Thursday, 17 March 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —As honourable members will be aware, today is the first day of operation of the Sessional Orders agreed to by the House on 9 December last year. These orders provide for a new routine of business on Thursdays prior to 2 p.m. The new routine includes a set time for the presentation of, and debate on, the reports of parliamentary committees and delegations. It also provides significantly improved opportunities for private members to initiate debates on issues of concern to them. An entirely new feature of the proceedings of the House each Thursday is the 15-minute period during which members may make 90-second statements. In recommending the introduction of this procedure the Procedure Committee suggested that I should make a statement outlining certain guidelines for the conduct of this period. I do so now. I will be guided by the Clerks at the table to inform me when 90 seconds have elapsed for each statement. A stopwatch will be used for this purpose. I recognise that initially it will be difficult for members to know how much can be said in 90 seconds, but I will be looking for the cooperation of all members in ceasing their speech as soon as I call their attention to the fact that 90 seconds have elapsed. Sessional order 106a states that no Ministers may be called on during this period. The call will alternate between Opposition and Government members, as in Question Time, but the Opposition front bench will not receive precedence. I believe this is in accord with the spirit of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I also intend to allow a member to make up to three 90-second statements during each 15-minute period if no other member rises to receive the call. This is in line with the practice that operated for the giving of oral notices prior to 1985. The Standing Orders as they apply to debate and speech in the House will, of course, apply to these statements. The use of unparliamentary language and the making of personal attacks on those whose actions can be questioned only by way of substantive motion will be out of order. Members are reminded that they may give oral notices during this period. A written copy of any notice is required to be lodged with the Clerk at the conclusion of the statement. Finally, I understand that this procedure has been popular and worked very well in the Canadian House of Commons. I urge members to make every effort to ensure that the potential of the procedure is realised in this House. The calling of quorums, the raising of specious points of order and other disruptive tactics will not be in accord with the spirit of the proposal and will not be looked upon with much favour. All the reforms the House is testing will be scrutinised closely by all members, not the least by front bench members on both sides. I commend the changes to honourable members and emphasise that the success or otherwise of the new arrangements will depend, in large measure, on private members themselves. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This 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 to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 49 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 188 citizens), Mr Peter Fisher (from 90 citizens), Mr Halverson (from 125 citizens), Mr Jenkins (from 26 citizens) and Mr McGauran (from 74 citizens). 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 re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 238 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 38 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 18 citizens) and Mr Ruddock (from 902 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We, the undersigned concerned residents, visitors and holiday makers, call for the formation of Jervis Bay National Park. We support the inclusion of all Commonwealth controlled land on Bherwerre Peninsula, Beecroft Peninsula, and Bowen Island, in combination with suitable land around the perimeter of the Bay, to form a continuous National Park completely ringing Jervis Bay. We support the proposal by the National Trust of Australia for the permanent protection of natural areas in the vicinity of Jervis Bay, as the minimum N.S.W. land needed for Jervis Bay National Park. We support the inclusion of all Jervis Bay waters, and waters surrounding Bherwerre and Beecroft Peninsulas as part of Jervis Bay National Park. We support the establishment of a Park management system based on the Uluru Model, and the establishment of a complimentary regional management plan for the Jervis Bay region. We call for the Honourable House to implement Jervis Bay National Park to preserve this national heritage. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin (from eight citizens) and Mr Mountford (from six citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown (from 23 citizens) and Mr Allan Morris (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. `Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. `Proverbs 14:34 Considering: 1. the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. 2. the breakdown of the family unit. 3. the increase of corruption in our society. 4. the increasing weight of our national debt. 5. the emerging divisions in our community. we petition you to: 1. encourage every Australian to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; 2. encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; 3. encourage the Members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; 4. encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; 5. support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed. by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear (from 21 citizens) and Mr Kerr (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty 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 it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. 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 Beale (from 12 citizens). 