenslanders are especially proud of the Army Reserve in north Queensland. On 5 September 1987, in front of a brigade assembly on the parade ground of Jezzine Barracks, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced the re-raising of Townsville's 11th Brigade of the Australian Army. During the parade the Commander of the 11th Brigade, Colonel George Mansford, AM, was promoted to Brigadier. The Minister described Brigadier Mansford, AM, as a driving force behind the resurgence of the Army Reserve in north Queensland, bringing with him a wealth of experience to the Regular Army and the Army Reserve in the job of commanding the 11th Brigade. I congratulate Brigadier George Mansford, AM, on his promotion. He is one of Australia's outstanding field commanders. The Brigade's history dates back to 1916 when it was raised as a World War I formation. The 11th Brigade now has three Army Reserve battalions, the 31st Battalion with headquarters in Townsville, the 51st Battalion, the Far North Queensland Regiment headquartered in Cairns and the 42nd Battalion with headquarters in Rockhampton. The Cairns based 51st Battalion, the Far North Queensland Regiment, is one of the Army's three regional force surveillance units with sub-units at Atherton, Innisfail, Weipa, Bamaga and on the Torres Strait Islands. The Townsville based 31st Battalion, the Royal Queensland Regiment, has sub-units at Bowen, Ayr and Ingham, while the 42nd Battalion, the Royal Queensland Regiment, has sub-units at Mackay, Sarina, Biloela and Gladstone. The Mount Isa based 35th Field Squadron is to come under the command of the 11th Brigade to provide engineer support and two new units will be raised for the Brigade, the 9th Field Ambulance and a brigade signals squadron. The 11th Brigade is now the most highly trained and combat-effective Army Reserve formation in Australia. Its current strength is approximately 1,800. Army Reserve recruiting in north Queensland over the past two years has maintained a steady increase. I am certain that within three years the strength of the 11th Brigade should stabilise at about 2,300 personnel. Whilst the Government is investing much of its national treasure to improve the combat capability of the Australian Defence Force honourable members must be appalled, as I am, at recent calls not to exclude the Australia-United States alliance from trade talks with the United States of America. It must make millions of Australians sick with disgust. The ANZUS Treaty was signed during a period of great uncertainty in Australia. At the time, concern about communist expansion was uppermost in the minds of millions of Australians. More than 30 years on, the balance of power has altered. The military capabilities of many nations in the Asian and Pacific regions are much greater than they were when the ANZUS Treaty was signed. We Australians live in an unstable and unpredictable region. Now, certain agri-political interests in Australia would have us place our security relationship with the United States on the bargaining table in our trade relations. Honourable members may well ask: what then will be our credibility as a true, faithful and trusted ally of the United States of America? It would be dangerous enough if there were to be a weakening of support within Australia for the whole alliance relationship but it would be a catastrophe for Australia if there were to be a weakening of support within the United States of America for its alliance relationship with Australia. If that were to happen, to whom and to what would Australia turn for its ultimate security? Apart from the United States of America, what nation is prepared to shed the blood of its citizens to guarantee the survival of Australia and its people? Ultimately, that is what the ANZUS Treaty, in essence, provides. What other nation would sign a security treaty with Australia to ensure the defeat of any military invasion against Australia? If the Australia-United States alliance were to fail, would Australia be able to play a significant role in defence preparedness on behalf of the Western alliance in this region, or would some Australians have us opt for a non-aligned, nuclear-free, self-reliant Fortress Australia? The whole notion of the agri-political lobby, of placing our relationship with the United States on the bargaining table in our trade negotiations, is stupid and dangerous and must be soundly rejected by all Australians. Australia is imbued with the Western democratic tradition-and it must always be so. Inevitably there will be trade successes and disappointments, even between such allies as Australia and the United States. There have been and inevitably will continue to be trade successes and disappointments with the United Kingdom. If trade relations with the United Kingdom were to sour, what would happen then? Would that provoke a call by the agri-political groups for a weakening of support for Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia? I say it should not and must not. The Hawke Government has affirmed time and time again its resolute and unfailing commitment to strengthening the alliance between Australia and the United States of America. It has done so because this is essential to our national security and because the Hawke Government believes that as a free, democratic, Western nation, it is fundamentally right that it do so. I now refer to Aborigines. The Budget provides for increased spending on Aboriginal programs. Total Commonwealth outlays on programs for Aborigines will be $671m during this financial year. The increase in spending on Aboriginal programs is striking evidence of the determination of the Hawke Government to eliminate by the year 2000 inequalities and lack of opportunities among Aborigines. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has guaranteed the Australian people that the Hawke Government is `determined to increase and improve the economic independence' of Aboriginal people and to ensure that `essential services are delivered to Aboriginal communities'. Furthermore, he committed the Hawke Government to overcoming the social and economic disadvantages which relegate Aborigines to being Australia's most underprivileged group. There are approximately 10,000 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my electorate. Approximately 3,000 Aborigines live on Palm Island, which is located to the north-east of Townsville. Ninety-five per cent of the potential work force on Palm Island is unemployed. Many projects funded by the Federal Government have failed. Some examples are the oyster farming project, the fishing industry project, the aluminium boat building project and a horticultural project sponsored by the community employment program. I believe that incompetent management was the principal reason for their failure. The housing shortage is critical. Approximately 45 per cent of all Palm Island dwellings, including shacks, provide shelter to about 20 people in each dwelling at any given time. The extent of Queensland Government neglect of Aboriginal housing is a disgrace. A total of $60m has been allocated in this Budget for the housing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In addition, the Aboriginal Development Commission will provide more than $47m in grants for Aboriginal housing associations and nearly $16m for housing loans. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd has been allocated nearly $17m. The people of Palm Island desperately need some of this money to provide basic shelter for themselves and their families. There is no industry at Palm Island and, apart from the tourism industry, I am not aware of any proposal to establish job creating industries at Palm Island. The Palm Island Aboriginal Council receives approximately one-quarter of its annual income-that is, more than $1m-from the sale of alcohol from the canteen owned by the Council. The balance of its income is provided by government grant. The Council cannot collect income from rates because it does not have a property base on which it can levy rates. Residents complain that they are unable to obtain title to their residential blocks. This is the fault of the Queensland Government. Almost all personal income at Palm Island is generated by the payment of unemployment benefits and social security benefits. School truancy is a continuing problem. The high incidence of violent crime and public drunkenness often leads to heartbreak, hopelessness and frustration. The Queensland National Party Government has virtually abandoned its responsibilities to the Aboriginal community at Palm Island. The Federal Government must attempt to provide solutions to these problems. No one else has the will or the resources to do so. Most roads throughout the Palm Island township are unsealed. The dust nuisance is a serious health hazard during the dry season. Passing motor vehicle traffic generates clouds of dust, covering pedestrians and babies in prams. The fine dust penetrates houses, the bakery, the butcher shop, the hospital, the day care centre, the nursing home and the general store. The ever-present dust causes eye infections, particularly in children, and is a carrier of disease. I have asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for money to seal with bitumen the major thoroughfares at Palm Island. The Federal Government has increased by more than $7.8m the amount it will spend next year on Aboriginal student assistance schemes. The Government has announced that there will be changes to the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme in 1988, although it will be maintained as a separate scheme. At-home students and non-approved boarders will receive a single fortnightly living allowance to replace the current separate living, personal and book and clothing allowances and payment of school tuition fees. A living allowance will be paid in 26 fortnightly instalments rather than the current 22 fortnightly instalments for living allowance and personal allowance and three or four term instalments for the book and clothing allowance. Parents will not have to pay fees directly to schools for at-home students and non-approved boarders. The people of Palm Island are not happy with these changes. I have received a letter from Sylvia Reuben, a worker at the Palm Island State School. It reads as follows: Dear Mr Lindsay The new method of payment of moneys to Aboriginal students in respect to various benefits will seriously disadvantage the Palm Island State School for the following reasons. It will disadvantage the school now and in the future and the children of Palm Island will not have the chance to have a normal standard of education. At the moment parents do not know how to budget and I feel it is too much of the school administration to go down to the store and around the Community asking or begging parents to pay the fees for their children. I feel you people do not realise how we live. We at times do not have at our disposal the facilities to- 1. Wire money to another town to pay boarding fees. 2. Purchase bank cheques. 3. Purchase postal money orders. This is all due to our isolation. I also feel you are not being realistic in asking parents who live on a Community like this with a high cost of living e.g. 350g coffee one week is $2.99, the following week $4.99 and the price in town would be around $2.80, to use this allowance money to pay education fees. People will want to have food in their house rather than paying education bills. The Community feels the standard of educational aides, as supplies and equipment will decrease and we feel as a community we use these things we would like to see the money being put back into the school and not be wasted away. The Community at the moment has the use of the school facilities. We as a community feel that in education our children the skills of Home Economics, Manual Arts, and Art that this is quite important for the students to have in later life. Aboriginal children are good at visual learning and doing, making things and if this money is cut they are going to miss out. We feel we have no way of convincing the parents that they must pay part of the new allowance to the school as all they can see is a house, a cupboard without food, a fridge without meat and they will use this money for what is not intended for. Take for instance this week, 31.8.87 to 4.9.87, the School had to pay for children ($40 each) who were going in to Townsville to participate in a sporting activity because their parents didn't have the money to pay for it. Why should these children miss out because they are so isolated. We only have just started to have sporting activities (over the last 10 years) with the Mainland and we feel that seeing we have an Aboriginal Sporting Body in Canberra we the people of Palm Island would like to see an Olympic champion from Palm Island. We wish that when you are putting through the Legislation you put a waive for: 1. Book Allowance $80.00, 2. Manual Arts, Home Economics, Art Allowance, $35 for each student so that the parents will know and feel secure that their children's educational future is in no way being mismanaged by another white administration. We wish to thank you for thinking of giving us a little bit of independence in our children's educational future but we feel you are going a bit too fast and we would like a lot more consultation in the future but it is great to see that the Government is trying to give us back a little bit of self-independence. Yours faithfully, Sylvia Reuben. That evocative letter speaks volumes for the aspirations of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Palm Island-the largest Aboriginal community in Australia. The Budget provides $68.76m for community development projects for Aboriginal people. I particular welcome the announcement that $1m will be provided to help unemployed Aboriginals to start their own business. All in all, this Budget is one of restraint, it is one of responsibility and it is one of conscience. It will continue to lay the foundations for a long term Hawke Government, over many years, designed to serve the people of Australia, to provide laws for the benefit of all the people in Australia and to build a better and fairer Australia for all Australians. