Tuesday, 23 February 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last December I placed on notice questions to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Industrial Relations regarding alleged improprieties by representatives of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. Will the Prime Minister ensure that these questions are answered by the time Parliament resumes on 15 March as over three months will then have elapsed and the answers may well be significant in the public interest? Mr HAWKE —I preface the answer that I will give to the honourable member by saying that I believe it could be argued on a point of order that questions on notice Nos 578 and 625, which were directed to the Attorney-General, deal with matters canvassed in the question and, therefore, the question is out of order. However, I wish to give the honourable member this information: the Attorney-General is seeking further information from the National Crime Authority in light of question on notice No. 625. That question will require the Authority to examine again certain tape recordings which were examined in connection with question No. 578. I understand that the Attorney-General will respond to both questions as soon as practicable after advice has been received from the Authority. I would point out to the honourable member that any tape recordings which may relate to these questions are in the custody of the Authority. The Archives Act 1983 makes it an offence to destroy, dispose of or alter a Commonwealth record otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Any tape recordings in the custody of the Authority are Commonwealth records. All that indicates that the full processes of inquiry and of investigation in this matter will proceed. I conclude by making this observation: as the matter goes to the personal position of a person who, as is well known, is a close personal friend of mine, who is not a member of this Parliament and not able to defend his position, I want to put it on the record in this place, as I have on previous occasions-I say it quite separately-that I have absolutely no reason at all to doubt in any way the integrity of Sir Peter Abeles. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I ask the Treasurer whether his attention has been drawn to the comments by the Business Council of Australia in which it called for a Budget surplus for 1988-89 of about $3.5 billion. Will the Treasurer indicate the Government's attitude to those views? Mr KEATING —There is a sort of one-upmanship that goes on now, like a ritual, every year before the Budget on the part of competing organisations, particularly those on the business side, as to which one can up the ante more than the next organisation in terms of the tasks which the particular organisation sets for the Government. Having been totally unable to shift the lethargic and moribund Government with which business in this country was formerly aligned, it now keeps setting tasks for this Government which, sadly for the Business Council, the Government has been exceeding. Now this year it has decided to set a target which it thinks the Government, even in its wildest expectations, will not exceed. Having said that, I should like to make a couple of comments about the Business Council's submission which has been delivered to the Treasury, and the tax submission which was published some weeks ago. First I should say that this submission was released under the name of Mr Bailey, the Chairman of the Business Council, a person for whom I have a very high regard. However, most of the pap served up in this submission was served up to Mr Bailey by the Business Council secretariat. The Council says that we should budget for a surplus of $3.5 billion. I shall not provide any commentary on that amount, except to say that the submission states such a surplus would require spending cuts of $2.5 billion. It states further that increases in the Commonwealth surplus should occur via spending cuts, not from increased taxation. In other words, the Council says that it is not worried about the macro-economic effect of a substantial surplus on the real economy, which does not depend upon whether that surplus has been developed on the spending or the receipts side. No, what prevails here is an entirely ideological view. The Council says that it knows it does not matter whether the surplus builds as a result of receipts or cuts to spending, but it does not want it to be other than by cuts to spending because basically it is against spending, and against public services. The Council suggests $2.5 billion, and it knows that when it talks about outlays of that dimension, that means cuts to major functional program areas affecting, in the main, lower income people. The submission says further that the surplus should not come from increased taxation. Rather, it urges tax cuts immediately so as to dispense with that part of the surplus that might come from receipts. However, although the Council understands that the Government has been wrestling with higher than expected levels of demand, it argues that we should boost that demand along by providing tax cuts, because to accrue a surplus on the receipts side is horrible. What we have to do is give that away and then hop into the functional program areas to build a surplus via program cuts. This is the ideological rubbish that is served up as macro-economic analysis. The Council then continued in its submission to say that it believed that radical action was needed to break inflationary expectations. However, two weeks ago the Council presented another paper to the Government saying that we should impose a 10 per cent consumption tax. So, on the one hand, as requested in one submission, we are to break inflationary expectations. On the other hand, we are to add five or six percentage points to prices. Just when Australia is getting its inflation rate down, the Council wants to lock us back into double digit inflation, but is silent on how the Government should remove that inflation rate from the complexion of our economy. To find the answer to that, one must peer through the rest of the document. It says that the only wage increase will be on a productivity basis. In other words, the Council advocates further real wage cuts to cover the inflationary effect of a consumption tax. The submission gets better. It goes on to support a major package of micro-economic reforms, including cuts to the company tax rate, paid for, of course, by a consumption tax. In other words, the Council advocates a massive company tax cut funded by a consumption tax which would, amongst other things-there is no talk of compensation, of course-hit people on very low incomes. I shall refer in brief to the other major paper, dealing with the tax system. In a weakly disguised proposal to redistribute a massive amount of revenue from lower income earners to higher income earners, the Council argues for a cut in the company tax rate, but for the maintenance of all tax concessions. I repeat: it wants a cut in the company tax rate, but not achieved-as in the United Kingdom or the United States of America-by broadening the tax base. Oh no, the Council is suggesting that the Government should provide, free and unencumbered, a reduction in the company rate but maintain and follow through accelerated depreciation and all the other concessions. In other words, companies will lose nothing but they want the Government to fund a cut in the company tax rate by reductions in government spending impacting more heavily on lower income earners than would a 10 per cent consumption tax. We have had a lecture on what the macro-economic outcome should be. The Council wants a lower tax rate without any loss of concessions. It is unbelievable that a major organisation should put that kind of analysis to the Government at this stage of our economic history. If the Australian Council of Trade Unions published such a document it would be kicked all around the landscape by the Business Council, the Confederation of Australian Industry and by commentators everywhere. Here we are in 1988 with a terms of trade fall of about 2 1/2 to 3 per cent of gross domestic product and an almost $10 billion wipe-out to our earning capacity with the resultant need for adjustment, yet one of the premier business organisations asks for a lower company tax rate. It wants to keep all its concessions and it does not want any increase in inflationary expectations. On the way through it calls for a consumption tax, and also a massive surplus, but it does not want that out of receipts, only out of spending so that tax cuts can be provided. Is it any wonder that the Government runs the economic debate? When it comes to deciding the Budget and setting the macro-economic agenda in this country the Government knows best. We will do what we have to do to maintain both the changes and the structural adjustment but with a continuing emphasis on equity, on which the Government has insisted since it came to office in 1983. We will not be sidetracked by documents produced in the secretariat of the Business Council which are partial, sectional and incognisant of the major national interests. Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Prime Minister share the concern of some of the more rational of his ministerial colleagues at the economic illiteracy of his Party's policy on uranium exports, which some have assessed at costing more than $4,500m in loss of foreign exchange earnings and about $860m in net taxation revenue loss? I ask the Prime Minister: How much more in loss of export earnings and tax revenue will his recently announced policy to ban any new uranium contracts with France until after the June Australian Labor Party conference cost Australia? Mr HAWKE —I indicate quite straightforwardly-it would be foolish not to do so-that there are strong differences of opinion within my Party on the question of uranium. However, the fact that there are strong differences of opinion in my Party does not make us unique on this issue or on the whole range of political issues. If one looks at the political spectrum in Australia and notes where there is a fundamental division of direction, the finger points at the other side of the House. The Opposition has a total incapacity to address issues of substance. Honourable members opposite spend their time counting heads, as they are now doing in the Liberal Party of Australia, as the latest challenge for the position of Leader of the Opposition gets under way, aided and abetted by the Federal President of the Liberal Party, who as far as honourable members opposite are concerned is a totally unguided missile and who yesterday delivered himself yet again of his notice of intention to knock off the present Leader of the Opposition. On the question of uranium, I acknowledge now, as I did for many years before I came into this place-when I was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-that in this Party this is an issue which understandably arouses strong emotions. As well as the economic considerations to which the right honourable gentleman referred, there are other considerations which may, in some people's judgment, at times be regarded as more emotional than rational. I have no problem with the fact that that range of views exists in my Party. I respect very much the decision and response of the Caucus today. What I seek to do within my Party is to encourage the processes of debate to take place in the forums of the Party. That will proceed both within the parliamentary Party and outside and this matter will be decided, as it properly should be, at the National Conference of the Party. Far from being embarrassed by that totally democratic and proper procedure, I am proud of it. I contrast our procedures on this side, where we encourage debate, with what happens on the other side, where, if anyone on the front bench has the temerity to express a point of view contrary to what is understood to be that of the Leader of the Opposition, he gets relegated to the back bench, which gives the position to which I referred yesterday: the honourable member for Menzies, the honourable member for Boothby and Senator Peter Baume-all that vast talent-being wasted. The honourable member for Franklin points at his substantial chest to say, `Me too'. As the honourable member for Franklin knows, when Opposition members first made the fundamental mistake of electing the honourable member for Bennelong as Leader, I said that there was one question that they should address to him and that was, `Why do you hate Tasmania?'. He does; he hates Tasmania. He would not give the Tasmanians a guernsey. So, not only do we see the waste of the considerable talents of the honourable member for Menzies, the honourable member for Boothby and Senator Peter Baume, but also I am indebted to the honourable member for Franklin for saying that he is another living example of the incapacity of the Leader of the Opposition to pick from the relatively meagre talent that exists and at least to make the best use of what is there. Mr LANGMORE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and relates to the Government's excellent initiative to call a summit on executive salaries. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of reports that data contained in a recent Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) paper have been used in a selective way to produce a highly misleading impression of the current trends in executive remuneration? Can the Minister advise the House of the correctness or otherwise of this statement? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of allegations of the kind mentioned by the honourable member for Fraser being made. Those allegations have been made by the Business Council of Australia following the Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting last Friday. Let me say at the outset that the Government totally rejects those allegations. I must say that I am rather surprised that such allegations would be made by the Business Council of Australia, a body for which over time I have had a considerable amount of respect but which seems to have run off the rails a bit lately. The material which was put to the Economic Planning Advisory Council compared movements in average weekly earnings and the award rates of pay index over the last two years with movements in executive remuneration as disclosed from various surveys. Those surveys were the May survey of earnings and hours by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), a survey by a private company, Cullen Egan Dell Australia Pty Ltd, and also a survey by the Australian Institute of Management. Each of those surveys showed that managerial remuneration had increased considerably faster than non-managerial remuneration. The ABS survey showed that in the year to May 1987 managerial earnings increased by 10.4 per cent, compared with 7.7 per cent for non-managerial earnings. The Cullen Egan Dell survey showed that total remuneration for senior management increased by 11 1/2 per cent in 1987 while average weekly earnings were increasing at 6.2 per cent in the year to August 1987-the latest figures available. The Australian Institute of Management figures showed a 7.8 per cent rise in general management remuneration in the year to August 1987-again ahead of average weekly earnings. It is clear from the evidence that executive remuneration has increased faster than that of wage and salary earners generally. The picture for a two-year period is similar. With regard to the allegations that selective figures were used, the Business Council alleged that in one of these surveys the most extreme example of 11 categories was taken. This refers to the Cullen Egan Dell survey, which contains 11 groups and in which data is produced for each of those groups. One of those 11 groups is senior management. It is the only group of the 11 which does not include non-managerial award exempt staff. It is the only survey that gives an indication of what is happening to senior management salaries and remuneration as against management as a whole. It is also being used by the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes, on which the Business Council has been represented for years, and has not been objected to. So there can be no suggestion of misrepresentation by its inclusion. In any case, if we had taken the whole 11 groups, we would have seen that their total remuneration had increased in 1987 by 8.4 per cent, still well above average weekly earnings and much further above award rates of pay. It has also been suggested by the Business Council that the faster rate of growth of executive remuneration can be explained by a cashing out of fringe benefits, particularly in 1986, due to the introduction of the fringe benefits tax. That is an absolutely misleading statement. The fact is that when one uses figures for total remuneration one includes fringe benefits. Whether they are paid in kind or in cash, they are included, and therefore it is essentially irrelevant to suggest that cashing out is the reason for some faster rate of growth of executive remuneration over that of wage and salary earners generally. In summary, the evidence is quite clear. There has been no misleading, no attempt to concoct a situation. There has simply been an array of available evidence given to EPAC to point out the differences in the rate of remuneration increase for executives, particularly senior executives, as against that of wage and salary earners generally. The Government believes that it is quite intolerable that, in the past couple of years, a period when wage and salary earners have been asked to forgo real income levels, and to suffer reductions in real wages, management, particularly senior management, has been giving itself substantial real income increases and not adhering in any way to the wage guidelines which its employees are obliged to adhere to. That is a quite unacceptable situation, and one which the Government is very concerned about. It has therefore decided to call a conference to discuss this issue with the Business Council, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Professions, small business and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to see what can be done to ensure that there is adherence across the board to the need for income restraint. Income restraint, which has been an essential part of our economic package in the last couple of years, must apply not just to wage and salary earners but to all levels of industry. Mr Spender —Come on! Mr WILLIS —I can see that the honourable member for North Sydney supports executives getting much higher increases than do wage and salary earners. We know that is the Liberal point of view. We know that the Liberals basically do not care about fairness and equity in these matters, that they support executives getting a much higher increase in income than do wage and salary earners. I hope that wage and salary earners around the nation note that honourable members on the other side are suggesting that they support that kind of action. I hope particularly that the people of New South Wales will take note of that kind of attitude on the part of the Liberal Party. The conference which is being called will consider ways in which we might have some greater assurance that there will be restraint across the board and that we will not have the situation which, from the evidence, clearly applies-a non-adherence to restraint by senior management in this country. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the Government's grave concerns, as expressed by Senator Button, regarding uranium sales and the threat of International Monetary Fund (IMF) intervention, when he said: I, and other Ministers, very much regretted the decision about uranium sales to France . . . we were as a Government concerned about exports. We were in a situation where we were in grave danger that the IMF would come in . . . I ask the Prime Minister to what extent the decision to sell uranium was made to avoid intervention by the IMF. Mr HAWKE —To no extent. Mr COURTICE —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware that the Queensland Government will launch a major study to see why Queensland has the worst unemployment rate in Australia? What is the Federal Government's response to this announcement? Mr DAWKINS —As the Government continues its activity and policy considerations about how to further stimulate the economy, of course we are interested in what other views might be floating around. If we are interested in what our opponents have to say on these issues, I suppose that we are entitled to look at three areas: first, what conservative governments are doing in the States in which they govern; secondly, the record of our opponents in office; and thirdly, what their policies might be as they enunciate them now. I found it quite breathtaking to hear what the new generation conservative Premier in Queensland, who was in Boston a couple of days ago, said when confronted by the difficult issue of why unemployment was highest in Queensland. He said, `We are going to launch a major inquiry to discover why that is so'. That had a ring of familiarity to me because I recall that in April 1985 the Queensland Government received the report of a task force on what to do about the high levels of unemployment in Queensland. It is a great pity that the Government did not read then or does not read now that report. The report makes two fundamental recommendations to the Queensland Government. The first is that it should remove unnecessary constraints which inhibit private development, particularly private investment, in Queensland. What we know is that after years and years of conservative rule in Queensland it has the most over-regulated economy of any State in Australia. To take as an example the way in which it batters the coal industry, one of the greatest contributors to our export performance, we find that $90m worth of straight blatant tax is ripped out of that industry. That is the source of nearly one-third of the entire revenue raised by the Queensland Government. So the first thing that the Queensland Government should do is take that withering tax off the coal industry to allow it to expand further. This leads us to the clear explanation as to why the rate of investment is lower in Queensland than anywhere else in Australia. The second important recommendation that was made in 1985 was that the most effective way to solve the problem of unemployment was to boost economic growth. That is a message which this Government has taken up with a great deal of enthusiasm. We know that if we want to encourage economic growth we have to take the hard decisions and systematically work through the problems which constitute barriers to economic growth and remove those barriers. The Queensland Government has shown itself incapable of doing the hard work and once again we find that it is interested in setting up a smokescreen in an attempt to avoid the embarrassing fact that its State has the highest rate of unemployment anywhere in Australia. It is worth noting that the second highest rate of unemployment in Australia is in Tasmania, another State which has a conservative government. The lowest levels of unemployment are in the two Labor States of New South Wales and Victoria. In conclusion I want to look at the record of our opponents and the record of us in office on this important question. In the first five years of the Hawke Government we created one million jobs, three times the number of jobs that were created in the five-year period in which the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. It is quite obvious that our opponents have learnt nothing in office in Queensland or out of office in Canberra. They are still bereft of policies and totally devoid of the ideas which Australia needs in order to solve its problems. What the people of Australia know and what we know is that this Government will consistently, persistently and continuously work its way through its policy development in order to ensure the further development of our economy. Mr PEACOCK —I address my question to the Treasurer. I remind him that on 27 October I asked him why some financial enterprises, in particular State government insurance offices, have been permitted to become substantial net borrowers in recent years. I asked what measures are being undertaken by State governments to reduce the net borrowing of the respective insurance offices in order to place these organisations on a sound financial basis. The Treasurer replied: . . . I will need to check that and I will certainly furnish the honourable gentleman with a reply. On Tuesday, 3 November I reminded the Treasurer that I was still awaiting his reply. Well over three months have gone by and I am still awaiting a reply. Is the New South Wales State Government Insurance Office one of the organisations that contributed to the large increase in the borrowing of public financial enterprises? If so, is the New South Wales Government one of the governments referred to on page 418 of the Budget Papers which are `in the process of addressing the problem'? Mr KEATING —I thought the honourable member had forgotten about it, but he obviously has not. I made this clear yesterday. I am sure that the honourable gentleman understands the distinction between financial institutions and non-financial institutions, be they Commonwealth or State. I am also sure that he understands the reasons why they are not part of the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR). I simply make the point, if the point is a disguised imputation about New South Wales, that the net borrowing requirement for New South Wales is estimated to fall by 9.2 per cent in real terms in 1987-88 as against minus 2.84 per cent for all the States and the Northern Territory and that its net borrowings are estimated at about 1.6 per cent of State gross product, which is less than all the State averages and second lowest of all the States. That is the position of New South Wales. The Commonwealth is not, and would not seek to be, in a position to be second guessing every investment decision of a State government insurance office. That is a responsibility of the State governments. It is for the Minister responsible in the State governments to ensure the prudent management of State instrumentalities, including financial instrumentalities such as government insurance offices. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we have sought to rein back in the State borrowings which were permitted to explode by the former Government under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer. When I became Treasurer, only 25 per cent of State government borrowings were under the control of the Loan Council. We re-established the global limits to try to call back in and count all those surrogate borrowings, direct and indirect, so that we could have a better understanding of the size of the PSBR. It is a matter of record now that the public sector borrowing requirement was, incredibly, 8 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) when the Government came to office; it is now roughly 2 per cent of GDP. That large decline in the PSBR has been accomplished mainly with the burden falling on the Commonwealth, but with a reduction in the gross PSBR, and now the net PSBR, of the States. As we have tightened up on the gross public sector borrowing requirement, the propensity and capacity of State governments to spend and to draw down their financial reserves, or their hollow logs, as they are called, have lowered the net PSBR, which earlier this year we had estimated at 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product and which the Australian Statistician has now revised down to 1.9 per cent of GDP. So if the point of the question is about financial responsibility and the implication is about the control of bidding by the public sector for resources within this country, it is only this Government which has taken the view that the States should not be allowed to borrow rampantly and that the globals were re-established to bring some order back to the size of the public sector. Given the fact that the high requirement of policy now is to add to the pool of Australian savings, or to free up those savings for investment by further public sector dis-saving, the Commonwealth will continue to pursue a rigorous fiscal policy in its own right, against its own Commonwealth authorities and in respect of the States. Mr Tuckey —Are you going to answer the question? Mr KEATING —The honourable member does not understand the implications of the question. So only this Government has understood that that massive call upon savings by the public sector was not sustainable in the economic conditions we faced. The freeing up of those savings by this program of public sector dis-saving will continue. That rigour will be applied in the forthcoming May statement and Budget and also in the forthcoming Premiers Conference. Mr PRICE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the unwillingness of the Opposition to engage the Government in debate on the major economic issues, can the Prime Minister-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I cannot hear the question. Mr PRICE —For the benefit of honourable members opposite, I repeat: In view of the unwillingness of the Opposition to engage the Government in debate on the major economic issues, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's approach to economic management and social justice? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The answer is: Yes, I can. The honourable member will understand that, as far as this Government is concerned, there is a constant interrelationship between the pursuit of proper economic management and social justice. It has been through the Government's policies and economic management, in the area of fiscal policy, wages policy and monetary policy, and through industrial reconstruction, that we have created-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will those who are holding conversations in the aisles please resume their seats. Mr HAWKE —We must excuse the two at the table, Madam Speaker. They are working out who will be the referee in the debate between Elliott and Fraser in Higgins. Whom is the honourable member for Higgins backing? Mr Shipton —Him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair was interested only in those who were standing. Mr HAWKE —You even had Andrew laughing at that one, Roger. I return to matters much more serious than the comedies being pursued on the other side. It is the pursuit of our economic policy, with the spectacular success that we have had, which has allowed us at the same time to pursue our goal of greater social justice in the Australian community. I should like to list for the honourable member for Chifley just six of the significant achievements in this area. First, paramount amongst them is that which has been referred to by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins; paramount among the social achievements has been the creation of one million new jobs. When on behalf of this great Party and this great Government at the beginning of 1983 I promised that in three years we would create half a million new jobs, I ask the House to recall the derision with which we were met by those opposite. Of course, they derided us because they applied to us the same criteria and standards of economic ineptitude which had characterised their own time in government. They simply did not believe that any government in this country could create half a million jobs in three years. As the honourable member will recall, we created the half a million jobs well within the three years-and now, in less than five years, we have created one million new jobs. That is the greatest contribution that any government in this country can make to the pursuit of social justice, because we know that the greatest single cause of poverty in this country is unemployment. As my colleague the Minister just said, not only is that three times the rate of employment growth in a comparable period under the collection of people opposite, but it is twice the rate of job creation in the whole of the Western world. That is something of which not only this Government but the whole of this country should be proud. So, that is the first thing that we have achieved. Secondly, we have introduced-this should be a matter of pride to everyone in this Parliament, irrespective of where they sit-the family assistance package, which has brought $22 per week tax free to those most in need. It is the greatest single contribution to the elimination of child poverty in the history of this country. Thirdly, we have more than doubled in real terms the funding from this Government for public housing in Australia. That is the third contribution. Fourthly, and in some senses perhaps the most significant of all, we have dealt with that miserable legacy we inherited from seven years of conservative incompetence which preceded us when we had one of the lowest retention rates of our children in secondary schools-only 36 per cent of children stayed in school beyond the compulsory age. It was nothing less than a national disgrace. By 1987 we have lifted that from 36 per cent to 53 per cent which is proof positive that we will deliver on our promise that by the beginning of the 1990s we will have something like 65 per cent of our children staying beyond the compulsory age. That will do what should have been done under all those years of conservative neglect. It will give us a rate of retention of our kids in the education system which we can compare favourably and honourably with the rest of the world. If you want one single indictment of these people who have no care and concern for the ordinary people of this country, that was the legacy of 36 per cent that we inherited. Fifthly, is the fact that in terms of trying to assist those families most in need by trying to get their kids to stay in the education system, we have trebled the assistance in the secondary allowance from $17 a week to $50 a week. That is a measure of the way we have tried to make sure that the children who come from the less privileged homes in this country will have the opportunity of doing what any government should have as its No. 1 priority, trying to ensure that every child, irrespective of social or income levels, should have an equal opportunity to develop the talents that lie within that boy or girl. Sixthly, and finally, by way of example, I go to the fact that as a result of the policies of this Government we have eliminated from the face of this country that obscenity which we inherited where two million Australians had no cover if they were blighted by ill health. Two million of our fellow Australians were in that situation. By introducing a system of universal coverage we have removed that blight from Australia. So, Madam Speaker, that is a list of six fundamental things we have done in pursuing competent and sensible economic management. We have created conditions in which we can improve the social status of the people of this country, particularly those most in need. That stands as a great credit to this Government and to this Party and it stands in glaring contrast to this rabble of an Opposition which cannot come up with one single alternative social or economic policy but which takes up its time in the miserable pursuit of changing a leader year after year. Now we are in round four where this leader will be knocked off again by the Federal President of his Party. Mr TUCKEY —I address the fifth Opposition question today to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 November 1987 quoting the Chairman of the national prices network, Mr George Gear, which in part said: . . . the Labor backbencher chairing the National Prices Network, Mr George Gear, said he had been given documentary proof from the Health Insurance Commission showing that some doctors had charged more than six times the schedule fee. Mr Gear said he had been provided with a computer printout of recent cases from the Commission, the body responsible for Medicare payments . . . The article goes on to give specific information from that printout. Mr Gear was also quoted in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 22 February 1988 as saying that, `based on Medicare data' and the quote continues. I ask the Minister: On whose authority did the Health Insurance Commission provide this confidential information to Mr Gear or the National Prices Network and on what legal authority did Mr Gear disclose this information to the Sydney Morning Herald and other media interests? Dr BLEWETT —The chairman of the price watch committee, as part of his work on that committee, approached me in relation to information about overcharging for medical services in this country. He was provided, through my office, with material containing no identification of doctor, provider number or patient, but simply illustrative examples of the types of overcharging that took place in a small section of the medical profession. Let me say quite plainly that something like 73 per cent of all medical services in this country are charged at or below the schedule fee. It is only a small minority of the profession who have continued overcharging practices. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, I wonder whether I can have your indulgence very briefly or, alternatively, ask you a question under standing order 152. The Treasurer has been asked questions on notice by Opposition and Government members and I refer you to four instances: 17 September 1987, three questions unanswered; 18 September 1987, four questions unanswered; 15 September 1987, three questions unanswered, and 24 September 1987, one question unanswered. Madam Speaker, I inquire of you how we can operate properly as an opposition to get answers out of the Treasurer when he simply either fails or refuses to answer questions which have been put on notice, which are on notice for many months and which he treats with the same contempt as he treats the processes of this House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now trying to debate the issue. To my knowledge, I do not think that the Chair has any authority in this area. However, I will look at the matter and let the honourable member know. To the best of my knowledge I do not think that I can do anything about it. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- * Standards, accreditation and quality-text of a statement. Remuneration Tribunal-1987 Review-sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. National Museum of Australia-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the National Museum of Australia Act 1980 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. * Statement made in the Senate on 22 February 1988 by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-Since the publication of the Dibb report on Australia's Defence Capabilities 18 months ago, there has been much discussion of Australian defence policy and the key concepts that underlie that policy. This Government has fostered that discussion, seeking to encourage the exchange and development of ideas between the defence establishment and the community at large. As honourable members are aware, this process culminated last year in the release of the policy information paper The Defence of Australia-the first White Paper on Australian defence policy for 11 years. This exchange of views is a two-way process and will, I hope, lead to a more thorough understanding of the substance of our defence policy among the broader community. My aim today is to continue that process by outlining the actions the Government is taking in our regional defence relations to reinforce the positive factors in our strategic environment. Much of the public debate on Australia's defence policy since the publication of the Dibb review has concentrated on force structure issues. In my statement to this House almost a year ago on 19 March 1987, I noted that this Government has established the course for a decade or more of development of a self-reliant capability for the defence of Australia. We have developed a force structure plan specifically tailored to Australia's unique strategic circumstances. We are pressing ahead with the largest capital equipment program for the ADF in Australia's peacetime history. What has often been overlooked is that the same capabilities that we are developing for the defence of Australia are well suited to co-operation with our regional and other defence partners. It is salutary to remember that Australia's self-reliant defence posture has been developed within the framework of our alliances and regional associations. These associations are of great importance to us. Relations with countries within our area of primary strategic interest are crucial because it is within this area that developments can have the most direct impact on Australia's security prospects. In October and November last year I undertook a series of visits to some of our neighbours in South East Asia and the South-West Pacific. Those visits had three main purposes. Firstly, I wanted to explain to our neighbours the direction of Australian defence policy following the publication of our White Paper, and particularly to explain how we see the development of our defence relations with our neighbours in the light of that policy. Secondly, I wanted to learn from our neighbours how they perceive their own strategic circumstances and military needs, and to learn how they think Australia could best co-operate with them to protect mutual interests. Thirdly, I wanted to discuss a number of specific proposals for defence co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours. My talks in the countries I visited were very fruitful in all these respects, and as a result I believe we have now established a solid framework of defence relations with our neighbours. I have sought this opportunity to address the House so that I may describe this framework of regional defence relations, explain how it fits into our overall defence policy, and outline the practical co-operative activities which will give our regional defence relationships real substance. Close attention to our regional defence relations is important at this time because many of the policies, assumptions and habits which for decades provided the strategic and operational basis for much of our regional defence activity have, over the past few years, been overtaken by important changes. Not the least important of these changes has been our adoption, in the defence White Paper, of a defence policy which defines a rigorous national strategy for Australia to achieve a self-reliant defence posture. I believe that our self-reliant defence policy is well understood by our regional neighbours as an effective and achievable program to meet our military needs. In particular, I found rather less inclination among our neighbours than I do among people at home to confuse self-reliance with isolationism. This confusion is evident among many who have commented on the Dibb Review and the White Paper. Until it is understood that self-reliance requires, rather than precludes, active defence relations with our neighbours, the rationale of our regional defence co-operation will not be clear. When people get confused about Australia's strategic circumstances, it is usually because they are applying the principles of the 1930s to the problems of the 1980s. In the 1930s, Australians had a stark choice. Australia could either commit itself to the imperial system of naval defence, or it could develop land and air forces to defend the continent. Our strategic and financial circumstances enforced a clear choice between alliance and isolationism. This view of our defence position persisted into the 1960s and 1970s in the debate over forward defence versus Fortress Australia. But while the dilemma may have been genuine in the 1930s, it was much less clear in the 1960s. Today it is meaningless. With careful planning, Australia can now maintain a defence force which can both defend our territories and approaches and contribute to the security of our broader region. Australia no longer needs to make a choice between self-reliance on the one hand and our network of alliances and regional associations on the other. We have the capacity-and indeed the requirement-to do both. The lessons of history, geography and commonsense all show that Australia's defence posture cannot ignore the strategic circumstance of our neighbourhood. Even if we wanted to, we have no choice but to develop and maintain our own defence links with our neighbours as an essential aspect of our self-reliant defence posture. We can no longer see our defence role in our region simply as an adjunct to our broader alliances. That is no longer acceptable to us or to our allies, who will increasingly look to us to play a larger role in the region as their own resources shrink, nor is it acceptable to our neighbours, who look to Australia to play an independent role in our region commensurate with our size and resources. Our self-reliant defence posture is essential to our role in the strategic affairs of our region, as it is also to our broader alliances. It is very important to understand what that means in purely military terms. The Defence Force structure which we have adopted in the White Paper as a blueprint for the Australian Defence Force provides Australia with an unprecedented capability to deploy military forces throughout our region and to co-operate with our neighbours in support of our security. The development of Australia's self-reliant defence capabilities provides great opportunities. Our capacity for security co-operation in our region will expand as we increase our fleet with long-range ships and submarines, provide the latest combat aircraft with airborne refuelling, improve surveillance capabilities, relocate major facilities closer to our neighbours in the north and west of Australia, and increase the firepower, mobility and deployability of our ground forces. This is no accident. We regard it as an essential element of Australia's defence posture that the capabilities we develop to provide for our own defence should also provide us with the capability to play our part in maintaining regional security. This has been obscured by a misunderstanding about the geographical delineation of our strategic interests. Our area of direct military interest, defined in the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities as extending 4,000 miles from east to west and 3,000 miles from north to south, identifies the area in which Australia must be able to exert-independently-decisive military