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 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 (from 330 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Hunter Valley respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to terminate an existing agreement with N.I.B. Health Funds Limited for the provision of facilities for the receipt and limited processing of Medicare claims will:- Deny ready access to cash reimbursements of Medicare claims. Deprive citizens of a personalized reliable claims payment service. Reduce job opportunities in the area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House will reconsider their previous decision to discontinue Medicare Agency arrangements. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown (from 140 citizens). 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 a 20% Sales Tax has been imposed on tapestries effective from 1st February 1988. A large percentage of people who work tapestries are aged, housebound or incapacitated. To these people, this pastime is vital to their mental health and wellbeing and therefore a necessity, not a luxury. In most cases, this additional cost will cause financial hardship in continuing this pastime. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that reconsideration be given to the imposition of this Tax. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cohen (from two citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: that we are totally opposed to the proposed closure of Holder Primary School in the Australian Capital Territory; that such closure is a denial of our right to send our children to a traditional public school which is safely accessible to the children of Holder; that our children's educational needs are being sacrificed in order to save money without other avenues being fully explored; that the Holder Primary School buildings and grounds are more suited to the education of children and amalgamating with neighbouring schools than those neighbouring schools not threatened with closure; that Holder Primary School should logically remain to receive children from Holder Pre-School and to service Holder High School; that closure of the school, a focal point of the Holder community, would be detrimental to the strong community spirit enjoyed by the residents of Holder. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to reject the proposed closure of Holder Primary School and look at cutting costs in areas not critical to our children's education and futures. by Mrs Kelly (from 1,078 citizens). The tobacco industry wants kids. Statistics show that the younger a person gets addicted to tobacco the harder the addiction is to throw off. More people are aware of tobacco hazards, thus the industry is working harder to get more certain lifelong (short!) customers. Tobacco advertising is aimed at your kids by associating the things kids want-poise, friendship, sporting involvement, confidence, music and festivity, sexiness-with smoking. Advertising is a legitimate part of business, but an industry that tries to get people addicted with a deadly drug, for profit purposes, should not be allowed the same right as a business with more benevolent aims. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled The humble petition of these Electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to the proposed restructuring of the A.B.C. We believe that the A.B.C. is one of the most important public services in Australia and a mainstay of democracy. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the A.B.C. is permitted to continue to offer ``comprehensive'' broadcasting services under its present charter. by Mr Kerr (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the French Government may have plans to set up a new base for atomic testing at the Kerguelen Islands, south west of Australia. As all weather is influenced by the Roaring Forties, nuclear testing at this site would result in nuclear fallout over Australia, and especially Tasmania. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House: Call upon the French Government to abandon any plans of using the Kerguelen Islands as their proposed nuclear testing base. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 312 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication, are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Kerr (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in 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 (from 342 citizens). To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: Following the recent uncontrolled shootings in Melbourne, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that X-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra, and are freely available, not only at video outlets. And your petitioners, therefore humble pray that such circulation be prevented. We also express concern that the Senate Select Committee formed three years ago to investigate this problem has, so far, not produced a report. The laws regarding obscenity and violence in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage elderly and disabled people, families and businesses, adding significantly to the cost of living. Your humble petitioners pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will urge theGovernment to: Reject any plans by Telecom Australia to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser (from 236 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: (1) That we oppose timed 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 pray 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 (from 21 citizens) and Mr Halverson (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable 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 carers 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 (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 26 citizens). 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 (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Ruddock (from 334 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott (from 342 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled; the humble petition of the under-signed 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 (from 75 citizens). To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that it is the intention of the Government to charge all War Veterans the statutory patient contribution to Nursing Home care. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the position of Veteran patients with regard to payment should remain as it stands in 1987. by Mr Spender (from 40 citizens). Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There being no business relating to committee or delegation reports, in accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session private members' business will be called on. Bill presented by Mr Howard. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.09) —I have great pleasure in presenting the Flags Amendment Bill 1988. In presenting the Flags Amendment Bill I make it plain, on behalf of the Opposition, that the purpose of this Bill-and a Bill in similar form has been presented to the Senate-is to make it impossible for the present Australian flag to be changed without the approval of the Australian people at a referendum. In our view, that is a necessary protection for the Australian flag. It is a flag which, I believe, draws the warmth, loyalty and affection of the overwhelming majority of Australians. It is very interesting that in recent years, when there has been debate about the form and style and content of our national flag, even those who a few years ago spoke in derisive terms of our flag and even those who a few years ago wanted to change the Australian flag now realise that the sentiment of the Australian community is overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the present Australian flag. No debate on this issue should be allowed to pass without it being pointed out that at all times both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have strongly supported the retention of the present Australian flag. Whilst I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now says that he has no intention of trying to change the Australian flag and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has been dragged to an acceptance that the majority of Australians-including, I dare say, a majority of people who normally vote for the Australian Labor Party-want the present Australian flag retained, it is worth remembering that sentiment for the Australian flag was nowhere as strong a few years ago within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party. It is worth remembering that resolutions against the present Australian flag have been carried recently at national conferences of the Australian Labor Party. It is worth remembering, and many people will remember, the contemptible remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) when back in 1981 he said: . . . I think we can do rather better than the present undistinguished and indistinctive bit of cloth which we have inherited from our colonial past and which manifestly does not set anybody's pulse racing in the community at large expect, perhaps- and this is the most contemptible reference of all- the occasional Returned Services League blimp or a proportion of the tory back bench opposite. Thus spoke the true feelings of the parliamentary ranks of the Australian Labor Party. Mr N.A. Brown —Who said that? Mr HOWARD —Senator Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications. Thus spoke the true sentiments of the parliamentary ranks of the Australian Labor Party only a few years ago. The only thing that has changed that attitude is their realisation that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians who habitually support the Australian Labor Party are as contemptuous of that comment by Senator Evans as are the members of the back bench of the Liberal Party and the National Party. We bring this Bill forward not because we do not believe there is overwhelming support for the retention of the present Australian flag, which in my view is a beautiful and provocative emblem and one of which all Australians can be proud, and not because we doubt that it has overwhelming support, but because we simply do not trust the present Government. We do not believe that at some stage the Government might not try to change it. What this Bill will do is something the overwhelming majority of the Australian public wants, that is, to put it beyond doubt that our present national flag, of which we on this side of the House are immensely proud, cannot be changed without an affirmative vote of the Australian people. Bill read a first time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with standing order 104a, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.15) —I move: That this House stresses the need to stop the distribution of X-rated videos in the ACT which allow State laws to be easily circumvented and family life undermined. Canberra is, unquestionably, the video porn capital of Australia. It and the Northern Territory-the two Commonwealth Territories-are the only places in Australia that allow X-rated videos to flourish and, therefore, a mail order system enables X-rated videos to spread throughout all of Australia in total defiance of the banning of X-rated videos in all States of Australia. In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 250 people are employed in the X-rated video porn trade alone. Even if one puts aside the M-rated and R-rated distribution points, there are 250 people purveying X-rated videos. In the ACT there are a dozen major distribution agencies. One of the principal distributors has said that he has in excess of 50,000 people on his mailing list alone. Moreover, there are 2,000 X-rated video titles to choose from, and each title can sell, the evidence shows, between 1,000 and 25,000 copies. That means that there are in the order of 2.5 million legal X-rated videos available throughout Australia. There are lingering stories, which have not been properly rebutted or even addressed by the Government, that organised crime is largely behind the manufacture and distribution of X-rated videos in the ACT. I should think very few people in the community have a true appreciation of the dimensions of the problem. However, I appreciate greatly the House acknowledging the seriousness of the problem by allowing, in the new arrangements for private