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.16) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on your recent appointment as a Deputy Speaker of this House. I certainly wish you all the best, as I do to all the other Deputy Speakers who occupy that chair. We are debating the 1987-88 Budget. The speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) gives an indication of the level of debate of economic matters that has prevailed in Australia for the last four years. I give as an instance of the level of the debate and the manner in which it has been stifled the comments that have been made recently by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in revealing-as the Treasurer did over 12 months ago in his famous banana republic statement-his statement over the weekend to the Labor lawyers of Western Australia. This is a fair indication of what is happening with the economic debate in this country. Instead of that being accepted as a refreshing view of what the Minister for Finance actually feels in relation to the economy of Australia, what we have seen over the last two days is the carpeting of a senior Minister of the Administration, a man who has had control over the finances for years. In a moment of truth the argument that he presented-a very real argument-has been stifled. There is evidence of that in other ways. As the shadow spokesman on trade in the old Parliament, I had the opportunity to speak in this House on matters of trade on only two occasions in 15 months. Yet the collapse of our terms of trade has been given as the reason for the deep recession of the economy over the last 18 months. The other area where this debate has been stifled is in the newspapers, journals and bulletins of Australia. There is no doubt in my mind that when Gerard Henderson indicated the mentality of some of the economic journalists in following religiously the theme of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for economic revival and its faults he was referring to the fact that they have been led, in a sense, to the point where they are not prepared to question properly the economic indicators that are presented to us. I will give just a few examples of this in the last Budget. We have been told that it is a balanced Budget. In fact, it is $27m in deficit. I hope, as the Treasurer would hope, that the events of the next 12 months will push that to a surplus. But it is not a balanced Budget. It is $27m in deficit. This year, for the first time that I can remember, an item of income has been used and displayed in the Treasury accounts as a deduction from the expenditure for the year. This allows the Treasurer to state in his Budget Speech of last week that there has been a 2.4 per cent real decrease in expenditure. What the Treasurer is actually talking about is net expenditure after applying $1 billion for the sale of assets, the sale of the Australian farm, in order to meet expenditure. In a normal sense one would think even the Treasury would have to admit that the sale of $1 billion worth of assets would be shown as revenue and not a deduction from expenditure. All of this information has been within the realm of the journalists of Australia to pick up to present the proper picture. But no, no comment has been made on it. Instead we have had presentations such as that of the honourable member for Herbert suggesting that this is the big day, that it is the Budget of all Budgets to solve the problems of the future. Mr Kent —It is the big day for the nation. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am glad the honourable member interrupted. Obviously he would have heard what Senator Walsh has just said about this Budget, that 200 programs could well have been stripped from the expenditure. He talked about the threat of the International Monetary Fund stepping in. Yet this propaganda has been fed so successfully to the Government members that their interjections show that they have not learnt the lessons. Mr Millar —Brainwashed. Mr BRAITHWAITE —They have been brainwashed, as the honourable member for Wide Bay said, by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They refuse to listen to the elements of reason that Senator Walsh exposed. That propaganda also has been successful with the Australian media. I want to compare the five Labor Budgets. For the last four or five years the Labor Government has administered Australia. Figures are available from Budget Paper No. 1, particularly Table I, which indicate Budget expenditure, revenue and balances over the last five years since the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) laid down the 1982-83 Budget. Since then the revenue collected by the Hawke Labor Government has increased by $33 billion. It is $33,774m more than in 1982-83. The figures show that revenue in 1982-83 was $44,345m. This has increased in this Budget to $78,119m-a massive increase of 76 per cent. The important point is that the consumer price index increase, inflation in that period, was a mere half of that figure. It increased by 36 per cent. This means that the revenue of the Treasurer, the revenue of the Prime Minister, the revenue of this Labor Government has increased by 40 per cent in real terms. And who has paid for this? Mr Kent —We can afford it because we have taken taxes from you people. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Taxes have been raised. Let me tell the honourable member who again interrupts where the money has come from. The Government has taken the money from the persons in the gallery, from the persons who are paying 1 1/4 per cent more on Medicare levy, from the persons who might be out of a job because the Government put in a fringe benefits tax against the businesses of Australia. They could quite well be the people the Government has asked to substantiate legitimate expenses, and they might not be able to. They are the people paying more taxes. I invite the honourable member to interject any time he likes if he wants me to make such points. There has been a 40 per cent increase in taxes for the taxpayers of Australia. It is the other side of the equation I want to deal with. Ever since Labor came to office we have heard talk of the deficit of the last Fraser Government. The figure of $10 billion has been mentioned. Again I refer to Budget Paper No. 1, Table I, which indicates that the deficit of the last Budget of the Fraser Administration was $4,448m, which is a far cry from the $10 billion often cited. And in that deficit I could cite at least one extraneous item that I can recall, the $600m paid for drought relief in the terrible drought which afflicted all of Australia. The Government admits that when it came to office the drought ended and it did not have to meet the commitments the Fraser Government had to. I refer to Table III on page 389 of the Budget Papers, which I have sought the permission of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, to have incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table III COMMONWEALTH BUDGET OUTLAYS-CONSTANT 1979-80 PRICES ($m) 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 OUTLAYS 1. Defence... 2 797 2 613 2 630 2 572 2 727 2 743 2 822 2 965 3 155 3 283 3 429 3 589 3782 3 967 3 967 3 813 2. Education... 1 009 1 721 2 736 2 628 2 753 2 766 2 727 2 556 2 595 2 646 2 710 2 768 2 878 2 922 2 871 2 927 3. Health... 1 795 1 902 2 115 4 179 3 228 3 166 3 189 3 165 3 288 3 352 2 492 2 982 3 903 4 084 4 127 4 229 4. Social Security and Welfare... 4 781 4 974 6 099 7 099 8 074 8 691 8 871 8 760 8 943 9 271 10 252 11 092 11 332 11 382 11 300 11 637 5. Housing and Community Amenities, nec... 201 935 1 754 1 311 979 789 547 341 372 401 582 745 874 877 921 709 6. Culture and Recreation... 279 337 403 369 338 317 326 332 375 403 392 427 492 538 522 531 7. Economic Services A. Transport and Communications... 1 708 1 734 2 126 1 880 1 258 1 008 800 814 900 964 1 297 1 180 1 209 1 067 919 856 B. Industry Assistance and Development... 925 872 1 318 532 300 354 568 655 672 804 849 747 778 847 650 630 C. Labour and Employment... 139 168 209 262 270 298 323 261 302 332 460 743 728 619 567 535 D. Other Economic Services... 171 189 204 211 203 162 84 106 134 138 162 152 166 135 147 128 Total Economic Services... 2 943 2 963 3 856 2 885 2 031 1 821 1 775 1 836 2 008 2 240 2 765 2 822 2 881 2 668 2 299 2 149 8. General Public Services A. Legislative Services... 55 77 68 71 77 84 73 75 95 102 136 132 192 207 261 295 B. Law Order and Public Safety... 91 114 139 155 160 162 193 203 203 215 233 251 266 281 286 298 C. Foreign Affairs and Overseas Aid... 630 721 712 706 703 710 709 715 725 747 754 779 810 788 717 716 D. General and Scientific Research, nec... 205 220 237 235 233 230 251 267 284 315 317 303 289 289 287 270 E. Administrative Services... 820 892 993 932 879 917 896 907 978 1 021 1 048 1 110 1 217 1 295 1 374 1 402 Total General Public Services... 1 801 2 024 2 151 2 100 2 055 2 102 2 121 2 168 2 285 2 399 2 486 2 572 2 776 2 859 2 925 2 983 9. Not Allocated to Function A. Assistance to Other Governments, nec... 5 989 5 537 6 085 6 266 6 502 6 934 7 223 7 100 7 207 8 023 8 017 8 301 8 062 8 078 7 945 7 657 B. Public Debt Interest... 1 539 1 426 1 458 1 366 1 791 1 934 2 166 2 223 2 317 2 334 2 465 2 934 3 604 4 194 4 361 4 043 C. Contingency Reserve... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 D. Asset Sales... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -515 TOTAL OUTLAYS... 23 135 24 432 29 289 30 773 30 476 31 260 31 771 31 445 32 546 33 351 35 589 38 233 40 582 41 568 41 221 40 240 Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. The table shows Commonwealth Budget outlays in constant 1979-80 prices from 1972-73 through to 1987-88. It shows that in 1983-84-the first year of the first Keating Budget-expenditure in real terms rose by $2,644m over the 1982-83 Budget, the last Budget of the Fraser Government. In 1984-85 it rose by $4,993m. In 1985-86 it rose by $5,979m. In 1986-87 it rose by 5,632m. In 1987-88 it is estimated to rise by $4,651m. That is the real increase over and above the base of 1982-83. In aggregate, that shows an additional expenditure in real terms by the Hawke Government of $23,899m. These figures prepared by the Treasurer show that if expenditure had been maintained over the five years since the 1982-83 Budget in constant terms expenditure should have been $23 billion less. So people who promote the myth of the expenditure constraint this year overlook the fact that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister allowed expenditure to blow out to that extent. This is shown by their own document. I have prepared a schedule based on Table I of the same Budget document and also taken the rate of inflation from the publication of the monthly economic and social indicators over the last five years. I seek leave also to have this document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- BASE 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 (Est.) Inflation ... 6.9% 4.3% 8.4 9.3% 7.0% $M $M $M $M $M $M Total expenditures (Table 1 page 387) ... 48,793 56,432 63,714 69,918 74,899 78,146 Expenditure indexed from 1982-83 budget ... 52,160 54,403 58,972 64,457 68,969 Interest on public debt ... 3,379 4,331 5,658 7,055 7,923 7,851 Net expenditure before interest ... 45,414 52,101 58,056 62,863 66,976 70,295 Net expenditure indexed from 1982-83 budget ... 48,548 50,635 54,888 59,993 64,193 Add interest (Not indexed) ... 3,379 4,331 5,658 7,055 7,923 7,851 Adjusted net expenditure ... 52,879 56,293 61,943 67,916 72,044 Total revenue (Table 1) ... 