power. The clear definition of our area of direct military interest is central to decisions about the sorts of military capabilities we need to develop. But the area of direct military interest does not circumscribe the regions in which Australia recognises that it has strategic interests, nor does it circumscribe the areas in which we recognise the need to develop defence co-operation with neighbours to achieve shared strategic goals. Indeed, we have described a much larger area of broad strategic interest, covering one-quarter of the earth's surface and including all the nations of South East Asia and the South West Pacific. Within this area of broad strategic interest we intend to develop and maintain defence relations, co-operate in the development of defence capabilities, and undertake military deployments, visits and exercises with our regional neighbours. As I have said, one of the major aims of my recent visits was to learn how our neighbours perceive strategic developments in our region. I was struck by the much more balanced discussion of strategic issues among our neighbours than is often seen here. In Australia the strategic circumstances of our region are often discussed in a very negative way-in terms of identifying prospective military threats to Australia. As an illustration of the prevalence of vague and simplistic threat perceptions that underlie this approach, I need only point to the reaction in come circles to last year's unacceptable political developments in Fiji. In response to these developments, some commentators called for a review of Australia's defence policy. What was evident once again was a failure to distinguish between events we do not like and those which threaten our security. The point is that with no clear-cut understanding of these distinctions we miss the appropriate political-military response. It is particularly important that we get that distinction right when we examine issues such as those arising from the Soviet position in Cam Ranh Bay. History is replete with examples of the dangers of allowing this thinking to go unchallenged. Defence policy makers and politicians since the war have often been led astray by responding to suggested threats to our national security based on inadequate strategic appreciations. The results have been disastrous to effective defence policy making. This point is particularly apposite in considering the kind of defence relations we should pursue with countries in our region of broader strategic interest. We are indeed fortunate in that we share a region with neighbours with whom we have many common strategic perspectives. We recognise, however, that the region is continually changing and becoming more complex. Greater interest is being shown in the South Pacific by external powers than previously. We have all been disappointed by the political upheavals in Fiji and continued instability in the Philippines. South Pacific island countries are keenly aware of their economic vulnerability and this will continue to provide opportunities for countries with interests inimical to our own. At the same time, in South East Asia a number of our regional neighbours are developing, on a national basis, increasingly sophisticated military capabilities for external defence. None of these developments in our region of broader strategic interest directly threatens our own security. But they demand that we adjust our thinking and co-operative activities to contemporary change. Regional strategic developments require careful analysis so that they are understood accurately. This is fundamental. For too long, the Australian public has been served up a distorted analysis of events in our region by those who are imbued with the shibboleths of past eras of strategic thinking. The notion that Australia has a role to play as `regional policeman' in South East Asia and the South Pacific is the prime example of this outdated thinking. Those who advocate that Australia should still play such a role totally neglect to consider that since the 1950s and 1960s the nations of South East Asia have impressed the world by the way they have met the challenges of political and economic development. As part of that extraordinary development, the nations of the region have developed their own armed forces to the point where they no longer look primarily to others to provide for their own defence. In the South Pacific, the island groups have developed into independent nations with their own strategic perceptions and concerns. With the exception of the French territories and American Samoa, Pacific countries have moved from their former dependent colonial status to full independence or to political self-determination. More recently we have seen the rise of indigenous nationalism as the island states have developed their own and, in many cases, regional approaches to dealing with domestic and international issues. As I noted in my statement in February last year, these processes are inevitable and reflect the growing international self-confidence and self-reliance of the island states. In these circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive for Australia to seek to impose its will on regional countries. Australia's role, and its only proper role, is to act as a partner with our regional neighbours. In pursuing this role, we have to recognise that it is a complex process which requires the balancing of a diverse range of considerations. With some nations in our area of direct military interest we have long established defence relations going back many decades. In others we have just begun to develop defence relations with newly independent nations. In the case of our long established defence relations with some countries of South East Asia, the challenge is to adapt those relations to changing circumstances. The changes on both sides make some of the old forms of co-operation outdated, while opening many new opportunities in other areas. Our aim in adapting to these changes with our South East Asian partners has been to preserve as much as possible of the underlying political framework of co-operation, leaving us free to reshape the actual content of co-operation as much as necessary. Perhaps the clearest example of this process is the evolution of our participation with Malaysia and Singapore in the five power defence arrangements (FPDA). The FPDA were established in 1971 between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to support the security of Malaysia and Singapore after the withdrawal of British forces east of Suez. Australia believes that the five power defence arrangements remain relevant to our objective of promoting regional stability and security, and we continue to support them. But the material form of our support will soon change in some important ways. Next month, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) FA18 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft will deploy to Butterworth for the first time to coincide with the return to Australia of the Mirages before being withdrawn from service. Under the FPDA's integrated air defence system, Australia has based Mirage aircraft at Butterworth in Malaysia for many years. This has been a substantial commitment, involving up to two-thirds of our total fighter strength. The Mirage is now being replaced in the RAAF by the FA18. The introduction of the FA18 has required us to re-examine all aspects of our operations and deployments, including the basing of aircraft at Butterworth. We have concluded that the enormous capabilities of the Hornets could most effectively be exploited by basing all aircraft in Australia, and deploying them on rotation to bases in Malaysia and Singapore. The technical reasons for that decision are important to understand. Firstly, the FA18 requires less frequent maintenance than the Mirage, which means that it can operate for much longer periods away from its support base. On the other hand, the infrastructure required to maintain the FA18 when this is required is much greater than for the Mirage, because the new aircraft is considerably more sophisticated and capable. Taken together, these two factors mean that it is much more efficient to centralise maintenance and other support facilities for the FA18 than to disperse those facilities around the different areas where the aircraft will be operating. This policy of centralising support facilities does not restrict the scope of operations of the FA18, because it is much more easily deployed over long distances than the Mirage. It has much longer range, and it can be refuelled in the air. This means that an FA18 can be deployed from Australia to South East Asia in four hours and it can then stay there without elaborate support for a significant time. Lastly, we are developing a major base for the FA18 at Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory. Tindal is as close to Singapore as it is to Canberra. So the FA18 will never be far away from South East Asia. These then are the reasons why we have decided, in consultation with the Malaysian and Singaporean governments, to alter the basis of our contribution to the air defence of this area when the FA18s are introduced. Instead of basing aircraft in Malaysia permanently, squadrons of FA18s will deploy to Malaysia and Singapore for a total of at least sixteen weeks of the year. We will also commence rotational deployments of our F111 long-range strike aircraft to Malaysia and Singapore. It is most important to understand that our decision to move from permanent basing of aircraft in Malaysia to rotational deployments from Australia is based on the technical characteristics and capabilities of our new aircraft, and is aimed at maximising the contribution these aircraft make to the security of the region. A significant presence of several hundred Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, including an Army rifle company, will be maintained at Butterworth to support these deployments and other activities continuing there. The Government believes that this program clearly demonstrates our continuing willingness to commit a significant proportion of our Air Force to the support of regional security through the integrated air defence system. We also believe that the new arrangements will allow fuller and more appropriate co-operation with the growing capabilities and expertise of the Malaysian and Singaporean air forces. These will not be our only aircraft deployments to this region. We will maintain a program of continuous rotational deployment of PC3 long-range maritime patrol aircraft through Butterworth. Malaysia's and our own surveillance of the region provides a valuable contribution to regional surveillance efforts by monitoring the busy seaways of the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca. Across the whole spectrum of our defence co-operation in South East Asia, we are adapting to the growing sophistication of the defence forces of our partners. This has been reflected in a growing trend away from the old equipment based programs in which Australia would supply the hardware and training to develop a distinct capability within another nation's defence force. That sort of program is no longer appropriate. Instead the emphasis is on service to service training and exchanges of personnel, with much greater scope for mutual benefit both to our neighbours' defence forces and to our own. The nature of our defence activities in South East Asia is also changing in the light of changes in our naval forces. We will expand our fleet with the introduction of new frigates and submarines. The progressive transfer of half the fleet from its present base in Sydney to Western Australia significantly enhances the Navy's ability to deploy to South East Asia. While I was in South East Asia last year I proposed to the governments of Malaysia and Singapore that Australia would, if they agreed, establish a pattern of rotational deployments to our five-power defence arrangements partners in the region. This proposal received the support of both governments. The deployments will begin soon, and the rotational patterns will be fully established next year. We will also substantially increase our naval contribution to the region by providing what will be in effect the continuous presence of a major combatant of the Royal Australian Navy in South East Asian waters. While there, the Australian ships and submarines will train and exercise with regional navies, to the benefit of both. Other new opportunities also arose during my visit to expand defence co-operation in the region. In Bangkok it was agreed to establish a series of combined exercises in Thailand by Australian and Thai army units at company level. This will add a new dimension to our defence co-operation with Thailand. My visit to Brunei, the first by an Australian Defence Minister, gave me an opportunity to review the direction of our defence relationship with that country. We regard Brunei as an important member of our region, and are keen to develop our defence relationship with it. We have been pleased to see that our defence relations with Brunei have developed substantially since Brunei's independence four years ago. Activities have focused on Royal Brunei armed forces training and exercising in Australia, but we hope to expand that with ADF visits to Brunei and other activities. Although we have an increasingly substantial program of defence activities with regional countries, we have been disappointed to see some decline in the level of our co-operative activities with Indonesia. We regard Indonesia as a valuable security partner and continue to place importance on the maintenance of sound and constructive defence relations. I would like to see our defence contacts broadened beyond the former focus on materiel-based projects towards a range of other activities such as exercises, senior level visits and personnel exchanges, which will lead to a mature and reciprocal relationship appropriate to two neighbouring countries. Such co-operation must, of course, be a two-way process and on the basis of mutual respect for the fundamental features of our respective social and political systems. This year we will spend $18m on defence co-operation with South East Asian nations. Generally in South East Asia we remain a welcome partner. We must be sensitive to the fact that our friends have occasional differences in international outlook with us and we must be careful to ensure that our co-operation with them is seen in a purely regional context. We must also recognise that with developments in the defence forces of the countries of South East Asia our co-operation is very much of mutual benefit-in other words, not only to them but also to us. Our defence relations with Papua New Guinea (PNG) fall into a special category. Australia's defence links with PNG have their historic origins in the period of Australian administration of that country and the establishment of the Pacific Island Regiment under Australian leadership. The strength of our defence co-operation is based on that common historical experience and the abiding strategic importance of Papua New Guinea for Australian security. Since independence, Australia has maintained a large defence co-operation program with PNG. In recent years that program has accounted for around half of our entire defence co-operation effort, costing over $20m. This year our defence co-operation program with PNG totals $23m. In the years immediately following independence in 1975, our defence co-operation with PNG tended to reflect the colonial defence arrangements before independence. In the mid-1970s there were still some 500 Australian service personnel on loan to the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) integrated into all areas of PNGDF activities. Since then Papua New Guinea has evolved an independent defence force drawing on the skills and resources of the PNG people. As the PNGDF has evolved our defence co-operation program has evolved with it. Australian service personnel integrated into the PNGDF have been largely replaced by PNG nationals, and the focus of our efforts has moved to training, advisory and materiel assistance. This process of evolution from a colonial defence relationship was finally concluded late last year with the signature by our two Prime Ministers of the Joint Declaration of Principles. That document includes clauses on defence which mark the beginning of a new phase of our defence relationship with PNG. Those clauses mark the maturing of our defence relationship to a full and equal partnership between sovereign nations. Importantly, the defence section of the Joint Declaration begins with the recognition that Australia and PNG are each responsible for their own defence. Honourable members will recall that other clauses relate to important elements of our defence co-operation activities, while the last clause expresses our intention to consult at the request of either party in the event of external armed attack which threatens the national sovereignty of either country. Such consultation would be for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken, jointly or separately, in relation to that attack. I regard the defence section of the Joint Declaration as an important statement of our enduring support for the security of PNG and as a significant symbol of the growth of our defence relationship to full maturity. As such, the declaration is a credit to the PNG Government which initiated it. The PNG Government's defence initiatives have not been limited to the diplomatic front. It has developed a series of policies to which we are glad to respond in formulating our co-operative programs. One example is the PNGDF's engineering activity. Prime Minister Wingti and his Defence Minister, Mr Pokasui, are keen to expand the role of the PNGDF in such activities. The Australian Defence Force has a long involvement in engineering in PNG-for example, in the long term deployment of an Army engineering unit to Mendi. While I was in PNG last year the expansion of our engineering assistance to the PNGDF was raised and it was agreed that we would work in conjunction with the PNGDF on an increased range of engineering tasks for infrastructure development. Another important initiative arising from my visit is our agreement to upgrade the facilities of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force patrol boat base at Manus Island. That facility has clear importance to the significant work done by the PNG Defence Force maritime component in resources surveillance. The improved facilities will allow us to deploy, for extended periods, Royal Australian Navy patrol boats to Manus Island, and my Department is currently examining the operational aspects of these deployments. This initiative, combined with increased deployments of Royal Australian Air Force long-range maritime patrol aircraft to cover the northern area of Papua New Guinea's exclusive economic zone, will ensure that our co-operative effort in maritime surveillance will be extensive and efficient. These initiatives are being taken against the background of a very large and diverse defence co-operation relationship which includes an annual series of combined exercises, training in Australia for over 200 PNGDF personnel each year, and a wide range of in-country technical and advisory support, consultancy and project activity. In recent years we have been glad to see a number of other countries, particularly the United States of America and New Zealand, develop their own defence relationships with Papua New Guinea. We welcome this diversification of Papua New Guinea's defence co-operation to include our allies. It provides valuable additional assistance to the PNGDF, and is clear evidence of the growing maturity of Papua New Guinea's international defence relationships. At the start of this speech I spoke of the great changes in our region which have required us to restructure our defence relations. Of those changes none has been greater than the emergence, over the past 15 years, of a complex community of independent nations in the South West Pacific. In historical terms, the creation of this community is very recent. We in Australia are only now coming to know the individual countries which have appeared to our north and east as distinctive entities, with separate traditions, resources, and policies. Last year in a statement to this House I announced that we would be placing a high priority on developing these defence relations-indeed, that we would give them the same priority as we give to our long-standing defence relations with PNG and the nations of South East Asia. In the defence area we are only beginning to establish relations with the island nations. My visit to the Solomons, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu last year was the first by any Australian Defence Minister to any of these countries. But we have made a very good start. We have responded to the clearly expressed priorities of the island nations by undertaking, in co-operation with New Zealand, an integrated approach to helping the island states to exercise the most fundamental element of nationhood-sovereign control of their lands and waters. Last year's events in Fiji have the potential to pose long term problems for our co-operative defence activities in the South Pacific, especially our longer range objective of promoting a network for regional maritime surveillance. Defence co-operation with Fiji remains suspended and its resumption is dependent on future developments in Fiji. In recognition of the important interests we share with Fiji, the Government will continue to keep that relationship under review. The central pillar of our effort to assist the South West Pacific nations is, of course, the Pacific patrol boat (PPB) program. Three boats have now been handed over: two to PNG and one to Vanuatu. This year, boats will be presented to Western Samoa, the Solomons and PNG. We have been pleased by the way the boats have been received, and by the way they are being put into service. In Vanuatu, for example, the Government has been so impressed with the work the boat has been doing that it has asked that we send up an RAN patrol boat to stand in while the RVS Tokoro returns to Townsville for scheduled maintenance. We have been delighted to respond; the HMAS Cessnock will spend over six weeks in Vanuatu. As the program has progressed we are improving the boat and the package of training and support which goes with it. For example, learning from our early experiences, we have decided from now on to install air-conditioning in the Pacific patrol boats, and to retrofit it to those already delivered. We are also taking a flexible attitude to the specific needs of different recipients of the boat. For example, the Cook Islands has asked us to look at installing extra freezer capability in its boat, and we have been glad to respond. Vanuatu has asked for some armament to be fitted, and that has been done. In view of their special budgetary problems, Kiribati and Tuvalu have asked us to look at ways of extending the support package for the Pacific patrol boat program to enable them to join the program. Again, we have agreed to see what we can do. One of the most important elements of the PPB program is the deployment of RAN officers and technical experts for extended periods to each participating country to assist in establishing and operating these vessels. These are the men who will make the PPB program work, and they are doing an outstanding job. They are laying important foundations of goodwill and competence upon which our defence relations with these countries will be built. Next month my Department, in association with the New Zealand Department of Defence and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, is sponsoring a maritime surveillance seminar in which all member countries of the South Pacific Forum will participate. The seminar will discuss operational and procedural aspects of maritime surveillance activities in the region. It will provide an opportunity for regional country representatives to gain insight into the policies and operations of other regional countries and will allow participants to exchange views on these developments. During my visit to the South Pacific, island leaders expressed their appreciation of our cooperative defence activities and particularly of our Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol flights, which have been increased, and our RAN ship visits. As more Pacific patrol boats are brought into service by regional countries, increased opportunities will be taken by the RAN to exercise with the PPBs. The progress that has been achieved to date in this area puts us closer to the realisation of our objective: to assist regional maritime co-operation and eventually to establish a network for regional maritime surveillance based on co-operation and compatible national efforts. As a further step towards this objective, I announced during my visit to the Solomon Islands that I would have my Department examine the possibility of making available a maritime surveillance aircraft to be at the disposal of Forum island countries to meet their immediate surveillance needs. Other elements of our defence co-operation with South West Pacific nations include civil engineering projects, often in remote locations, and assistance with communications. The Australian Defence Force also gives important assistance to our South West Pacific neighbours in national emergencies like cyclones. This assistance is very important, and much appreciated. This year we have budgeted $16m for defence co-operation in the South West Pacific. If anyone should entertain any doubts about the importance of the nations in our region to Australia's own security, I would recommend that he or she visit, as I did late last year, the islands of Guadalcanal and Singapore. Guadalcanal is now the site of the capital of the Solomons, Honiara, and a visit there can be recommended to anyone for its charm and peace. But no-one with a sense of history can go there and not be awed by the immediacy of the great battle that was fought there 45 years ago this year. That battle was a battle for Australia, and Australians fought in it-as the wreck of HMAS Canberra, lying in Ironbottom Sound, attests. Singapore has, if anything, an even starker strategic message for Australians. The fall of Singapore in February 1942 was the darkest moment Australia has known in 200 years, and underlined unambiguously that Australia's security is tied to the security of South East Asia. But equally a visit to these places today teaches that we must adapt our defence co-operation with our neighbours to the changes in our region. The policies of the 1950s will serve us poorly in the 1990s. I believe that the policies we are adopting and which I have sketched to the House today will serve us well in promoting the security of our region through co-operation activities with our neighbours, and I commend them to the House. I present the following paper: Australia's Regional Defence Policy: Self-reliance and Co-operation-Ministerial Statement, 23 February 1988. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mrs Kelly)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for McPherson speaking for a period not exceeding 35 minutes. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.23) —I thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for providing me with a copy of the statement in good time. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his new job. I know that he was looking for a new job, but he did not expect to keep the old one at the same time. That is bad luck. Mr Lee —He is doing too good a job. Mr WHITE —If the way he is addressing his new job is the way that he will address his old one, we are all in trouble. This rather lengthy paper is another attempt at defence sleight of hand. It has set out to reassure some of our friends and allies in the area. I believe that it will frighten them to death and that they will be saying now, `Where do we go?'. It is based on the White Paper, to which the Minister keeps referring-understandably, as his future is staked on it. The White Paper is falling apart. This statement is based on so-called new initiatives for friends and allies in the area. There are virtually no new programs in this statement and, more importantly, there is no money to implement those that have been mentioned. It is based on the fact that foreign affairs and defence in the Government are moving on two diverging tracks. If there were co-ordination and co-operation between the two, perhaps it would give heart to some of our friends and allies. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) is racing around Africa handing out millions of dollars like a drunken sailor, while we give a paltry few million dollars to the countries the Minister for Defence claims are so important to our regional security. There is no way the statement which has just been read out will do anything except upset those friends and allies in our region. Certainly it will force them to question our sincerity and sense of priorities so far as Australian defence is concerned. Do honourable members seriously expect countries in our security region to which this paper is addressed to listen to the gobbledegook to which we have just been subjected for 40 minutes and say that Australia is serious about helping them with a paltry few million dollars and no new programs, when the Foreign Minister has just handed out $6m to a communist country, Mozambique? The amount of $6m is about half the money we are giving to all the South Pacific countries under our defence co-operation program. It is a joke. The fact is that the total of our defence co-operation program in 1987-88 is $58m. The same amount as last year, $23m, is going to Papua New Guinea and foreign aid, as distinct from defence aid, has been reduced. The South Pacific nations will get $15m and the whole of the countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations will get $18m. How does one equate that with the track the Minister for Foreign Affairs is taking in Africa with countries that have little effect on us and are even less likely to be our friends? It is no wonder that Australia's influence in South East Asia and the Pacific area has been steadily declining in recent years. The introspective attitudes of this Government are part of the cause. They have clearly demonstrated that the Government is concerned only with what is specifically Australian territory. There is a wide divergence between foreign affairs and defence and there is a lack of any ability in our defence forces any longer to reach out in any capacity and assist friends and allies. We sent troops to Fiji. Thank God they did not have to do anything, because there were no landing craft even to get them ashore. If that is an example of our ability to reach out and help people, it is a pathetic state of affairs. Australia is part of South East Asia. It is part of the Pacific. Our economic future is tied up there. Our security is tied up there. Our defence co-operation is minimal. I had expected the Minister to make a positive statement to the House so honourable members could undertake a proper program in this area, but instead we get the twaddle we have heard today. We are seeing in our area the Russian build-up continue in Cam Ranh Bay, the biggest Russian military complex outside the Warsaw Pact countries. We see the destabilising effect on Vietnam and Kampuchea continue in the area. We see the Philippines still in an increasingly unstable position, and if the United States is forced to withdraw totally or in part we will see a vacuum in this part of the world which other countries will look to us in part to take up. We have a major paper and not one single initiative. We have to face these facts. We are surrounded by countries with huge populations and we need to work desperately on these relationships. Indonesia is a good example. There were two paragraphs on Indonesia in this paper of 31 pages. There are no students from Indonesia at the Army Staff College at Queenscliff, nor have there been for the past two years. The tragedy is that Australia's defence forces have an enormous unused capacity to make a meaningful contribution to the countries in this area. Certainly, some work goes on with Defence Force units in those countries, but it is minimal. We have the capacity, and it would not cost us much, to send increased numbers of engineers and naval and Air Force officers to those countries at their request to assist them in building up their defence forces and infrastructure. Some years ago we assisted in a major way in Papua New Guinea to build roads and other infrastructure and it was greatly appreciated. The small amount that we contribute now is meaningless when Australia has the capacity and people are breaking their necks to go and assist. How long is it since we sent a major training cadre or exercised in any major way in any of those countries? We will not do it because the present Government is far too timid. Every time these matters are raised in Cabinet the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade holds sway and the Minister for Defence is defeated. Let me turn now to some of the specific points in the paper. The Minister mentioned the force structure plan being unique to Australia's strategic circumstances. It certainly is a unique plan which was based some 12 months ago on a 3 per cent annual growth. That has quietly and gradually been cut down, month by month, until this year we see that the figure is minus one per cent. It will be further affected by the shambles the submarine program is turning into, which will become enormously expensive. What will probably happen is that the money will have to be found to refit, again, the present Oberon submarines. The frigate project is already running into difficulties because of the peculiar way in which the Government is attacking the tender process. There is little of substance and no major initiative in the paper. Let us look at some of its claims. The rotational deployment of the FA18 aircraft to Malaysia is a good thing; there is nothing wrong with it. But it seems to be suggested, page after page, that it is a new initiative and represents a substantial increase. The fact is that we are withdrawing from Malaya. It does not matter how we pretend to camouflage it by claiming that we will send aircraft there for a number of weeks, the fact is that we are withdrawing a squadron from Malaya. How can we say that that is an initiative which will increase our presence? What a lot of hogwash. It goes on for page after page. The statement claims that we are doing great things for Malaya when, in fact, we are withdrawing. In the statement the Minister talks in the same breath about aerial refuelling for the FA18s. There is no aerial refuelling in Australia for any aircraft. It is claimed that they will be rotated through Malaysia because they will be able to move more easily and because there is aerial refuelling. There is no aerial refuelling. It may be that in due course-one day-there will be, but when? When it comes, will it be for the F111s and FA18s? Not on your nelly. It will be for the FA18 only. Later on in the paper the Minister talked about the great versatility of the F111 and how far it can go. As he well knows, there is no program to have aerial refuelling for the F111. The Minister claimed that we will maintain the long-range maritime program through Butterworth. That is not a new program; it has been there for years. Is that a new initiative in this great paper that has been presented to us-the new way ahead, the new look defence for South East Asia? It has been there for years. There is nothing new about it. The Minister talked, very proudly I thought, about how he would negotiate with the Thais to have company exercises in Thailand. A company exercise-100 men! My God, it is not many years ago that we were sending battalions to exercise in Thailand. Is it a brand new initiative to send 100 men to exercise in Thailand? How long is it since we have done any meaningful exercises outside this country? The Minister talked about long-range maritime patrols for Papua New Guinea. Where are they going to come from, pray? We have already reduced our own coastal surveillance maritime patrols by 500 hours-from 1,200 to 700-because we could not meet other programs. One of the reasons we did not send any Orions to the Gulf was that all the programs would have suffered severely. That is the extent of our defence capacity. Now we intend to pluck a plane out of the air and give it to Papua New Guinea. No doubt the present coastal surveillance program will be reduced again. The Government intends to run a maritime surveillance seminar for the South Pacific. That is one of the big new initiatives in the paper. We may be lending another Orion aircraft to the South Pacific Forum. When? Promises cost nothing. If it ever happens, the plane will be taken from another program. Maybe one day, if we get round to it, another new initiative will be to put one of our patrol boats in Manus-if we lend PNG the money and upgrade the base. It is pathetic to think that anyone will take seriously what is claimed as a program of new initiatives. The Minister keeps talking about this being the largest capital program in this country's history. He is like a man standing on one side of a valley looking at the hills and all the while the ground is crumbling from underneath. Day by day, record numbers of servicemen are leaving the Services. Some very clever figures have been produced recently-not by either Minister I might add. They got a serviceman to stand up and give them. They did not have the guts to stand up and defend them. They should remember these figures: in 1983, 4,500 people left this country's defence forces; in 1987, the figure was 10,000. That is the figure people want to get in their minds. The 20-year average loss of pilots has been 45 a year. In the six months from July to December 1987 the figure was 117. The Ministers should remember a few of those figures instead of the glib figures they keep producing, which they do not even have the guts to churn out now on a monthly basis. Do they think that that will solve any of the problems? On top of the pilot problem, the Minister has introduced a third aircraft into the pilot training cycle-a PC9. So instead of having to cope with two aircraft we now have to cope with three. When we wish to replace one of the other two we will have to take one from either end of the new aircraft. That goes against all the advice that the RAAF gave the Minister. Self-sufficiency to this Government is just another name for introspection. Despite what the Government says and how it dresses it up, it is a policy of withdrawal and isolationism. The Government admits that our allies and friends around us look to us-the Minister says so in the paper-for influence, guidance and help. If that is the sort of help we are to give them, God help them. The Minister talked about improving surveillance. One of the greatest disgraces and shambles at the moment is the northern surveillance of this country. It is nothing but an absolute shambles. Yet in the paper the Minister talked about the effectiveness of our coastal surveillance. Just the other day General Grey, a distinguished soldier and a former Federal Commissioner of Police, who also has responsibility for co-ordinating the coastal surveillance of the north, said that the police were finding it an impossible job. Why does not the Government give the defence forces a proper and meaningful job to do to control and co-ordinate coastal surveillance and put some guts and efficiency into it? The Minister spoke about the effectiveness of northern surveillance, and continually quoted Jindalee. Jindalee will not be effective for 10 years. Even when it does become effective, will there be airborne radar to supplement it? The Minister keeps talking about this myth that Jindalee will solve our northern surveillance problems. That is another sleight of hand trick, because the Minister knows that it will not do so. The Minister spoke in this paper about relocating half of our fleet to the west. It is impossible to do that, and the Minister knows this, because the ship lift facilities in the west cannot lift either the frigates or the DDGs. The Royal Australian Navy has 12 surface fighting ships. Seven of those ships are frigates or destroyers. They cannot move to the west under the current program, and the Minister knows that. Yet, he perpetuates this myth that he will move half the fleet to the west. The Minister talks about maybe a 10-year program; but he did not mention that in the paper he delivered today. That is too clever by half. Rather, the Minister spoke about coastal surveillance and moving half the fleet to the west-and that is all rubbish. The Minister spoke about our area of direct military interest. However, when the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) asked what countries were included in our area of direct military interest, the Minister would not answer. He said that it is an ill defined area and he will not specify what countries are in or out of it. What a poor answer from the Minister for Defence. He spoke in the paper about the necessity to be able to project independent, comprehensive military power in order to provide for our direct security. That is what the Minister said in the paper: We must be able to project independent, comprehensive military power in order to provide for our direct security. Yet, troops that the Minister sent to Fiji could not even be got off the ships in any meaningful way. Yet the Minister spoke about the projection of independent, comprehensive power in our area. The Minister spoke also about expanding our surface fleet with new frigates and submarines. Everyone knows that the Minister is not really talking about expanding the surface fleet, either with frigates or with submarines. How the Minister could expand the surface fleet with submarines is beyond me-but they are his words, not mine. The Minister knows very well that both those projects are in trouble. He knows that, basically, those submarines and frigates are nothing other than replacements for existing ships and submarines. Yet he continues with this sleight of hand of saying he will increase the fleet. The Minister said that the nations of our region are no longer looking to others to develop their armed forces. That is rubbish. In the next breath the Minister said that he did not mind Papua New Guinea looking elsewhere for assistance. There is nothing wrong with Papua New Guinea looking elsewhere for assistance. However, the question is why is it doing so. Papua New Guinea is looking elsewhere because it is not getting assistance from Australia. As someone who has spent a number of years in New Guinea and who has a great fondness for that country and its people, I know that that country is desperate to get some assistance. However, it will not ask because it is a proud country and because it knows it will not receive assistance. Australia gives New Guinea $23m assistance a year. Yet we give the front line African states millions and millions of dollars. We give Mozambique $6m a year-one-quarter of the amount we give New Guinea-so the Minister should not tell me that these regional countries are not looking to Australia for assistance. Mr Tim Fischer —What about the extraordinary agreement with New Guinea? Mr WHITE —The Minister spoke about the special relationship and that agreement, as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs has rightly remarked. Again, the Minister for Defence was snowed in Cabinet by the Minister for Foreign Affairs who won the day, and the result was a very weak agreement altogether. Why does the Minister not increase the provision of engineering assistance to Papua New Guinea, and send more of our people there? Why does the Minister not give more meaningful assistance to Papua New Guinea, our closest and most important neighbour? If the Minister is serious about what he is saying, why does he not make the assistance more meaningful? Why do our neighbouring nations have to turn elsewhere to get the assistance they need? The same argument applies with Indonesia, a nation of almost 200 million people. Two paragraphs of a total of 31 pages were devoted to Indonesia. That is a pathetic effort. The Minister has allowed that relationship to deteriorate until it is now almost meaningless. Most of this 31-page paper that the Minister delivered today is meaningless. It contains no new initiatives. It will not assist our friends and allies. Indeed, if anything, they will say that if that is the best we can do, they will seek help elsewhere. Not one extra cent has been allocated. Not one additional new real initiative has been advanced in the paper. The countries of our region will continue to ignore us, as they have for the past few years, because they know that we have neither the determination nor the capabilities to assist them. What the Government should do-and I hope that someone on that side has the sense to accept a practical suggestion-is, firstly, to recall the Minister for Foreign Affairs from wherever he has been wandering, and, secondly, take some of the money off him and put it into some regional security programs. Additionally, the Government should expand our defence co-operation program and make it meaningful. Above all, if it really will not spend the money, it should make proper and constructive use of the very considerable abilities and capabilities of our personnel and units in the Australian Defence Force. It is obvious that the new job is affecting the Minister. If this 31 pages of twaddle supposedly the new defence initiative for our area, is the best that the Minister can do, he would have been better not to have prepared it at all. I understand that he had his staff up half the night working on the paper. I think it would have been better if he had let them all go to bed early. Mr Tim Fischer —He is withdrawing military attaches from the region. Mr WHITE —As the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs quite correctly said, and I am sure he will refer to this in his contribution to this debate, not only has there been this run-down that I have enunciated, but in addition, military attaches throughout the area generally have been withdrawn. I must say that, really, I have been very disappointed with what I thought would be a major initiative in our region, something that Australia could be proud of, which the Opposition could continue and build on when we are elected to Government. This paper is a pathetic effort from a Government that is in serious trouble-and the sooner it goes the better off Australians will be. Debate (on motion by Mr Bilney) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable 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 irradiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Dr Blewett,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small business and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Rocher. 