members' business in this place, for this motion to be listed as No. 2 after the introduction of the private member's Bill by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). That is some indication at least that the legislators in this place are finally beginning to respond to community pressure. All members have received representations from people of all different political affiliations within their electorates. How do we get to this point? Even if the Government were to finally wake up to its responsibility and give proper credence to the worries of ordinary, decent Australians, it may not be able to stop the problem. It will be very much like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. With more than two million X-rated videos circulating throughout Australia, how does one now rein in the problem? At least we know that we have to start to make the effort. If I may, I shall outline how we have arrived at the present position. In July 1983 the Attorney-General at that time, Senator Gareth Evans, called a meeting of all State Ministers responsible for censorship laws. That meeting was held in Brisbane. At that time there was no regulation that controlled the selling or hiring of videos. It was agreed at that meeting of Attorneys-General and various Ministers that there should be a uniform scheme. It was agreed that the ACT would be the model with its Classification of Publications Ordinance. So far, so good. Action was taken in July 1983 and everyone agreed that the ACT should be the model. Some model it has proved to be. At that meeting the majority of States agreed on a classification scheme. The various categories agreed upon were: G, PG, M, R, and X. Two States-Tasmania and Queensland-dissented from accepting the X classification, but the majority of States agreed with the X classification. It was further agreed that the Commonwealth would exercise its control on the importation of X-category videos. The X-category prohibited child pornography, bestiality, sexual violence or manuals on hard drug use, terrorism or violence. That was the system. In February 1984 that ordinance was brought in here in the Australian Capital Territory. Throughout 1984 debate raged in the community about the unsatisfactory practice of the spreading of X-rated videos. All State governments came under great pressure throughout the community to ban X-rated videos. So strong was that uprising that by the end of 1984 all States banned X-rated videos. At least the majority of States-Labor States, I hasten to add-which allowed X-rated videos soon woke up to the folly and sought to redress it. All the massive debate in the community finally had an effect. It was a very good example of how people can force governments to respond to a grass roots feeling. Moreover, in June 1984 more reform took place. All videos had to be classified; it was a compulsory scheme. Before that date videos could voluntarily be classified-only if the producers or distributors wanted them classified need they go to the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board. In 1985 a Senate select committee issued an interim report recommending that a moratorium be placed on X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory. In other words, it wanted a banning of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory for the time being, for so long as it took the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, which had been formed in the meantime, to report. In other words, the Senate select committee, on the evidence available to it before it was wound up to be replaced by a joint select committee made up of House of Representatives and Senate members, called for a banning of X-rated videos. The Government, and more particularly Senator Gareth Evans, took that request for a moratorium on X-rated videos to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly which rejected it. The reasons are a little vague, but apparently the education and community affairs committee of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly had decided that the system was working well. It had conducted a number of investigations with its limited resources and decided that the system was working well. That was the let-out Senator Evans wanted. In total disregard of the desires of the various States, of the national populace, Senator Evans hid behind the irrelevant House of Assembly committee. It fitted in with Senator Evans's own beliefs on censorship that, unless there is contrary evidence, X-rated videos should be freely allowed. Mr Cobb —How irresponsible. Mr McGAURAN —It is irresponsible, that is the whole problem. Senator Evans went along with the House of Assembly and pretended that the matter could be solved once the Joint Select Committee reported. We have lived to rue that day. The State laws banning X-rated videos have amounted to nought because the Commonwealth Government has turned a blind eye to the flourishing and dangerous pornography industry operating within a walk of the precincts of Parliament House. It is a matter of shame for this Parliament that we have allowed that industry to start up and then to flourish, lining the pockets of the purveyors of filth. There is some evidence that criminal operations in Melbourne and Sydney are duplicating the X-rated videos and then redistributing them. What is happening is that the distributors are advertising in a number of adult publications with specific titles. In the more general publications such as Australasian Post, People magazine and the Truth newspaper, X-rated videos are able to be advertised so long as no specific titles are used. So in adult publications-presumably Penthouse and Playboy and those types of publications-specific titles can be advertised but in magazines and newspapers that are often brought into homes and are open to inspection by children, X-rated videos can be advertised only if specific titles are not used. People then get onto the mailing lists of distributors in the ACT, and away they go. It is not just the Commonwealth which has been at fault. The States, whilst banning X-rated videos, have done little, and certainly not enough, to enforce their own