44,345 48,500 56,994 64,193 72,184 78,119 Actual result ... -4,448 -7,932 -6,720 -5,725 -2,715 -27 Result on adjusted total expenditure -3,660 +2,591 +5,221 +7,727 +9,150 Result on adjusted net expenditure -4,379 +701 +2,250 +4,268 +6,075 Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. The table shows that if expenditure had increased in line with the rate of inflation in those years the increase figures would be 6.9 per cent for 1983-84, 4.3 per cent for 1984-85, 8.4 per cent for 1985-86, 9.3 per cent for 1986-87 and 7 per cent for 1987-88. If we apply those increases in inflation to the expenditure, using the 1982-83 year as a base, and try to draw out from that what would be the eventual result at the end of those years, it supplies a very real contrast with the figures shown in the actual Budget results. I have tried to be fair in that these expenditures are not always within the realm of the Government to contain. One element which reflects very heavily on our Budget is interest on the public debt, so I have quarantined that expenditure, massive as it is, from the normal inflation rate because it is beyond the realm of government perhaps to control and I have indexed the rest of the expenditure for those areas only at the normal inflation rate. It is interesting that the results as presented by the Treasurer in five Budgets show a massive deficit of $23 billion. It is all right to say what a massive deficit that is, but $23 billion represents the amount that Australia has gone further into debt in order to fund the expenditures of this Government, in spite of the 40 per cent increase in revenue that I mentioned earlier. We have put ourselves in debt as a nation under the Hawke Labor Government to the extent of $23 billion. By indexing all of the expenditures on the 1982-83 base by using the normal inflation rate, I have calculated that there should have been a surplus for the five years of Labor Government of $21 billion. Instead of going into debt by $23 billion we should have been in surplus by $21 billion. That is the situation if we index all expenditures, but if we index only the net expenditures and quarantine the interest, the situation for those five years is a surplus of $8,915m. What I am trying to say to members of the Government is this: if they feel as though they have made some real effort to contain expenditure this year, they should bear in mind that they are only containing expenditure that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have previously allowed to blow out during their term of office. The $8,915m which would have been surplus is money which the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), who has been interjecting, admitted has been paid by the taxpayers of Australia. In actual fact, they have collected that much too much in order to satisfy the expenditure sprees they have gone on. While I have quarantined the interest, that $23 billion by which the Treasurer has put the national in debt to the rest of the world has had an effect on public debt interest. Over my 12 years occupancy of the seat of Dawson it has been my particular concern to note the increase in the amount required to service our public debt. When I first came here that took up 4.4 per cent of all public expenditure-in other words 4.4c in every dollar of the taxes that everybody in Australia paid went to repaying interest on the national debt. This year, and last year, 10c in every dollar was paid in tax just to service that debt, which might be described as existing as a result of the extravagances of previous governments. There is a debt of $23 billion-- Mr Peter Fisher —The biggest part of the debt. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As the honourable member suggests, the biggest part of the debt has been incurred by the Government. So let us not have any of this nonsense about the deficit which was in prospect; let us look at the actual way in which the Government has controlled the treasury bench and has taken from the people of Australia in interest and in loans $23 billion more than it should have, when in fact it could have given them a surplus of $8.9 billion. That is the best situation that could have applied. Mr Lee —Tell us about SEQEB. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I could talk a lot about the South East Queensland Electricity Board, and I could talk about a lot of the unions. What the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) is implying is that there have been rorts in the system that have been corrected by the government of the day. The biggest rort that those opposite practice as a government is to allow the unions of Australia, the 360 of them, to invest their money, receive interest on it, and have it tax free in their hands. Mr Lloyd —That is a rort. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is an absolute rort. At the same time, these people opposite are tackling every sports club and every social club. The Australian Taxation Office is sending those clubs letters day after day, asking them to lodge tax returns and pay tax on exactly the same type of income. Do honourable members reckon that is not a rort? If they want to talk about rorts, it is significant that 12 months ago today I started a file-it is rather thick by now-which covers the travelling allowance and taxability of a parliamentarian receiving an allowance not for living away from home but for living at home. I have not received an appropriate answer to queries I have raised. I wrote to the Commissioner of Taxation eight months ago. I reminded him three months down the track and then five months down the track that I had not received an answer. I then had to go to the Ombudsman to ask him to ask the Taxation Commissioner why I was not getting a response. Eventually a response was forced out of the Commissioner, but it does not apply to the situation I mentioned. The letter, dated 15 July, applies to allowances and not to the particular situation that I was asking about, that is, what happens when a rort is perpetrated on this Parliament, on this Government, by a parliamentarian who gets a travelling allowance not for living away from home but for living at home, as indicated in the electoral rolls for the last election, thereby avoiding tax on the allowance paid. At the same time, what happens when a person does not lodge his tax return on time and is given special treatment, treatment not given to any other taxpayer in Australia. I know of a particular case in the same year about which we are talking where a taxpayer had a demand made on him to lodge a tax return earlier than the Treasurer. He was forced to pay a penalty of $300 even though he was getting a refund, and to date I have still had no satisfaction from the Taxation Office as to why that particular taxpayer should be treated any differently from a taxpayer who comes from this Parliament. I have this file that goes back 12 months. I suggest that when talking about rorts in the system we ought to start in this Parliament and try to correct the situation ourselves. We have been sold a furphy; the Government has perpetrated a myth in the manner in which it has been able to sell its excessive expenditure and collections of excessive revenue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(9.36) —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker. I know that you will fulfil your job with the same high standards and distinction as the Deputy Speakers and Speakers before you in this Parliament. As this is my first opportunity to have a good look at the Opposition front bench and the new coalition, I would like to say a few words about the shadow Ministry. A shadow Minister, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), preceded me. He had 20 minutes at his disposal to try to confuse the voters of Australia. Imagine people such as my mates in Hotham, in the pub in Cheltenham or in their living rooms, who were listening to his speech-- Mr Tim Fischer —They were. Mr KENT —Yes, they were trying to discern what he was saying. He was trying to say to them that they are worse off under the Hawke Government than they were four years ago when he was in government. They will not believe the honourable members because those in the pub, including the publican, know very well that they are much better off today and no matter what kind of figures or tables the honourable member pulls out, he cannot say to them that they are any worse off. They are much better off than they were four years ago when the present Opposition occupied the treasury bench. It left us as a bequest a deficit of $10 billion that we had to pay back first, and now we have finally brought down a balanced Budget, have provided enough jobs for the people, and still have had enough to give to those needy families who really need our support. I am sorry that the honourable member for Dawson could not produce his real leader, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I feel deprived that we have not seen him in this Parliament. I think we are missing some fun. I was looking forward to the enlightenment I could get from the Premier of Queensland. It is most unfortunate that he never made it. However, some of his supporters are very interesting people. They belong to the flat earth Opposition. They still believe as people did in the times before Galileo Galilei who tried to teach them about the rotation of the universe and so on. But, of course, they are going back some centuries and they still believe in a flat earth. We are told that that flat earth Opposition has suddenly started to rotate and that it will be spinning so fast only a few of the fellows will be able to hang on. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will still be on his rotating merry-go-round come the next election. I suspect that he will be as forgotten as his incentivation. Instead of incentivation what his front bench has produced so far could be better described as ineptness or defecation. Not wanting to be unkind to individuals on the Opposition front bench let me say that, collectively, they are a pretty hopeless bunch while the few talented fellows opposite in the Opposition still languish on the back bench. It is actually because the honourable members opposite are so hopeless that some of us on this side of the House have to be critical of our Government-a very good Government indeed-so as not to let the Executive completely off the hook. The Opposition has now had two parliaments in which to get used to its role. However, it has failed dismally. It will take a couple more terms for honourable members opposite to get used to being on the Opposition benches and we will certainly provide them with the opportunity to stay on there. In the meantime, I and some of my colleagues have to fill the vacuum. I am not critical of the 1987-88 Budget. In general, I agree with many of its provisions, especially with assistance to the low income families and the needy in our community. I welcome the general thrust of the Budget which aims to force us to live within our means-some more than others-although I would have liked to have seen the provision of more incentive for investment and further development of our manufacturing industries, especially those in the export sector. However, today I would like to debate the longer term economic outlook and our strategies. In the past I was critical of our policies of deregulation. While I admit that an overregulated economy is not a desirable climate for readjustment, at the same time, rapid and excessive deregulation prevents government intervention, where necessary, in the public interest. Of course, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) shut me up before I had even opened my mouth when I criticised the free float of our dollar. Yet if we look at it today in practice the float is not as free and clean as the Treasurer wanted us to believe. However, the debate on deregulation of our currency is in the past. Privatisation is the centre of attention now. When the word `privatisation' was first mooted by the Opposition our side, from the top to the bottom, flatly rejected it and quite rightly so as `privatisation' is only another word for economic cannibalism. Since then, of course, those who will benefit from privatisation-a mighty powerful group of the Establishment-have managed to persuade some members of the Cabinet of its usefulness. They engaged the top salesman of our country, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to sell the idea to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and he promptly put it on the agenda, even though he knows that he has as much chance of selling privatisation to rank and file members of the Labor Party as Cicciolina has of persuading the Pope to use condoms. However, the Prime Minister knows the workings of the ALP inside out. After all, he has just received his 40-year membership medallion so he knows that he has to persuade not the majority of the Party members but only 50 per cent, plus one of the gurus, at the National Conference. As any student of Australian politics would know, accompanied with usual arm-twisting and the occasional application of the blow torch to the soft underbelly, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are powerful persuaders. It is beyond doubt that the Australian Labor Party is opposed to privatisation. Let me just read part of the first paragraph of our platform on page 70, under the heading `Public Sector' which states: Labor is committed to the maintenance of the Australian public sector. We totally reject conservative proposals of privatisation of public enterprises and services... Not wanting to be accused of being selective in my quotes I will just quote another couple of paragraphs from our platform. On page 70, paragraph 30 states: Labor is committed to the provision of essential community services, including communications, health, education and transport, through the public sector, and will strongly resist efforts to privatise such services. Paragraph 31 states: Strengthen the role of the public sector by ensuring adequate resources are made available to it to perform its important tasks and by restructuring priorities. Undoubtedly the message is as clear and unambiguous as it can possibly be. The only argument that can be used against it is the Prime Minister's statement that the platform of the Party is not sacrosanct. I agree with him on that. I also agree with his statement of illustration-namely, that, after all, we had the white Australia policy in that platform and we changed it. Let me tell honourable members that we had in our platform of 1905 as the object of our immigration policy `the maintenance of racial purity'. Of course, we chucked it out. I was one of those Party members who fought for the non-discriminatory immigration policy that we have today and I am still fighting to eliminate discrimination from our immigration practices. I agree that our platform is not sacrosanct and that it is, and rightly so, subject to changes. But let me remind everybody that proposals that are embodied in our platform came from constituent party units and so should the proposals for changes. I assure honourable members that when the sanctity of our platform was brought into question no proposal from any constituent unit of our