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 1985-1986 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 Campbell,Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: We object to the proposal of Telecom to charge for each three minutes of a local call, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. The telephone is often the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. The inordinate time span which elapses between connection to a business premises and speaking, as the caller holds the line or is transferred between departments, would also disadvantage subscribers who can ill afford it. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom abandons the proposal to time charge local telephone calls as we believe that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. by Mr Cross and Mrs Darling. 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 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 penalties, and close the Customs barriers 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 its 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. 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 Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Australia shows: That the takeover of Thomas Borthwick's Interests in Australia and Japan by Australian Meat Holdings will lead to a monopoly over the purchase of cattle in Queensland and will give control of the price of beef in this State. The take over will also lead to the possible closure of the Merinda Meatworks near Bowen, with the loss of some 450 jobs and a devastating effect on the town of Bowen. We, the petitioners, therefore pray that the Parliament will take the necessary action to prevent this take over and to help secure the future of the Merinda Meatworks. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Australia shows: that the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage the sick, elderly and disabled people as well as counselling and community services, particularly Lifeline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will reject the present proposal by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls as being an unfair cost burden on private individuals. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition or the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Time-charging for the business sector is also unfair and unreasonable as any charge increase to business will be borne by consumers in the end. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent both Australian people and Australian business from being seriously disadvantaged by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition or the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: (1) That we opposed time local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners therefore that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject plans by Telecom to time charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Hinkler draws to the attention of the House: 1. the opposition to the proposal of Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls; 2. the belief that time-charging of local telephone calls will cause distress for the elderly, pensioners and Community Service agencies. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government should reject any proposal for time-charging of local calls. by Mr Courtice. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Hume respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Corangamite respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Wide Bay respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled together with their housebound curers and people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom which will adversely affect the ability of the elderly, sick and disabled to effectively function in modern society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. 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 of collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's I.D. 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 tax and Social Security fraud in the most cost efficient manner. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: reject the I.D. proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly support the establishment of a Social Security office in the Adelaide Hills area. We believe the establishment of such an office will provide a much needed service to residents in the Adelaide Hills, many of whom do not have access to STA transport and find it extremely difficult and costly to meet the requirement of lodging the Continuation of Unemployment Benefit Forms in person. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, take every possible step to ensure that this service is provided. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to any suggestion that a time charging system be introduced for local telephone calls. The proposal is anti-community and will disadvantage the aged and the disabled who depend on the telephone. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will recognise the inequity of the proposal and will advise the Australian Telecommunications Commission not to proceed with the proposal to introduce time charging on local calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the undersigned, believing that Parliament should investigate: (1) The anguish caused to the general public in relation to timed local calls; (2) The illogic of timed local calls in regard to general ``pleasantries'' involved in conversation; (3) The public will pay for poor business management, or extension call delays, when calls are channelled through various sources; (4) The trauma that the house-bound and invalids will suffer through the loss of phone contact; (5) The number of suicides that may increase because Life-line calls will be ``out of reach''; (6) The indignity caused to pensioners and lower income groups who are fighting a losing battle against rising costs; (7) Voluntary organisations and honorary office holders on committees will be penalised; (8) The users of facsimile machines and similar services should be the ones to pay for these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the Government give regard to these eight reasons why timed local charge calls should not be introduced and rescind any decision to introduce timed local calls by Telecom Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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: 1. We are totally opposed to any move by the Government to allow local telephone calls to be charged on a time basis. 2. This measure would discriminate against the aged and disabled who rely on the telephone as their main form of communication. 3. The Government should investigate other means of eliminating the misuse of the Telecom system by computer operators. We the undersigned call upon the Government to pledge to maintain the current system of charging for local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That the Hawke Federal Government ease deep community concern that it intends supporting Telecom's proposal to charge local telephone calls according to the length of the call: That the undersigned call on the Hawke Government to indicate immediately that it will not give the approval required to make Telecom's proposal a reality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. 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 in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government should use its power for the good of the people and reverse this decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 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 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 re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we totally reject the proposed timed local telephone charges, by Telecom Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should vote against any future legislation which would support such a proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Camberwell South be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel further for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or to help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of the Camberwell South Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we are strongly opposed to the proposal for metering of local telephone calls by Telecom since- (i) higher phone bills would add more pressure to the family budget, and some would not be able to pay them; (ii) elderly, sick and lonely people, many of whom are pensioners, rely on the telephone as their communication with the outside world. We therefore request the House to give this matter a lot more thought before acting on the proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament we the residents of the Division of Dobell draws to the attention of the House the fact that recipients of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs pensions are required to pay income tax once non-pension income exceeds $3.72 per week. Your petitioners request that Parliament increase the Income Tax Pensioner Rebate for Social Security and Veteran's Affairs Pensioner. by Mr Lee. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to realise Australia's export potential by its irrational restrictions on the sale of uranium. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.53) —Within this Parliament and around Australia there is a significant majority of sensible opinion which believes that the generation of electricity, subject to appropriate safeguards and regardless of the source of that energy, should be encouraged as a way in which to meet the social, economic, educational and health objectives which are certainly the task of any rational person in the political theatre. However, within the Australian Labor Party the numbers of people holding that point of view and having an opportunity to translate it, in particular into policies relating to the export of uranium, are dwindling and their influence today is virtually negligible. We have canvassed this debate because there seems to be a number of fundamental questions to which people, not just within the parliament but around Australia, need to be alerted. First, obviously the Labor Party's ability to overcome the factional pull, particularly from the Left, in matters as emotional and, on the other hand, as sensible as the export of uranium, subject to appropriate safeguards, is such that the left wing today is able to call the shots and set the pace. If we think that is something that can just be dismissed we should look at some of the people who are members of the Ministry, let alone the back bench. We all recall the rather controversial election of Senator Bolkus. We know that there were 10 or 11 defections from the right wing faction of the Labor Party who opposed Senator Bolkus's election. I can well understand them. We need to remember that it is not so long ago since Senator Bolkus introduced a motion into the Senate opposing the development of the Roxby Downs mine. Not only did he do that, but also, on 27 May 1982, he suggested that Roxby Downs would add to the world's enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons and high level nuclear waste. Of course, Senator Bolkus did not stop there. Only a few days ago the same Senator Bolkus, immediately before his election to the Ministry, commented on the decision by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, to allow the export shipment of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA). He said that the decision `flouted Party policy' and disregarded `all the forums and mechanics of the Party'. He questioned that the Minister had any authority at all to act as he did. This is the new member of the Labor Ministry. We know that it is not just Senator Bolkus, the new Minister for Consumer Affairs, who holds that view. We know that that view is held fairly extensively in the Labor Party. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) made these comments in the House of Representatives on 17 September 1981 and there is no reason to believe that he has changed his views. He said: The new gold-uranium-is being exploited for uncertain markets in a world in which it would be the fuel to destroy civilisation. There may be a few bucks in it; it is by no means certain. It is more certain that it represents a threat to the life of the Aboriginal people . . . It is clear that there will be fewer, rather than more, safeguards . . . Uranium will be a fuel for destruction exploited by international companies which have infinite confidence in their own survival and very little interest in the survival of people. I have news for the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It is they who have lost touch; it is they who fail to understand the commercial realities. I will refer to Senator Button's comments made the other day and the extent to which there is, even within State Labor governments, a recognition of the advantages of exporting uranium. Indeed, the about to be appointed Deputy Premier of Western Australia-he might well have taken up his appointment-the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Parker, on 25 November last year, said that he will campaign to change the Labor Party's uranium policy. He said that not only was Labor's existing policy, which limited uranium production to three mines, `illogical and wrong', but also the main beneficiaries-and this is so true-were the conservative Canadian Government and the Government in Pretoria. Mr Parker said: The next three or four years are going to see the singing up of a large number of uranium contracts. The reality is that we know the maddies of the Labor Party have taken control. We know that honourable members such as the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) are not even in the House for this uranium debate. We would have liked an opportunity to have a genuine debate and a genuine vote on the issue. If there are, within the Labor Party, people who have any sense about uranium policy it would be far more appropriate if we had an opportunity to talk about the nature of safeguards and the fact that we, on this side of the House, talk about uranium to turn on light globes, not warheads. The reality is that, as far as the left wing of the Labor Party is concerned, we know it is only a few weeks ago that the honourable member for Hotham, the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Hindmarsh wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy saying: We totally reject your contention that either you or Cabinet have the right to lift the ban on uranium sales to France . . . It is our view that those who cannot or will not support Labor Party policies, that are clear and unambiguous, should get out of positions of responsibility in Government. . . . Those within Cabinet who have allowed the sale of uranium to France have clearly breached ALP national policy and breached the trust of ALP members and supporters and should therefore no longer hold Cabinet positions. We agree with the conclusions but not necessarily the reasons. We should understand that while there may be those, including no doubt the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, who dismisses those as views of a wild, irrational minority, the whole genesis of public concern is that yet again, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has changed his mind-not on a basic assessment of the economic arguments, not on an assessment of how the development of our uranium resources can help the Aborigines and not on any proper comparison of the safety record of uranium and those of coal, oil and other sources of power generation. We know that the Prime Minister has changed his policy on the question of uranium simply because he does not have the numbers. The people of Australia need to know that whether it is the Unsworth Government in New South Wales or the Hawke Government in Canberra, those two governments are today more susceptible to the influence of an element within their political Party whose interests, I would contest, are not those of Australia. They are certainly not the interests of those who live in the remote and often arid regions of Australia. They are not the interests of Aborigines, and certainly not the interests of anyone trying to restore something like reasonable living standards to those who have suffered so much under the policies of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, the genesis of the story-from the way in which the Prime Minister prevaricates on this issue, I suspect it may be true-was a headline in the Daily Telegraph on 19 February which said `Deal to Split the ALP'. But it began a little before that. I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy is at the table. He will recall that earlier this year he quite properly gave to Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) an opportunity to enter into a contract to sell uranium to France. The long term contract with the French electricity authority was to allow Ranger uranium concentrates to be delivered for the first time to France from ERA. Of course, we know that it was against that that Senator Bolkus made his first observations and complaints. I suspect that the story in the Daily Telegraph was true. It is no use the Prime Minister coming in here and saying, `But I have put that off'. We all read in the following day's paper that it was all a furphy. But the reality is that within Cabinet the Prime Minister knew that, unless he tried to get a few of these things through, the Left had the numbers. That is what has happened. It may be that the Prime Minister has denied the story about whether there would be a secret deal on further sales of uranium to France. We do know that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has acknowledged that there was an approach from Queensland Mines Ltd to extend an option within its existing contract to enable further sales to France. We know that there was that other sale by ERA to France. We also know that within the Labor Party the Prime Minister runs scared every time he is in a position of deciding between what is right for Australia and what the left wing of the Labor Party wants. The reality of the uranium debate today is that it is not proceeding on a rational basis. It is not proceeding with any reasonable concern for the efficacy of the safeguards which were first put into place by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Indeed, it is quite appropriate that the French Defence Minister, Monsieur Andre Giraud, is in Australia at the moment, because it was with him that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition signed the nuclear safeguards agreement with France some years ago. Monsieur Giraud has commented: There is plenty of uranium around the world and if Australia is not interested in selling it, to my opinion that would not put a problem to anybody. The point is that there are plenty of other sources of uranium. As Mr Parker said, if Australia does not sell its uranium, we will hand the sales to Canada, to South Africa, to Niger or to one of those other countries where the nuclear safeguards are certainly nowhere near as secure as they are in this country. The economic loss is perhaps the mast significant part of the whole debate. I am quite disappointed that the Prime Minister today denied, as he so often does, statements by more responsible Ministers. All of us heard on the Michael Schildberger program only a week or so ago Senator Button giving his views about the extent to which the sales of uranium were necessary to avoid the intervention of the International Monetary Fund. Honourable members will recall that he said: . . . we were in a situation where there is very grave danger I think that the International Monetary Fund would come in here and say, this economy- that is, the Australian economy- is not working properly, you really have to cut pensions by 25%, you have to cut wages by 30%-that is what they would have said if they had've come in here and that represented uranium sales to France at the time the decision was made. It represented a waste of some 60 million dollars by the Government if the sale wasn't made and revenue gain of the same in export terms, some 60 million dollars if the sales were made. I asked a question today about the cost of the Labor Party's ban or relative ban on the export of uranium. We know that it has a three-mine policy. It is a policy that does not make economic sense, does not make geographic sense, does not make environmental sense and does not make sense with respect to Aboriginal policy. It makes sense only to placate the left wing of the Labor Party, but even it is not placated. The irony of the whole thing is that we are forgoing economic income, by way of exports and taxation, that this country so badly needs. As I commented earlier today, the assessment is that the cost of Labor's uranium bans is about $4,564m in net loss of foreign exchange earnings and $860m in net loss of tax collections. Of course, that is without the further loss that will be incurred because Prime Minister Hawke does not have the guts to stand up to the left wing and permit those further negotiations for sales of uranium to France from Queensland Mines, as he should. The whole basis of this debate this afternoon is that there is an economic reason for and an economic advantage to Australia from selling uranium abroad. There are any number of statistics to show that Australia has by far the largest known reserves of uranium. We all know that it is not in France that the big demand for the future lies, but in Japan and Korea. We all know that Australia's percentage of low extraction cost uranium is higher than anywhere else. It is only because of the blatant prejudice of the Government that we are not allowed to sell that uranium where we should. Of course, on other occasions the Minister and others have said that there is no demand for uranium. I just refer him to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which shows a continued growth in the demand for uranium averaging 8.3 per cent to 1986 and a projection of a 3.5 per cent increase per year up to 2000. I do not have time to go into those statistics but the reality is that there is an increased demand for uranium. If one looks at the figures, one will see that available uranium for power generation will run down over the next 15 years. Australia has a golden opportunity not only to supply existing markets but also to develop new markets, particularly in countries such as Japan and Korea, where our uranium can help generate power for the people. There is another aspect to this debate, and that is the whole question of Aboriginal policy. I am appalled that this Government is prepared to turn its back on opportunities to sell uranium and help the Aborigines look after themselves. The Aboriginal community has presented any number of worthwhile statements and worthwhile arguments supporting the export of uranium. A policy of this Government is to deny those legitimate interests of Aborigines in the Northern Territory. This Government is denying a reasonable income to those people. Whether it is on a question of blatant political prejudice or economic illiteracy, there is absolutely no way in which the Government can rationally explain either why it maintains its three-mine uranium export policy or why it denies further extension of sales, subject to our safeguards, for power generation around the world. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.07) —The Government's policy on uranium is economically rational. The tirade, just finished, from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) concentrated mainly on the political aspects of this topic. I would like just to say that the issue is cross-factional within the Australian Labor Party and it crosses voting habits within the whole community because it is an issue which is associated with the greatest question facing mankind; that is, world peace and the avoidance of nuclear war. There are no two ways about it: while ever we have the mining, the export and the use of uranium which can be diverted to atomic weaponry, there will be a lot of room for emotional debate about this issue. I guess the only thing I can say before I address some of the points made by the Leader of the National Party is that it really is a bit much for him to try to put his comments in terms of Aboriginal policy. I do not know of any occasion when the mining policy of the National Party when it was in government took Aboriginal rights into any contention whatsoever. Here again, we have the very obvious display of the fact that the Opposition does not have a policy. I do not know what its policy is on mining. If it had been fair dinkum about this when it was in government, why did it not allow the go-ahead for Jabiluka, Koongarra and Yeelirrie? Why did the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, have export price controls on this commodity if he was not worried about the market? What the Leader of the National Party has related to us today just harks back to the old resources boom mentality. The Opposition is completely out of touch. It has the old idea: `If it's there, dig it up and give it away regardless of the economics of it, regardless of the financial security of existing mines and regardless of considerations of reality'. Perhaps I should quote statements made in an earlier period when the Government of which he was a member put out a policy on the question of uranium. First of all let me go to a more recent quote, from Des Keegan in the National Affairs column of the Australian of 11 February 1988, which sustains my point. He states: This was evident to the industry and was a widely held view outside Canberra in 1983 when Liberal medling and lack of nerve damaged Australian uranium. It knocked several companies out of the industry and diminished exports. Mr Tony Grey, chairman of Pancontinental, lobbied hard in 1983 to save a contract for 10,000 tonnes of U308 to Britain's Central Electricity Generating Board. This was lost, along with the revenue, to other suppliers. Mr Grey said at the time that the contract met Mr Fraser's floor price but did not meet the `market relativity' benchmark. It was signed by the British and Mr Grey in January and it awaited Canberra's approval. In earlier times, when the honourable gentleman and his former colleague Mr Anthony had responsibility for all of this they made statements that were a little more considered than the nonsense we have heard from the Leader of the National Party today. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr Fraser, said: The Government has taken its decision with a deep sense of international responsibility. I venture to say that were it not for that sense of responsibility, were it not for our wish to strengthen Australia's voice in the moves against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, were it not for our obligation to provide energy to an energy deficient world, we would not have decided export uranium. Commercial considerations were not the dominant motive in our decision. In themselves they would not have been sufficient. Now the Opposition would have us believe that anything other than the gross exploitation of our resources, irrespective of demand and prices, is irrational. Mr Anthony, as recorded in the same document, said: Annual uranium requirements necessary to satisfy the growth in nuclear power are about 90,000 short tons of uranium oxide in 1985, 140,000 short tons in 1990 and 200,000 short tons in the year 2,000. That was the market basis of this document, Parliamentary Paper No. 198/1977. That statement was another example of the mining boom beat-up practised by the then Government. Current estimates for non-communist demand for uranium from the various international agencies in, for instance, 1990 now total less than 50,000 tonnes-approximately one-third of the estimates available in 1977. At least in this document we had a bit of a principled stand on the whole question of uranium and safeguards and the problem of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as some market analysis. Today we do not get any of this. Mr Anthony went on in the same statement to say: The Government attaches the greatest importance to orderly development of our uranium resources . . . We will not allow the development of our uranium industry to be dictated by volatile events in markets abroad. When the honourable gentleman was in government and that Government was faced with this problem of uranium, it had a marketing and economic policy that was somewhat akin to ours. What we have had today is just an opportunistic tirade because someone from outside has stirred up members of the Opposition. They do not have a policy. It is akin to their rural policy: They respond to what the last agripolitical leader told them or whatever canard is going around the bush. In my area the most recent evidence of this is the Esso advertisements. Ignoring all that has gone in in the past five years with respect to changed and enhanced conditions for the oil industry, that gets a run. As far as uranium is concerned, I think the doubt that is in the back of the minds of many people in the community when the National Party runs these things is the secret agenda-whether or not it wants to get into the nuclear fuel cycle, if and when it is next in government. We ought to look at our uranium mining industry, at some of the market prospects and where we are going. Nabarlek will basically process in about 18 weeks the material it mined some years ago. It has some thousands of tonnes in a stockpile which it is selling as per the contracts it has. Ranger-that is, Energy Resources of Australia (ERA)-is in a position to double its production by 1995. Olympic Dam, or Roxby Downs, is also in a position to expand its production very easily, and it is only just coming on stream. We can easily double our production of uranium with the two mines continuing at present. In 1986 this country produced about 4,899 tonnes of uranium. We have the capacity at Olympic Dam and Ranger to expand that to 16,000 tonnes per annum. We have to take into account the market prospects. Of the most recent estimates we have before us-five estimates by the most reliable bodies we have-the average to 1990 is 46,700 tonnes. The estimates of the same five bodies to 1995 average 50,200 tonnes. The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates production of uranium from existing and committed production centres at around 48,000 tonnes in 1990 and 47,500 tonnes in 1995. Assuming that inventory levels, currently about three or four years supply, are maintained, production capacity could be seen to be sufficient to meet requirements until 1995. The qualification to these figures is that procurement requirements sometimes bear no relationship to reactor requirements. For example, Japanese utilities continue to buy, even though on the whole they are overstocked, having nearly three years supply. The actual demand for Australian uranium in the 1990s will be a reflection of uncommitted demand, that is, requirements not yet contracted for, rather than overall demand. Estimates suggest that in the early 1990s uncommitted demand will be around 15,000 tonnes of uranium per annum, but Australia could not expect to obtain any more than one-third of this quantity, that is, about 5,000 tonnes of uranium, equivalent to around 6,000 tonnes of U3O8. If that quantity were secured, Australian exports would rise to around 10,400 tonnes. As I have already said, the total capacity for Ranger is about 6,000 tonnes and the total capacity for Olympic Dam, 4,000 tonnes a total of 10,000 tonnes. So we have a total capacity which will more than meet whatever possible expected demand there could be for our existing mines. Overall world production capacity and the Australian capacity to service its estimated market share into the early 1990s from the existing industry would suggest therefore, that there is no immediate need for new production centres. In practice, maximum production from the two mines may be constrained by buyers' preference to diversify sources of supply. Having entered into a contract for supply from one source, buyers tend to move to other production centres. This is an unknown factor but, to the extent that it is practised, it will reflect on the ability of the existing producers to reach optimum production levels. For new mines to be in production by the early 1990s, decisions on development would need to be made by around 1990, nearly two years ahead. The point is that there will not be any unmet demand in the world until at least 1995-96, and our two existing mines are gearing up for a realistic share of that market. To have open slather in this industry would mean exactly the same old thing that we have in the coal industry-massive investment on the boom or bust theory and the formation of a buyer's market. The spot market for uranium has been about $17 a pound for a long time. We are holding the price at about $US31 a pound, trying to keep up the market. It is not easy-ask the people who run Olympic Dam-to get new contracts for uranium. It is not easy to hold the price when the price is $17 a pound on the spot market. If the Leader of the National Party and the Opposition were in government they would be faced with the same problem. I assure them that the first people to come around their necks would be the proprietors of ERA and Olympic Dam, or Roxby Downs. If we have open slather in uranium mining in this country, we will effectively wreck the market and the economic viability of our two existing mine owners. We have got the evidence of allowing open slather and that is why Doug Anthony put quite sharp export controls on price way back in the late 1970s. That is why the Government got into export controls-trying to hold the price for existing mines. Even so, all the oil proprietors, faced with the second oil price shock, got into coal. But they tumbled into it and overproduced. There has been much irrationality by previous governments in this area, irrationality one can see with hindsight. For example, at the same time as Mr Anthony was quoting the economic benefits of a uranium enrichment plant in Australia in 1978, the Government was reported in 1978-79 to be having so much difficulty in selling its share of Ranger uranium that the Ranger holding was disposed of late in that year. In other words, this is not a boom industry; it is an industry with a very discrete market. The fact is that every year since 1974-75 estimates of demand for uranium have been reduced. In 1979 the Fraser Government was told that there was no requirement for further enrichment capacity world-wide at least until 1993. So this is an industry that needs some government understanding. It is not for people to leap on some barrow for petty political point scoring. Yes, it is true that the left wing of my Party feels very strongly about this issue. It is also true that people in other parts of the Party and, as I said, the community, feel very strongly about this issue. The Leader of the National Party quoted from the Daily Telegraph article the other day. I am sure that he understands and knows that that article was absolute hogwash. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on why the public gets so confused. There is a proposal to have a mineral rare earth plant at Lismore in northern New South Wales. When the Australian Mining Industry Council discussed that it immediately said that this was going to be another Chernobyl-Chernobyl is one of the key words to get everybody frightened and to sell the story-and that atomic bombs were going to be made from the waste product, which is mainly thorium, and from which atomic bombs cannot be made. We had the same nonsense with the latest Der Spiegel allegation. It talked about a waste and a mislabelling problem at Molle where Australian uranium was not involved. The implication from that story is that somehow people can make atomic bombs out of contaminated gloves. There is very low level waste in that case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.24) —It was interesting to hear the arguments of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and to know that he delved as far back as 1977 to drag up reports. Obviously, I did not think that he would be going back that far. If I had had notice of the arguments he was going to use and that he was going to rely on ancient history, perhaps I would have had a chance to respond to them. But we are concerned about the reason why we have a matter of public importance before us. The two key issues we are debating is his failure as a Minister-and the Government's failure-to realise Australia's export potential by pursuing this irrational uranium policy that he and the Government have at present. The Minister shakes his head, but he was the one who, in the Australian Financial Review of 2 September 1987, said: I won't be leading the moves to change the three uranium mines policy because- this is the interesting point- it is an intensely ideological debate. What worries me is that if people are putting up arguments against uranium mining on purely ideological reasons, at the end of the day I am going to have to take a very pro-mining policy. We still do not know what your policy is. You just had 15 minutes to tell us where you, John Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, stand and we do not know. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr SMITH —We do not know what the Minister's position is. He had an opportunity to tell us. We still do not know what it is. He has not said what it is. We know that we have lost somewhere in the vicinity of $4.5 billion in potential export sales. We have lost somewhere in the vicinity of $860m in tax. Mr Kerin —Rubbish! Mr SMITH —The Minister says that that is rubbish. Does the Minister want to know how those calculations were made? Does he want to know how it was arranged, who decided what that figure was? Setting aside Nabarlek and discounting prices to the effect of the additional production that Ranger had come on in late 1974 instead of 1982, Jabiluka in 1976 and 1977 and Koongarra in 1978-79, we come to those figures. A reputed financial journalist came to those figures and no-one else, not even you. You can do it by way of interjection, but you did not do it when you had the chance, when you had the microphone. You know the rules about politics. If you have got the microphone you get the message out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I repeat: the honourable gentleman will address his remarks through the Chair and not across the table. Mr SMITH —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The arguments put up by the Minister at the table would make a cat blush. There was no substance to them whatsoever apart from the figures which I guarantee would be correct if they had come from a report done under the jurisdiction of Mr Anthony when he was the Minister. In any event the Minister did not answer the arguments whatsoever. He did have the good grace to admit that there were many in his Party who had varying views and, certainly, that is the case. It was interesting to know what the editorial of the Australian Financial Review said back on 15 January. It said that the Labor Party, elected to govern Australia for the benefit of the people as a whole, still allows itself to be intimidated by this pathetic rump of neanderthal pretenders to a power base that no longer exists. Today in Caucus the Minister has allowed the left wing to dictate to him rather than respond in a way that he ought to do and lead for the whole of Australia to provide us with the opportunity to take advantage of potential export sales. The Minister has not. He has neglected that opportunity. The Minister who just spoke did not repeat what he said recently on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio as short a time ago as last Friday. I repeat what he said for the benefit of the House. He said: It was made very clear at the time when the Treasurer's Budget statements and those of the then Minister that he had decided that the Party's policy, given the trade situation at the time was a hollow gesture and that all we were doing was hurting our own country. That is why we have a matter of public importance before us. It does not matter where one sits in this chamber, one ought to be concerned about the economic condition. It was interesting today to see the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time. He was asked a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who quoted those famous words from Senator Button. Senator Button said: I, and other Ministers, very much regretted the decision about uranium sales to France . . . we were, as a government, concerned about exports. We were in a situation where we were in grave danger that the IMF would come in . . . That is the senior man in charge of the business area of this Government. That is what he said, but what did the Prime Minister say in response? He did not give a response. He said, `I am not concerned' and sat down. When the Prime Minister was asked another question today about uranium he resorted to his age-old tactic of bluster. He looked for some particular person in the chamber to point to and made jokes. Talking about jokes, it was interesting to listen to the Canberra radio earlier this morning. We heard the greatest joker of all time ever to have been in this place, a former member, Mr Daly. The very first question he was asked was, `What would you be talking about if you had the opportunity to stand up in Parliament?'. He said, `Uranium-and I wouldn't mine it'. So the Government has a ghost of the past coming back, telling the Government what to do. It is no accident for him to be on Canberra radio this morning. Honourable members opposite all seem to kowtow, bow down, to this man who existed in this chamber for 31 years. He left the chamber with a reputation for being good at telling jokes. I hope that when the Minister leaves the chamber he will have a better reputation than that. To think that he is the type of person who is talking to the Government from outside and he is the type of person to whom the Government is responding speaks volumes about the shortage of talent and abilities the Government has to call upon to make rational policies for the benefit of the people of this country. The Minister commented on Aboriginals. I do not think this debate can pass without reference being made to that point. Until June 1986 royalty payments from uranium mining into the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account were approximately $62m. In addition, Ranger paid an additional $13m and pays $200,000 a year to the Northern Land Council in the form of rent. Queensland Mines Ltd paid $735,000 initially and pays an annual rental of $500,000 on top of that to the Northern Land Council. Over the past 12 months land councils have reached agreements for mining exploration with companies on four separate sites which will bring in additional revenue. The dilemma for the Labor Party is whether the plight of the Aborigines represents a higher morality than the continued and unnecessary need to block any expansion of the uranium industry. I hope the Minister will return to the table to listen to the quote that I will give to the House. This is what the Chairman of the Northern Land Council had to say about the Australian Labor Party's uranium policy; this encapsulates the dilemma which it faces. The letter states: If it corrects the present policy and allows unrestricted mining, Aboriginal people will, for the first time in 200 years, be able to plan properly their own future. Royalties from mining will provide medical facilities, schools, training, enterprises, jobs, security and ensure independence of so-called Government hand-outs. The rest of Australia will also benefit substantially. However, continuance of the policy, or a tightening of its restrictions, will only worsen the present situation, make a mockery of Aboriginal land rights and further divide the Australian community. The letter is signed by the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. That is what the Aborigines think. Where is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand)? How is he going to solve the moral dilemma that faces members on the Government side of the House? We recognise that the Aboriginal people are very disadvantaged and we want to redress that disadvantage. Here we have a method of addressing that disadvantage, yet the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy did not say anything about it in the 15 minutes that were available to him. Who from his side of the House is going to respond to this matter? We had a debate early last week about uranium. It was about patents and safeguards. There was an opportunity at that time for the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), a left wing member, to stand up and voice his opinion about what he saw as the benefits of uranium mining for the people of the Northern Territory. He did not say a word. Unless the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who is the last speaker in this debate, responds to this point-and I hope that he will-we will not have heard a word on this matter from the Government side. What has the cost been to Australia? What have we done? As the Labor Deputy Premier of Western Australia has said, we have allowed Canada to steal a march on us. Some eight years ago we were in front in terms of international sales of uranium. Now Canada's share constitutes 31 per cent and it earns $1,100m in revenue. We have a 10 per cent share of the market and earn only $400m. We have lost completely; we are falling behind. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy spoke about the future energy needs of Japan and Korea. We are all about turning on light bulbs, not turning on bombs or rockets. We were the ones who negotiated the safeguards treaty. We think it is time that the Government took the opportunity to promote Australia's role in the international area of providing energy to the people who need it. It was only this week that Labor's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) signed an agreement with Egypt to allow uranium to be sold to that country for its nuclear power industry. The Government has not answered questions in regard to that. It is inconsistent and it has not responded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH —The people of this country want some answers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr SMITH —They are not interested in France. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will resume his seat. Mr SMITH —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is emotional on this side too. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will not address the Chair in that manner. Mr Goodluck —He is the honourable member for Bass. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bass. I apologise to the honourable member for Braddon. At least occasionally he behaves somewhat differently. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(4.34) —If there is one thing we can certainly agree upon this afternoon, it is that this debate is intensely ideological. Yet, both the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who have spoken for the Opposition, have pointed the finger at the Australian Labor Party to suggest that there is something wrong in having some sort of ideological debate. The honourable member for Bass has well and truly demonstrated this afternoon the intense ideology that exists within the Opposition. This was particularly the case with the ideological outburst he made towards the end of his remarks. It seems that figures are being constantly quoted at us. Both the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Bass kept talking about a $4.5 billion export potential. They kept talking about a potential gain to Government revenue in taxation receipts of $860m. Yet, when we ask them to substantiate these figures, they just cannot deliver the goods. All of the arguments put forward this afternoon by the Opposition assume one very important thing. They assume that at present there is a great demand in the world for uranium. If in fact there were a great demand for uranium in the world today, a simple test of economics would suggest that where demand exceeds supply there would be upward pressure on prices. Yet, in his remarks this afternoon, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said quite clearly-and the honourable member for Bass conveniently seemed to forget this-that the spot price for uranium has been held for some time at about $17 a pound. We are struggling to keep the price of $31 a pound that has applied in Australia for many years. The honourable member for Bass and the Leader of the National Party, who assume that the world demand exists, should go and talk to some people in the industry. Why do they not go and talk to the Hugh Morgans of this world and the other people associated with the industry at Roxby Downs and ask them whether there is this great demand for uranium in the world? I think that, if they had got the facts from the people in the industry itself, they would not have come into the House this afternoon and tried to score cheap political points. If there has been any irrationality in the debate this afternoon, we have certainly seen it demonstrated by the two Opposition speakers. Quite clearly, the irrationality that was demonstrated in their remarks was made on the basis that if one has a resource, all one has to do is dig it up and flog it off to anyone who wants to buy it, irrespective of price. Why did Mr Anthony, the Leader of the National Party's predecessor, impose export controls over the sale of uranium when he had responsibility in this area? Quite clearly, at that time Mr Anthony recognised that if one had a resource such as uranium and wanted to do something about the price that one received, it was essential to impose reasonable export controls. Let me refresh the memories of the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Bass on the current state of the world uranium market. Some of these comments were made by the Minister in his remarks this afternoon but were somehow conveniently forgotten. The estimates from various international agencies for non-communist demand for uranium in 1990 vary from 44,500 tonnes up to 49,000 tonnes. Similarly, the estimated demand for 1995 is put at 47,000 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes. If one looks at those figures in the cold hard light of day, one can see that there is not a rapidly expanding market in the world for uranium. The nuclear energy agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates production from existing and committed mines to be about 48,000 tonnes of uranium in 1990 and 47,000 tonnes in 1995. So, given that the current non-communist uranium stockpiles are estimated at about 145,000 to 150,000 tonnes, or three to four years forward reactor requirements, broadly speaking the non-communist production capacity could be seen to be meeting requirements until the year 1995. Yet we have this nonsense from people who came into this House this afternoon and suggested that all of a sudden we should start setting up mines throughout Australia. I remind the House that this is exactly the same sort of ridiculous mentality that was encouraged in the so-called resources boom of the Fraser Government in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the problem that brought about some of the irrationality in the thinking at that time which suggested that the States should be allowed to have some sort of unfettered access to any borrowings to finance this boom. This Government inherited some of these problems simply because of the reckless approach to resources development that our predecessors seemed to follow. Nowhere else was this more evident than in Queensland where the Fraser Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government at that time talked up the resources boom for all it was worth. Many coal mining developments reached the leasing and or feasibility stage and were then subsequently abandoned. They were abandoned simply because when it came down to the cold hard commercial facts of life the mining companies involved recognised that expanding the supply in Australia did not necessarily mean that demand would be expanded and therefore the price for a product increased. But again, we had this sort of ideological irrationality of the Fraser Government during the 1970s and early 1980s, talking up this resources boom, encouraged by other people, such as the Queensland Premier, and the Government went ahead and encouraged people to look at these projects. In some cases countless millions of dollars were expended in these resource developments, which were subsequently abandoned. They had to be abandoned because there was no demand. It seems that the same approach is being adopted in the current debate about uranium. As the Minister has indicated, the estimates suggest that in the early 1990s uncommitted demand will be about 15,000 tonnes per annum. So, realistically, looking at the question of suppliers in the world, Australia could expect to gain about a third of this uncommitted demand. On that scenario, Australia would be likely to gain an increase of about 5,000 tonnes of uranium, or about 6,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. If that quantity were to be secured, Australian exports would rise to about 10,400 tonnes of uranium oxide. What is the existing capacity of uranium mining in Australia? The honourable member for Bass criticised the Minister this afternoon for not providing factual information. But these are the facts: of the existing Australian mines, Ranger provides 6,000 tonnes and Olympic Dam supplies 4,000 tonnes but has a capacity to go that extra 6,000 tonnes-in other words, more than easily meet the likely increase in world demand should that be necessary by the time we reach the mid-1990s. Again I hark back to some of my previous comments. The National Party, particularly, has been notorious for its gross overestimates of some of the world demand for Australian mineral commodities. It is not restricted just to uranium; it includes other products, such as coal and virtually any mineral one cares to name. Like it or not, the National Party is still not prepared to conceded that this crazy `dig it up' mentality, this `flog it at any price' attitude of the late 1970s and the early 1980s, is a legacy that the present Government is still facing. That is why, since we gained office, we have tried to concentrate on the planned development of Australia's mineral resources. It is why we have sought to develop an industry plan in the coal industry. It is why we shall seek to develop a rational plan for the uranium mining industry, as we shall for all the other important mineral elements which are so much an important part of Australia's potential export income. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-proposed: That the proposed general principles relating to the selection of private Members' business reported to the House by the Selection Committee on 18 February 1988 be adopted. Mr FIFE(Hume)(4.44) —When the Chairman of the Selection Committee, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), brought in the report on 18 February-the report to which the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) referred-I indicated that the Opposition was generally in agreement with what was proposed under the new Sessional Orders to provide additional opportunities for private members of this House to bring forward matters of concern to their constituents and to the nation. The new proposals have our very strong support. However, because this is a new procedure and the procedures being introduced by the Minister now are new and are being tried for the first time, we shall monitor their operation very carefully and will not hesitate to bring to the attention of the House any major deficiencies that we see or even any fine tuning of the procedures that we believe will be of assistance. But we indicate very clearly our general support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(4.45) —It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on the statement on regional defence policy which was made earlier this afternoon by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). To me, it seems to illustrate the great dangers of putting in charge of defence policy a person who has thought about the subject, who is an intellectual about the subject, who is knowledgeable about the subject and who has had the wit and skill to translate his ideas into practical policy. The danger is that one does away with a number of the shibboleths which in the past have governed thinking about defence policy in general and regional defence policy in particular in this country. The danger is that the regional policy may fit quite well into a coherent strategic doctrine. The danger is that one will have a force structure which itself is coherent and which serves objectives which have been thought about in the way I have described. The danger is that one will have a coherent regional defence co-operation policy with countries which-because they perceive it to be in their interests, because they perceive the objectives of Australian defence policy as important and helpful to them-will co-operate willingly and in new and appropriate ways with Australia. The danger is that one will have an equipment procurement policy in Australia which serves Australian objectives which have been elaborated and discussed and assented to by the great majority of Australian people. The danger is that one will have training regimes for personnel in the defence structure which meet those objectives, also in a coherent way. The danger is that one will have the whole shebang supported by levels of expenditure which are adequate, which have been growing and which have considerably exceeded the shameful performance of those who were in charge of defence policy before the present Government came to office. The danger is that one will have an active Minister for Defence who does not simply sit at home or direct military adventures from a desk in this place but who, rather, goes out into the highways and byways of our region-by which I mean not large countries only but, importantly, the smaller countries in the South Pacific-and enlists their co-operation in ways which serve aims that are wider than simply regional aims, but also, in generous, innovative ways, enlists their co-operation in an area which is fragile and is the object of superpower rivalries. The danger is that one will have deployment policies which meet our objectives in a way which I have heard the Opposition spokesman criticise in a way which itself illustrates another danger-the danger that a little knowledge is an exceedingly dangerous thing. All those dangers come to a culmination in the paper that has been put down. I greatly congratulate the Minister on it, because for the first time in a very long time-indeed, for the first time in my lifetime-all these things have been put into some kind of coherent perspective. I spent some of my life working on defence policy under the previous Administration, when it seemed to me that there was none of this kind of coherence whatever. The debate was at a level which I think is actually quite appropriate to the other side of the House. Perhaps I could think of another example. It was more like a squabbling kindergarten. Ideas-if one could call them that-were thrown about: Fortress Australia versus forward defence. They were never worked out in any practical way. We responded like a branch in the breeze to events over which we never had any control and seemed not to have any ambition to control. It got us involved in some adventures of a crassly absurd kind, the results of which have still not been worked out. As this statement deals with self-reliance and co-operation in the region, I want to comment particularly on what has been set down in the statement in relation to co-operation with our near neighbours in the South Pacific. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), referred to our policies as isolationist. I can think of nothing less isolationist than the initiatives set down in this statement relating to that area of the world. I might add that, to my certain knowledge, it is a region to which our predecessors paid little or no attention whatever. Let me start by referring to our defence co-operation with Papua New Guinea. It seems to me that that has been a comprehensive and inventive policy. It is perfectly clear that our defence co-operation arrangements with that country need to evolve as it takes on more responsibility for its own defence. We have to respond to different challenges. The various initiatives the Minister for Defence has set out in this statement seem to me to be apposite to those demands. So far as the South Pacific is concerned, I noted in particular one section in the statement which sought to delineate what the needs of these small and fragile countries were. The Minister said in his statement that they seek to exercise that most important quality of nationhood, namely, sovereign control of their lands and waters. We need to remember that these are countries which, although they face no immediately military threat, do have the necessity to look after what in many cases is their only resource, that is, the resource of the seas around them, their economic zone. Many of them have not the slightest chance of providing from their own capabilities the forces and equipment necessary to carry out that function of exercising sovereign control. What have we done? The main response in terms of materiel is in the Pacific patrol boat program. By the time that program is finished, and it is not as though it is pie in the sky or has not begun or is not well advanced, we will be providing Papua New Guinea with three patrol boats, Vanuatu with one-it has already received one, and Papua New Guinea has already received two-Western Samoa with one, the Solomon Islands with one, and it may be that, in the fullness of time, Kiribati and Tuvalu will each be provided with a patrol boat. Those gifts of patrol boats have been greatly welcomed by those countries as being entirely apposite to their defence and to their individual circumstances. The statement sets out that not all the patrol boats are precisely the same or come out of the same mould. Some have armaments, some have other aspects which relate to the needs of the country in question. They are only part of the package. What is that package? One part is a training and secondment package. We are seconding officers of our forces to help in the running of the patrol boats as the indigenous forces take over. We are assisting with maritime surveillance. It is not as though we were dumping the patrol boats on their doorsteps and asking them to use them. Those countries have responded to a series of visits made by the Minister-the first Australian Defence Minister to visit these countries of the South Pacific-and that in itself helps to ensure that the program will take place in context and not just as a gift that goes no further. In the future it is envisaged that in this part of the world there will be joint exercises between Australia and the countries in question, and indeed other countries, particularly New Zealand. There will be provision, possibly, although it has not yet been decided, of maritime surveillance aircraft, and there will be a communications package, an upgrading of communications, to enable these tiny, far-flung countries to communicate with their patrol boats, and so on. It is entirely possible this will be supported by civil engineering projects, and it is supported at this moment by some much appreciated assistance to countries which face natural disasters such as typhoons, of which most listeners to this debate will have read. Altogether, this seems to be the most sensitive and apposite package that one could imagine tailored to the needs of these countries. To hear the Opposition spokesman say that the statement the Minister has made is devoid of initiative seems to me to be a calumny that ought not to pass unnoticed in this place. It is a real challenge to devise a policy that meets the needs of these countries, of this region and of the world of which they are a part. I believe that in the package outlined in this statement the Minister has done that with sensitivity and in a way which is likely to serve the important national objectives of Australia for a long time to come. I should like to comment on one or two things the Opposition spokesman said. He referred, thumping the table, as is his wont, to the fact that we had let down the defence of Australia, particularly so far as co-operation with countries involved in the integrated air defence system is concerned, by withdrawing the Mirages from Butterworth in Malaysia and replacing them with FA18 Hornets, on rotational deployment from Tindal, the base which is being built at a cost of $180m. I should have thought that even the Opposition spokesman would have understood that there was a good reason for doing that. If we were to purport to maintain the FA18s overseas we would have to build an extremely expensive and complex facility in that country. So the decision had to be made as to where that expensive facility would be based. For reasons which I think anyone can understand, it was decided to place those facilities within Australia and to utilise the considerable range and deploy- ability of the aircraft, taking into account the fact that the FA18s can operate for a considerable period without major maintenance, rather than follow the vastly more expensive course the Opposition has suggested. The other matter on which I should like to comment is the question of submarine capability. It would not be right if I did not mention that I believe the decision to replace the Oberon fleet with submarines built in Australia-in fact built at Port Adelaide-has been extremely well handled by the Minister. As a South Australian, I am very proud that South Australia was selected to build these submarines. I believe Port Adelaide is the ideal site and that the new submarines will add very greatly to our defence capability within the region. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(5.00) —I welcome the basic thrust of the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). However, there are some glaring inadequacies or perhaps naive assumptions in his view of Australia's defence situation that border on being criminal. The Minister referred to the lessons of history, which we cannot ignore, yet as Chamberlain ignored Germany's military expansion in the 1930s so too is the Minister ignoring the huge military expansion of our north-western neighbour, India. India's military expansion now reaches our very borders. The Minister said that Australia, with careful planning, `can now maintain a defence force which can both defend our territories and approaches and contribute to the security of our broader region'. If the Minister truly believes that this Government's defence planning will lead to that he is fooling himself and leading Australia along a dangerous path. The Royal Australian Navy has only 12 major surface combatants, none of which during time of war or heightened tension can safely venture beyond the range of land-based aircraft. India, on the other hand, has a two, and soon to be three, naval carrier force capable of sustained naval operations over the entire region, particularly over our vital western approaches. What I find most alarming is the lack of comment from the Government about the size of India's naval build-up and its effect on our future security. This Government quite obviously, through its silence, would prefer to forget that the Indian Ocean is our western border and ignore the fact that India is a neighbour of Australia. The Minister in his statement says much about the Pacific area and South East Asia with references to his visit last October and November. However, nowhere do I find any mention of the events currently unfolding on our western borders. Indeed, when referring to the transfer of half the fleet to Western Australia, the Minister gave the reason for that as being that it `significantly enhances the Navy's ability to deploy to South East Asia'. There was not a word about containing the very real direct threat to Australia and our trade routes now posed by India's massive naval expansion. The Minister also neglected to take into account the extremely close military co-operation that exists between India and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which further extends the Soviets sphere of influence into our region. Australia's maritime defences have declined significantly in recent times. The decline is made all the more significant by the huge increases in the maritime capabilities of other countries in our region, particularly India. India's acquisition of a nuclear submarine, with more certain to follow, has drastically tipped the balance of power against Australia. India's nuclear submarines now cement her ability to interdict our trade routes and carry out protracted operations inside Australia's territorial waters. I turn now to Indonesia, the other country in our region which is undertaking a naval build-up that threatens Australia's future security. I have obtained information from Australian and French sources that indicates the Indonesians have been wooing the French for several months with the intention of acquiring a French Rubis class nuclear submarine. At this stage the French are believed to be somewhat reluctant to sell a nuclear submarine to Indonesia because they hope to provide part or all of Canada's new submarine force. The French are also hopeful of selling nuclear submarines to Australia should, in their words, Australia come to its senses and realise that its conventional submarines could not contain a nuclear submarine threat such as that now posed by India and probably Indonesia in the very near future. That is the present restraint on the French, but it may change of course. I know for a fact that our Directorate of Naval Intelligence is aware that Indonesia is shopping around for nuclear submarines. I call on the Minister for Defence to confirm this to the Australian public to allow them to evaluate for themselves the precarious defence situation facing Australia. The Minister can no longer push the old argument that Indonesia's technical and professional competence would not allow it to service, maintain and operate such sophisticated defence hardware, because that is no longer true. A look at some of the defence hardware that it is manufacturing today, such as the new Super Puma helicopter, dispels that old argument. The Minister for Defence and the Government cannot adopt a Chamberlainesque attitude to these grave new developments on our very doorstep. At this point I wish to remind the House that for the last two years I have taken a keen interest in Australia's conventional new submarine project and over that time I have become more and more disturbed by events surrounding the project. This project now takes on even greater significance in view of the regional developments I have referred to earlier. At various times I have pointed out anomalies in the tendering process. I have justifiably questioned the suitability of the chosen design and I have raised concerns about the suitability of the neutral Swedes to build our submarines. I can now tell the House that our submarine project is in a total mess. Whilst publicly the Government says that the cost of the project is $3.9 billion, it is now estimated to be well in excess of $5 billion and possibly close to $6 billion. Through companies and individuals involved in the industry support arrangements, particularly in Adelaide, I have ascertained that the situation is absolutely chaotic. The current disarray is exacerbated by the Government's policy of placing work on the project at different locations all around Australia. Furthermore, the design stage is 18 months behind schedule and is expected to fall even further behind. Quite obviously the build stage cannot begin until the design stage is completed. That is self-evident. Perhaps the Government does not regard that as too much of a problem as it will give it more time to try to rectify another acute problem; namely, the shortage of skilled workmen in Adelaide, the primary build site. I am further concerned to hear that Captain Bill Owen, a former commander of Australia's submarine force, has raised serious safety questions regarding the cooling system for the generating and propulsion systems in the Swedish type 471 submarines which we are buying. He has published information indicating that the cooling system in our new submarines is possibly exposed to external sea pressure, a design feature no longer permissible in British or United States submarines. It was such a system that caused the loss of USS Thresher in 1963 with all hands. Our current Oberon force uses such a system. However, the maximum diving depth of an Oberon is only 600 feet-nowhere near the diving depth of modern submarines-which makes the use of such a system in our Oberons less critical. However, our new submarines will have a diving depth of 1,000 feet. The use of a system exposed to external sea pressure is not only critical but also an invitation to disaster similar to that suffered by USS Thresher. If Captain Owen is correct about the cooling system, immediate steps must be taken to rectify the problem. The United States sub safe package, a much safer alternative cooling system which operates at atmospheric pressure, needs to be incorporated into our new submarines if they are still to go ahead. This will, of course, further delay the project and increase the costs. However, the risk to our submariners will be reduced considerably. If Captain Owen is indeed correct-and only the Minister can tell us that-the Minister owes the people of Australian an explanation as to how the situation was able to arise. As the self-perpetuating chaos continues I understand that Defence Central is now horrified by the cost blow-outs and schedule delays and the appalling thought of paying for both the submarine and new patrol frigate programs at the same time. I repeatedly warned the Government that that would ultimately happen. We are in this mess because the concerns that I and others have raised about the entire submarine project have been ignored by the Minister and the Government. The Government was in such a desperate hurry to finalise the submarine project prior to the last Federal election for simple political reasons, namely the pork-barrelling aspect for South Australia and the need to be seen to be doing something decisive, anything in fact, about defence. This Government has jeopardised the entire new submarine project through its political steamrolling of the very involved processes needed to assess properly which of the submarines involved in the tendering process did in fact fulfil the tender requirements. As we are all now too well aware, the Kockums type 471 did not fulfil one of the most important criteria, namely that the boat must be of a proven, in-service design. Paradoxically, the Government has insisted on this requirement for the patrol frigate program. Maybe at least one lesson has been learnt from this debacle. I will have to go as far as to say that this Government, through its mishandling of the submarine project, has jeopardised the future long-term security of our nation, and certainly our regional defence capacity. It gives me, and I imagine most Australians, no comfort for me to say this. There are more capable and cost-effective submarines available to Australia at off the shelf prices. We would be able to purchase these submarines at set prices as they are already in production and not saddled with ongoing development costs, as is the Swedish type 471. Although buying off the shelf would mean that Australian industry would not have the level of participation it currently has in the Swedish program, the new surface combatant program would ensure the continued technical competence and life of our shipbuilding industry. This makes sense because currently, with two major naval projects due to begin in Australia, there is a tremendous dearth of skilled workmen-a fact I have already referred to. Australia's new conventional submarine project must be halted now. The costs we would incur in cancelling the project cannot be compared with the costs we will suffer if we do not take steps immediately to redress the balance of power that has now been tipped so heavily against us in our region. In light of India's acquisition of nuclear submarines, and the very real probability of Indonesia's acquiring them in the near future, I call on the Minister for Defence to adopt the only viable option to ensure Australia's future security: the comprehensive reassessment of our submarine project. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.12) —We have heard some extraordinary contributions from conservative members opposite during this debate. Before I make a few comments on that aspect, I should like to refer to the paper submitted to the House today by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). During the past couple of years this Minister has continually put comprehensive statements of Government policy and decisions before the House, in his never-ending vigil to keep the Parliament informed. However, the statement he delivered today is a little different to previous statements in that it is a comprehensive statement of the Government's initiatives in South East Asia and the South Pacific. That is something that has never happened in my time in the Parliament. Very little attention has been paid to that area, particularly the South Pacific, by conservative governments in their three decades of office prior to 1983. The Minister's paper today included a comprehensive list of achievements and initiatives that this Government has put forward with regard to South East Asia and the South Pacific. We have seen training, surveillance, engineering and ship visits between Australia and the South Pacific nations substantially increased in the past couple of years. Those achievements will be ongoing and will increase during the next few years. It is interesting to look at the forward defence posture that is continually espoused by the Opposition. Even today the Opposition still churns out its 1950s rhetoric. It is interesting to note that the Minister, in his statement, said that Australia can now maintain a defence force which can both defend our territories and approaches, and contribute to the security of our border regions. I should like to quote two other points from the Minister's statement, because it is important that the Parliament take note of them. One was the development of Australia's self-reliance in defence-not Fortress Australia but self-reliance in defence-moving away from the integration with other powers that was required at some stages in Australia's history to make our Defence Force practicable and operational. It is not necessarily a bad thing to be able to work with other defence forces-at some stages Australia has had to integrate to make us operational. We are now moving away from that concept and developing an independent defence force. On page 7 of the statement the Minister said: Our capacity for security co-operation in our region will expand as we increase our fleet with long-range ships and submarines, provide the latest combat aircraft with airborne refuelling, improve surveillance capabilities, relocate major facilities closer to our neighbours in the north and west of Australia, and increase the fire-power mobility and deployability of our ground forces. One might say that the Minister is advocating a more mobile force in general. Further, on the next page, the Minister said: Indeed, we have described a much larger area of broad strategic interest covering one-quarter of the earth's surface and including all the nations of South East Asia and the South West Pacific. Within this area of broad strategic interest we intend to develop and maintain defence relations, co-operate in the development of defence capabilities, and undertake military deployments, visits and exercises with our regional neighbours. As I said, it is interesting to note that the Minister's visit to a number of South Pacific nations last year was the first time that an Australian Defence Minister had ever been to some of those countries. Our conservative friends opposite, who sat on the treasury bench for three decades, moan about the things that they would or would not do. But what did they do for three decades? They did nothing. I actually timed the speech of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). Near the end of his 20-odd minute speech he devoted 20 seconds to what the Opposition might do if ever it were elected to government-if ever that misfortune came upon the Australian people. The honourable member for McPherson spoke about airborne refuelling, to which I also referred. It is interesting that obviously the honourable member has not read, in last September's Budget Papers, that the Government has in train, and it will be moving quickly over the next few years, providing Australia with an airborne refuelling capacity. The honourable member said that that facility will not be available for the F111s. I remind the House of who made the decision in the late 1960s to give Australia the F111s. The conservative government did, of course. Who decided that there would not be an airborne refuelling facility? Again, it was the conservative government of that time. While we are on Air Force matters, the honourable member for McPherson spent considerable time on redeployments from Butterworth, and what Australia was doing by getting out of that region. He suggested that we were downgrading the whole situation. For the benefit of honourable members opposite I shall quote from the annual report of the Department of Defence for 1982-83. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) might want to look at that report. Under the heading `Singapore' the Department of Defence said: The former Minister for Defence- that was, of course, a conservative government Defence Minister- announced during his visit to Singapore in August 1982 that the permanent detachment of six mirage aircraft in Singapore would be replaced in 1983 by periodic deployments from Butterworth. This was made necessary by the planned redeployment of No. 75 Squadron from Butterworth to Australia during 1983. Who made that decision? A conservative coalition did. Now, six years later, the coalition is moaning and groaning about the very thing that it initiated. The Opposition bought the FA18s for Australia. It was the Opposition which said, quite correctly at that time, `Having now bought the FA18s, we must reassess the entire Butterworth operation'. The Opposition set that in train, yet today we heard absolute nonsense from the honourable member for McPherson who purports to speak on behalf of the Opposition parties in this place, parroting on about how dreadful it was that we were making sensible decisions about centralising our maintenance and refit program in Australia because of the complex nature of the FA18s and because of the difference arrangements for exercises and deployments in that region. It is also noteworthy that the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) came into the House and, as usual, got stuck into submarines. He made some extraordinary comments at the start of his speech. In the 1950s conservative politicians used to say that the Russians were coming over the horizon; then it was the yellow peril. Now it is not the Russians or the yellow peril, but the Indians. Here comes Prime Minister Gandhi over the horizon leading a flotilla of increased naval power. Opposition members will frighten the life out of everyone in the lead-up to the next election, because that is what governs their defence policy-elections. They will whip in a new aircraft carrier or promise another half dozen submarines. Why will they do this? After all, the Russians are not bad now and the Chinese are pretty good. No, it is the Indians; they are the ones coming over the horizon on this occasion. Luckily the honourable member soon got off that topic and returned to the question of submarines. He suggested that the whole project is falling to pieces. What a lot of nonsense. The honourable member for Bruce has been going on about that for two years now and he has been proved wrong every time. I can assure the House that the submarine project is on track; we can guarantee that. Mr Tim Fischer —Is it on time? Mr CHARLES —It is on time and the price is still viable-around the $4 billion mark. The honourable member for Bruce suggested that the Opposition would buy submarines off the shelf-obviously the 240 from Britain, which does not entirely suit our needs. Nevertheless, it would get that and whack it in the water because it would look pretty good. There would be no involvement for the Australian defence industry, and that is typical of the Opposition when in government. The Opposition practically ran the Australian defence industry into the ground in its 30 years in power. The honourable member for Bruce is proposing less involvement for that industry. I believe it would not have any. Yet this Government, under this Minister, has initiated about $8 billion worth of projects, with the biggest defence shipbuilding capability ever in this country-the submarine project and the light frigate program which will go on stream very shortly. We initiated $8 billion worth, which has never been seen before in Australia, and this would not have occurred-I think Opposition members will admit this-had we had a coalition government. It is not just a matter of assessing our defence capabilities; we also have to look at our defence industries and what we intend to do with them in the future. That is a significant achievement of this Government under the management of the present Minister for Defence. I should comment quickly on the Indonesian position of nuclear submarines. Again, the honourable member for Bruce was wrong. I really cannot imagine what the Indonesians would want with nuclear submarines. Who would they threaten? People can get carried away. If someone purchases a nuclear submarine one has to ask what will be done with it and who will be threatened? Will Indonesia run around South East Asia threatening everyone with a nuclear submarine and blow everyone to pieces with nuclear weapons? It is absolute nonsense. Opposition members do not think things through. The quality of debate from the other side has been absolutely abysmal. I am still awaiting a speech on the Opposition's policy. What will it do? Everything that is said appears to insinuate that it will spend much more money on defence. If that is the case, where will it get it from? As Chairman of the Government's foreign affairs and defence committee, I can say that we, too, would like to spend more money and I am sure the Minister for Defence would agree. We would like to spend more money if we had the money, but one has to have priorities. The problem is that the Government does not have a spare $3 or $4 billion at present to spend on defence capabilities. I think the rearrangement of our priorities-self-reliance and the capabilities we require; not just replacement of equipment that we do not need-has been a substantial decision by this Government and will render Australia a great deal of good in the following decades. The document before us pulls together a number of initiatives that we have made in co-operation with Papua New Guinea (PNG), in particular the South Pacific and also South East Asia, which the Minister for Defence visited late last year. In regard to the PNG declaration, for example, it is the first time that defence has ever been mentioned. Mr Tim Fischer —Ugh! Mr CHARLES —The honourable member for Farrer should not shake his head and say `Ugh'. It was the first time that defence was mentioned. What did the Opposition do in 30 years in government? It sat there and huffed and puffed. The only thing it ever did was say, in the run up to an election, `Oh, we're going to have an aircraft carrier'. After the election it decided that we would not have an aircraft carrier. Opposition members knew damn well they could not afford one. Mr Katter —We decided. Mr CHARLES —That is right. The honourable member for Kennedy, who headed a committee of this Parliament, decided that the Government should not buy one. Am I correct? So honourable members opposite should get their facts straight. The facts are that this Government has made good decisions in regard to defence. The Minister has brought forward a statement which is comprehensive in our defence regional relationship with South East Asia and the South Pacific. The Parliament should endorse it wholeheartedly. I and all honourable members on this side wholeheartedly endorse it. Let us hope that that co-operation with our regional neighbours continues for a long time. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.27) —I welcome this opportunity to focus, for once in the deliberations of this Parliament, on our region-in this case, in relation to defence issues. On this occasion I am delighted that it is a broadcast day. I guess it reflects the new power found by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is also the Leader of the House. He can now set up these matters with the priority that he was not able to gain when the former member for Port Adelaide was Leader of the House. Whatever the cause, it is a delight that we are being listened to across Australia on this occasion. I regret that these broadcasts are under threat and I urge anyone listening and who enjoys them to write to their local member or senator or ring (062) 721211 to declare their support for them by getting in touch with the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). I take up one point from the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) before making my contribution to this defence statement in relation to regional co-operation. I refer to this so-called agreement with Papua New Guinea and I will tell honourable members what happened with that agreement. As the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) pointed out, it was watered down by the intervention of the pink elements of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in this country. The statement by the Minister for Defence says: Honourable members will recall that other clauses in this agreement with Papua New Guinea- relate to important elements of our defence co-operation activities, while the last clause expresses our intention to consult at the request of either party in the event of external armed attack which threatens the national sovereignty of either country. I draw attention to the words `to consult'. By the time Port Moresby fell on a Sunday afternoon it would still not be able to initiate the consultations referred to. The total lack of commitment that document gives is a disgrace. In fact, it is a disappointment to the Minister for Defence, who sought better. I will give him credit-he did seek better but he was done over in the Cabinet. While I am dealing with the pink elements of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, let me reveal to the House that, on information made available to me in either 1986 or 1987, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade approved of a Russian ship coming within sovereign waters in very close proximity to the Harold E. Holt North West Cape base. No doubt it was one of those Russian ships laden with eavesdropping devices, with electronic gear extraordinaire, so that it could do its surveying of what goes on at the Harold E. Holt base at the North West Cape in Western Australia. It is a disgrace that that approval was given by one arm of the Federal Government without proper reference to the Department of Defence or the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence has an obligation to tell the Parliament about the details of that incident and why approval was given for a Russian ship to come within Australian sovereign waters, in very close proximity to the North West Cape base where, with all the electronic equipment that those ships have, it could conduct clandestine surveillance of the activities going on at that base. I support the honourable member for McPherson in his comments about this statement, which does not contain anything particularly new and which is lacking in substantial detail. It is entitled `Self-Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. In many ways it is a statement full of minute gestures. It lacks major commitments to the region. At poor best, it arises from the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the other policy information paper presented by the Minister for Defence in March 1987. I commend the Minister for Defence for visiting the region, but, incidentally, that also is not new. Previous Ministers for Defence have done so. The Leader of the National Party of Australia and right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was a regular visitor to the Asian region in his role as Minister for Defence because he, too, readily appreciates that Australia must interface more with its own region or, to quote Minister Dawkins, we will indeed perish. The focus on Asia must not just rest with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) group of countries, but also with the South Asian group of countries dominated by India and including in total Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Just like parts of Australia, these countries in South Asia, as well as the ASEAN nations, at certain times are very hot and very dry and then very hot and very wet. This, combined with other factors, causes many Australians to ignore Asia other than for brief, unrealistic stopovers en route to the traditional destinations of Europe and North America. In so doing, the huge potential for exports to large markets in India and Thailand is not fully realised, let alone the potential to attract tourists and to maintain defence co-operation between Australia and the South Asian and ASEAN nations. The growing middle classes in these countries-Thailand, India and elsewhere-should be a specific target for increasing our promotional efforts because they are larger in dimension than the middle class buying power of Australian domestic markets. In a nutshell, part of the trouble in dealing with this question of how Australia relates to its region, specifically in relation to defence regional co-operation, is that Australians at all levels have a wrong perception of Asia-one of perhaps famine, poverty and disaster, which flows from the types of news telecasts that so often originate from Asia, rather than some of the good news stories that provide a measure of balance and better understanding. Indeed, to strike some balance, I put it to the House that, although we may think our new luxury hotels in Sydney or Melbourne are magnificent, they still pale before the excellence of the best five hotels in Bangkok. If honourable members think we have some beautiful bridges around Australia, I recommend that they take a look at the Penang bridge to the mainland of Malaysia and compare that for size and as an engineering feat. If honourable members can find one airport terminal of Australia of any note-I would like to know where one may find one, because almost all of them are badly designed and congested; at the moment Mascot is an absolute disgrace-they should look, for comparison, at the new airport terminals in Singapore, Bangkok and elsewhere, which confer a degree of excellence which puts to shame what we offer our tourists at our key gateway points. All of this is relevant to a consideration of where Australia stands in its region and a better understanding of our region, the excellence contained in that region and how we are falling far behind. We simply have to try harder and do better at interfacing with Asia. We have to build on those special links established during World War II and afterwards to ensure that Australia truly relates to Asia. We should not grovel to Asia. We should not grovel to the ASEAN nations or the south Asian nations or those nearby-Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Fiji-in the Pacific rim. But we must earn their respect. We must interface a whole lot more. It is a matter of regret that perhaps the majority of the members of this Parliament have not been to Indonesia at any stage in their parliamentary career, notwithstanding the fact that it is one of our nearest neighbours, has a population of some 170 million and has a huge impact on our region. We choose instead to go to other destinations. So, the responsibility not only rests with the Government; it rests with the Parliament. It rests with all levels of government. It rests with business. It rests with trade unions. It rests with the nation as a whole to interface more with the Asian region lest we perish. I commend you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for risking your life twice in making visits to very unpopular parts of Asia such as Kampuchea and for the subsequent report you gave to this place. In commending that Australia relate more to the ASEAN nations and the south Asian nations, I for my part will continue as a priority my work on Thailand, which has 56 million people and perhaps one of the most exciting economic potentials for the next decade. I return fairly and squarely to the defence statement before the Parliament at present. It is all very well for the Minister for Defence to offer some form of regional liaison and co-operation with our limited defence resources; that is the reality. What is the standing of our Defence Force? What is the morale of our Defence Force? What is its human capability, leaving aside for one moment the equipment which has been discussed by other speakers in the course of this debate? We find that the strength of the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force is hovering around the 70,000 level. There has been a massive number of resignations. Morale in our defence forces is on a knife edge for a number of reasons, not the least of which are the confused signals sent by the Australian Government to its Army, Navy and Air Force, such as in the cutting of 2 per cent off the Defence Force retirement benefits fund and not reinstating that, and doing it in such a way as to maximise injury and insult-by breaching a contract with those who serve Australia in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Of course, on top of that, we have had the very complex and confusing changes to the defence service home loans scheme. We had three versions in the course of just four months. Firstly, in the Budget in September it was announced that there would be no more loans, and a $10,000 grant was introduced. A week later, the loan was brought back on a revised basis. Then in December the $10,000 grant was eliminated and the maximum term was reduced from 32 years to 25 years. I concede that portability was introduced; I will be fair about that. What this Government has done is to send some very confusing and demoralising signals to the armed forces constituency of Australia. It is not good enough to have the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) wandering around this country. I give her credit for making the effort to visit units, but she is being snowed and cocooned and she ought to realise that she has to speak to other than officer ranks and even senior non-commissioned officer ranks. She has to make the extra effort to meet in a free and fearless way with all ranks associated with the units to gain a true feedback. It is only natural that some officers will cocoon the Minister in the course of visits. That does not do anyone any good whatsoever. I add that there was no greater insult to the spouses of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel than the backhand indirect instructions that they were given on their democratic rights in meetings with the Minister. That was a scandal in its own right. It has seriously damaged the morale of the spouses of the members of our armed forces and it will take a long while for that Minister to regain any confidence as she moves around our Army, Navy and Air Force units. Morale is on a knife edge. Let me distinguish between the unit morale of our armed forces and the morale of individuals as members of our defence forces. In most cases, unit morale is of a good standard. Let us take, for argument's sake, the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in Townsville, the submarine HMAS Onslow or the 1st Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka. Commanders at all ranks work very hard to ensure that unit morale, such as of the Air Force in Butterworth-what is left of it-is maintained despite all the difficulties. Full credit must go to those commanders, from non-commissioned officer level to officer level. Full credit must go also to the soldiers, sailors and airmen for their attitude. What is not good is the morale of the individual service personnel who form part of our overall Defence Force. That is where the breakdown is occurring. That is where the resignations are flowing from following actions of the Federal Government in breaching a contract under the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. All the loyal unionists who comprise the Government benches ought to hang their heads in shame. I put to them the question: Would they, as shop stewards before they became members of parliament, have accepted such a 2 per cent breach of contract with regard to their own work forces? Of course, the answer is no, they would not. Yet they all cheerfully voted in this House for the 2 per cent cutback on DFRDB and for it to be a compounding cutback which continues to this day. I welcome the fact that this Parliament for once is considering the place of Australia in this region in relation to defence matters, but I regret that the defence statement made by the Minister for Defence this afternoon is lacking in detail, lacking in substance and lacking in comprehensive commitment, although it does offer a number of minor gestures towards building those very important relations with ASEAN and south Asia and other nations which surround our great nation. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(5.42) —It is a privilege to participate in this debate on the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) entitled `Self-Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. A number of matters have been raised in the debate so far to which I would like to address my time. I follow the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). He made a number of comments that I would like to mention. The last matter that he devoted his attention to was morale in the Australian Defence Force and the fact that the Government had, in its 1986 Budget, reduced the Defence Force retirement and death benefits pension by 2 per cent. I would not like anybody to think that the Australian Defence Force was singled out. In that same Budget, superannuated Commonwealth officers had the increase in their superannuation discounted by 2 per cent, the inflation factor that the Whitlam Government introduced in both those superannuation schemes. At the same time, the payment of age pensions was deferred by six weeks. It is not without some significance that all members of the Australian community have made sacrifices in recent times in order to get this country back on the rails, to get our economy going again. The honourable member for Farrer spoke about the extent to which we would, as trade unionists, have fought tooth and nail to oppose such a decrease. The fact of life is that under this Government members of the work force have seen their take home pay discounted by 7 per cent as a contribution to getting the nation on the rails. The honourable member for Farrer knows that members of this Parliament have had their own remuneration discounted by an infinitely greater amount than that. Indeed, in 1984 the Remuneration Tribunal said that there would be a catch up of 11.7 per cent. I would not like anybody to get the idea that the Defence Force has been singled out from some discriminatory treatment. The honourable member for Farrer made a comment about the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), saying that she was being snowed. Mr Tim Fischer —Cocooned. Mr CROSS —Sorry, cocooned. I have to say that the Minister is a very good communicator. I was with her when she met service spouses at Enoggera in a public meeting. Those service spouses came not only from Enoggera but also from Cabarlah, Canungra and all of south-east Queensland. The discussion was fairly frank. It is true that the Minister met officers and more senior people, but she also mixed extremely well and listened very carefully to what was said to her by service spouses, many of whom were quite courteous but very forthright in addressing the matters that were of concern to them. No previous Government has ever appointed a Minister with a responsibility for defence personnel. I was very keen on that happening when the Tange report came down but I was unsuccessful in persuading my colleagues at that time. I think it is an extremely positive step for the Government to have taken and it will serve the Defence Force well in time. A number of matters have been raised in this debate. I do not want to spend all my time replying to things that were said on the other side, but I found it passing strange that the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) referred to India's naval build-up and Indonesia's naval build up and the lack of any response. The Royal Navy and, of course, the Royal Australian Navy have been operating in our waters for some 200 years. Through the first World War and the Second World War and up until recent times we have had very much of a one-ocean Navy. We have had facilities on the Indian Ocean. Indeed, HMAS Stirling was under way at the time of the Whitlam Government. We were very keen on developing a two-navy presence in a way that we had not done previously. The fact of life is that this Government and this Minister, with their intention to base half the Royal Australian Navy on the Indian Ocean, have made the most significant decision about a naval presence in the Indian Ocean of any government in the history of the Commonwealth. In response to the suggestion that we were unmindful of what was happening in the Indian Ocean, I have to ask: What were the conservative governments doing for a good deal of the 87 previous years of this Commonwealth? We have heard about the defence agreement with Papua New Guinea. I think it is a good agreement. It supports the Papua New Guineans. It is insignificant that the previous Government, in its long period in office, did not enter into a defence agreement with Papua New Guinea. I understand why that was. At the time Papua New Guinea gained its independence in 1975, we were very careful not to negotiate a defence agreement which could be seen to have been thrust on Papua New Guinea by the former colonial power. Now, in the fullness of time, a satisfactory defence agreement has been negotiated. One of the matters raised by the honourable member for Bruce on which I would like to comment is the submarine project. One of his points was that it was a means of pork-barrelling for South Australia. That is a reflection on the competence of the people in the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence. It is also a fact that both of the two consortia tendering for the submarine project decided to assemble the submarine in South Australia, for a range of reasons associated with the availability of the site, its centrality to the resources that were needed and the presence of a sophisticated work force. As we know, South Australia has had a lot of industries, including the motor car industry and the shipbuilding industry, over a long period. I compliment the Minister on the improvements that have taken place in the Department of Defence, particularly in the Capital Procurement Organisation under the leadership in more recent times of Mr Fred Bennett. Anybody who has been monitoring our capacity to spend the large amounts of money wisely and well would have to be impressed with the increasing expertise that has been built up in the Defence Force over the recent years. It is an absolute insult to those very good people in our Defence Department and our Defence Force for somebody to suggest that the submarine project went to South Australia as some means of pork-barrelling the Labor Government there. I note that the Queensland Minister, Mr Borbridge, has been suggesting in recent times that Queensland is not getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of defence contracts. I would make the same comment about him. Mr Tim Fischer —Barrie Unsworth also is very upset about it. Mr CROSS —Yes, but his is a Labor government too. It is very easy for people to say that but, naturally, the defence contracts are let to the appropriate company, to the appropriate site. I would hate to think that a Labor government got some benefit, because it was of the same political colour as this Government, if that decision were not in the best interests of Australia. I return to the regional program. It is very easy to say that the Government could be doing more. The question to ask, of course, is, `Why didn't those opposite do it?'. If they look at the Budgets over the last three years, they will see that $50.1m, $54.6m and this year $58.3m has been allocated to the defence co-operation program. These are difficult days. The increase in the defence budget that the Labor Government hoped to have was not possible in the current financial year. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defence Force is operating in difficult budgetary times, this program has been given a high priority by this Government. Let us take the South Pacific, for example. The decision to build the Pacific patrol boat is the most imaginative decision that any government has made about relations with our South Pacific neighbours. Some comments have been made about the Torres Strait in recent times and the importance of the sea to the people of that area. The sea is life itself to the people who live on the small islands of the Pacific. It is an imaginative program. The patrol boat is well suited. I note that the Minister said that future boats will be air-conditioned. I think that is a good idea. The program has been extremely well received throughout the Pacific. In response to the comment that we should be doing more, I say that in the last year of the Opposition's tenure, that is 1982-83, the amount spent on defence on South Pacific regional co-operation was $3.4m and in our last three budgets it has been $8m, $13.1m and $15.9m-a significant increase. I think that the Department of Defence handles this program extremely well. I had the opportunity while being the Australian delegate to the South Pacific Commission a couple of years ago to look in detail at the program in the Solomon Islands. Many of the South Pacific countries do not have large defence forces. Sometimes they have police forces or forces designed to deal with emergency situations. It would not help them if we thrust arms and ammunition on them. We respond very much to what they want us to do. The defence program in the Solomon Islands is of significance not only to its defence forces, but also to its civilian infrastructure. In the Solomon Islands one of the more important programs is the police communications project. It includes the provision of radio equipment, training and technical assistance to expand and upgrade the Royal Solomon Islands Police communications system. That is not just a significant network for defence or to deal with emergencies such as a cyclone. Communications is the lifeblood of an island nation. I refer also to the coastal hydrographic unit, the attachment of a Royal Australian Navy chief petty officer and the provision of equipment and training to continue the development of the capability of the Solomon Islands to chart its in-shore waters. By and large, the Solomon Islands were well charted by the Royal Navy when it was a British colony but to an island nation, with coral reefs that grow and channels that are affected by cyclones, local hydrographic work is extremely important. It is good to see that Australia is in there playing a useful role. Australia is doing a great job in our relations with the nations of our region. We have developed a firm and friendly relationship with our neighbours in South East Asia. I noted the comment about India and Indonesia. Surely every member of this House has to be pleased that both of those countries are peaceful. Anybody who suggests that India threatens countries in this part of the world must have a fairly vivid imagination. If there is one country in the world that is concerned about India it is Pakistan for historic reasons. We are fortunate that we have as our northern neighbour the republic of Indonesia with which we have a good relationship. Mr White —Why don't you do something about it and build on it? Mr CROSS —We are responding to what the Indonesians want us to do. Everybody knows that we have had an estrangement over recent times. The situation is now improving. We cannot force money onto people. As I do not think the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) was in the House when I cited the figures, I indicate again that a substantial increase in the amount of money allocated to this program has been made in recent times. We have nothing to be complacent about, but this program is very useful in our region. Australian service men and women serve in these areas; we bring people from there to Australia for training and other purposes, and we establish personal relationship at all levels in society which are extremely valuable. We are able to do some of these things and go into some places where other nations cannot go because we are seen as being a genuinely good neighbour in the Pacific and we do not threaten anybody. Mr White —But it is too small to be meaningful. Mr CROSS —If the honourable member for McPherson is suggesting that Australia is too small to be meaningful, I think that is absolutely disgraceful. Mr White —No; the aid program is too small. Mr CROSS —I will reply to the honourable member, through the Chair, in my closing remarks. In its last year, the previous Government spent $3.4m in the South Pacific. In the last three years of this Government $8m, $13.1m and $15.9m has been allocated. These amounts might be too small, and I am sure the Minister would like to do more, but they are a hell of a lot better than the Opposition was able to do during its last period in office. Mr White —You cannot keep going back. We are looking to the future. Mr CROSS —I heard the honourable member raise the question of the refuelling of the F111s. I was in the Parliament when they were ordered in the 1960s. They were received in 1972 and we have them now. Prior to the 1966 election, which I think is when they were ordered-I think Athol Townley was the Minister for Defence at the time-and until fairly recent times a government of the persuasion of the honourable member for McPherson was in office. I close by asking the honourable member for McPherson, through the Chair, a question. Why did not his Government in that long period acquire an airborne refuelling capacity for the F111s? Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.57) —It is always very pleasant to follow the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) who usually joins in these debates in a scholarly and pleasant way. He raised some of the good things that the Government has done over the years but, sadly, he had to resort to going back in history and talking about what we did in this regard. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) spoke in his statement about various reports that have been produced over the last two or three years in which he has been the Minister. We are debating what is supposed to be a major policy statement of regional co-operation by the Defence Minister, which was delivered earlier today. The Minister resorted to image manipulation which, in so many policy areas under his Government, substitutes for effective, long term policy development and initiative. The Minister has made a statement which he says attests to the importance this Government attaches to regional defence policies. It is a statement which purports to announce significant developments in that area. We saw some 25 or more pages of it. It is significant only for the appropriateness of the rhetorical lip service it pays to our regional obligations. Just as was the Minister's South Pacific initiative statement brought down a year ago, this statement is an attempt to substitute a string of minor, ad hoc defence co-operation decisions, taken after an overseas trip, for a detailed, long term regional security strategy. The statement acknowledges that Australia's peace and security involves not just territorial defence capabilities but regional military co-operation. What it does not admit-indeed what it seems to deny-is that at the moment and for the foreseeable future our defence forces are not in a position to fulfil their duties effectively in either area. The statement implicitly asserts that Australia is in a position to take an active role in regional collective security because it has tackled all the defence problems exposed by the 1984 parliamentary report on defence capabilities. You might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the report found, first, that we could not meet even low level security threats in terms of deployment capacity and combat sustainability; secondly, that our command structure was deficient and unlikely to provide a suitable basis for operational requirements; and, thirdly, that the process for determining national security policy and defence guidance was inadequate. Four years later, notwithstanding all the committees and consultants the Minister ordered into the field, we have not only these same defence deficiencies but also the added problem of unprecedented resignation rates in the defence forces. There has been much talk about this in recent months. Let me just remind my honourable colleagues that last year's Diamond Dollar exercise revealed that Australia could not sustain a single regular division in operation for more than six weeks because of deficiencies in manpower and logistic support. Let us remember that the Fiji crisis revealed that Australia was militarily impotent in its own region and that we would have had to rely on the co-operation of our potential adversaries to secure the evacuation of our own citizens in such a crisis. Let us recall that the parliamentary committee which exposed our defence weaknesses in 1984 reported last November that our defence management and decision-making processes were still inadequate to the task of handling an escalating security threat and that they lacked the full confidence of the military. So the first problem with the statement is this: the Minister for Defence has committed us over the past couple of years to security obligations in the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific and South East Asia. Unfortunately, the Minister has not been able to get our forces to the point where they could cope with even a series of low level incursions into the area of our direct military interest. The second problem is this: our regional neighbours know that. Our neighbours do not simply take the good intentions of a visiting Australian Defence Minister as sufficient evidence that their security and peace is to be enhanced. They go away and compare rhetoric to capability and will. They know-they have only to read our parliamentary reports-that Australia could not possibly exert what the Minister describes on page 9 of his statement as `decisive' military power even in its area of primary military interest, let alone in the wider region. They will readily identify the weaknesses of this statement. My colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has already exposed the dishonesty of many of the claims in this statement, and I recommend his response in Hansard to those interested in this matter. I want merely to highlight the tokenism of the alleged developments in our involvement in the region's collective security. Consider the following paragraph on page 18 of the statement: We will also substantially increase our naval contribution to the region by providing what will be in effect the continuous presence of a major combatant of the Australian Navy in the South East Asian Waters. Our substantial contribution will be the equivalent of one ship! When one considers the growing geostrategic significance of the sea lanes in the region and the naval expansion plans for regional navies-the navies of India and Indonesia in particular-that paragraph signals evidence only of our long term irrelevance militarily over the coming years in our region. More important than all the exaggeration in the statement is its fundamental vagueness and the impact that that vagueness will have on the analysts reporting on the statement to their defence Ministers in the region. If we are to have any influence in shaping regional security, any role in deterring aggression, any success in preventing war, we will need to do more than announce small increments in peacetime training and exercise aid. What our neighbours need to know, and what those we may seek to deter in the future will assess, is what the bottom line of our military commitment will be in a crisis. The Minister should have got down to specifics. He should first have given us accurate supplementary Budget figures to assure us and our neighbours that we will be able to deliver. More importantly, he should have indicated exactly what assistance would be available, for example, to Thailand, Brunei or Malaysia during a real threat to their security or territorial sovereignty. He should have clearly stated in advance what the people of Papua New Guinea or any other island state could expect from Australia militarily should their government be brought down by coup or subversion. It is because this Government has been unable or unwilling to do this that our neighbours have been turning to other nations for assistance. It is because of that failure that major powers such as the Soviet Union, Japan and India have moved to fill the vacuum. The problem is that the Minister's document steers clear of any statement of our intentions in those future situations when they will count-in military conflicts. He characterises those who sought to judge the lessons of the Fiji coup as suffering from `vague and simplistic threat perceptions'. They are incapable, he says, of distinguishing between `events we do not like and those which threaten our security'. Unfortunately, the shoe is on the other foot. The Minister has failed to identify exactly how military forces will be used to secure our interests in times of political or military conflict in our region. The Government's confusion over whether it had a police, diplomatic or military role when requested by the Fijian Government to intervene is exactly what should have been addressed by this new statement of regional interests and intentions. What happened in the Fijian coup is that a legitimate government took us at our word and found us confused and impotent. This statement does not clarify how we will fulfil our obligations in the future. It will not reassure anyone. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me sum up my concerns by directing you to page 5 of the statement. The Minister says: In the 1930s Australians had a stark choice . . . between alliance and isolationism. . . . . Australia can now maintain a Defence Force which can both defend our territories and approaches, and contribute to the security of our broader region. The reality is revealed in the recent decision to cut Royal Australian Air Force surveillance of Australian waters to provide the surveillance in the South Pacific that the Minister promised our neighbours last year. That is the reality of it. This statement will only add to the doubts in our region about Australia's capabilities and will power. It will send a message to our servicemen that their already overstretched resources will be stretched even further. There is only one way our armed forces will ever be able to fulfil the duties they have to this country and our region, and that is by a major boost being given to the defence budget. All members on this side of the House are looking forward with great anticipation to the May mini-Budget and the August Budget, in which we hope to see evidence of provision for the resources that the Minister's statement simply assumes. Mr LEE(Dobell)(6.08) —I believe that the statement before the House once again demonstrates that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has justly earned his reputation as this country's greatest Minister for Defence since the 1940s. I think one of his greatest achievements has been his success in encouraging debate and discussion in the Australian community on defence issues. The Defence Force personnel to whom I speak know that they have a Minister for Defence who is not only a senior Cabinet Minister but one who will go to Cabinet and fight for their interests and the interests of the Australia's defence forces as a whole. I think it is a tragedy for this Parliament that today's opportunity for debate on the ministerial statement has been used by the Opposition to deliver a series of whinges and whines about aspects of Australia's defence forces with which they are unhappy. They could have taken this opportunity to put forward some constructive suggestions and positive ideas, but I am afraid that they have neglected to take up that opportunity. Eighteen months ago the Minister for Defence tabled in this Parliament the Dibb report-the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. That was followed in March last year by the Minister releasing Australia's first Defence White Paper for 11 years, and he is to be greatly commended for that. The White Paper outlined the Government's defence plans for the next 10 years. In addition, it was aimed at developing our own self-reliant capability for the future of our defence forces. Today the Minister has tabled the statement on Australia's regional defence policy. It follows visits by the Minister to South East Asia and the South West Pacific in October and November last year. During those visits, I understand, he took the opportunity to explain Australia's views on future developments in the region and to outline what Australia would be doing with its defence forces in the decade to come. Secondly, his visits allowed countries in our region to tell him what they thought of his proposals. I shall now make a few comments on some of the contributions of Opposition members in this debate today. The honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) continued to expose his own obsessions on the submarine contract. He alleged that the contract would not be able to meet deadlines and would blow out in costs because there is a shortage of skilled labour in Australia. I do not deny that, because many employers have neglected to train apprentices in recent decades, some employers probably will have difficulty in obtaining skilled staff to work on this project. What is the answer from the honourable member for Bruce? How does he get around the problem of a shortage of skilled tradesmen? He does not say that we should improve our education system and our means of training young Australians who are currently out of work. He does not come up with something positive. All he says is that we should scrap the whole contract to purchase the submarines and, instead, buy an off-the-shelf model from Britain, which will not generate one job in Australia. That is the Opposition's alternative-to scrap the contract and to scrap all the jobs that are being created not only in South Australia but also in New South Wales and elsewhere. The Opposition's proposal-if the House will excuse the pun-is to torpedo the submarine contract. That shows just how barren the Opposition's thoughts are in the whole defence debate. Our Minister for Defence has ensured that more than 70 per cent of the work on the submarine project will be carried out in Australia. That guarantees that more than $2,800m will be spent in Australia to create work for Australians and to ensure that factories in Australia have work to do. The Opposition's alternative is to close those down and to buy an off-the-shelf model from Britain. That is an absolute disgrace. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is at the table, is the shadow Minister for Defence. It is interesting to contrast his comments this afternoon, slamming the Government for not spending more on various areas of the defence budget. He nods his head in agreement. I often wonder how he can sit in the same shadow Ministry as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who lecture the Government day after day, week after week, saying that this Government should be cutting back government spending. The Opposition says that this Government should cut back government spending by $11 billion. Mr White —Change your priorities. Mr LEE —I take it that the honourable member wants us to cut pensions further, to cut back the veterans and to cut back spending on training young Australians. Even the United States Secretary of Defense, who brought down the US defence budget recently, has had to admit that blow-outs and deficits mean that ultimately one must cut back spending that is allocated to defence budgets. So, even President Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary is having to cut back defence. The Liberal and National parties in Australia appear to be the only people who still believe that, with a wave of a magic wand, they can come up with the massive amounts of money that they are seeking to have spent on defence equipment. The honourable member for McPherson creates the best example of all. Not only does he want us to purchase off-the-shelf British submarines; he also wants us to get another aircraft carrier-a great leap backwards to the 1970s. What would be the cost of a new aircraft carrier and all of the support needed for that? I estimate that it would be at least $3 billion. What other essential areas of our defence budget would have to suffer so that Opposition members can purchase their little aircraft carrier and float it around wherever they like, trying to prove how tough they are on defence issues? The fact that the honourable member for McPherson is still advocating the purchase of a new aircraft carrier shows just how out of touch he is on defence issues. Later in his speech the honourable member for McPherson described the new joint declaration of principles between Australia and Papua New Guinea as a disgrace, as did the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). The honourable member for McPherson said that it was a disgrace because the declaration only guarantees that the two countries will consult. Let me give the exact wording as to the declaration: The last clause expresses (Australia's) intention to consult at the request of either party in the event of external armed attack which threatens the national sovereignty of either country. I am a bit surprised that the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Farrer consider this declaration to be too weak because it only guarantees that Australia and Papua New Guinea will consult each other if there is a problem. Frankly, that is all that the ANZUS Treaty says. Is the honourable member for McPherson saying that the ANZUS Treaty is a disgrace because it only guarantees that Australia and the United States will consult if there is ever an external threat? Of course he is not saying that. He is just seeking once again to make negative, whining, whingeing attacks on something of which we should be very proud. The fact that Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Prime Minister Paias Wingti were able to sign the joint declaration of principles last year is a great credit to the Australian Government and the Papua New Guinea Government. I think that it will be shown to be of great benefit to both countries in the years to come. I turn to some of the important points which the Minister for Defence made in his statement this afternoon. He outlined a number of proposals to upgrade defence co-operation in our region. I am 100 per cent behind the Minister in this matter. For Papua New Guinea, he has guaranteed that there will be extensive defence co-operation. At present, almost half of Australia's defence co-operation effort is concerned with providing assistance to Papua New Guinea. Every year at least 200 Papua New Guinea Defence Force personnel are trained in Australia. That certainly must go a long way towards improving their skills and expertise. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea has asked that Australia, in particular, expand the engineering assistance which we provide to the Papua New Guinea defence forces. He is very keen that the Papua New Guinea defence forces carry out more work on infrastructure development in his country. That is a decision which the Australian Government can understand, and I understand that we shall be doing everything we can to assist him in that matter. In addition, our Minister for Defence has agreed to upgrade the Papua New Guinea Defence Force's patrol boat base at Manus Island to assist in resources surveillance. I should have thought that that was something positive that the shadow Minister could have endorsed. In addition, the Government has agreed to additional long range maritime patrol flights, and again that is something which I wholeheartedly endorse. As to the South West Pacific, Minister Beazley-I am please to see him in the chamber-is the first Minister for Defence ever to visit the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. I wonder why no Liberal or National Party Minister for Defence ever got around to visiting those countries, which will be so crucial to Australia's future defence prospects. The Minister has said that he found great enthusiasm for the Pacific patrol boat program. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)-what an imaginative idea the Pacific patrol boat program is. So far Papua New Guinea has received two of these new Australian-built patrol boats and Vanuatu has received one of the boats. This year Papua New Guinea will receive a third patrol boat and the Solomon Islands and Western Samoa will receive their first patrol boats. In addition to simply providing the patrol boats, the Royal Australian Navy is providing naval officers and technical experts, who I am sure will provide great assistance to those Pacific island countries. We should not neglect the fact that goodwill will be established between Australia and the South Pacific countries. That is something which is to be endorsed. The countries of the South Pacific have advised Australia that their first priority is that they can have full control of their lands and their interests. In that context they have welcomed the Minister's announcement that Royal Australian Air Force long-range maritime patrol flights to those countries will continue, if not be extended, and the Royal Australian Navy's deployment in the South West Pacific region will continue. As for Singapore and Malaysia, the Minister has announced that as from next month the RAAF's FA18 Hornet fighter attack aircraft will be deployed at Butterworth in Malaysia for a total of at least 16 weeks a year. In addition, the Minister has also made certain guarantees of F111 aircraft deployment and for Orion P3C long-range maritime patrols. What was the Opposition's response to those guarantees by the Minister? Once again it sought to score a few cheap political points by alleging that we are the ones responsible for withdrawing the Mirage aircraft from Butterworth. As the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) stated, it was a decision of the previous Liberal-National Party Government to cut back staffing and deployment of RAAF aircraft from Malaysia. Members of the Opposition are on pretty weak ground when they seek to blame our Government for a decision their predecessors made. I understand that I am being followed in this debate by a New South Wales member of the Liberal-National Party Opposition. I encourage him to make a few comments on the statement made by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) in his claims that the submarine contract is running over budget, that there is a desperate shortage of skilled staff and that because of that we should end the submarine project; we should not let all those Australians who will get jobs in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria get jobs; we should not let $2.1 billion be spent in New South Wales for various building items and components for these submarines. Members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate today have told Parliament that they would rather we scrap the submarine project because Australia cannot do it. They say we do not have the resources, that we cannot train the apprentices. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is not the Opposition which said that. One member said that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr LEE —That is even worse. The honourable member for McPherson has now cut loose one of the members of the Opposition. He has cut loose the honourable member for Bruce. He was quite happy to let the honourable member for Bruce make wild and crazy allegations in this House but he is not prepared to endorse one of the Opposition's main speakers in this debate who made the claim that there are so many problems with the submarine contract that we have to cancel it and purchase some off-the-shelf models from Britain or some other country and destroy the jobs that have been created for all Australians by this Minister for Defence and this Government. I am sure, from the many other announcements made in this statement, that Australia's defence forces are in good hands as long as they remain with the current Minister. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.24) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in a number of ways, for facilitating this speech I am about to make on this important defence statement. I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and the challenge he threw out to me. In the friendliest of ways, may I take up his challenge in relation to the submarine contract? I do not know why he was particularly keen for me as a New South Welshman to speak unless it was to say how disappointed I was at the way in which politics played a part in the way the submarine contract was ultimately awarded, and the way in which New South Wales and particularly the industrial city so close to the honourable member's heart, Newcastle, was cut adrift for political reasons whereas it could well have been a very suitable site to undertake the full construction of a submarine contract. The various contracts have been spread, for base political reasons, around Australia. The silence of New South Welshmen, particularly from the Labor Party, in relation to Newcastle's claim that the Greenfield site could have been the site where submarines could well have been constructed is a matter upon which a good deal more comment could have been made. In this address tonight I do wish to commend the honourable member for Dobell for his address because in a few sentences, in a matter of a few minutes, he was able to spell out the detail of this statement that runs to something of the order of 31 pages. The statement we have before us says so little about our defence, so little in terms of new initiatives that one can gather them together in the way the honourable member for Dobell did so well in his speech. I must say I found the speech somewhat schizoid. I do not mean to reflect on the Minister. When one goes to the end of the speech one finds an excellent statement as to why we ought to be concerned about defence and defence matters and how our own history ought to direct our attention to these matters. The Minister said: If anyone should entertain any doubts about the importance of the nations in our region to Australia's own security, I would recommend them to visit, as I did late last year, the islands of Guadalcanal and Singapore. I must say that I have visited both locations and I understand what the Minister had in mind. The Minister went on: Guadalcanal is now the site of the capital of the Solomons, Honiara, and a visit there can be recommended to anyone for its charm and peace. But no one with a sense of history can go there and not be awed by the immediacy of the great battle that was fought there 45 years ago this year. That battle was a battle for Australia, and Australians fought in it-as the wreck of HMAS Canberra lying in Ironbottom Sound, attests. Singapore has, if anything, an even starker strategic message for Australians. The fall of Singapore in February 1942 was the darkest moment Australia has known in 200 years, and underlined unambiguously that Australia's security is tied to the security of South East Asia. I could not disagree one iota with those comments. They realistically sum up what history teaches us about the risks we always run in our region. Perhaps in the comments I will make later tonight I will be able to talk about our region, particularly Indo-China which I see as being so important. I want to highlight that, however, against the comments of the Minister himself at the beginning of his speech where he tries to downgrade criticism of the Government's White Paper and particularly to defend some of the changes effected under the Minister's stewardship. It seems to me that those comments run directly counter to what the Minister tells us history teaches us. I draw honourable members attention to page 9 of the Minister's statement where he has some comments to make about Fiji in particular and he tries to abstract the lesson he learnt from that situation to the threat that the Soviet position in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, might be to Australia. I must say it is one of the most disappointing statements I have seen. The Minister, speaking about the developments in Fiji, said: . . . some commentators called for a revision of Australia's defence policy. What was evident once again was a failure to distinguish between events we do not like and those which threaten our security. I would like to know from the Minister and from honourable members on the Government side whether they see the Minister's statement as meaning that the Soviet activity at Cam Ranh Bay is merely, as the Minister said, an event we do not like, or a threat to our security. Until we know a good deal more about what the Soviets are doing there, I would not dismiss what is happening as lightly as the Minister appears to do in his statement. I would welcome some comments from the honourable member who is to follow me in this debate about the way in which he sees Cam Ranh Bay and whether he sees it in quite the same way as the Minister appears to suggest in his speech to us, that it is merely something we may not like rather than a threat to this region. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I made some introductory remarks on the Minister's paper entitled `Self-reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. I indicated that, whilst the statement runs to some 31 pages, it is difficult to find a great deal of substance in it. When one looks at the language used one can only assume that most of the matters of substance that could have been addressed must have been of such a significant nature that the Minister deemed it inappropriate to put them to the Parliament where they could be seen and analysed. The substantial comments which I make tonight are directed primarily to our relationship with Indo-China. I draw the attention of honourable members to the comments that were made about our relationships within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region in particular. The Minister notes in his statement that there continues to be instability in the Philippines but goes on to talk about Australia no longer having a role as a regional policeman. Whilst I do not argue that that ought to be our role, I suspect that, when one looks at the statements that follow, one finds that it is not hard to note why, in the minds of ASEAN, Australia is being seen as increasingly irrelevant. There are two reasons for that. The first is the strength of their economies and, in that sense, their ability to provide increasingly for their own defence and to strike out with their own independent foreign policies. The second reason we are seen as increasingly irrelevant in that area is our inability to defend ourselves and our withdrawing from defence co-operation which was so important to those countries in the past. Recently, I had the opportunity of visiting the region extensively. I visited Kampuchea, Vietnam and Thailand. I say to the House and the Minister that, in defence terms, I see risks that are not really addressed in the Minister's statement. While I see certain encouraging signs on the horizon that some of those risks might be minimised in future, I draw honourable members' attention to some of the risks that I see and which I believe we need to be prepared to think about, talk about and endeavour to overcome. Honourable members would be aware that there continues to be a Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. Honourable members would be aware that a large number of people have been dispossessed and sited in camps on the Thai-Kampuchean border in Thailand. Some of those people have been there for 10 years or more. That group of people may provide a real risk to the region because they are so alienated and detached from reality in terms of the world in which they have lived. They have been brought up in refugee camps in which largely they live behind bamboo posts. They are very much like prison camps. Also, they are denied an education. Young people brought up in that environment become increasingly desperate and alienated and, in my view, provide a real risk to the region. They provide a risk to Thailand. I expressed to Vietnam a concern that they might well be a risk in future to Vietnam, but the Vietnamese indicated that they thought it was more Thailand's problem. I do not regard it simply as Thailand's problem alone. I see it as a problem that Australia itself might confront. Let us look at what happened in the Middle East. When the Palestinians became long term refugees without very much future, they became increasingly desperate; their actions were against the rest of the world. Our region is faced with a real risk. Those people who have to prepare for defence and co-operate in defence thinking with ASEAN countries in particular need to have those matters very much in mind. In my judgment, the prospect of a risk of that sort to us in Australia is such that there is a real need for us to be involved in what I would call risk management. I see that as being an issue in which the Government needs to be involved with ASEAN, Vietnam, China, the United States of America and the Soviet Union in endeavouring to find a solution to the problems that remain unresolved in that part of the world which is so close to us. One of the disappointments in the Minister's statement is that those sorts of problems in our region, which are significant for our defence, do not appear to have been addressed. I regret, additionally, that in the time available it is very hard to be able to draw out all of the possibilities and the steps that Australia might be able to take in securing a solution to the problems confronting that part of the world. In the moments that remain, I will highlight my concern, which was also raised by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who spoke earlier, about the general terms in which our relationship with Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been addressed. The point has been made that this is perhaps the first occasion on which Australia's defence relationship with Papua New Guinea has been reduced to writing. It is suggested that the solution reached was one which was largely in accord with Papua New Guinea's own view as to what ought to be contained in the agreement recently concluded between Australia and PNG. Whilst there may not have been writing on these matters before, historically Australia has played a very significant part in the provision of defence arrangements for Papua New Guinea. It seems to me that the position that we now have, open as it is to many other countries to play a role, and the commitment to discuss or consult only on risks that may affect both PNG and Australia, is a very poor form of agreement in terms of what could or should have been negotiated by Papua New Guinea and Australia. The matter should continue to be reviewed. The Minister should be encouraged to reopen those discussions. If it is true, as was put by one honourable member, that the Minister perhaps wanted a stronger statement in terms of our relationship but was not able to achieve it, I would encourage him to go back to his colleagues and seek a wider brief. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.09) —A former United States Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, once said that any nation, in designing its foreign policy, must answer at least three questions: what is its concept of national security; what is its national purpose; and what resources are available for either of those events? Perceptive national leadership is required to answer those questions satisfactorily. The statement presented by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) satisfactorily provides those answers. Above all, the statement affirms once again the resolute determination of the Hawke Government to develop a self-reliant capability for the defence of Australia. The concept of a self-reliant defence policy is not new. Its origins go back to the late 1960s. Both Labor and non-Labor governments have supported the doctrine of self-reliance. The continued development by the Hawke Government of a self-reliant defence capability for Australia is parallel to the development of a policy of alliance mobilisation in the Pacific being pursued by the Reagan Administration in the United States. Most importantly, Australia's development of a self-reliant defence capability is, as the Minister has said, being achieved within the framework of our alliances and regional associations. The decisions by the British and Americans in the late 1960s to downgrade their military commitments in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific were major milestones in the development of a national security policy. Britain's decision to withdraw its forces from east of Suez and President Nixon's Guam doctrine forced Australia to abandon its smugness that its allies would protect it against all forms of military threat. Indeed, as the Minister for Defence observed, it dealt a fatal blow to the premise upon which Australian defence policy had traditionally been based. This was quickly followed by the decision to dismantle the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, and there were other decisions. Together, these decisions were enough to compel the then Australian Government to re-assess its defence policy, which had remained relatively unchanged since the ANZUS Treaty was signed in 1951. In the development of a self-reliant defence capability, Australian governments, both Labor and non-Labor, have always affirmed Australia's total commitment to the Western strategic community and, as a consequence, that Australia has security obligations as part of that community. In this regard, Australia hosts joint Australian and United States defence facilities which contribute directly to the Western deterrence. Furthermore, Australia has responsibilities under the five-power defence arrangement, the Manila treaty and the Joint Declaration of Principles between Australia and Papua New Guinea, signed last year by the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Guinea. Indeed, the 1987 defence White Paper clearly sets out to describe the complementary relationship between the objectives of self-reliance and Australia's responsibilities to the wider strategic interests of the Western alliance. It has this to say: Australia is part of the Western community of nations. Australia therefore supports the ability of the United States to retain an effective strategic balance from the Soviet Union. A redistribution of power in favour of the Soviet Union in the central balance, or an extension of Soviet influence in our region at the expense of the United States, would be a matter of fundamental concern to Australia, and would be contrary to our national interests. Australia's defence policy does not and must not ignore its wider security responsibilities. The Hawke Government accepts that an Australian self-reliant defence capability contributes directly to the protection of Western interests and enables us to increase, in an effective way, allied defence co-operation. I was astounded to hear the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) suggest that the policy of self-reliance implies defence isolation and, by implication, absolute unwillingness on the part of Australia to accept the United States policy of alliance mobilisation in the Pacific. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the Hawke Government Australia is developing the capability, through the acquisition of new submarines and long range patrol frigates, to participate significantly in joint allied operations in our region and, indeed, further afield. As the major power in the defence of freedom around the world, the United States is required to focus on the expansion of the Soviet Union activities in the Pacific, whilst Australian defence policies must of necessity be concerned with our own area of strategic interest, which includes South East Asia and the South Pacific. Nevertheless, Australia, as a trusted ally of the United States, must, I believe, increasingly contribute to contingency planning against the possibility of global war. Australia must spell out fearlessly, as a faithful and trusted ally of the United States, how it would support the United States in the event of global war. This issue is fundamental to the development of Australia's defence capability outside its area of immediate concern. Professor F. A. Mediansky, in an article entitled `The Defence of Australia and the American Alliance' in the publication Australian Outlook dated December 1987, stated: In the end, the vast asymmetries in the Australian-US alliance are such that Australia's ability to sustain the two fold objectives of its defence policy depend in no small way on the prevailing US strategy for the Asia Pacific region. In this regard all Australians must be assured and comforted by United States Secretary of State Shultz's opening statement at the 1987 bilateral ministerial talks, when he said: ANZUS continues to be a key link in the global network of alliances . . . important as these alliances are in deterring aggression, their strength . . . derives from a common recognition that peace is indivisible and that collective efforts are necessary to ensure the common good. I now refer to the regional defence co-operation between Australia and friendly nations to our north, which are strategically significant to regional peace and stability. I refer first to Indonesia. The Minister in his statement summed up Australia's desire for increased defence co-operation with Indonesia with these words: We regard Indonesia as a valuable security partner and continue to place importance on the maintenance of sound and constructive defence relations. Not only is Indonesia a valuable security partner; it is also a nation which has close ties to the United States-the principal ally of Australia. It is a nation which, under the outstanding leadership of President Suharto, enjoys stability and relative prosperity. It is a nation which is anti-communist, and a nation whose external security concerns lie only to its north. As the major powers in this region, Australia and Indonesia have a solemn responsibility to work zealously together for our mutual benefit and for peace and freedom. I know that the Minister will vigorously pursue this matter in the terms outlined by him in his statement. I refer now to Papua New Guinea. As the Minister has said, our defence links with Papua New Guinea have historic origins. To walk through the war cemeteries at Bomana, Lae and Rabaul is to become profoundly aware of that special relationship. Papua New Guinea is fundamentally and strategically important to Australia. Australians believed that in World War I and World War II. We still believe it. Australia's response to the protection of Papua New Guinea's security must be historically consistent. The immature remarks of the honourable member for McPherson on the Australia and Papua New Guinea Joint Declaration of Principles, particularly as to its last clause, will be dismissed in Australia, but will, I am sure, be met with anger and astonishment by the Government of Papua New Guinea. This year Australia's defence co-operation program to Papua New Guinea amounts to $23m. That is a considerable sum of money. Its focus is to provide training, advisory and material assistance, as has been requested by the Government of Papua New Guinea. The decision to upgrade the facilities at the Papua New Guinea Defence Force patrol boat base at Manus Island is of major significance. The Minister is to be congratulated on his decision. I hope that deployment for extended periods of Royal Australian Navy patrol boats will begin as soon as possible. Having been to Manus Island on several occasions and observed its huge harbour, I can assure honourable members that some time in the future Australia could be very thankful for this decision by the Minister. I refer now to Japan. I believe it is inevitable that the ANZUS partners will be required to treat with Japan to protect vital Western interests in this region. This could involve Australia in a much more costly role, as an ANZUS partner, in meeting its obligations. It is not too early for Australia to begin a thorough examination of this matter and its implications for the ANZUS alliance. This ministerial statement will be welcomed by all persons with commonsense and by all serious military and foreign policy analysts. It is a sound practical statement by a Minister who has discharged, and continues to discharge, with energy and wisdom his constitutional responsibility to ensure that Australia can defend itself. The people of Australia congratulate him on his statement this afternoon and, no doubt, will thank God that Kim Beazley is Australia's Minister for Defence. I now refer to the comments made by Opposition speakers in this debate. What an inept performance they gave-particularly the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). All Australians, particularly service personnel, who are interested in Australia's regional defence policy should get a copy of the speeches by the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Farrer. Those two honourable members have convinced me that they have not the slightest idea of any aspect of the development of defence policy. They do not appear to have grasped the significance, let alone the detail, of what the Minister was saying this afternoon. Anyone who reads the speeches of the shadow Minister for Defence and the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs on this ministerial statement will, I am sure, resolve that under no circumstances should the Australian electorate allow the Liberal and National parties to have control of Australia's defence. Finally, I say to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who has left the chamber, that the Hawke Labor Government is opposed to the development of the Soviet naval base at Cam Ranh Bay. As a member of the ANZUS alliance, Australia has always seen the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay as a threat to regional security. We have viewed with alarm the rapid expansion of the Soviet Union's facilities at Cam Ranh Bay. The Minister's statement on regional defence policy this afternoon was significant. It will have profound implications for the development of Australia's defence capability if the objectives and ambitions of the Minister are allowed to be fulfilled. They can be fulfilled only if Australian governments, Labor and non-labor, are committed to ensuring that there is adequate funding for the Australian Defence Force. There is no possibility of taking Australian defence on the cheap. We spend more on gambling in this country than we spend on defence. I suppose the measure of the price we would want to pay for freedom can be assessed in the annual budgetary allocations for defence. It is timely for me to refer to part of an editorial in the Australian newspaper on 11 January 1988, dealing with this issue of the duty of Australian governments to provide adequate funding for Australia's defence: If we are to maintain forces adequate to act as a deterrent and to maintain our regional capability then funding must be provided to achieve them over a reasonable timescale. More important, money must be made available on a scale to allow our forces to be built up and developed to the point where they can not only defend the nation but also be able to project Australia as a power within the increasingly volatile Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. With this Minister for Defence at the helm in the development of Australia's defence policy, with this Government committed to ensuring adequate funding for Australian defence, millions of Australians, thousands of whom are listening to this debate tonight, can be assured and comforted that Australia's government is in safe, secure hands. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(8.23) —Before I begin my address, I shall refer to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). It would be totally dishonest if I were to make a speech to this House and to the nation that was cheap and politically derogatory of the Minister. I say this because I had the benefit of having the Minister for Defence and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), among other very worthy people, on the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which I had the privilege of chairing for many years. The contributions made by those two men in particular were profound and enduring. I am led to believe that the Minister for Defence desires to persuade his Government to do many things which it is not prepared to do. I refer especially to surveillance. Both Government members and Opposition members looked to the present Minister for Defence on this matter because he was a fanatic on surveillance. He was able to pick the flaws in the whole fabric of our surveillance, or lack of it. The fact that the surveillance of this country is in a very sorry situation cannot be attributed to that Minister. Before going to the substance of my address, I would like to deal with the matter of the Pacific. Never was it more timely for the Government to look at this all important matter of creating liaisons of substance with our neighbours, whether they be in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean area or Malaysia. I say this for a very special reason. On at least two or three occasions I had the advantage of being briefed at a very high level in the United States of America-in Washington, Pearl Harbour and so on. One message came out loud and clear-that there was the physical intrusion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites, not only in the Indian Ocean area, where we were casting our glances almost exclusively until a few years ago, but also specifically in the north and south Pacific area. There was a psychological invasion, if you like, and the message that came to these people in these less developed Pacific areas was `be red or dead'. One sees the situation arising and becoming accentuated and, if I might use the term, scary, with the intrusion of these people into the more vulnerable areas which could launch out at Australia. Thus, it was necessary for us to fight back. So today we have the Minister presenting his ministerial statement in relation to our developing relationships with these neighbouring areas. It is difficult to speak of someone who is no longer with us, but that does not alter the facts. I refer to the time when then Senator Murphy, no doubt on the advice and perhaps the precipitation of the Government of the day-the Whitlam Government-made his raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). I say this loud and clear: there was never again any real confidence in the Whitlam Government or any other socialist government by countries who had observed what happened to the highly secure information that was in the custody of ASIO until that terrible night. Never again would they trust a socialist government in this country. Even now the United States of America does not trust a socialist government. The United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and perhaps Indonesia feel the same. I will speak about Indonesia for just one moment. A lot has been said tonight on Indonesia on both sides of this debate. The Australian Ambassador to Indonesia was also a very active member of the Defence Subcommittee which I had the honour of chairing and, all politics aside, Bill Morrison has done a very good job for Australia. Because of his knowledge of my profound interest in defence, he was able to arrange for me to have in-depth discussions with both Indonesian and Australian senior officers. We have a fairly significant representation of the forces in Indonesia and this is critical and vital. It is vital because both Australian and Indonesian officers treated with absolute contempt the idea that the Indonesians had eyes on this country, from either an economic point of view or that of entering this country or anything of that nature. But it was clear that they still had a `hang-up' about their relationship with China, so their eyes were always looking north-west. I leave that subject of our overseas representation on this note: The year before last I had the privilege of being in the first delegation to China. We dealt with this matter of defence, and it was depressing, almost unreal, to find that we had only one military attache-one person of any distinction at all-in China. He was apprehensive that he was to be withdrawn; I am not sure whether he was. I find that absolutely appalling. If we are sincere about creating these relationships with our neighbouring countries, that sort of thing has to be remedied very promptly. Those of us on this side of the House welcome any initiative that will enhance regional stability and augment Australia's ability to play a meaningful role in the defence of our region. Being able to act with our allies and friends in deterring aggression and unwelcome destabilising influences has always been a feature of the defence policy of the National and Liberal parties. Listeners to the Minister today would interpret his address and his statement as having good intentions, but lacking in substance. As the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), our outstanding shadow Minister, said, there was not a great deal of reality about the whole thing. Indeed, the Government has sought to distract our attention from the real and critical issues confronting our defence forces at the moment. The Minister has done this by taking us on a tour of our neighbouring region, telling us how we are playing our part in consolidating regional defence co-operation. We would like some examples of this. After years of neglecting our neighbouring region, we are now told that all is well, that the Government has found a new resolve, that new links are being established and our old friendships nurtured. Old friendships have been a bit shaky over the last few years. In Vanuatu and some of the countries of the region the Soviet Union has attempted intrusion. I am very happy to say that it has been discouraged in the present environment. I welcome the fact that at last the Government is doing something about a matter that we on this side of the House have been concerned about for many years. When I was a delegate to the United Nations I was told very specifically that my job was not just to have a great old jaunt to New York but was specifically to get to know our neighbours and to get the message across to our neighbours in the South Pacific, in Indonesia and beyond that we are not the great white big brother, we are not the great European nation; we are one of their group and we want understanding. We want the exchanges that we had when I was Minister for the Army. We had people coming from Malaysia, Kampuchea-Cambodia as it was then-and so on. We had an exchange of officers. The honourable member for McPherson referred to how this has fallen by the wayside. Invigoration of the Pacific patrol boat program is all to the good; but it is a program that was started under the last coalition Government, and it is commendable. Mr Tim Fischer —In fact, you started it. Mr KATTER —Thank you very much. I acknowledge that interjection. It is a very gentle one. I thank the honourable member for Farrer. I have to be honest: the idea of Norforce is something very near and dear to my heart. I know that it is also very near and dear to the Minister for Defence. But what happens when he gets to the Cabinet table? He is a member of a socialist government which has never encouraged such things. Let us fact it: where does one find a socialist government which is really intent on security? They may want psychological security, to make sure that their basic philosophy is accepted, but, in pursuit of that, they frequently overlook the defence and the security of the nation. This Government is too busy cultivating minority groups. It is too busy looking after people who are so wrapped up in world heritage matters, for example. I could talk about the infiltration of our nation by very question- able means, but I had better not get onto that subject. As a statement of the real condition of our national defences, the Minister's statement does not make the grade. The real threat to our nation's defences at the moment does not come from without; it comes from within and is caused by this Government's woeful neglect of the men and women who make up our armed services. I do not speak specifically about the financial conditions, though they are extremely serious. We were told again today by the shadow Minister that we are flat to the boards finding sufficient pilots to take our existing aircraft into the air. When we get our additional FA18s we will not have sufficient pilots to fly them. Of course, this is due to the fact that pilots can obtain a much higher rate of salary with the commercial airlines. There is something much more profound than just the conditions, the houses and the terms of retirement of our defence personnel. There is something basic lacking that no socialist government ever seems able to achieve. I refer to the ability to sustain the magnificent morale which existed when we were in government. One was proud to be a soldier. One was proud to be an airman. One was proud to be a member of the Royal Australian Navy. It was a source of pride. What do we find now? There were 10,000 retirements in 1987 as against 4,500 in 1983. This is appalling. In other words, our defence forces are disintegrating. Creating relationships and realistic defence arrangements with our neighbours is not only necessary but also critical. I well remember David Connolly and I conferring with the Chinese Ambassador in the days when he did not speak to many people. I remember very well that we had some hundreds of dim sims that night; they were very nice. He said to us, `You people should be on the alert. President Carter should be more vigilant because, as soon as a vacuum is created in the Pacific or Indian Ocean areas, it will be filled by the Soviet Union and its satellites'. What has changed? The threat has accelerated and is more accentuated. It is very necessary to have realistic and substantial arrangements and a mutual respect. That is where this Government has a problem. These countries cannot trust fully or partially a socialist government which is rapidly dragging this country's defence, as well as every other thing, down to the status of a banana republic. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.38) —It is my pleasure to rise and speak in this debate on the ministerial statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) today on regional defence policy. It is now some 18 months since the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was presented to the Parliament. There has been considerable discussion about the Dibb report. Of course, last year the Minister for Defence released the Government's White Paper entitled The Defence of Australia. The Minister's statement today aims to outline, in a very clear way, the actions this Government is taking in regard to our regional defence relations. The first point it is important to emphasise about this statement is that this Government remains totally committed to a good and close relationship with our neighbours. The White Paper posture of self-reliance certainly does not preclude a close relationship with our neighbours. In his statement to the Parliament today, the Minister made it very clear that a more self-reliant policy on defence gives us a bigger and stronger Defence Force with which to do things of value in the region. Of course, there are many examples of that. The Minister in his speech today gave a number of examples of how a policy of self-reliance has enabled us to draw on stronger relationships in the region and to increase Australia's defence presence in our region. It is worthy of note that in some of the contributions that have been made today there has been some confusion between the concept of defence self-reliance and the concept of isolationism. It is worth noting the Minister's remarks on this matter following his recent visit to South East Asia where he said: I found rather less inclination among our neighbours than among people at home to confuse self-reliance with isolationism. This confusion is evident among many who have commented on the Dibb review and the White Paper. Until it is understood that self-reliance requires, rather than precludes, active defence relations with our neighbours, the rationale of our regional defence co-operation will not be clear. The Minister has made an important point because in every respect there are very great differences between isolationism and a policy of self-reliance. I repeat that the thrust of the Minister's statement to the House today is that the Government remains committed to a very close relationship with our neighbours and it is our policy of increased self-reliance which is giving us the capacity to increase our presence in the region. I want to give the House some examples of how that presence is being increased in our own region. In relation to maritime matters, our surface ship fleet is being increased from its present number of 12 to around 16 or 17. That is an increase of almost half. Our surface fleet in all regards will also be bigger. Let us look at the submarine program. The point has been made in this debate that we are simply replacing a given number of Oberon class submarines with the new Kockums 471s. Let me say that it is accepted by most in the industry-those who are experts in this matter-that four of the new Kockums submarines will be equivalent in operational capabilities to six of the old submarines. So we are more than replacing our capacity in respect of both surface vessels and submarines. There will be much more capacity per submarine. I comment on another claim which was made in this debate today by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). In a Press release he put out today he claimed: I know for a fact that our directorate of Naval Intelligence is aware that Indonesia is `shopping around' for nuclear submarines. He made that claim in a Press release to get a bit of publicity for his speech in the House today. The Minister, of course, has denied that that is true. More importantly, the honourable member for Bruce went on to say in his contribution in this debate: Australia's maritime defences have declined significantly in recent times. Let us look at what this Government is doing about Australia's maritime defences. First, we are currently building two FFGs-that is guided missile frigates-at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. Second, we are about to call tenders on eight light patrol frigates-that is the Anzac ship project-in co-operation with New Zealand. Third, work is already under way on the construction of the six new Kockums submarines. I am pleased to say that some of that work is being undertaken at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. Fourth, we are developing a revolutionary new class of mine-hunter. Two prototypes are being tested at the moment. The inescapable conclusion, a fact which is not denied by anyone in the industry, is that our current maritime defence projects, the schedule of works which I have outlined, represent the biggest naval ship building program ever to be carried out in Australia's peace time history. It is no mean feat. It is easy for Opposition members, such as the honourable member for Bruce, to make inane claims in this House such as, `Australia's maritime defences have declined significantly in recent times'. However, an objective look at the record and at the facts indicates that in reality this Government has embarked upon the biggest peace time naval ship building program in our history. It reflects credit on our Minister for Defence-a fine Minister-and it reflects credit on this Government for being able to provide the resources necessary for that program in what, in anyone's terms, have been difficult economic times. I also want to make a few points in this debate about the two-ocean policy. It is worth emphasising that because of Australia's geographic location, the need for the Navy to be capable of operating from both the east and west coasts has been recognised for many years. However, it has to be said that owing to the strategic and the economic circumstances which have applied in earlier decades, the Royal Australian Navy operated primarily from the east coast and there were only brief periods when fleet units were deployed for operations based on the west coast. Australia's current strategic circumstances and the Government's objective of defence self-reliance are two major reasons why it is now essential that the Navy be able to operate effectively from both coasts. Australia has a commitment to regional stability and in the maritime sphere this commitment means that we must have the flexibility to effectively deploy major fleet units from both coasts for sustained operations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. For all of these reasons it is essential that, if resources allow, the necessary steps to implement the two-ocean navy policy be introduced. Also supporting the two-ocean navy policy is the need for fleet units to be able to react quickly in support of government policy from either coast. By basing major fleet units on each coast reaction time will be reduced considerably as east-west and west-east transits will be avoided. Moreover, this will allow fleet units deployed to either the Indian or Pacific Oceans to maintain sustained operations for longer periods. These measures will significantly enhance the flexibility of fleet operations. Part of the evidence for the success of Australia's regional defence policy is evidenced by the Minister's recent visit to the region, particularly his visit to Vanuatu last year. The relationship with Vanuatu now could fairly be described as an excellent one. Indeed, the relationship has been developed to the extent that Vanuatu this year has requested an Australian patrol boat to assist in this area when its own patrol boat is in for repairs and maintenance. So that relationship now is excellent. It follows the Minister's visit to Vanuatu last year. It is important to make the point in this debate that the importance of Australia's presence in South East Asia will become even greater in future years because in all likelihood we will see a reduction in American real defence spending as a consequence of the withdrawal of some of its effort in the region. I recently visited America as part of a parliamentary delegation led by the President of the Senate. It is no secret that America has major structural problems in its economy. It is running a very large domestic deficit. When a new President is elected this year in November and takes office in 1989 one of his first tasks, unquestionably, will be to reduce the size of the domestic Budget deficit. One area in which I think spending will continue to be pruned is defence. One of the consequences of that will be a reduced American presence in this region. So it is important that Australia's policy of self-reliance is maintained and with that policy of self-reliance an increasing presence in South East Asia. One of the amusing but sad contributions made to this debate was made by the Opposition spokesman on defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I have listened to his contributions in this place before and this time he twice referred to Malaya. I suspect that as a result of my saying this he will rush out tonight to change the `greens' so that tomorrow we will read that he said `Malaysia' in this debate. He twice spoke in the debate about Malaya. The Minister in his statement to the Parliament this afternoon said that when people get confused about Australia's strategic circumstances it is usually because they are applying the principles of the 1930s rather than the problems of the 1980s. How right the Minister is. Here we have the Opposition shadow Minister, the man who would want to be Australia's next Minister for Defence, whose thinking is back in the 1930s. He came in here and twice referred to Malaya. No-one has talked about Malaya since the 1960s. There has been no place called Malaya since the 1960s. It is now called Malaysia-the word finishes with the letters `sia'. The shadow Minister's thinking is back in the 1930s and so is the policy of his Party. I think it is crass in the extreme for him to come in here and pretend to speak with any credibility about defence matters. He is very much a man of yesterday. I will be interested to see whether the shadow Minister changes the `greens' of his speech. I think it would be very embarrassing for him to be on the public record twice speaking about Malaya. He is talking about a country which has not been known by that name since the 1960s. It has not been called Malaya for 25 years. The honourable member is in a time warp and so are his defence policies. Dr Charlesworth —What about the threat from India? Mr BRUMBY —We heard about the threat from India. I thought that, too, was a rather novel contribution to the debate. The Minister said in his statement today that he hoped that there would be an increasing debate, a two-way exchange about our interests in South East Asia. Certainly that debate has been created. I know that people on this side of the House as well as some people on the other side of the House were very surprised to hear the shadow Minister talking of the imminent threat from India. Frankly, such a claim is not accepted. I have spoken at length about our initiatives in South East Asia. I just want to repeat the crucial substance of the Minister's contribution. The increased capital funding for defence, the re-equipping of the Australian defence forces-particularly the program in maritime defence which, I repeat, is the biggest peacetime program ever in shipbuilding in both money terms and real terms-represents a massive injection of resources to the Australian defence forces. When put into the context of our policy of self-reliance, it gives us the capacity to do more of the things we should be doing in our region. It allows us to have an increased presence in our region and an improvement in relations with all countries in our region. The Minister for Defence has made a great contribution to defence policy and funding in Australia. I think history will show him to have been one of the finest, if not the finest, Defence Ministers that this country has had. I welcome and endorse his statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.54) —I think there is no more important subject that a parliament could be debating than that of our nation's defence. I must admit that the debate tonight has been very interesting. Listening to what the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) had to say, I can see why Australia's defence forces are in such a tardy state. Mr Reith —He must be a Labor member. Mr SHARP —Obviously, he is a member of the Australian Labor Party. What we have heard tonight from that side of the House has been a load of twaddle. I listened with interest to the speech made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). The subject he talked about is very important. I must admit though, with all due respect, that I thought the Minister's speech was most disappointing. It contained no new initiative; there were no new funding or materiel programs; there was nothing new in the speech apart from an attempt by the Government to try to put a gloss over a very tardy defence program which is being run under its administration. Whilst I was disappointed by the speech made by the Minister, I must admit that I listened to some very good speeches. I differ with the honourable member for Bendigo. I thought the contribution made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), our shadow Minister for Defence, was excellent. The honourable member is one of those people in this Parliament who have had firsthand experience with the Department of Defence. The honourable member also has a sincere interest in defence matters-an interest which goes back over a long time. We also heard from the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who is a former Minister for the Army. He is someone who is well known, respected and regarded in defence circles. I was particularly pleased to hear his contribution. We also heard from our shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who also, as a former serving member of the defence forces, has a sincere interest in this area. We also heard from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I thought the first half of the contribution made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) was very interesting. The second half, when he started to get into some irrelevant political debate, was somewhat disappointing. But at least his well thought out speech indicates that he has a sincere interest in the defence debate. The remarks that the Minister made today about regional defence sounded all very well. But the first thing that one must look at in any consideration of the defence of Australia is the current state of our defence forces. There is no doubt that at the moment the defence forces in Australia are at an extremely low ebb. Over the last few years under this Government we have witnessed the highest resignation levels within our defence forces. There are now so many people leaving our defence forces that those resignations have become a political embarrassment to the Government. We are placed in a situation where there are insufficient pilots in our Air Force to put all of our aircraft into the air at any one time. Also, so many people are leaving the Army and the Navy that we are being placed at a severe disadvantage in terms of skills and expertise. It is costing the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money to train people who then leave the Service 10 or 20 years before they would normally be expected to retire. People are leaving the defence forces at a time when they are likely to give their greatest contributions. They are leaving because they find that the current state of affairs within our defence forces is totally unsatisfactory. I do not think it is much good talking about our regional defence position until such time as the Government is prepared to address the chronic state of affairs within our defence forces. Until we can get our defence forces into proper shape, all the talk about regional defence is going to get us nowhere. The decline in the number of service personnel is symptomatic of a morale problem. I think many people recognise that this problem stems from a poor level of wages. I think it is also recognised that certain conditions of employment within our defence forces, such as those relating to housing, are not at a satisfactory level commensurate with today's standards. This Government has also made a number of attacks on defence personnel and former defence personnel. The Defence Force retirement and death benefits situation is well known to us all and has caused a severe slump in morale. I also think the fiddling around with the housing loan situation towards the end of last year caused great consternation within Defence Force personnel, and that again has affected morale. The decision of the Labor Government when it first got into power to tax payments to members of the reserves also affected morale. In addition, the Veterans' Entitlements Bill of a couple of years ago affected the morale of serving personnel and former serving personnel. All of these things are responsible for the record rates of resignation which are severely reducing Australia's ability to defend itself within our region. I think Australia is unable to defend itself adequately at this time. I know that some time ago General Sir Phillip Bennett made a statement that this was the case. I do not think that the situation has improved that much since then. I was pleased to watch, through the media, the exercises carried out in northern Queensland not so long ago. It was interesting to see our Army's ability to carry out operations in the field in a remote area and to see for how long it could do that, and with what degree of efficiency and success. It became quite apparent-I do not think that anyone would deny it-that we do not have an ability to maintain a large force, or even a moderate force, in a remote area such as northern Queensland for any extended period. We are also unable quickly to respond to any situation that may arise on the spur of the moment. I was interested to follow the events that took place in Fiji last year with the two coups that occurred there. It was notable that the Royal Australian Navy had vessels in the Fijian area at the time. Let me just put a hypothetical question: If Australia wanted to do something within Fiji, what would happen if we wanted to land troops on Fijian Islands? Would that be possible? From my discussions with Navy personnel, it is clear that it would not be possible for Australia to land troops on Fiji or on any other island unless we had the approval and consent of the head of state of the nation concerned. That is the sorry state of our Defence Force. The Navy is without landing barges. We do not have sufficient troop helicopters that can get onto naval vessels and carry personnel from ship to shore. We do not have a carrier, and therefore we cannot provide air cover for any troop landings we may wish to carry out? Mr Beazley —Is it Liberal policy to have a carrier now? Mr SHARP —I will deal with that in a moment. All of these points were put to me by naval personnel at the time. They said, `Do you realise that Australia is completely incapable of doing anything effective in a situation such as the one that occurred in Fiji last year? We do not have the resources to do it'. The Minister asked whether we want a carrier. I think it is important that that subject should be raised in this debate, because the Opposition is interested in looking at the option of having a carrier. We are not committed to having a carrier. We are not committed to anything in that regard-except to a position of being prepared to look at that option. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of an fixed-wing aircraft carrier. It could be in the form of a helicopter carrier. It could be in the form of a seagoing air platform. There are virtually no major naval forces today that do not have some form of seagoing air platform. Until Australia is at least prepared to look at that option, I do not think that we are taking the issue of our naval strength seriously enough. That point comes dear to my heart, because in my electorate of Gilmore I have the Fleet Air Arm, HMAS Albatross, which was the home base of HMAS Melbourne until that ship was decommissioned a few years ago, and the fixed-wing component of the Navy's air wing was stationed there. The people concerned suffered a major blow, as did the district. I have spoken on that matter a number of times. Those people still hold within their ranks the skills and expertise that are necessary to provide Australia with some sort of seagoing air platform. I know from talking to them that they are still interested in it and that Australia could justify the need if our economic situation could stand it in the future. The position that they described to me in relation to Fiji made Australia look like a nation with no arms. We have legs to get our defence forces to the situation, but there is nothing that we can do effectively once we get there because we do not have sufficient naval strength-because we do not have air cover, because we do not have a helicopter carrier or some seagoing air platform. So, for that reason, any government that is serious in its intent to ensure that Australia has its full military and naval strength must look at that option at least. That is where the Opposition stands, and it is a sensible stance. I take up a couple of matters that relate to our overall defence strength in our region and right throughout and talk about the Navy's ability to provide air cover for itself. When the fixed-wing component of the Fleet Air Arm was axed a few years ago, we sold all of the Skyhawks to New Zealand-at a fire sale price, I think. They were very cheap. They are still a very effective aircraft. We have also been trying desperately to sell the Tracker aircraft. When we sold them, we unleashed into the Navy and the work force a large number of people who had the skills to maintain fighter aircraft. I note now that with the problems of the Air Force in terms of personnel numbers, especially in terms of pilots, it might not be such a silly idea for the Minister to look at the possibility of giving some of the FA18s, say, to the Navy and to station them at HMAS Albatross. I know that there are pilots there, some of whom have actually done the conversion course to fly FA18s and have flown them. Those pilots are still based with the Navy. The Air Force has a pilot shortage-- Mr Beazley —You would need a very big carrier for FA18s. Mr SHARP —There is still a need for a fixed-wing involvement with the Navy. At this stage the Air Force has great difficulty in providing its support to the Navy. Private contractors-Lloyd Aviation, for example-have been engaged to try to cover the gap that the Air Force cannot fill. There are those fighter pilot skills within the Navy. If the Air Force cannot put enough pilots into those aircraft, perhaps we ought to be looking at putting some of those aircraft at HMAS Albatross. We have the mechanical skills and the engineering skills. We have a number of facilities there that could be readily utilised. It is an option that is worthy of consideration. Another option which is worthy of consideration and which would add greatly to the ability of our Defence Force would be to station, perhaps in the future, some of the Macchi jet trainers at HMAS Albatross. Once again that option is worth consideration because we have fighter pilot skills within the Navy, and the Air Force has a shortage of fighter pilots. It would seem to be a fairly rational option to do that sort of thing. In the process we would add greatly to our defence forces. We would add greatly to the strength of our Navy. We would ensure that if there were ever in the future the ability to obtain a seagoing air platform, fixed-wing fighter skills would still be held within the Navy's personnel, so that the transition to some sort of seagoing air platform would not be so horrendous or costly. This is a serious debate. I think that the Government has fallen down in it over the years. We have a very sorry and tardy state within our defence forces. Until such time as the Government and the Minister are prepared to address the root causes of the problems in relation to our defence personnel and the problems of funding for our defence forces, all the talk of defence White Papers, of Dibb reports and defence relations with our regional neighbours, is only worth the paper it is written on. Until we get a government that is sincerely committed to our nation's defence, I am afraid that we shall continue to see the decline in our defence forces that we have suffered under this Government. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.08) —I shall very briefly sum up the debate. I express my gratitude to all those who participated in it. We do not often have defence debates in this place. We ought to have more of them. Unfortunately, the nature of the Defence portfolio is such that what provides opportunities for other subjects to be debated, namely legislation, does not occur frequently for us, although occasionally we have that. There is an obligation on Defence Ministers, therefore, at least once or twice a session, to attempt to present some of the matters of policy that are of concern to the Defence Minister at that point of time. I must confess that I am a little disappointed, though, at how the debate has proceeded. I understand why honourable members would wish to raise a variety of matters related to our Defence Force structure and personnel policies. They have those opportunities, of course, on the adjournment. However, we have serious matters to consider in our region and we really need the views of the House in order, if nothing else, to inform the general public, but also to provide advice to the Government on what is, after all, the environment in which our defence policy must be determined. So, whilst I appreciate the points people might want to make from time to time on those force structure elements, I wish that in this debate a little more attention had been paid to the actual purpose of the paper, which was very discursive but which quite clearly focused on seeing our policy in regional terms. The fact of the matter is that whatever might be the views in this House regarding the level of effectiveness of our defence forces, and it must be remembered that they are peacetime forces, I can assure honourable members that views elsewhere are quite different. One honourable member raised the Fijian situation and claimed that we were incapable in that regard. Might I attest, as the Minister responsible at the time, that my main problem during the Fijian crisis was how to make absolutely certain that the enormous power we were capable of deploying there-and that power was well understood by the members of the Fijian forces-was not what we were attempting to deploy but what we were actually engaged in, with seven warships off the coast and a company of soldiers. Also, it was well understood there were soldiers at high levels of readiness back in Australia with air capability to lift them. What we were engaged in there was what we said we were engaged in. If they had believed anything else the situation might have become very difficult indeed. We have immense regional capabilities. Mr Sharp —How would you have landed troops ashore? Mr BEAZLEY —They would have got ashore; they would not have had any problems in that regard. I do not intend to go into detail, but I just isolate what was my problem at the time. What that situation demonstrated to us-it was effectively an exercise in the end-was that we had the capability to do what we were talking about. There was very great enthusiasm in South East Asia for our continued participation in the area. We have to get the politics of it right. We have to understand where they come from as well as where we come from. They do not want our commitments on the old basis because they see themselves as independent. Indeed, some were formerly members of the non-aligned movement. They wish to perceive our presence in regional terms as part of an independent Australian commitment. Something of the flavour of that changed, if you like, ideological perspective related to the strategy we are pursuing, and the reason why it was necessary to pursue that are the reasons why I made the statement that I did. There is an understanding that there is a clear delinking from that period of steady retreat from involvement in South East Asia and the South Pacific that began in the early 1970s and continued through to the time when we got into office. Despite those criticisms of the debate, overall I believe it has been a useful exercise and I thank honourable members again for their attention. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to my answer given to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) at Question Time today. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. Dr BLEWETT —In my answer I stated that as chairman of the national price watch network the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) approached me in relation to information about overcharging for medical services in this country. I stated this afternoon: He was provided, through my office, with material containing no identification of doctor, provider number or patient, but simply illustrative examples of the types of overcharging that took place in a small section of the medical profession. At the outset I want to confirm that none of the information provided by my office to the honourable member for Canning in his capacity as price watch network chairman in any way identified patients, nor did it name individual doctors. However, on the basis of corrected advice obtained since Question Time from the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) I wish to correct that part of my answer relating to provider numbers. It is my office practice to ensure that the relevant information is complied with in respect of any statistical material from the HIC which may have passed through the office. It does this by checking that the material does not contain anything that would identify either doctors or patients. A member of my staff telephoned the HIC before the material was released to the honourable member for Canning and received verbal advice that none of the material contained any information which would identify doctors or patients and specifically that it did not include provider numbers. This was confirmed in writing by a minute dated 7 January this year in which the General Manager of the HIC assured me: The information supplied to your office did not identify either the doctors or their patients. I table a copy of that advice. It was on this advice that my answer today was based. Following my answer today I returned to my office to reconfirm my recollection of the advice from the HIC. I also asked my staff to check the material. The HIC, at my request, double checked the material and has informed me this afternoon that its advice to me was in error and that, contrary to earlier advice, some provider numbers were included with the statistical information. I regret that this has occurred and I am taking the earliest opportunity to correct what was an honest mistake based on incorrect advice. Clearly, this is a case where the HIC has provided me with erroneous advice. I regret also that my office did not pursue this matter more vigorously. I have indicated to the HIC my concern at the lack of care in the provision of this material and the incorrect advice and have directed the Commission that provider numbers should not be included in any statistical material provided to my office in the future. The honourable member for Canning has assured me that to the best of his recollection the documents did not go outside his office nor did the information provided to the media include provider numbers. Provider numbers are code numbers used in relation to doctors. The honourable member for Canning did not recognise that the material contained provider numbers and had no way of identifying individual doctors from the material he received. No use has been made of the material to attempt to identify anyone and that material has been returned to my office. I am setting in train an investigation as to whether there has been any breach of the legislation. I regret that this has occurred. Mr Tuckey —I seek leave to make a short statement on the subject. Mr Beazley —Leave is not granted. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has my indulgence to make a short statement in reply to the matters contained in the statement made by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). I suggest that the honourable member stick to the time limits set by the Minister. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister did not do me the favour personally of telling me he intended to make this statement and I missed the first few words of his remarks. I assume they related purely to the matter of the question and answer earlier today. Section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 states: A person shall not, directly or indirectly, except in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act, and while he is, or after he ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information with respect to the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act. Penalty: $500. The Act goes on to identify some circumstances when that will not occur. It continues: Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this section, an officer may- (a) if the Minister certifies that it is necessary in the public interest that any information acquired by the officer in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act, should be divulged, divulge that information to such person as the Minister directs. Furthermore, were this being done under those circumstances, and the Minister has already admitted to us it was not, subsection (4) of that section goes on to say in relation to the Minister legitimately divulging information: An authority or person to whom information is divulged- for instance, the honourable member for Canning- under sub-section (3), and any person or employee under the control of that authority or person, shall, in respect of that information, be subject to the same rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities under sub-sections (1) and (2) as if he were a person performing duties under this Act and had acquired the information in the performance of those duties. That is telling us that, irrespective of the means by which the honourable member for Canning received such information, he breaks the laws of Australia if he provides that information to anyone else. The circumstances of the Minister's statement are not of apologising to this House for misleading us by error-I accept that-by a misunderstanding. That is a function he has carried out in regard to his duties to the Parliament. We are now talking about whether the Minister and the honourable member for Canning, in their malicious desire to harm doctors in our community-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must not cast aspersions. He will withdraw the word `malicious'. Mr TUCKEY —I will withdraw the word `malicious'. They desire to persecute doctors on a matter. They refer constantly to a government price setting mechanism and then imply that the doctors are in some way dishonest if they levy charges, and in the desire of the honourable member for Canning to gain maximum publicity for what I believe was an organised campaign to denigrate the medical profession and so protect the Minister's institution of Medicare, which I might add has now risen to a point where the individual is suffering, the Minister and the honourable member for Canning have broken the law. The point I put to you, Madam Speaker, and which I must put to the Parliament, is that I have no intention of leaving the matter here. Had the Minister not come forward with those remarks tonight, at this very late hour, I would have pursued the matter further in the Parliament tomorrow. I have already received further legal advice on the Minister's remarks and can find in that no excuse for the Minister's actions, irrespective of his now admission that he released provider numbers. The Act also suggests-and I bring it to your attention, Madam Speaker-that nothing in this-- Madam SPEAKER —I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that I did ask him to confine his remarks to the same length of time the Minister took, as he is speaking with indulgence. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister had a very brief excuse to make, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I expect the honourable member to draw his remarks to a conclusion. There are other forms of the House available if he wants to continue. Mr TUCKEY —I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that irrespective of the Minister's now admission that he did provide provider numbers-in other words, he has been party to the publication of information by himself to the honourable member for Canning and by the honourable member for Canning to the community-contrary to the legislation he is bound as a Minister to administer. Even if he had been able to claim that they were somehow involved with statistics, that would have been incorrect. Under section 130 there was not an excuse for what the Government had been doing for months in terms of the legislation the Minister is sworn to uphold. Also, there is no other means by which the Minister can now excuse his action in passing on provider numbers which clearly allows for the identification of individual doctors. Madam Speaker, I will now respect your remarks regarding that matter, but I must inform the Minister that I will be taking further advice. The matter is not closed. We will pursue it through the appropriate channels in and outside this Parliament. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(9.24) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith this House censures the Minister for Health and the member for Canning for their conduct regarding confidential Health Insurance Commission records. Mr Beazley —The Leader of the Opposition does not need to debate the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. We will deal with the censure motion straightaway. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(9.25) —I move: That this House censures the Minister for Health and the honourable member for Canning for their conduct regarding confidential Health Insurance Commission reports. The House will be aware that in Question Time today the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), asked a question of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). It was a very precise question concerning the activities of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) regarding doctors in Australia and the Health Insurance Commission. The House will recall that the terms of the question were: was it a fact that the honourable member for Canning had disclosed information which he believed-that is, the honourable member for O'Connor-to be confidential and material that was in the files and records of the Health Insurance Commission? With great bombast and great confidence, the Minister for Community Services and Health got up in Parliament and said, `Yes. I, the Minister for Health, am responsible for providing that information, but I went to the lengths of ensuring that confidentiality was preserved. I deleted the names and any reference to provider numbers. In other words, I took great steps to ensure-- Dr Charlesworth —He didn't say that. Mr HOWARD —Yes, he did. The honourable member was present. The honourable member's colleague has been caught out on this occasion. They have been rigging the activities of the Health Insurance Commission to satiate their desire to blackguard doctors in Australia. That is what they have been doing. They have been caught out red-handed doctor bashing. They have probably broken the law and they have probably been involved in a conspiracy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be careful not to cast aspersions. Mr HOWARD —With great respect, Madam Speaker, this is a censure motion. I am censuring the conduct of the Minister for Health. Let it be remembered that the Minister admitted that he was an active participant in providing information. This was not a question of misadventure; it was not something that slipped through unnoticed. He was a party principal to an exercise in doctor bashing. The only thing that he got wrong on this occasion was that he did not cross out enough lines of information. That is what he got wrong. His intent was to engage in a doctor bashing exercise with the honourable member for Canning. That great paragon of consumer virtue-the honourable member for Canning-who runs around the country pretending to be the friend of price watchers, the man who runs around pretending that he is the great friend of the patients of the medical profession in Australia and the man who has tried to lift his professional reputation by being the arch-proponent of Australia's consumers, now has to explain to the constituents of Canning why he engaged in a conspiracy to break the law with the Minister for Health. I challenge the honourable member for Canning and the Minister for Health to establish during this debate, to the satisfaction of this House, how it is that the allegation that I make that they have broken the law is an incorrect and an unsubstantiated allegation. Is this another honest mistake? Let it be remembered that `honest mistake' is the explanation that the Australian Labor Party uses when it gets caught out. In other words, when it gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, bending the law or abusing the rights of a section of the Australian community and it is revealed, it says, `Oh, we didn't mean it, people of Australia; it's an honest mistake'. This is not an honest mistake. The Minister for Health has had a neurotic obsession about the medical profession in Australia ever since he took an interest in health insurance matters and certainly in the time that he has been Minister for Health. He is the man who once made the memorable remark that we should not be too worried about private property rights because that was one of those bourgeois qualities. Apparently one of the other qualities that the Minister for Health regards as bourgeois is the idea of confidentiality. This is the character who wanted to be let loose with the identity card. Can honourable members imagine what he would have done with the identity card? He would probably have set up some kind of privacy watch headed by the honourable member for Canning. Do honourable members know what he would have done? He would have doled out the numbers. He would have given them a great long list and said, `Go to it, George, give them a bash. They are all enemies of the State'. That is the way the Minister would have operated. What the Opposition has demonstrated on this occasion is a perfect example of the Big Brother mentality that operates inside the Australian Labor Party. What arrogance, what contempt! Even if the Minister had not been caught out, even if he had deleted the provider numbers, even if the answer he gave at Question Time today was correct, what he was doing was still an unacceptable exercise of Big Brotherism. Mr Chynoweth —Rubbish! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says, `Rubbish'. Well, I am very grateful for his interjection. Apparently he thinks it is rubbish to leak selective information which is available to the Health Insurance Commission. Was that information made available to other members? Was it made available to the Opposition? Did the Minister consult the medical profession about making that information available? Was the information that he was making available a representative sample? Of course it was not. The information was made available with a malicious intent to do one thing: to damage the reputation of the medical profession in Australia. There was no other purpose in doing it. The information was made available because, deep down, the Government simply detests the excellence that is represented by the medical profession of Australia. The Minister has never been able to reconcile himself with the fact that the health services of this country have declined as the reach of the State into the administration of those health services has expanded. He has never been able to accept the simple reality that countries around the world that socialise their medical services, diminish those services. He has never been able to accept that we once had in this nation, before 1972, a health insurance system that was the envy of the Western world. That system was destroyed by Deeble and Scotton, and the ideologues that followed them-of which the present Minister for Health is an archetypal example. He is an example of one of those people in the Labor Party who, way back in the early 1970s, believed that what one had to do was to break the influence of the medical profession and destroy private medicine in Australia. Ever since then it has been the Government's goal and its every action to do what it possibly could to undermine public confidence. What the honourable member for Canning has done during the past few months has been to try to incite popular hostility within our community against the medical profession. Are we now going to have a situation where the Government will adopt Mao's dictum of first shoot the lawyers? Will the Government deal with the doctors first and then move to the lawyers? I see the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) smiling. Well may he smile. Will the Minister next publish a long list of lawyers fees, taken from the Legal Aid Commission? Will he make sure that he first deletes all their names? Will he publish a list of trade union leaders, and some of the things that they have done? When will the Government embark upon a trade union leader bashing exercise? Of course it will not do that. There will be no such demonstration from the members of the Labor Party who sit in this House. The Minister for Health is the same Minister who was responsible for the ID card debacle, who for five months-no, for nine months-put this nation through a very considerable debate on the ID card. He did not know that his own legislation was fatally flawed. He was exposed on the floor of this Parliament by a question about the efficacy of his ID card legislation. Let us remember what this Minister has done. He has deliberately, not accidentally, and cold-bloodedly, not inadvertently, set out in concert with the honourable member for Canning on a course of conduct to blackguard the medical profession all around Australia. That is what he has done. Irrespective of anything he might say, from this day on he will stand forever condemned in the eyes of the medical profession. The Minister can no longer exercise with any degree of credibility the duties of Minister for Health. Well may the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) nod in assent, because he knows that what I am saying is true. It is all very well for the honourable member to protest his innocence. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, I cannot allow that misrepresentation. The Leader of the Opposition knows that was not the case, and what he said must not be allowed to go on the record unchallenged. Mr HOWARD —What is involved in this debate is nothing less than the capacity of the Minister for Health to continue to discharge credibly the responsibilities of his portfolio. Who would have thought that we would ever have reached the stage in this country where a senior Minister of the Crown, sworn to administer a portfolio dispassionately, objectively and fairly, would so sully his administration of that portfolio as to engage in a cheap conspiracy with a parliamentary colleague to destroy the reputation of the medical profession? That is what he has done. Every honourable member on the Government side of the House knows that that is what the Minister set out to do. The only crime that he has committed is that he has been caught. Honourable members on the Government side know that. As have so many other members of his Party, the Minister has been caught. Like Loosley, he has been caught; like Young, he has been caught; like Brown, he has been caught. No doubt the Minister will stand up and throw himself on the mercy of the House and say that it was an honest mistake. Perhaps he will say that it was an unintended consequence, and we will have a combination of an honest mistake and an unintended consequence. There was nothing unintended about what the Minister set out to do. He set out to destroy the reputation of the medical profession in Australia. He said, `Come on, George. We can help ourselves to a few juicy figures and, boy, when they get out, there will be a rage out there against the doctors'. That was the Minister's purpose. It was as simple and as naked as that. In the words of my friend the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), that was a contemptible exercise in doctor bashing. All I can say is, thank heavens for the Parliament of this country, and the fact that we have a Question Time. And, may I say, thank heavens for the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-- Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for O'Connor played a very distinguished role in this matter. He brought this miserable doctor basher before the bar of opinion of this Parliament. What an incredible little grubby exercise this was. The Minister sat down in the dead of night and said, `We will help ourselves. Come on Health Commission; give us the numbers, give us the names, give us the figures, give us all the dirty information that we can possibly get on the medical profession. Don't worry, George, we'll cross out the names and the provider numbers. If we do that, technically we will comply with the law'. This is the party that rails against tax avoidance. This is the mob that rails against people who bend the letter of the law to suit their nefarious purposes. They have sat down and, in a conspiracy, have bent the letter of this law in order to suit their nefarious purposes. In that respect they are no better than the tax avoiders against whom they rail. We have the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), this tyro of a new Minister who is going to save the Australian film industry, throwing in his little bit. No wonder the Australian public suspects bit government in this country. No wonder the Australian public marshalled in their millions against the ID card. No wonder the Australian public resents the growth of government in the Australian community. The people know that in the Labor Government's hands information is lethal and inimical to the interests of ordinary people. If ever we have had a demonstration of the tyranny of the bureaucracy, of how damaging it is to our democratic way of life for governments to have too much information, and if ever we have had a demonstration of the need to extend the power and prerogative of Parliament over the Executive, we have had a demonstration of it here. I cannot think of a greater abuse of privacy, a greater abuse of privilege or a greater abuse of confidentiality than that which this Minister has engaged in on this occasion. From this day on what citizens will trust this Government with any confidential information? What group in this community can possibly feel confident that if it gives this Government information, if it trusts the state in the name of the Hawke Government with any information about private affairs, that information will be kept confidential? Let me confess that on occasions over the past few months I have thought that some of the things that have been said about the possible abuse of confidentiality and privacy by this, or indeed any other, government has perhaps been exaggerated. But after this miserable, grubby, contemptible exercise by the Minister for Health and the honourable member for Canning, I must say that I do not think any of those claims have been exaggerated; in fact, they have been totally and completely vindicated. Who knows, but this grubby, contemptible little exercise may be only the tip of the iceberg. This may be yet one example, and one example that has been exposed, of the way in which this Government is prepared to use confidential information to suit its grubby political ends. I ask this House to carry the censure motion against the Minister for Health as a measure of its hostility to the way in which the Minister has breached his oath of office. I ask the House to carry the motion as a mark of its censure against the fact that this Minister would so distort the objectivity that is required of a Minister for Health that he would set out to blackguard the reputation of the medical profession. I also ask the House in this censure motion to condemn the honourable member for Canning for having engaged in such a grubby, shabby, contemptible conspiracy with the Minister for Health in order to blackguard the medical profession in Australia. Over the course of the past three months we have seen the departure of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). Mr McGauran —Good riddance! Mr HOWARD —Indeed. We have also seen the resignation of the former Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan. We have seen the yet unexplained but perhaps soon to be explained resignation of the former member for Port Adelaide. If there were reasons for those three Ministers to go, there are double reasons for the Minister for Health to go. The Minister for Health has only one honourable alternative after his ignominious confession to the Parliament: he should go tonight. He should resign and go forever from the front bench of this Government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.44) —I second the motion and draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is the second time in a matter of weeks that a Minister, one now departed, has been confronted with the breaking of the laws of Australia-something that Ministers, above all others, swear to uphold. The other Minister, having been offered a fall guy, still decided to leave. It will be a while before Mr Temby, the Crown Prosecutor, decides who should be prosecuted in that regard. I remind the Parliament that in this case it was a law written by the very Minister concerned that was discovered to have been broken. Tonight we are confronted with a Minister and a back bench bunny-someone who was set up specifically, someone who could not make the Ministry but was prepared to go out and do a bit of dirty work in anticipation that it might come. If honourable members think that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) had taken the initiative with the campaigns that he has run against doctors and hardworking small business people, they can think again. It was a highly orchestrated attempt which was done with the single purpose-I have said it in this place before-of testing the water; of getting out there with an expendable backbencher, insulting and denigrating decent people in our community and then leaving-- Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I welcome the jeers of Government members. They have just said that small business people and the medical fraternity are not honest and decent people. I am glad that that is on the record. I welcome their jeers because it is a clear example of their circumstances and mentality. The reality is that the Government has huge problems with the cost of its wonderful, philosophical Medicare institution. It has now put that institution above the people. It is more determined to protect that institution than to protect the rights of individual Australians who are now suffering through waiting lists and other problems. Of course, in the process of protecting that institution and, as is typical of this Government, attempting to shift the blame from its own philosophical and administrative mistakes, it has had to find a scapegoat. What better one to attack than the medical fraternity? But it is not for the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to do it. He has to go to dinner with these people and have them in his office. He gets a back bench bunny to run a campaign. Then Mr Cameron, of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, goes out and takes a few surveys and, if they run well, this publicity minded Government and the Minister join in. I add that Senator Walsh bought in once during this campaign, discovered it was all a bit too soon and ducked out again. How was all this done? Of course, we needed some evidence, and the evidence was to be the `overcharging' by doctors. Overcharging of what? Overcharging of the Government's price fixing mechanism, otherwise called the schedule fee? This is something which was arbitrarily decided by government and which it tried to sell to the Australian people when, in fact, they would not tolerate a similar imposition on their home, motor car or anything else. The doctors are then held up as criminals or crooks. We know where those people are because we have evidence that the laws of Australia were broken. The situation is that the law has been broken by a Government Minister, and the fact is that it is not the only occasion. This is just one of the occasions when the Government has been caught. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), who is trying to interject, will never be much good for anything other than interjections. It will be a long time before the honourable member takes that one step forward in this House. In an organised and orchestrated way, the Government went out of its way to denigrate the medical profession. The Minister and the honourable member for Canning have broken the law in the process. I have already read to the Parliament the laws of Australia that have been broken. Section 130 is not in the Health Insurance Act simply because someone wanted to fill a page. There was great concern in the Government of the day in 1973, and there has been a continuing concern in this Parliament, to protect the privacy of the individuals in that business. Out in the community at the moment there is huge and growing concern; there is a movement, if you like. There is an opportunity for people to exaggerate because people are concerned about their privacy. I have said to many of those people, `While the Government pays your doctor's bills, somebody, including the world, will know what illness you have had.' In recent days the enemies of the Government have been members of the medical profession because they have stood up and fought the Government for their rights, just as any working Australians are entitled to fight the Government if it wants to fix the price of their home or their car. The doctors are the enemies of the Government and it set out to destroy them. The evidence of this action and the Government's preparedness and determination to break the law is a message for Australians. Let us consider that one day some journalists in this place or elsewhere may get up the courage to criticise this Government. Will we then have an accidental release by the Minister to the prices network or the newly formed `we don't like the Press Gallery' network? Might the existence of some embarrassing disease, or some disease that might affect the future employment of a journalist or some member of the Opposition, be leaked to the Press? Do not think that there is any difference between that and leaking information about doctors and their remuneration. That went on before. As a result of this incident, we must ask: Were the Australian Federal Police last time round asking their questions in the wrong places? They toured Australia questioning members of the Health Insurance Commission about the names and the remuneration of certain doctors who were fighting the Government during the New South Wales doctors dispute. The taxpayers' money could probably have been saved. Maybe they should have been asking those questions in the Minister's office then. It is up to the Minister to tell us tonight how many times he has done this. We are talking about the privacy of Australians and the privacy of their medical records. There is not much that is more important to Australians. One's social prospects and employment prospects can be severely hurt and damaged by the leaking of these secrets. If one is an enemy of the Government, one is fair game. But it is not sufficient for the Minister to come in here tonight and say to the Parliament, `Look I am terribly sorry. I want to add to my answer. I am afraid that, when I handed this information over to the honourable member for Canning, I made a mistake'. Irrespective of whether those provider numbers were provided, the Minister had breached his trust and breached the law. But, of course, once the provider numbers were given, the reality is that there is no doubt that the law has been breached. It is amazing to think that that might happen again. The Minister, on his own admission, has done it once. The standard excuse is, `I have now made up for my mistake, and on the same day of sitting'. But that cannot be accepted. The reality is that the person who should now be standing and telling us what he will do is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the manager of the Government, the manager of Australia, who never knows about anything when anybody is in trouble. The point is that the manager of Australia has a responsibility to his shareholders, the people of Australia, to get rid of someone who has broken the law. There is no doubt about ministerial propriety here. Is it not amazing, when we stop and think for a minute, that the man who has tried to kill off or damage to further his claim for a participating doctors scheme in Australia is the man who, it was said, would administer the identity card-the man who, having got it through Caucus, went back to South Australia and said, `We should not be too worried about privacy. Privacy, after all, is a bourgeois right and is closely associated with the right to own private property.'