Party for privatisation was received by the Federal secretariat-not even from blind Freddy. Only the Prime Minister insisted on behalf of Sir Peter or Sir Paul that the matter should be on the agenda. Mr McVeigh —He was riding roughshod over you. Mr KENT —The proposal probably comes from cockies' corner but I am sure that it does not come from the postal or telecommunication workers or from any State branch of the ALP. But let us examine the merits of the proposal. Those who demand privatisation of public enterprises argue that such enterprises will be run more efficiently in private hands. However, they do not support their tenet with any evidence whatsoever. The fact is that there are efficient publicly owned enterprises, like the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, while at the same time there are inefficient private enterprises, like the notorious Nugan Hand Bank, which must be well known to my New South Wales colleagues. As far as efficiency is concerned, that is a mixed bag. Public or private, there are efficient and profitable undertakings in both sectors while there are also companies, private and public, that operate at a loss. It is rather the quality of management, technology, capitalisation, the loyalty of the work force and competition that determine efficiency, and not the kind of ownership. After all, the privatisers do not have on their hit list the inefficient and unprofitable public enterprises. They do not want to take over the Victorian tramways or railways, the country fire authority or the like, but they are aiming to buy Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and the Australian Telecommunications Commission at bargain basement prices. Each of these public enterprises is well and efficiently managed. One has only to read their annual reports of the past few years to see that they are profitable, and also to see that they are increasingly profitable. For instance, the operating profit of Qantas for 1984-85 was $62.3m and for 1985-86 was $44.5m. Telecom's operating profit for 1984-85 was $385.2m and for 1985-86 was $464.6m. The net profit of Australian Airlines for 1984-85 was $29.9m and in 1985-86 was $37.7m. The net profit of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation for 1984-85 was $237m, and for 1985-86 was $277.4m. While I can understand that the greedy privatisers are all out for more and more profits, I am at a loss to understand why a Labor Prime Minister would be so keen to oblige them, especially a Labor Prime Minister whom I respect greatly because of his sincere and genuine feeling for the underdog. Are members of the Establishment so powerful that they can remove us from the Government if we do not oblige them? If that is so, I wonder whether it is worth being in office by their grace alone. Let the conservatives do their bidding. Do not force the Labor Party, whose members believe in human values, to sell out their beliefs for market values. We are not a party of shopkeepers and money lenders, but a party which was created to defend the ordinary people of Australia and their interests. One has only to look at the British experience, which has proven that privatisation reduced the choices of those whose services are paid for by cross-subsidisation. Do not force us to sell our heritage. Let us keep in mind that the main beneficiaries of privatisation in Britain have been the merchant bankers, stockbrokers and underwriters. Needless to say, they are not exactly a typical cross-section of the community. So do not give me the bulldust that the proposal is in the national interest. The proposal for privatisation is nothing but a demand for the squandering of public assets, belonging to us all, for free plunder by the 5 per cent of the wealthy in our society. I do not want to be dogmatic and support public enterprise per se. But it is essential to have it, first of all, to provide services where the private sector would not provide them because it cares only about profit and not social and other needs. For example, the cross-subsidisation by Telecom would cease immediately, to the detriment of rural subscribers, if it were privatised. I do not hear anything from cockies corner at the moment. Mr Milton —No, they have left us. Mr KENT —They have left. Secondly, it is important to note that we need public enterprise because it often provides the only competition for private companies. Even if we agree that in difficult times we have to sell some assets to keep the business going, it is an unsound commercial proposition to sell the profitable part of the business to be able to hang on to the non-profitable bit. It is especially foolish when the people's assets are sold to finance government deficits. My colleague the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), one-time favourite economic adviser to the Treasurer, wrote a paper entitled `Privatisation: The Abandonment of Public Responsibility' concerning the sale of the Belconnen Mall for $50m, in which he stated: This is a particularly short sighted policy, for unless the receipts are used to reduce debt, selling capital assets to provide for current spending is a sure way to go bankrupt. Harold Macmillan, a former conservative British Prime Minister, expressed his opposition to privatisation thus: First of all the Georgian silver goes, and then all the nice furniture that used to be in the salon. Then the Canalettos go. I add to Harold Macmillan's statement that, if we go down the path of selling the people's heritage, it will not be long before we burn our libraries, because the road from economic cannibalism advocated by the New Right, to the dark era of barbarism, is a short one. I conclude by quoting the most eminent Australian scientist, Sir Mark Oliphant, who said: If we allow human values to be replaced by those of the market place-our civilisation, as we know it, will be destroyed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.55) —In the last 18 months this country has gone through a period of sublime joy, better described during that period as our having the world's greatest Treasurer and, by implication, the world's greatest economy. A mere six months later, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we were facing an economic state of war caused, he said, by a decline in our terms of trade and therefore a drop in our overseas income. To suggest, of course, that that was the sole reason is simply to gild the lily in the worst sense of the term. But since then, and as a result of that, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us that Australia was well on the way to becoming, as he put, a banana republic. In the last few days-last weekend, in fact-no less a personage than the second Minister responsible for economic policy in the Government, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, told us that we were well on to the `Argentinean road'. Mr Nehl —Well down the track! Mr CONNOLLY —Well down the track, as my colleague says. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Opposition and a growing number of Australian people and commentators in the Australian media are now looking beneath the facade of this Budget and asking why both the Treasurer, and today the Prime Minister can talk about the golden age of economic change, which we are now told we are about to experience? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer together have now brought five Budgets to this nation. The history of the last five years is significant in that it has brought to Australia the biggest spending government in our history, the biggest taxing government ever, the lowest value of the Australian dollar, record interest rates, record foreign debt, the worst inflation rate compared with those of our trading partners-which is fundamental to the very issue raised by the Prime Minister a mere six months ago-the highest number of bankruptcies, and the longest queues on public housing waiting lists, while we see among the same people, the poor of our community, longer term unemployment than ever before. What is perhaps most significant in international terms, especially in relation to our credit worthiness, is that Australia's AAA international rating was stripped from us. I am reliably informed that before the last election Standard and Poor's Corporation and Moody's Investor Services Inc. were quite prepared to reduce it even further-in fact, to the level of New Zealand's rating-if it had not been for the enormous political pressure brought on those companies in New York because the Government did not wish to face the embarrassment of that action so close to a Federal election. This record stands in infamy. These are the tests against which the fifth Budget must surely be judged. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), who recently entered this House and who gave a most excellent maiden speech, described the 1987-88 Budget as `the great illusion'. I totally agree. Senator Walsh, that worthy man to whom I referred earlier, said last weekend in his memorable address to the Society of Labor Lawyers in Western Australia that the Budget may have been oversold. What an understatement that was! But what he went on to say was particularly relevant. He referred to complacency about our economic problems which will send us further down, as I noted earlier, the Argentinean road. Once again, we are facing Mr Keating's banana republic. Senator Walsh said also that the Federal Government lacked the necessary political courage to bite into indulgent social welfare programs and that Australians needed to hold down consumption and build up their savings. That is all so true and all so ignored in the very fabric of this new socialist model that has been put to this House in recent days. Surely it is time to look beneath the veneer, to take some of the gloss off a Budget which has, without doubt, been accepted far too easily, with not sufficient probing by too many people who ought to know better. The indices which underpin our economic future-our likely employment prospects; the level of inflation; the health of the dollar both domestically and internationally; the question of our world commodity prices which are so related to what happens between Japan and the United States over the next year or so; our trade deficit, which is so relevant to our standard of living, our balance of payments, our level of inflation and our economic well-being-have been described in recent days, in terms of the Budget, as being far too optimistic. Yet Government members, one after the other, have stood up in this House tonight and on other occasions and have tried to tell the Australian people, with rising decibels I may add, that they must believe because the world's greatest Treasurer says that it is so. Mr Nehl —Who? Mr CONNOLLY —The world's greatest Treasurer, the king of the banana republics of the South Pacific, the first Australian to bring to Australia a true South Pacific bubble. The sad fact is that, as I said earlier, the likely international trends over the next year or so could well be absolutely against Australia's best interests. The Government, in this Budget, had the opportunity of insulating us against the worst of what the world can throw at this nation; and it failed. As Senator Walsh said, it did not have the courage to do so. The Treasurer came in here and disported himself the other night. He preened himself like a young cockerel and said that this Government-the first government to do so for 30-odd years-was reducing our external debt by $1 billion and our internal debt by an equal amount. What he did not bother to tell us was that what he was basically doing was simply transferring long term debt for short term debt. He was playing with the books because basically he has no intention of making that fundamental change which can come only by a reduction in the size of government expenditure. When the Government reduces its needs for overseas and domestic borrowing, we will see an impact on international money markets which will affect our currency and our rating and which will, therefore, reduce our demands for overseas currency and undoubtedly result in a stronger Australian economy. Instead of that, the Government took the easy options. I am not here tonight to argue the issues of politics and to speculate about how long the Prime Minister will be here, whether he is to go to Geneva in about May 1989 to take over from the Secretary-General of the International Labour Organisation or whatever. However, one could be suspicious enough to suggest that the very fact that the Treasurer, who claims that he has such courage, missed and refused to face the realities of the time, was because he did not want to upset anybody at this stage. All members of this House should want to bring Australia to the position of being a more secure and prosperous nation. The greatest deficiency of this Budget was its failure to spell out clearly how government policies could provide for a better working environment for Australian people, greater productivity increases and, above all, a greater future for our children. As I have said, the Government has not attempted to reduce the size of government, despite all the rhetoric of the Prime Minister in the May statement and since then. The Government has even backed off on selling overseas airports. There were people out there willing to pay good money to buy those airports so that public money would not have to be spent on their maintenance, expansion and running in due course. Yet we are told by the Prime Minister that he wants a policy of privatisation. We have just been told by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), who spoke before me, that privatisation is not in Labor policy and will never be seen again. Very little attempt has been made by the Government to reduce the overall tax burden on individuals and businesses. Twice in the last five Budgets, this Government has made a plaintive attempt to reduce both corporate and personal taxation. However, despite that, the level of tax in Australia is higher today than it has been since the days of the Great Depression. When the Government talks about introducing greater flexibility and responsibility to our labour markets, again there is a lack of ability by the Government to face up to the fact that a more flexible labour market is essential if we are to be able to compete on world markets and reduce our costs of production. Reducing the cost structure of industry through increased competition and government regulation-for that reason, we do not need new initiatives such as the Australia Card-is an example, again, of a government which talks so much, but when it comes down to the difficult, the hard, the right, decisions it is unwilling to make the necessary moves in that direction. The Liberal and National parties believe fundamentally that there can be no doubt that one of the best ways in which we can improve economic expectations in this country is to change basically our taxation system and reduce the level of tax so we can increase incentive for both individuals and business. The Government claims that it has cleaned up the system. Yet, last week, there was a most extraordinary allegation on Friday night's PM program regarding a Business Review Weekly publication. A transcript of that program states: . . . of the richest people in this country, big developers and so on-business men in the BRW top 200 had paid a combined income tax of less than a $100,000 last year. In the case of one of the country's biggest developers with assets of over 220 million dollars, he actually paid income tax on something less than $5,000, meaning that he didn't even pay the Medicare levy. I state that allegation only for what it is worth. It came from a reputable source. Those are the very things about which the Australia people are concerned. In Labor's five Budgets we have seen more people in Australia becoming millionaires while another 700,000 Australians have been reduced to living below the poverty line. Yet we are told that we have a Labor government that is compassionate and serious about its concern for the welfare of the Australian people. This year's Budget will collect $5.6 billion more in tax revenue than last year's Budget, and $3.1 billion of that will come from individuals. Yet we are told that the Government's tax cuts of last July were so generous and have done so much to help people. How is it, therefore, that the average person will pay $230 more tax this year than he paid last year? So much for a government that is serious about reducing personal income tax! In areas of government expenditure, the last Budget of the Fraser Government produced a deficit of $4,400m. Yet over the years we have seen that figure slowly but inexorably increase to a figure of $10,000m. We have an overseas debt in excess of $110 billion. We are passing to our children the worst legacy that any generation of Australians before us ever even dreamt of, and this Government is supposed to be concerned about people. One of the centrepieces of the last election campaign-indeed, one of the bases of this Budget-was to be the Government's intention to reduce poverty. A key feature of the Hawke Government's election policy platforms-this was a pledge made by the Prime Minister-was that by 1990 no child will need to live in poverty. He has introduced in this Budget a new family allowance supplement, a family income supplement and uniform rental assistance. The Opposition applauds any step that can be taken which is correct and which will seriously overcome these fundamental problems. But for the Prime minister to say, as he did in the House this morning, that the Government's family assistance scheme was the greatest single step taken by an Australian government to address social problems, is absolute rubbish. This policy has been described by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), a member of the Government's own team, as a poverty package. Unfortunately for many people, that is precisely what it is. Saunders and Whiteford of the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales said in a report assessing the Government's child poverty package: The Government's family package will have the immediate effect of raising the income of many pensioner and beneficiary families with children, but not to a sufficient extent to raise the majority of poor families above the poverty line. Yet we have been told that by 1990 no Australian children will be living in a state of poverty. Despite whatever reservations we may have about this whole problem, there is not the slightest doubt that no member of this House-of the Government or of the Opposition-can draw any satisfaction whatsoever from a social system which is said to be leaving over a million Australian children living beneath the Henderson poverty line. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that child poverty over the 1980s has increased dramatically. The reason for this can be found in economic realities such as increased unemployment, to some extent the results of the Family Law Act and various other problems. One thing is clear: it has taken five Budgets for this Government to face up to this fundamental problem that it is responsible for the future of our children who are our greatest asset. The number of children living in families in poverty before adjusting for housing costs is said to have increased from a quarter of a million in 1972-73 to almost 600,000 by 1981-82 and to over 800,000 by 1985-86. The instance of child poverty over this period has risen from about 8 per cent to just over 20 per cent. As I said, it has taken the Government five Budgets to work out a program to try to do something about it. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is sitting on the other side of the chamber, knows as well as I do that in his area of reponsibility-among Aboriginal Australians-the problem of poverty is as real as it is in any other section of the Australian electorate. I would not like it to be suggested that in this package-a poverty package as it was called by one of the Minister's colleagues-any attempt will be made to reduce the capacity of Aboriginal Australians to have access to these new arrangements compared with anybody else. As a result of this analysis which has been done into the problems of poverty and the allegations of the Prime Minister that under this new arrangement so many people will be helped, I carried out a survey and came up with some interesting information. The figures show that under the Government's new scheme, single income families with two children and on $376 per week will actually have 10c less disposable income for every additional dollar they earn. Senator Walsh, whom I have spoken about before, estimated that there would be 20,000 families affected in a negative sense by the 110 per cent effective marginal tax rate which will be applied to them by the so-called poverty package. The Prime Minister conceded this in Question Time today but even that estimate falls short of how bad the situation really is, because it does not include large families, especially those with up to five children. My calculations, based on the only available data released by the Government, showed that many families will be hit by the 110 per cent tax rate. In fact, there are 43,000 Australian families who will be worse off as a result of this poverty package-worse off than they are in their present situation. This is because of the poverty traps which are built into the system. These are the families who will be worse off: families with two children, on $374 to $394 a week; families with three children, on $410 to $437; families with four children, on $450 to $480; and families with five children, on $590 to $620 a week. All are falling into poverty traps and all of them will be worse off than they are at present. This new arrangement creates a very major disincentive for families in these brackets to increase their income as they will be actually better off if they stay on lower earnings and remain dependent on social security. Yet I would have thought that the very purpose of the exercise was to give people the opportunity not to be dependent on social security, to give people the opportunity to be trained to get out into the work force and to be able to get the pride of achievement as individuals, to give men and women-especially those in single family arrangements-the opportunity to give their children at least a reasonable basis upon which they can plan their lives for the future. Regrettably this is not to be. Julian Disney of the Australian Council of Social Service made the same observation. He said that hundreds of thousands of children will remain below the poverty line, especially if they are in sole parent families having to pay for private rental accommodation. In many instances they may be as much as 20 per cent-that is more than $40 per week-below the poverty line, yet we are told that as a result of this package by 1990 no children will be living below this poverty line. It is perfectly clear that what we are seeing is only the start and let us hope that it will not be the finish of what is a very serious problem. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.15) —On Sunday in Sydney there will be a great game of rugby league when the Woodger's Canberra Raiders take on the powerful Manly team. I wish the Canberra Raiders very well, and I do that because of a long-standing personal association with both coaches, Don Furner and Wayne Bennett and particularly because six members of the team come from that great State of Queensland. I wish Gary Belcher, Peter Jackson, Mal Meninga, Sam Backo, Gary Coyne, Steve Walters and the two reserves from Queensland, Kevin Walters and Les Morrissey, all the best. I applaud particularly the efforts over six years of Don Furner. Don Furner learnt his football in the great city of Toowoomba under the tutorship of the late Duncan Thompson. He made the Australian team from Toowoomba and for those honourable members who are interested in sporting backgrounds Don Furner participated in the Queensland professional heavyweight boxing championships. In his corner were the representatives of the Souths Rugby League Club in Toowoomba including the fellow international Ken McCaffrey. In case people think workers are the only ones who go on strike, on that particular occasion the Managers and Trainers Association of Professional Boxing in Queensland were almost on strike because in the corner with Furner were rugby league footballers instead of registered boxing coaches and managers. I have had a long association with Wayne Bennett. In association with the late Reverend Father Thomas McCormack, I arranged Wayne's first game of football with my old school, St Joseph's Convent School, in Allora against the Allora State School. I also had the very great privilege of being captain of a team which included Wayne Bennett's late father, Jim Bennett. I had a long association with Wayne's family. His mother is a great personal friend of mine. For the record, his grandmother, Mrs Brosnan, taught me ballroom dancing. He had an uncle called Eddie Brosnan who played in the front for the Kangaroos in their first match in England in 1948. I was particularly fond of Wayne Bennett's grandfather, Eddie Brosnan, who was a local herdsman. As a small boy I used to take cattle to the market. One day coming across a narrow bridge there was a carload of very prosperous looking fellows going to the races all dressed up in their best suits. They tried to scare the cattle off the bridge. The cattle were full of oats and were rather loose in certain parts of their anatomy; it spilt all over the car. When we got the cattle across the bridge the four fellows came back and wanted to fight us. There was grandfather Brosnan, who was 70 years of age, and Tom McVeigh who was 10 years of age. I have to admit to a certain amount of fear. But Eddie said, `An old man, a boy, four big strong men, one stockwhip. Righto, we'll have you on'. I have never seen four people go quicker in my life. The moral of that story is that if you have enough guts you will cut them down to size. Wayne Bennett was educated by the Christian Brothers in Warwick and he made the Australian team from the All Whites Rugby League Club in Toowoomba. I just want to let all these people who will be barracking for the Canberra Raiders know that they are barracking for a team from Queensland coached by Don Furner, who learnt his football in Toowoomba, and by Wayne Bennett with whom I had a long personal association. Wayne Bennett's wife comes from the great Veivers family in Queensland. Her brother captained Australia from the front row. Her cousin Mick Veivers-a very intelligent man-is a National Party member of the State Parliament in Queensland. He was also an international player. Her father, Jack Veivers, played for Queensland but was kept out of the Australian team because of great people such as Jack Rooney and Duncan Hall who also learnt their football in Toowoomba. I pay tribute to Wayne Bennett. Even though he has gained great credit for himself and high fame in international rugby league, when he comes to his little country home town of Allara, he is still big enough and humble enough to visit those people who knew him when he was a small boy. I just hope that on Sunday, like his late grandfather, Wayne will use the stockwhip and cut them down to size. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.20) —The level of government closest to the people is local government, and I praise those men and women who, often at great personal and financial loss, work tirelessly to improve the quality of life of those people whom they represent. I have known the highs and the lows of a local government service and, believe me, there are far more frustrations and disappointments than thank yous and moments of glory. Local government elections are to be held in New South Wales this coming Saturday, and I pay tribute to three men who have given magnificent service to councils in my Hunter electorate. These men have given between them a total of 94 years service in local government, and since they are not contesting Saturday's elections, on behalf of all those whom they have served I say, `Thank you' and wish them many more years of happiness and good health. Brian Hegarty, MBE, served 37 years on Merriwa Shire Council. His period of service included 27 years as Shire President, as well as a term as President of the Shires Association of New South Wales. Brian has given magnificent service to local government in New South Wales, and particularly to the people of the Hunter Valley. Brian's local government service followed distinguished service throughout World War II as a Spitfire pilot in Zimbabwe, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Clive Bourke, OBE, commenced service with local government as a councillor with Singleton Shire Council in 1951. Throughout his 37 years of service on council, he served some 10 years as Mayor and seven years as Deputy Mayor. Clive was also a delegate to Shortland Electricity Council. For more than 40 years, Clive's chief desire has been to serve his town and his country and to fight for the preservation of traditional values. Alan Bull, OAM, served 20 years on Singleton Shire Council, which included some five years as Mayor and some seven years as Deputy Mayor, and Deputy Shire President. Alan has served many years as President of the Singleton Tourist Association and has made a tremendous contribution to tourism throughout the Hunter Valley. For even more years, Alan was a highly respected figure throughout the Hunter Valley because he was the Chief Executive Officer of Singleton District Hospital. These men have given really wonderful service to their fellow men, although perhaps not at this level of government, but I believe that the level of local government, where they served, is no less proud a place. I am sure that all honourable members will join me in thanking these men for services to their community. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.24) —During the election campaign and, more recently in the Budget, the Government has given a high profile to poverty. I was interested in listening to the last speaker before the adjournment, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), and the points he was making about poverty. The coalition is very concerned about this situation because of the ever increasing numbers of people who are drifting into and living in poverty. It is a sobering thought that one of the great hallmarks of this Government is that it has increased the rate at which people move into poverty. Of course, that is not surprising because socialism is about levelling down. It is about a pea soup society-a society that is bland, and that encourages mediocrity. The bankruptcy of this approach is no more clearly seen than in the fact that this Government has created over 150,000 poor people per year. That is a record for any government. Well may Government Ministers abuse Question Time with long winded answers that rarely address the question. While they bicker over whether Australia has turned the corner, is living in a golden age or going the Argentinean way, thousands of households are being forced to live on the breadline. The fact is that Australians have suffered the most sustained reduction in living standards for 50 years, and now the Government seeks to win the applause of people by saying that poverty for children will cease to exist by 1990. This Government has created 700,000 poor people in five years. The simple fact is that this promise will not and cannot be delivered. Does anyone know of any nation state without child poverty? Again, it is one of the token escapades that this Government likes to indulge in as a heartwarming exercise, but has no intention of ever fulfilling. It never fulfilled its trilogy or its promises about the Priority One program, and it has failed thousands of young people who will not have places in tertiary institutions at the beginning of next year. Much of the poverty can be traced back to the change in attitudes to family life. Those changes received a hefty kick along by the late Justice Murphy, who promoted the disastrous Family Law Act, radical feminism and humanism. Since that time, the number of children living in poverty has increased dramatically as people avail themselves of easy legal options for divorce to run away from the fundamental adult responsibility of parenting. Family life has been trivialised by the Family Law Act, till today we have advocates in our industrial relations area saying that child care provisions should not be such so as to retard a career. The emphasis is that a career path is more important than the nurture of children, and that the next generation is second in line to career success. This Government has raised community perception about rights but has forgotten to mention obligations and responsibilities. So, today, we have the Government trying to gain some brownie points in attempting to eradicate child poverty by 1990-poverty that has largely been created by the Labor Party's policies. This Government's record on poverty is absolutely disgraceful, but to make the claim that by 1990 no child will live in poverty is to show the chicanery, deceitfulness and tokensim of this Hawke Government. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.29) —I proudly hold up my Chelsea Football Club membership ticket-my No. 1 ticket for the Chelsea Football Club who were premiers last Sunday in the Mornington Peninsula football league grand final. It beat the Pines easily, in a good grand final-26.13 to 13.12-a decisive win by the mighty Seagulls, who have now been premiers for two years in a row. Before last year, the Chelsea Football Club had won a number of premierships, the last being in 1966, 1967 and 1968. The win this year makes it two in a row, and I am sure that the club will make it three in a row next year. Whilst I wish I could name everyone at the club and in the community who has assisted throughout 1987, that is not possible. I will name just a few people who have been the backbone of the club this year: President Tom Williams, who is an institution in his own lifetime; Secretary Ray Stuart; team manager Frank Parsons, who has been with the club for a very long time; playing coach Chris Bull; and captain Andrew Sinclair, who led the team on the field so superbly through the whole year, culminating in the fantastic win last Sunday. The Chelsea Football Club is part of the Chelsea community. As I said last year in this House, it is very much a community club and its off-the-field functions and togetherness are as important as its on-field activities. Everyone in Chelsea is very proud of the club and what it has achieved over the years, particularly the last couple of years. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visited the club in April this year and opened its new social club which has been a great asset to club members and everyone in Chelsea. It has given them a focal point to go to and some reasonable facilities to enjoy for the first time. The Prime Minister was welcomed with open arms. It was a tremendous evening. It was very good to see what a fantastic time everyone had that night in April. It was very good to see so many people appreciate the visit of the Prime Minister and appreciate people who are attempting to do something for them. The mighty Seagulls have done it again. I am very proud to have been appointed their No. 1 ticket holder this year. In my first year as No. 1 ticket holder they have become premiers. I am very proud of that. I sincerely hope that everyone at the club and in the community of Chelsea continues to pull together so that the club continues to be as successful throughout 1988 as it has been in 1987 and that we will see another on-field success and more of the off-field community spirit that has made Chelsea famous. I congratulate everyone at the club. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.33) —Late this afternoon in a speech I gave to the House on the Brewarrina riots, I attempted to table three statements from individuals who stated that they saw Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) media people buy alcohol for Aborigines. The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples), the Minister at the table, tried to suppress this evidence for some extraordinary reason so I now take the opportunity to read it into the Hansard. The first statement is from a gentleman who shall remain nameless: On Saturday 15 August, 1987 at about 3.30 pm I was at the Brewarrina Hotel. Mr Hand —I take a point of order. Mr COBB —They are going to suppress it again. Mr Hand —Is it in order for the honourable member to use material from an individual he will not name to record a slander against an organisation or another individual? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is in order. Mr COBB —The statement reads: On Saturday 15th August, 1987 at about 3.30 pm I was at the Brewarrina Hotel. Two males from the ABC (one tall male and one shorter male) came to the bar and purchased 1 carton of fosters cans and 1 large 750ml of coke. They left the Brewarrina Hotel and went to the park opposite the Brewarrina Hotel to a crowd of Aboriginals in the park. There is another statement: On Saturday 15th August, 1987 at approximately 3.00 to 3.30 pm I was barman at the Brewarrina Hotel. There were three male strangers, thought to be reporters, purchased alcohol from me. The first transaction was 1 carton of fosters cans and 1 large bottle of coke. The second transaction was 1 carton of 750ml Tooheys bottles. In the transactions the customers used a $100.00 note and a $50.00 note. After purchasing the alcohol, they seemed to walk towards the park opposite the Brewarrina Hotel. The third statement-- Mr Hand —Which you wrote in your office. Mr COBB —Is the Minister not concerned about the Aborigines up there? This is the third statement: I started work at the Royal Hotel, Brewarrina, at 6.00 pm on Wednesday 12th August 1987. About 7.00 pm to 7.30 pm a bloke from ABC Radio (he said he was a reporter) shouted middies to the Aborigines. At about 8.30 pm to 9.00 pm the same reporter and an Aboriginal woman were in the bar. He bought a six pack of Toohey's Stubbies and went outside and came back in and bought another six pack of Toohey's Stubbies and a two litre flagon of Royal Reserve Port. At 10.30 pm after work I went to the RSL Club and I saw the same reporter buy a couple of take-aways. (I think they were Twist Tops and only about 6 to 12 of them). Coming out of the RSL Club, the same reporter was following me and met the same Aboriginal woman (mentioned above). The next night, Thursday 13th August 1987 I was in the Brewarrina Hotel and the same reporter walked in. A few local citizens had a shot at him (verbally). I got into a conservation with the same reporter and I said to him ``You are buying grog for the Aboriginals'' and he said ``Yes''. I then said ``You are a weak- and a four-letter word starting with `c' is mentioned which I will not read out. It continues: The reporter said ``He couldn't get an interview with white people because no-one would talk''. I said ``Of course they won't because the Aboriginals will burn you out or smash your car''. They are just three statements. There are many others from other witnesses who will testify similarly. Finally, I would like to display a T-shirt that the local Community Youth Support Scheme is making up in Brewarrina which is selling like hot cakes in the town. The caption on the front says `How do you start a riot? It's easy as ABC. Brewarrina 1987'. I think that sums up the feelings of most Brewarrina people on this whole sad issue. As soon as we can get to the bottom of the issue the better it will be, because I think some people have exploited Aborigines to their own ends, and I think that is a despicable action. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.37) —Many members on this side of the House are concerned with the persistent position of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) on these racial matters. Clearly he has a responsibility to the entire community and not to his own narrow interests in this respect. I remind the honourable member for Parkes-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes was heard and now the honourable member for Stirling will be heard. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I remind the honourable member for Parkes that the national Parliament was given responsibility under a referendum in 1967 to conduct itself in a way that befits the entire population, including the Aboriginals. I wish the honourable member would begin to understand that responsibility. It does him no good and no service, certainly from the point of view of this side of the House or that of the wider community. I look forward to an occasion in the future when the honourable member for Parkes will have learned a little more about his responsibilities as a member of parliament and will not conduct himself in this way. I am sure that honourable members on this side of the chamber who heard the speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) will recognise that the honourable member for Parkes has a long way to go in that respect. I wanted to make some comments tonight about a matter that is of concern to people in the community, and that is the question of smoking on board aircraft. There has been a request by this Government-- Mr Blunt —I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for Stirling resume his seat. I call the honourable-- Mr Blunt —On the point of order, Madam Speaker: I apologise for delaying-- Madam SPEAKER —Would you please just wait until I call you. People are developing a habit lately of believing they can walk up to the microphone and start talking. It would be courteous if you would wait until I call you. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I apologise for that. I was having regard for the honourable member's time. I ask you to rule whether the comments made by the honourable member for Stirling reflect on the character of the honourable member for Parkes. Madam SPEAKER —I was listening carefully to the honourable member for Stirling. I do not believe he was reflecting on the character of the honourable member. I think he was more giving advice than reflecting on his character. Mr Hand —You don't mind slandering people who aren't here to defend themselves. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will keep out of this. The Chair is in control. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thank the Chair. I wanted to devote some comment to the matter of smoking on aircraft. I believe four issues are relevant and that the Australian airline industry has refused to recognise its responsibilities. The first issue is the obligation to have improved health conditions for passengers and cabin crew. Clearly, evidence before us indicates that that is not being looked after in the current pattern of allowing passengers to smoke on board aircraft. The second issue is to reduce potential fire hazards on board aircraft. Quite clearly, that poses a problem. The third issue is the bringing of cabin air quality into line with that which is accepted in public buildings. I remind the House that, in other environmental safeguards with respect to public buildings, smoking is not permitted to reach a level at which the health of the people in that building would be affected; yet currently in aircraft that level of impact upon people is allowed. I will make a couple of observations on this subject. The first is that environmental tobacco smoke in aircraft contains toxic gases and carcinogens which affect people. Both clearly have deleterious effects on people who choose not to smoke. Despite the pretence by airline operators, very clearly they are not meeting their current obligations. The reason I bring this matter before the House at the moment is not to oppress smokers in any way but simply to point out that with the current move to more economical and wide-bodied aircraft we will eventually move to the stage where the entire air system of aircraft will be recirculated. Currently no filter system is capable of dealing with either the solid matter or the toxic gas matter that is emitted by smokers on board aircraft. It poses a serious health problem not only to the cabin crew but also to the non-smoking passengers. The only solution is to ban smoking on board aircraft. The proposition to ban smoking for a period of 90 minutes in fact imposes a rather artificial distinction. As someone who travels a long distance on a regular basis I have frequent discussions with other passengers who report the discomfort that that causes. Last week I travelled on an aircraft and someone smoked 2 1/2 packets of cigarettes between Adelaide and Perth. Anyone who would pretend that that is not impacting on fellow passengers is really talking nonsense. In the limited time available I take this opportunity to draw this important matter to the attention of the House and call for a ban on smoking on board passenger aircraft. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.42) —I would like to speak tonight about the closure by the South Australian Labor Government of the Belair to Bridgewater railway line that runs, of course, into my electorate. This decision by the South Australian Government is not a rational decision but a decision which is politically discriminatory and is made simply, firstly, to save money and, secondly, to save money in an area where the Liberals hold both the Federal and State seats. The South Australian Government is not prepared to make similar decisions where marginal seats are involved or where Labor members hold seats. I regard that as an extremely poor and arrogant way of conducting public administration. It is one more reason why the Bannon Government needs, sooner or later, to be evicted from office. The Belair to Bridgewater railway service provides convenient and easy travel for students, for working and shopping commuters to the city, for elderly citizens as well, of course, for handicapped people with wheelchairs and for cyclists who want to take their bicycles to Adelaide. It is quite a way from Adelaide. The fact is that this passenger train provides a safe alternative to the use of a very overcrowded road-the Mount Barker Road-which has become increasingly dangerous as the volume of traffic using that road has risen. Arguments by the South Australian Government, supported by the Federal Government, that it is going to provide between $100m and $150m to upgrade the Mount Barker Road are wishful thinking because nobody in the world believes that in the foreseeable future that Government will come forward with that money. The railway does provide a safe and convenient alternative to that road if only it was promoted properly. It is also important to recognise that students, particularly school students, travel to city schools from the Adelaide Hills, as well as to the Blackwood High School, the Heathfield High School and the Marbury School in the town of Aldgate. Indeed, some 80 students travel from Blackwood, Belair and Upper Sturt to the Heathfield High School. These students will be monumentally disadvantaged by the selfish, discriminatory and politically-based decision by the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia. It is really an indictment of the State Transport Authority in South Australia that that Authority has done nothing to promote the very promising tourist potential of the Belair to Bridgewater railway; indeed, the State Transport Authority has persisted in using derelict, out-of-date rolling stock on that rail route and yet has used modern, up-to-date, air-conditioned rolling stock on rail routes that go into marginal electorates around the metropolitan area. This is a very sorry story, not only for the many hundreds of individuals who will be seriously disadvantaged by the State Labor Government's decision but also for the tourist potential of South Australia. It is worth remembering, Madam Speaker-you will be interested to hear this-that Mark Twain, the well known American author, in his book Following the Equator, with which you will be well acquainted, referred to the beauty of the Adelaide Hills. You can think about Melbourne, Madam Speaker, where I believe you come from, but it has no beauty whatsoever compared with the great beauty of the Adelaide Hills. Yet access to the beautiful Adelaide Hills is being denied to many tourists because of this narrow-minded decision by the State Labor Government. I regret that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is always in trouble, has refused to allow me to speak with officers from the Bureau of Transport Economics about the study the Bureau is doing into this rail route. I think that is again indicative of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to this important railway. It does not matter if it runs into Liberal areas because half the population of Australia, who are Liberal voters, apparently do not matter. That is the morality of the State Labor Government in South Australia, which is carried on by the Minister for bungles, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. I sincerely regret the way this important railway has been neglected, ignored and discriminated against by the Labor Party. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(10.46) —I wish to draw to the attention of members of this House some concerns which came upon me during the election campaign. These concern elderly people within my electorate. In the course of the campaign and, of course, for a very long time before it, I was involved in visiting aged people in homes. There are varying sorts of aged people's homes within my electorate. There are those people who are mobile and who live in units. There are those who live in hostel-type accommodation where food and some nursing care is provided. There are others for whom age has meant physical and often mental retardation, and hence they are in nursing homes. One of the most striking features of all of the homes which I visited was the very real problem of dignity and independence. I find it somewhat interesting to sit here on this side of the House and hear honourable members on the other side talk about dignity and fair mindedness when some of the people who espouse the political beliefs of those opposite pursue courses in the treatment and dealing with the elderly in our community in anything but a fair-minded and dignified way. We may ask who these people are who place themselves or are placed by their families in care. By and large they are females-as we know, females in our society tend to live longer-who have found they are either not wanted by their families, which is another sad indictment upon us all, or no longer able to look after themselves. Hence they need people of integrity to care for them and look after their every need. We as a community need to be very much assured that the people into whose care we commend our elderly and our aged persons are persons in whom we can place that sort of trust. Are some of these people in whom we have placed the care of our elderly simply there to make money for themselves or the organisation for which they work, or do they genuinely care for and meet the needs of those people? Let us face it; all of us, we hope, will one day be aged. It is something from which there is no escape. Aged people have made a very real contribution to our community. By and large they have made a very real contribution in the areas of voluntary work. They have given of their very best and they are deserving now of a life which gives them dignity and which allows them privacy and integrity. They should not be stood over by people who place themselves in roles of authority. They should not be threatened by people in positions of authority if they do not wish to think or act in certain ways. They should not be terrified when, at the stroke of a quarter to five, they must rush inside to place themselves at a table so that they can sit there and wait for 15 minutes for a meal to be served to them. I raise this question simply as one who is concerned about the creation of a fair and compassionate society. That society embraces all of us, the young and the old, and it behoves us as members of this Government and as members of this place to work to ensure that the aged in our community, particularly those who are in institutions, are treated fairly, with dignity, and are able to have a choice over the very last days of their lives. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.51) —I speak in the adjournment debate tonight to make some comment in relation to what the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) just referred to in his adjournment speech. I say firstly that the comment that he made in connection with the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) related to the wrong subject. As I understand it, the honourable member for Parkes earlier tonight and later in the adjournment debate was referring to a complaint against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and not to the racial problem or the Aborigines. He rose tonight to read into Hansard material he was prevented from tabling in his speech this afternoon. Perhaps if the honourable member for Stirling had been in the chamber for the whole of the proceedings he would have understood that. I agree with the honourable member for Stirling about smoking in public places and particularly on aircraft. It was recently brought to my attention that in the last fortnight Canada has placed obligations on airways to prohibit smoking on flights of a duration less than two hours. There are heavy penalties. Mr Hand —What about the banning of alcohol on planes? Mr BRAITHWAITE —This is my adjournment speech, not the Minister's. The Canadian system ensures that anybody who flies for a duration of less than two hours cannot smoke. If such people do they are fined and there are heavy penalties on the aircraft company for allowing smoking to take place. I would ask the Minister, instead of interjecting in the manner in which he has, whether he would take this matter to Cabinet to see what he can do about it within the transport system. Mr Hand —No way. I am a smoker. Why would I? Mr BRAITHWAITE —As the Minister said, he reflects a bias which is killing the rest of the population as passive smokers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not interject. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He admits to a vice, amongst his others. This is a matter he can do something about. I refer now to the work that is being conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Queensland outside Townsville, just outside my electorate, under the directorship of Dr Baker. They have come up with a system to examine the coral core from the Great Barrier Reef to determine the climatic conditions over many years while the coral was growing. When I visited the area earlier this year with my wife a coral core sample that dated back to the year 1700, before Australia was discovered by Captain Cook, was being examined. On analysis of the last 40 or 50 years over which rainfall figures have been taken it has been found that there is an interface between rainfall and the growth pattern of the coral. In other words, when flood waters interfere with the reef it puts stress on the coral which is reflected in its growth pattern. The sample going back to 1700 shows that the Burdekin River did not flow for 30 years. This indicates that Australia has known long and protracted periods of drought. I suggest that if more could be done in this way we could plot the future. Along the coast at the moment between Bowen in my electorate and Townsville drought conditions exist. It is remarkable in Australia that if a natural disaster occurs next to a populated area and some difficulty is faced by local people because of the natural disaster it makes the headlines. But there are also the isolated parts of Australia. There are the large cities such as Townsville and the smaller cities such as Bowen in my electorate with only about 5,000 ratepayers. Those places may be afflicted with severe shortages of water for domestic use. In the last local government grants distribution, for the first time the Labor Government went over the heads of State commissions and determined a distribution method which was foreign to any past method. The Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) has seen fit to ensure that her areas of local government, particularly Townsville and Thuringowa, have received more than a fair proportion of the increase in the personal income tax allocation, but Bowen, which is in the middle of the drought area and requires funds for the retriculation of water for domestic purposes, has received only a small percentage increase, which basically phases out in the next four or five years. Madam SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.56) —I draw the attention of the House to an interesting proposal for a centre for cold and remote regions technology, commonly referred to as Antech. A report on this subject was made to the then Minister for Science in early 1987. It is under review by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The proposal essentially is for a centre to facilitate the availability of information to industry and to stimulate special opportunities arising from government procurement and the concentration of Antarctic logistic and communication facilities in Hobart and the growth of international activity in Antarctica. The emphasis on Hobart as an Antarctic centre coincides with the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the recent Federal election campaign that the Australian Government will raise with the International Antarctic Treaty Organisation the prospect of having the headquarters of the international treaty secretariat in Hobart. Hobart is uniquely placed in the world as a jumping-off spot for those who seek to venture to the Antarctic for scientific and other purposes. An Antech centre would bring special benefits to Tasmania. It would be able to be a generator of employment, technology and ideas. It would be appropriate to enhance Australia's position as a centre of expertise and innovation in the supply of products, services and consultancy to Antarctica. It would have in its framework the objectives of stimulating not only public involvement but private involvement in Antarctic development. Essentially, Antech would be a practical, cost-effective organisation seeking to ensure its long-term survival. Initially, it would be dependent in its establishment on a government grant. In the first instance, the planners expect a cost in the first year of $400,000, but in subsequent years it would obtain its funding through licensing and other arrangements, through the use of design, the provision of data base information, publications, consultancy services and project management services. It is envisaged that the Antarctic Division would be the focus for the establishment of Antech and that initial product development programs would relate to the division's needs. The proposal put forward by Lawrence Howroyd and Associates to the Government points out a number of opportunities which could be developed. Products and ideas with obvious commercial merit could be developed on a joint venture basis with manufacturers, with Antech providing expertise in aspects such as design, patents, copyright and tendering. The proposal is detailed in identifying a number of such opportunities. For example, there would be a field personnel location device, which would be appropriate for locating people lost in the Antarctic. In that hostile environment, safety is often prejudiced by white-outs, blizzards and darkness. Similarly, the report proposes the construction of an Antarctic design standards building and fire safety measures. On a somewhat more practical but less tasteful matter the report refers to projects for the removal of human waste and waste treatment, which is, of course a problem in the Antarctic. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m., and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after the termination, unless the Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48a be amended to read- 48a. At 7.15 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday and at 10.15 p.m. on each other sitting day, the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they have been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday, or at 11 p.m. on each other sitting day, the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following proposed standing order be adopted as a sessional order: General purpose standing committees 28b. (1) General purpose standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament as follows: (a) Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; (b) Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (c) Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; (d) Standing Committee on Community Affairs; (e) Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs; (f) Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; (g) Standing Committee on Infrastructure, and (h) Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. (2) A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be empowered to inquire into and report on any matters referred to it by either the House or a Minister including any pre-legislation proposal, Bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper. (3) Each committee appointed under subparagraphs (1) (a) to (d) and (f) to (h), inclusive, shall consist of 12 members and the committee appointed under subparagraph (1) (e) shall consist of 10 members with membership of each committee reflecting the proportion of Government to Opposition Members in the House, namely, 6 Government and 4 Opposition for a committee of 10 members and 7 Government and 5 Opposition for a committee of 12 members. Each committee may be supplemented with up to 3 members for a particular inquiry. Government members are to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips and Opposition members are to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips. (4) Every nomination of a member to a committee shall be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) Each committee shall elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) Each committee shall elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (7) For a standing committee of 12 to 15 members, 6 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee including 4 Government members, and for a committee of 10 or 11 members, 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee including 3 Government members. (8) Each committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) Each committee shall appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (10) The quorum of a sub-committee shall be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) Members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to move from place to place. (14) Any sub-committee shall have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) Each committee shall have leave to report from time to time. (17) Each committee or any sub-committee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the relevant standing committees appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) Each committee shall have power to confer with a similar committee of the Senate. Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following proposed standing order be adopted as a sessional order: Standing Committee on Procedure 28C. (a) A Standing Committee on Procedure shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report on the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. (b) The committee shall consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips and 3 members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips. (c) The committee shall elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) The committee shall elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (e) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (f) The committee shall appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of the sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (g) The quorum of a sub-committee shall be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (h) Members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (i) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. (j) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to move from place to place. (k) A sub-committee shall have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (l) A sub-committee shall have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (m) The committee shall have leave to report from time to time. (n) The committee or any sub-committee shall have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Procedure appointed during previous Parliaments. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by- (a) resolution of either House of Parliament, (b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, or (c) the Minister for Defence. (2) That the committee consist of 30 members, 11 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (7) That 10 members of the committee, including 6 Government members, constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (8), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex officio members of each sub-committee appointed. (10) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (11) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (15) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (16) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (21) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as a chairman. (7) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (15) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of- (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the operation of Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to `X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes/discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above `R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above `R', subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above `R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (8) That the committee have power to move from place to place. (9) That the committee report by 10 December 1987. (10) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material appointed during the 33rd Parliament and the Joint Select Committee on Video Classification appointed during the 34th Parliament. (11) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effects notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (12) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent senator or independent senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (f) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (g) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (h) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (i) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (m) that a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (n) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (p) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during previous Parliaments. (q) That, in carrying out its duties, the committee or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (r) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1984, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 September 1987: Defence Act-Determinations-1987- No. 57-Overseas Living Allowance. Nos. 58, 59 and 60-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 61-Loss on sale of Motor Vehicle on Posting Overseas. No. 62-Common Duties Allowance and Antarctic Allowance. No. 63-Disturbance Allowance. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1987-Postal-Amendment-No. 5. Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act-Agreements pursuant to subsection 4 (1), for Soil Conservation, between the Commonwealth and- New South Wales, dated 21 July 1987. Northern Territory, dated 6 July 1987. Queensland, dated 24 June 1987. South Australia, dated 24 June 1987. Tasmania, dated 3 July 1987. Victoria, dated 31 July 1987. Western Australia, dated 1 July 1987.