? This is the man who has quite casually agreed to hand out private information and taken the risk of putting it in the hands of an incompetent person. That is the other charge to be levelled at the honourable member for Canning. He was not even smart enough to tell people that he got it off the back of a truck. No, the honourable member for Canning is one of the members of this Government of self-congratulation who stand up every day and tell us about their greatest Ministers, their most honest Ministers. Some of the words of the Prime Minister about how honest and decent his Ministers are are still ringing in my ears. Well, he can give us some evidence of that. He can give us a new Minister tomorrow morning and we will test him out. It certainly will not be the back bench bunny from Canning, because he is gone on two counts: he has broken the law-he has broken section 130 of the Act-and he has proved to be a fool because he was too silly and, in trying to prove a very weak case in the first instance, went on and indicated his sources. Mr Howard —I will vote for Gordon Bilney this time. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Gordon, things are looking up. The point about all this is that the Government knows that it can no longer fund Medicare. It hopes to save money by screwing doctors. It was quite happy to orchestrate a campaign to attack their credibility, and it was all to be done in a fashion that did not reflect on the front bench. But the case was getting a bit thin and the back bench needed a bit more help. The other question that the Minister must answer in this regard is: Was it just the spokesman for the national prices network who saw this information, or did other members of the committee see it? It will be a pretty fair test of the integrity of some other backbenchers to see whether they are prepared to stand up and say, `I saw it too'. But take it from me: it will not matter, because the law has been broken by two members of this House who have both, in an oath, sworn to uphold the laws of Australia. Of course, the Minister has done it twice. He is the man who was to be the custodian of our privacy, the custodian of the identity card, who scoffed when we in the Opposition stuck to our guns and said, `Australia cannot afford to have this sort of man or this sort of government in charge of the ordinary decent secrets of ordinary decent Australians'. The Minister's political desire for power, his desire to ensure that his philosophical arrangements for Medicare succeed, overrides the rights of individuals. The Minister has put between 50,000 and 100,000 people in queues-and that too is deliberate. It is the only way that he can save money. The queues are now part of his cost cutting mechanism and he is prepared to go as far as to break the law to defend that further. This is probably the worst example ever debated in this House. We do not know yet whether the retired Minister, Mr Young, has to bear the blame for an obvious breach of another law. But this afternoon this Minister admitted that he provided the information. This evening he added to that answer by saying that he in fact gave provider numbers. But I do not think that matters. We now know that he has broken the law. He should not be in here tonight doing anything but resigning. We did not need his explanation. This is the great test for the Prime Minister of Australia to show us whether he knows what the word `integrity' means and whether he has the courage to stand up and for the first time sack a Minister. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(10.00) —The Government opposes the motion. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The two previous speakers were heard in reasonable quiet. I expect the same courtesy to be extended to the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —Madam Speaker, the Opposition-- Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Every time we flush some con out the Government sends this Minister to defend him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to sit down. I call the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is getting pretty good at firing from the hip. He has seen none of the documents on this, he has not listened to the answers, and he comes in here with a rush to judgment. It is the same rush to judgment in which he indulged in regard to the former member for Port Adelaide, Mick Young, when the honourable gentleman managed to determine that the former member for Port Adelaide had shredded documents. The Leader of the Opposition has not at any stage presented evidence to support his view that the former member for Port Adelaide shredded documents, but because he said it publicly he will no doubt have his opportunity to do so. These cases take their time, and I suspect that around the middle of next year he will be having his opportunity to present his evidence with regard to the shredding of documents in an appropriate forum. Members of the Opposition have another area of expertise, which I suppose is why they feel comfortable in rushing to judgment, and that is their extensive experience with resignations on the grounds of impropriety and resignations generally. The former Government managed eight on the first ground and 22 overall in 7 1/2 years. So on the whole we have about 20-odd to go in order to be able to equal the wonderful performance of the Opposition when it was in government. One or two points have to be answered regarding statements made about the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and what are alleged to be his statements in Question Time. The Opposition said that the Minister himself provided documents. In fact, I will requote for the record the answer given to his question: He was provided, through my office with material containing no identification of doctor, provider number, or patient, but simply illustrative examples of the types of overcharging that took place in a small section of the medical profession. Even though it has been tabled, I will read into the public record the advice on which this is based, on which the Opposition has decided to move a censure motion. Even though this is available to it, it has chosen to move the censure motion without the document before it. That is fine. People can make judgments about fairness and equity on the other side of the House. There would be ample time to move censure motions tomorrow or whenever on the basis of the information it reads; but no, shoot-from-the-hip, shred-the-documents Johnnie Howard, the Leader of the Opposition, comes in here knowing it all, with all the facts before him, and says what he likes. This is from C. R. Wilcox, General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission. Mr McGauran —Is it dated today? Mr BEAZLEY —It is dated 7 January 1988. The document reads: Dr Allan Passmore, Secretary-General of the Australian Medical Association, wrote to you on 16 December 1987 enquiring whether either the Department of Community Services and Health or the Health Insurance Commission is supplying information about individual patients and individual doctors to Mr George Gear, Member for Canning . . . Mr Gear has recently made public statements about doctors charging their patients amounts well above the Medical Benefits Schedule Fee. A copy of Dr Passmore's letter is attached. Last year the Commission supplied your office with information about the charging behaviour of a sample of different specialist groups and this information was the basis of Mr Gear's public statements. The information supplied to your office did not identify either the doctors or their patients. It was in the form of statistical data which may be released by the Commission where the information does not identify an individual patient or practitioner (Section 135 (5) of the Health Insurance Act refers). This is the section under which statistical information is provided to requesting organisations including the Australian Medical Association. A suggested response to Dr Passmore is attached for your signature if you agree. One might have thought that a prudent Leader of the Opposition, desperate to score runs, might take his time to read through the document before he rushed to judgment on the matter. The document was available to him. The Minister for Community Services and Health made it available to him when he put it down. It is quite clear that any Minister receiving that piece of advice, and being informed by it when he came into Question Time, was obviously entitled to make the sort of statement made by the Minister when he came in here today to answer questions. Any Minister is entitled to do that. If the advice is in some way erroneous it is necessary for that Minister to correct it. What did that Minister do? He came in here and corrected it on a subsequent checking as to whether the advice he had received was erroneous or otherwise. On the question of whether this statistical data ought to be released, the Opposition has waxed moral in here as to whether that ought to be the case and whether it would approve of it. Let me tell the House that it is this section of the Act, this sort of statistical data, which Senator Shirley Walters, an Opposition member, used in order to secure a comparison of doctors' incomes. This sort of advice, as indicated in the note that has come forward from the Secretary of the Health Insurance Commission, is routinely made available to the Australian Medical Association. Honourable members on the other side of the house are freedom of information specialists. When it suits them they dig up documents under our amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. We never would have got a document out of these great protectors of individual rights under their Freedom of Information Act. We would never have had a chance of getting such a document out of them, no chance at all. Under our amendments to their Act, the Freedom of Information Act is now available for people to seek this sort of information. Is it suggested by the Opposition that the general public does not have a right to this sort of statistical information? Is it suggested by the Opposition that if doctors are charging heavily above the schedule fee that the public does not have a right to know? Is that the proposition that is being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? Obviously it is. The Leader of the Opposition came into this House and spoke about the poor unfortunate people who are having their rights, or whatever, breached in this regard. As the Minister pointed out this morning, 70 per cent plus of the doctors are, in fact, conforming to the schedule fee. A minority is not and statistical information on the extent of that minority very legitimately is made available to the public. If the Opposition wants to walk out of this place and argue in the public forum that people are allowed to charge massively more than the schedule fee, that patients are permitted to be ripped off, that is fine. The Minister for Health, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and everybody else will cheerfully take them on on those grounds. Mr Tuckey —We are talking about people's privacy. You are defending a law breaker. Mr BEAZLEY —I am heckled by the honourable member for O'Connor on the grounds that people are entitled to their privacy. I have listened very carefully to statements made by the honourable member for Canning on the issue of doctors overcharging. I have never once heard the honourable member for Canning produce a doctor's name or a patient's name, even though some of the information received by him has been provided to him by patients who have been so overcharged. If the Opposition believes that that statement is incorrect, the Opposition can present names of people whose privacy has been violated to that effect. That is a challenge to the Opposition. It can produce names when this matter, as the honourable member for O'Connor suggests, is debated subsequently in this House. The Leader of the Opposition decided that he would use this as an occasion to talk about the pristine purity, the gloriousness of the health arrangements that pertained before we came into office under the Government of which he was a member. Those arrangements ought to have been pretty good, because the former Government had six shots at it in the seven years it was in office. Even a government such as that could have been expected to get something right on the sixth go. What did we find when we got into office? We found that some two million Australians did not have coverage under those health arrangements. Under the legislation introduced by the Minister for Community Services and Health that level of uncertainty, that level of preparedness to take risk, has disappeared in the community. As a result, every section of the community is now protected. What we have here is a situation where quite clearly a Minister has been acting under advice. If there is anything inappropriate in the advice that the Minister has received from the Health Insurance Commission, the process set in train by the Minister will discover that. The Minister at all times in this regard has acted both on the advice of the Health Insurance Commission and through his office. Mr Carlton —We don't believe you. Mr BEAZLEY —It does not really matter what the honourable member believes. He has not seen anything about this. He has not bothered to look at the documents that have been provided to him. This is another exercise of rush to judgment, like that of the private access of the Leader of the Opposition to the shredder machine in the office of the former honourable member for Port Adelaide. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition will have his opportunity to explain on an appropriate occasion at an appropriate time and present the evidence that he has never managed to present to anyone else. No doubt he will be able to stand up tomorrow and tell us how he presented that evidence to the Australian Federal Police from whom he was anxious to get a response. He has no doubt had a discussion with the Federal Police and presented to it his evidence about the shredding activity that has been undertaken in the office of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. We are dealing with a bunch of dry gulch, shoot from the hip wonders, desperate in their leadership-- Mr Tuckey —You are going to eat those words. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor that if he continues to interject, the Chair will deal with him. Mr BEAZLEY —The Leader of the Opposition is desperate to confront the problems that are being posed to his leadership by his erratic President who yet again today announced his intention to run for Parliament but who, as an afterthought, said, `Oh, of course if they win the next election I will not run for Parliament but actually, really, I will be running for Parliament'. I am confident that that will be his situation at the appropriate time. Honourable members opposite are contemptible. They are contemptible in their rush to judgment and foolish in their parliamentary tactics in coming in here without having had an opportunity to examine the facts. They are not worth listening to, and I move: That the question be now put. Mr Shack —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. This is a censure motion against a Minister and a back bench member of the Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Shack —How can this Government put the motion when they have not even been called to the table to answer? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Sit down. The Minister has moved a motion. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Aderman, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N.A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Kerr, D. J. C. Halverson, R. G.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Duffy, M. J. Burr, M. A.Morris, Peter McVeigh, D. J.Hawke, R. J. L Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N.A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Halverson, R. J. Kerr, D. J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G.Burr, M. A. Duffy, M. J.McVeigh, D. J. Morris, Peter Question so resolved in the negative. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —I raise with you, Madam Speaker, the breakdown of the air-conditioning system this day and, in particular, the fact that I understand that in the last few weeks, in addition, the organism which causes legionnaire's disease has been diagnosed in part of the air-conditioning system of Parliament House. I ask whether you have any information that you can convey to the House in relation to this situation. Madam SPEAKER —I have no information that I can convey to the House about legionnaire's disease. I can certainly tell the House that the air-conditioning system has broken down because I can feel that myself. I undertake to find out what has happened and report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being after 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn, Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.28) —What we have witnessed tonight is the closure of a censure debate which goes right to the heart, the nub and, indeed, the essence of democratic government. It involves the relationship of the Government and the state and the people that it should be privileged to serve. There is a very clear distinction and a very clear difference between Opposition members and our political opponents. We believe very clearly and very strongly that governments exist to serve the people; that governments exist to promote the interests of the people; and that governments are in a privileged position to maintain and safeguard the trust of the people. There is a very clear distinction between Opposition members and our socialist opponents in the Australian Labor Party. They are people in government who believe that the Australian community should be tolerated-tolerated to the extent to which they serve the Government. Mr O'Keefe —How would you know? Mr Peacock —He has had a lot more experience than a bum like you, who will never get off the back bench. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr SHACK —They are people on that side of the House occupying the treasury bench who form the new elite of this country, the new class, the amalgam between big government, big unions and big business, who have scant regard for the ordinary people and their interests. What do we have? The Minister who was subjected to the censure motion that was blocked in this House tonight is a classic example of a social engineer; someone who believes that he is above the people and that the Government in which he serves is above the people; someone who called the Australian electorate card subjects, who did not even deign to credit them with any humanity; someone who is a socialist in the extreme, who said, `Let us not get worried about private property, let us not get worried about the sanctity of the individual-it is the bourgeois right that we can dismiss'. We have a classic example of this in the stewardship of his current portfolio. He is a man who is charged with safeguarding the most intimate, secure details of the Australian people-their relationships with their medical practitioners. A doctor-patient relationship enshrined in the Hippocratic oath, which is hundreds of years old, is one of the most primary and sensitive relationships, and this Minister-the Minister for Health-has been charged with the responsibility of safeguarding those details. Yet we on this side of the House brought this censure motion, which has been blocked by the Government-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Tangney cannot revive the previous debate. He may talk about it in generality but he cannot revive previous debates. Mr Blunt —This is the adjournment debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Richmond wants to debate that, he might consult House of Representatives Practice. Mr SHACK —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek not to revive the debate but to open up a new debate on the adjournment tonight. That is, if a Minister was censured for breaching that confidential relationship between patient and doctor, then he should resign, especially if it was not the Minister's first offence, nor his second offence, but his third offence. Can honourable members imagine the circumstances in which a Minister of State, charged with that responsibility, released information about doctor-patient records dealing with that most sensitive of subjects, abortion? Can honourable members imagine circumstances in which a Minister released information about doctors' incomes? Now can they imagine circumstances in which he has released information whereby doctors may be identified by way of provider numbers? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.32) —The issue I want to raise tonight is the abuse by this Government of the Health Insurance Commission as a political tool to further the ends of the Government. Tonight we had an example of one way in which the Government has sought to use for its own purposes information held by the Health Insurance Commission. But this is not the first case. We have had example after example under the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) of abuse by this Government and by this Minister of information held by the Health Insurance Commission. I go back firstly to the doctors dispute, when the Government was in dispute with the doctors over the amount of fees doctors could charge. Suddenly we saw on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, `Doctors' incomes revealed'. That was information collected by the Health Insurance Commission and leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald in an effort to further the Government's case against the doctors. Was there an inquiry? No; only after pressure were the Australian Federal Police called in. Then did they find the answer? Of course not. Did they go to the Minister's office to find the answer? We wonder. We ask for the police report. Did we get it? Of course not. The police report was not revealed. Who did the police ask for information? The conspiracy goes on. The Auditor-General, only a few weeks ago, revealed that a number of cost centre managers' estimates submitted to distribute joint costs of the Australia Card were revised downwards or deleted. What is the point he was making? The Auditor-General said that the Health Insurance Commission has been used by this Government to underestimate the cost of that failed ID card. When we asked the Government what the cost was it would not give us the answers, and now the Auditor-General has said that the figures that have been used have underestimated the true cost. We have seen other examples. For example, honourable members might remember the Parker case, the case of a doctor from New South Wales who alleged fraud within the Health Insurance Commission. We raised that case in the House, and what was the Government's response? It was, `Oh, the Health Insurance Commission is clean; the allegations are false. We do not even have to get the Federal Police in'. It was only after intense pressure from the Opposition that the Federal Police were brought in, and then, of course, it was too late. All the records had been destroyed. What did the Federal Police find? Nothing. Of course they found nothing. The Minister had delayed the investigation for six weeks to ensure that the crucial evidence had been destroyed. This Government has used the Health Insurance Commission to further its political aims time after time. This has occurred not only in the area of fraud. The Government has been trying to decimate the private health insurance sector. What proof do we have of that? At long last we have an independent analysis by Touche Ross of the subsidy that the Health Insurance Commission is providing to Medibank Private. The Government's `private' health fund is competing against the real private enterprise health funds. What is the subsidy that the Health Insurance Commission and this Government are providing to the Government private fund? It is of the order of $54m. No wonder the other private health funds are having trouble maintaining their membership. This Government is trying to run them out of business with hidden subsidies from the Health Insurance Commission to its own Medibank Private. The Government is determined to run private health funds in this country out of business. It has set about it. It has allowed fraud to be perpetrated against the Government. It has not investigated fraud. It has leaked information against doctors on two occasions. Information was leaked firstly to the Sydney Morning Herald, and now we find information leaked to one of the backbenchers to be used against the doctors. The list goes on. The Government has used the Health Insurance Commission to do political research, the details of which it will not provide. Freedom of information (FOI) applications have been refused. Currently I have a FOI appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning information on other costs that the Health Insurance Commission has covered to try to assist the Government's political ends. The Government is determined to run private medicine in this country out of business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.38) —I enter this debate not so much to refute what has been said by honourable members on the other side, although it ought to be pointed out, as the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) made very clear, that a letter was used by the Minister--Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! I have drawn it to the attention of previous speakers that it is not permissible to revive the debate that occurred earlier this evening. A member may allude to it in passing but not base his comments upon it. Mr WRIGHT —That was going to be my comment, Mr Deputy Speaker. It seemed that the previous speaker was carrying on that debate. I would like to raise a matter that does involve a doctor. I have tried now for two years to resolve the problem that involves a Dr Tom Lynch in central Queensland, a man who runs the laboratories in the area and who has been reported to the Australian Medical Association (AMA) on at least three occasions-twice by me. Whilst I accept the point that has been made by previous speakers in the debate, that the vast majority of doctors do the correct thing-I think 99 per cent try to provide a service that one could describe as excellent and they aim for excellence-it is quite clear that there is a need for a harder line to be taken by the AMA. Dr Tom Lynch when interviewing staff-this is on record and has now been sent to the AMA and there are statutory declarations to support it-requires employees and future employees to give information about such things as whether or not they are virgins. Mr Sciacca —That is disgraceful. Mr WRIGHT —I know it is disgraceful. That is what is on the record about our famous Dr Tom Lynch-the sort of doctor the Opposition has supported and backed up tonight. The same Dr Tom Lynch has been reported on some 10 occasions to the industrial inspector in Queensland because he does not pay his 30 or so employees. In some cases he waits a month before he bothers to pay them. The matter has gone further with the sort of questioning and interrogation that he forces on his staff. We have letters and statutory declarations to the effect that he asks his staff whether or not their parents sleep together, live in the same house and use the same bed. If that is the sort of attitude that the Opposition will support in doctors, it ought to have a hard look at itself. The AMA people say that there is little they can do. When I ring they say that they will speak to Dr Lynch again. They say, `Yes, we appreciate the fact that the matter has gone to the industrial inspector. He can do nothing, but we can do nothing either'. I believe that the time has come for Dr Tom Lynch to realise that he has a responsibility not only to patients but also to those he employs. I feel that the time has come to have a hard look at the sort of operation that this man runs. I suppose it is good enough for a man who is earning $200,000 or more a year in his practice-- Mr Blunt —Where did you get that information from-the honourable member for Canning or the Minister? Mr WRIGHT —No-one gave me the information. That is an estimate that I would make, seeing that he controls the laboratory in central Queensland and the other doctors send every blood test to him. If honourable members opposite think that that is an unreasonable estimate when there is a population of 130,000 in the catchment area he services, I suggest they think again. This doctor, who is held in such high repute by others, does not pay his staff, has been the subject of investigation on 10 occasions by the industrial inspector, who can do nothing, has been reported to the AMA on three occasions for the sorts of practices he carries out, and now is interrogating and challenging his staff as to their sex life, where their parents live, whether they live together and, in fact, whether they sleep together. I think that the time has come for the AMA to have a hard look at this. I call upon it publicly to carry out a full scale investigation on Dr Tom Lynch. It is simply not good enough that this goes on. It is not good enough that week in and week out Federal and State members of parliament in the area get phone calls from parents saying, `What can you do about this doctor? He refuses to pay my daughter'-or son or wife or husband; whatever the case may be-`who is working for him'. That is simply not acceptable. I reiterate that I realise that most doctors provide an excellent service, and I could say that about the vast majority of doctors in my area, but one rotten apple in a barrel taints everything. Mr Donald Cameron —Hang them all! Mr WRIGHT —If the honourable member for Moreton is prepared to defend that man, let him say so. I want to hear him say so. That is not the sort of doctor we want. That is the sort of doctor who causes members of parliament to want investigations, comparisons of fees, some statistical base to back up the arguments we have been pursuing. Those are the sorts of doctors who bring down the reputation of the whole profession. I will be taking this matter to the AMA again this week. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.43) —The issue I wish to raise-- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that you are not giving me the call, I do not know what caused the honourable member for Capricornia to get excited. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Moreton. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —The issue I wish to raise tonight concerns the political corruption and the abuse of political power in the Department of Community Services and Health and the Health Insurance Commission. Since March 1983 we have watched as the current Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), for ideological reasons, has set about in a systematic and determined way destroying Australia's health system-the private doctor system, the private hospital system, that Australia has had for many years. He has done so for an ideological purpose, not because he has succeeded in providing a higher standard of care for Australians. One has to look only at the queues to get into public hospitals throughout Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, to see the consequences of his actions. Not being satisfied with debating the issue on its merits, the Minister has abused his power as Minister, he has abused his oath of office, in providing information that has undermined private citizens in this country. Over a period of years his Department and the Health Insurance Commission have not been able to prevent the leakage of information that has revealed doctors' incomes, which is in direct breach of the relevant Act, and the Australian Federal Police were not able to find who was responsible for that. In fact, as was suggested earlier tonight, the police chased around the country looking for the answers to that question. Perhaps they should have begun in the Minister's office. As we have seen from events earlier today and statements made by the Minister in the House, that is the area in which information has been made available. We have also seen the very sensitive personal health records of citizens of Victoria made available. In the infamous Parker case in Newcastle information has been made available. The Minister, his Department and the Health Insurance Commission have been parties to the covering up of expenditure by the Health Insurance Commission to develop the ID card. We have seen the original proposal by the Health Insurance Commission to develop the ID card, which would have seen the gathering of information from a multitude of government departments. If my memory is correct, 14 government departments would have provided to the Health Insurance Commission information on the citizens of Australia. We have seen how incompetent the Health Insurance Commission is, not only because of its inability to stop the leakage of information about persons' health records but also because it has managed to allocate 20,000 more Medicare cards than there are people entitled to those cards. That is the quality of administration over which the Minister has presided. It is of great concern to this Parliament. The Minister has been able to make available to back bench members of this Government information that has been used for blatantly political purposes, in particular to bash doctors. For example, a Government member came into this House tonight-- Mr Staples —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: in line with your other rulings, I believe that the honourable member's speech is out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I pointed out earlier that honourable members may make passing references to a previous debate but shall not revive the debate. The honourable member for Richmond is within the Standing Orders, but he is going close to reviving a debate. Mr BLUNT —For the benefit of the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), the previous debate was a censure motion which the Minister for Community Services and Health and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) did not choose to defend. I am talking about the Health Insurance Commission. What is very important here is the double standard administered by the Minister in terms of his Department and the Health Insurance Commission. It is possible for the Government, Government members and journalists throughout this country to get information from the Health Insurance Commission, but the protection given to the Commission by this Government in terms of requests under the Freedom of Information Act has to be seen to be believed. It is impossible for members on this side of the House to get even the most basic information on the activities of the Health Insurance Commission. If one happens to be the chairman of the price watch committee, alternatively known as the committee for bashing private enterprise, private business people and private doctors, apparently all one does is go along to the Minister and seek the information. One does not need to make any freedom of information requests or put any questions on notice. One just walks in and asks for the information, and if it is for the right political purpose this Minister will make it available. He will not worry about his obligations as Minister of the Crown under the relevant Act to protect the privacy-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.48) —I want to speak about the election in the Republic of Cyprus and to welcome the election of the new President of the Republic. People would perhaps have been somewhat surprised to hear about the election of Mr George Vassiliou, who was a relative political unknown only 12 months ago. Mr Vassiliou stood as an independent with the support of a number of parties and managed to win the presidency. In the process, in the first round he defeated the then President of the Republic, Mr Spyros Kyprianou, and in the second round he defeated the veteran politician Mr Clerides in a run-off and became the President of the Republic. Mr Vassiliou will bring a breath of fresh air to the politics of Cyprus. This is an important matter in international terms because Mr Vassiliou has already stated that his major aim will be to reopen channels of communication for the solution of the Cyprus problem. He has indicated already that he wants to see discussions take place with the Turkish community, and discussions between Cyprus and other countries in the region, such as Greece and Turkey, which are involved with the Cyprus issue. In addition, his approach is quite different from that of the previous President. He will re-establish the Council for National Unity, which is a council under the President, involving all political parties. He will bring together the four political parties in a concerted attempt to deal with the issue of reconciliation, using a united front in the Cypriot nation. These developments should be welcomed because it is clear that a new approach was necessary in order for a breakthrough to be achieved. I am aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, of your own interest in the Cyprus issue. For some considerable time a number of members of this Parliament have been saying that a breakthrough is indeed a possibility; that the differences between the two sides are not so considerable or irreconcilable. Indeed, they are quite narrow and, with good will on both sides, there could be a breakthrough. I believe therefore that the election of Mr Vassiliou, and especially the fresh approach that he will bring to this problem, is to be welcomed. I take the opportunity also to welcome the discussion that took place a couple weeks ago between the Prime Minister of Greece and the Prime Minister of Turkey in Davos. That discussion also broke the ice with regard to Greek-Turkish relations. I believe that the discussion provided the basis for possible further discussions for the resolution of outstanding problems between those two nations. In view of the fact that these changes have taken place, that is, on the one hand, the important meeting between Prime Minister Papandreou and Prime Minister Ozal in Davos, and, on the other hand, the fact that a new President with a new approach has been elected in Cyprus, there is no more auspicious time than now for a major effort to be made for reconciliation and the resolution of this issue. I believe that our Government also should encourage that process in whatever way is possible. The Australian Government has always taken the view that a just solution to the Cyprus problem is indeed possible. It has always been ready to do whatever it could to find such a solution. I believe also that now is the time for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take a new initiative and to redouble his efforts in participating in attempts to achieve a resolution of this problem. Therefore I hope that these developments will take place, and I reiterate that I welcome the election of Mr Vassiliou. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.53) —Tonight we have witnessed the most incredible scene in that the most serious allegations possible were cast against the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and against the Chairman of the so-called price watch committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Moreton may recall a previous ruling I made that honourable members should not revive previous debates. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I shall not revive the previous debate. I want to refer to the speech of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). The best that he or any other member of the Government could pull out of the drawer tonight was an attack on a Dr Lynch in central Queensland. The theme of that speech was to lynch Lynch. It included accusations that the man did not pay his staff, and supposedly sought to inquire as to the sleeping habits of the parents of young people whom he saw. I acknowledge your warning, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what may be said. However, in my years in this Parliament I can hardly remember an occasion during a censure debate, when individuals have been named by the Opposition, on which those individuals have hidden behind the skirt of the Leader of the House, and remained silent. During the past few days we have seen reference in the media to the fact that the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), made comments to the Australian newspaper and then, a day or so later, turned a complete somersault, in conjunction with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in a bid to deny that he had made the statements originally attributed to him. I suggest that there is a possibility that, even as I speak in this House tonight, two individuals from the Government side of the House might be locked in a room with other Ministers in an attempt to try to work out a common approach to what will be said to the media and to this House tomorrow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on the Government side conducting meetings in the aisles of the House should cease to do so. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The reason that individuals have been shielded is to ensure that they do not get their lines wrong. We have heard serious allegations made at some stage, and we have seen a certain back bench member from Western Australia attempt to slaughter the entire medical profession. Tonight we found out the instrument that that member has been using. That instrument is documentation-- Dr Theophanous —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In your previous ruling you indicated that the debate on that matter has already taken place. Indeed, a vote has taken place on that matter. Therefore it is entirely inappropriate for honourable members opposite to canvass that issue during the adjournment debate. In fact, it is contrary to your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Again I remind the honourable member for Moreton that he should not attempt to revive the previous debate. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I have not mentioned any names since you first warned me. I believe that the main problem in Australia today, and the reason behind the hate campaign against the medical profession, is that the Government's health system has completely broken down, and in Sydney people have actually died while waiting in queues for health services. The Government has tried to find a bunny to explain away the reasons for the failure of the health system. If the Government can destroy doctors, if it can blame it all on them, if it can take away their private practices, if it can put doctors on salaries, and can control them and hold them-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.58) —I am a little concerned that in society there seems to be a passion for attacking or condemning the French at every possible turn. I am a little concerned or perplexed because, watching the Opposition ranting and raving tonight, one would swear that everyone of them had been bitten by a Frenchman. Tonight I want to talk about the abuse of power in contemporary Australia. I refer to a speech made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, to the H. R. Nicholls Society in Murwillumbah on Monday, 8 June 1987. That the Minister for Finance should deign to speak to the H. R. Nicholls Society demonstrates how broad is the respect for that Minister, and how tolerant are his views-a point well known, I think, to all members of the House. In the Minister's speech he spoke about the abuse of power in contemporary Australia. He cited the myopia of the H. R. Nicholls Society, which apparently can only see abuses through the trade union movement. The Minister cited abuses of power by a very prejudiced and powerful union, the Australian Medical Association, which recently in Canberra sought to raise its fees by an astronomical 80-odd per cent I think-I have lost the figures-for a part-time job. Mr DEPUTY 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 Punch to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 February 1988: Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees and/or charges for purposes of the following Ordinances- Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products), dated 17 December 1987. Motor Omnibus Services, dated 3 December 1987. Ordinance-1988-No. 2-Schools Authority (Amendment).