laws in regard to these videos, so they are fairly easily available in the States through a number of outlets. The policy of the Government under this Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is to wait for the Joint Select Committee on Video Material to report. I understand that after 2 1/2 years certainly, approaching three years, it will report on 28 April. The excuse given by the Attorney-General whenever this matter is raised with him is that the Government always thought that the Joint Select Committee's report was a few months away; it was always around the corner. Why that Committee has taken so long to address the problem is a matter for the Chairman and others to explain. It has been of tremendous concern to other members in this place. I do not wish to be critical, because it has been an extremely complex matter with a mountain of information to wade through. More than one member has said to me that it is the most difficult job he has ever been involved in in this place over many years of service. The Commonwealth Government assures us it will act on the report. To what extent we do not know. This is a really enormous problem. We know from surveys that more than half of Australia's homes have a video recorder, and tapes are easily duplicated. To complicate things even further, a substantial amount of material which does not fit even within the Film Censorship Board's X category is flooding in from overseas. I am not sure how we can stop that, except by giving the Australian Customs Service more resources. At present the Service, because of limited resources, must list its priorities. The first priority is the apprehension of drugs; the second is firearms, of course, with the terrorism implications; and coming in after that is the detention of plant life and diseases, and video pornography. So even if we do arm the Australian Customs Service to the teeth, we are still not going to stop the importation of videos containing child pornography and bestiality because it is too easy to copy these videos and transmit them through the mail or have them carried in from overseas by ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, we have to make a start. It is no good members in this place, or public commentators, or even law enforcement agencies, throwing their hands up in despair and saying that there will always be a market for pornography. Of course there will, but the problem is that it is too open, it is too accessible to children, and it is proliferating throughout the community because, admittedly, of new technology. We seem paralysed by either an inability to understand the dimensions of the problem or a desire not to do so. A great many members on the Government side believe in no censorship, in allowing anything to be seen; but there is much evidence available to show that video pornography has a very serious effect on children, especially, but also on adults. With only five minutes remaining I cannot hope to make out the case that needs to be made out on the deleterious effect of video pornography on the weak and susceptible in the community. It is not just video pornography; often it is media news and media programs that need to be addressed. We also worry about that. After all, a study by Dr Thomas Radecki, a psychiatrist who heads the Chicago-based National Coalition on Television Violence in the United States, has estimated that by current standards an average viewer will see 45,000 murders or attempted murders on television by the time he or she reaches the age of 21 years. This bombardment of violence is appearing nightly on our television screens-in the news as well as dressed up as entertainment. Most people, through common sense or their own observations would link violence, or at least violence against women, with violent sex videos and perhaps even with explicit sexual videos. In the time remaining to me let me at least address the effect it has on our children. A report released in 1986, which has received widespread publicity, was entitled Kids and the Scary World of Video, and was compiled by the South Australian Council of Children's Films and Television. The authors of that report interviewed 1,400 children between the ages of 10 and 11. Their conclusions are frightening. The report found that about six in 10 children had access to a video recorder at home and more than 85 per cent reported watching videos at homes of friends. Moreover, a high percentage of those children reported having nightmares on something approaching a regular basis following those sorts of viewings. It is undeniable that that report, which is probably the most comprehensive and certainly one of a very few in the world, is compelling. The report found, as most people would accept, that many young people have very easy access to explicit material in the form of both R- and X-rated videos. It is estimated in that report that one-third of the children of Adelaide have been exposed to graphic scenes of mutilation, dismemberment, rape, and approved violence and murder. The other evidence that I wish to cite in arguing that video pornography is a dangerous form of supposed entertainment is, of course, the report of the Meese Commission in the United States, which report was also released in 1986. It was ordered by the United States Attorney-General, Edwin Meese. It found that there was a more than casual relationship between specific sexual videos and violence in the community. As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to stress that the Opposition has issued a proposal to deal with this evergrowing problem. We would immediately ban X-rated videos in the Commonwealth Territories. We would reclassify some violent M- and R-rated movies to X-rated and ban them outright. Moreover, we would initiate a Government information campaign to inform the community about the classifications. Studies have shown that more than half of the Australian population has no knowledge of the classifications. We would impose tougher penalties on non-compliance with these laws. We would prohibit the importation of material which otherwise would be refused, rather than impose point of sale restrictions which are so difficult to enforce. It is a tremendous problem which worries not only many members of this place but so many people in the community. The Government is totally to blame for the position we have reached, which will be extremely difficult to redress. But I know, and my colleagues would agree, that we have to start the process now without any more delay. The longer we delay, the sicker and more violent our society will become. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Hicks —I second the motion. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.35) —It is a pity that today, the first day of the new type of private members' business, is being taken up with the type of motion and business that is going on today. It shows Parliament at its worst-hypocrisy competing with motherhood for votes. First we had a Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) dealing with the flag. Then we have a motion moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) which is quite meaningless. I do not necessarily disagree with any of the motions I am criticising. I am criticising the fact that time is being wasted. We have the motion by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) with which I agree, although I do not think we should spend three-quarters of an hour on it. It criticises the Soviet Union's lack of civil liberties. We have the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) coming in on multiculturalism. Finally we have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) coming in on St Patrick's Day this afternoon. With all due respect to the fact that the Deputy Speaker is leading a delegation to Ireland later this year-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Prospect was about to become out of order. Dr KLUGMAN —It is depressing that this Parliament deals with these sorts of motions when it is supposed to be dealing with private members' business. The honourable member for Gippsland has just given an example of why he is generally known as the poor man's Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. He is in the tradition of the Reverend Jimmy Bakker last year, the Reverend Elmer Gantry many years before. He acts in exactly the same sort of way. I am Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. Mr Tim Fischer —It has done nothing for three years. Dr KLUGMAN —If we had wanted to come out with a simplistic statement which was completely meaningless we should have let the honourable member for Gippsland run the Committee. My belief is that to every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is always wrong. It is a complex problem. We had absolute confusion on the part of the honourable member for Gippsland. He talked about child pornography, bestiality, violence and tied them all in with X-rated videos. Let me give honourable members the definition of what an X-rated video may contain. X-rated videos may contain `material which includes explicit depictions of sexual acts involving adults but does not include and depictions suggesting coercion or non-consent of any kind'. In other words X-rated videos may not contain any violence, any suggestion of rape or any of those things. The honourable member for Gippsland was in utter confusion. If the Committee had the vast knowledge of the honourable member for Gippsland it could have come out with a report the day after we first met. But if the honourable member really wants to look at the facts and find out what is going on, let us do so. The honourable member talked about child pornography and bestiality allegedly being multiplied. He talked about two million pornographic videos, reaching 25,000 copies each. Recent figures published by the video industry show that the two top hired videos last year were Top Gun and Crocodile Dundee. They reached 20,000 copies. Is the honourable member really suggesting that X-rated videos reach anything like that number of copies? They do not. All the evidence we have shows that the figure is up to 500. Once one has seen one X-rated video one has seen the lot. Let us be quite clear about it. X-rated videos are extremely boring. They are all right for the voyeur but they have no story-line, no redeeming features for practical purposes. The honourable member for Gippsland has confused X-rated videos with violence. Let us be quite clear what is banned in Australia; in other words, what is refused classification. With regard to sex, child pornography and bestiality are banned; in other words, they cannot occur in any of the classifications. Detailed and gratuitous depictions of acts of considerable violence or cruelty and explicit or gratuitous depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons are banned; they are not allowed. Mr McGauran —They circulate. Dr KLUGMAN —All right, they circulate, but what am I supposed to do then? Lots of things circulate in the community which are illegal. All we can do as people advising law makers, if we are on a committee, is surely to suggest what the law should be. We should not go out and chase people who may have videos with bestiality on them which allegedly circulate in National Party territory and are enjoyed by members of the National Party of Australia. It is depressing to me that masses of people in the community believe that things like child pornography, bestiality and all the films associated with violence, et cetera, are in the X-category. They are not. I have give honourable members a clear definition of what X-rated videos contain. I will repeat it for the benefit of honourable members. They contain: Material which includes explicit depictions of sexual acts involving adults, but does not include any depiction suggesting coercion or non-consent of any kind. Mr McGauran —You are very naive and it worries me that you are Chairman. Dr KLUGMAN —I go back to the point that this is an extremely complex problem. Mr McGauran —Go back and collect your money. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I understand the honourable member for Gippsland was heard in silence. He should hear other members in silence. Dr KLUGMAN —If it had been a simple problem the Committee would have reported some considerable time ago. The Committee was ready to report in the sense that the so-called Chairman's report was ready for discussion a year and a half ago. While the discussion was going on an election was called last year. Then, to accommodate the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine who participated in the debate for some considerable time on the Committee, we had to extend the size of the Committee. So four or five new members came onto the Committee and, quite justifiably, they wanted to look at the evidence. We have again reached the point, hopefully, where we are about to report. There is a proposition also that somehow violent videos have caused lots of crime and that violence in society is increasing to a very significant extent. I will give honourable members the latest figures about violence in Australia. These figures are a report by the Australian Institute of Criminology entitled The Size of the Crime Problem in Australia. It is worth noting that the murder rate per 100,000 population for Australia in 1973-74 was 1.88 and in the last year, 1986-87, it was 1.94. For New South Wales the respective figures were 1.94 back in 1973-74, dropping to 1.77 last year. Proportionately the biggest increase in the Australian States occurred in Queensland-from 2.00 murders in 1973-74 to 2.54 in 1985-86. The latest figures for 1986-87 were not yet available in Queensland. In a similar period the rate for break, enter and steal offences increased at a huge rate. Nobody is suggesting that that is due to videos. Rape reports increased from 5.6 to 12.1, but it must be noted that the law was changed in New South Wales from 1 July 1981 to include cases previously not included. Therefore, they are not comparable figures. In the Australian Capital Territory-one of the two Territories mentioned earlier-where X-rated videos became legal in 1984, the rape reports dropped from 3.91 per 100,000 in 1982-83, which was the last year before X-rated videos were available, to 1.89 per 100,000, or less than half, the 1986-87 figure. I am not suggesting that rapes decreased in the Australian Capital Territory because X-rated videos became available; I am saying that there is no evidence that they have increased. All those figures came from the Institute of Criminology. I return to the original proposition. It is terribly depressing that the very first day on which these private members' debates occur, time is taken up by motions which are-- Mr McGauran —It is not important? Dr KLUGMAN —It is an extremely important issue, but not for somebody who came to me yesterday afternoon to ask me whether he could contact my secretary to get some facts about videos. Mr McGauran —The secretary of the Committee. What is wrong with that? Dr KLUGMAN —The secretary of the Committee. For the first time yesterday afternoon the honourable member decided to find out some facts. It is obvious from his speech today that he was unable to get those facts. Mr McGauran —Why don't you get out of this place, Dick? You are old and useless. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Gippsland continues to interject the Chair will deal with him. Dr KLUGMAN —It is depressing that he was not able to get any facts. Mr McGauran —You are old and useless. Get out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Dr KLUGMAN —I will finish on that point. It is depressing to me that the person who claims to have the solution for that problem had not thought about it before yesterday afternoon and obviously showed in his speech this morning that he had not read any of the literature associated with it and had not thought about it. Mr McGauran —That is a lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw that interjection. Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will stand on his feet when he withdraws the interjection. One does not withdraw an interjection while sitting in one's place. Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Dr KLUGMAN —This report will be of some 1,000 pages with lots of dissenting points. It cannot be summarised in a 10-minute address to this House. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.47) —I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) for a number of reasons. Firstly, I know of the work the honourable member for Gippsland has put into this matter over a number of years, his great concern about this matter, and the great support he is gaining from a good part of his electorate and from people throughout Australia. Secondly, many people in my electorate of Riverina-Darling have written to me expressing concern about the flood of this material which is coming from the Australian Capital Territory because of the lack of action by this Federal Government. While I will concentrate on X-rated videos, I am equally disturbed by those videos and films that are branded with an R category. They contain bad language, discreet sexual violence, explicit scenes of violence and the depiction of drug abuse. A lot needs to be done in that area also. I hope that the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, when it finally gets around to presenting its report, will say something about that. I have seen some of these videos recently. One does not have to go to the R-rated videos or films to see people falling from buildings onto meat hooks, cut in half with machine guns, or having their throats cut. These explicit scenes can be seen on television, which is not my idea of what people, especially children, should be watching. I am aware of the various ratings of the Film Censorship Board, which tend to state that films are restricted to certain age groups. Having raised four children, I know that it is almost impossible to keep young children under 18 years of age from seeing X-rated or unclassified videos. No matter what we try to do or what discipline we instil in our children, if the material is there young children will see it. The honourable member for Gippsland has touched on the sad history of this affair, but it goes back even further, to the late Justice Murphy who, when Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government, instructed Customs officers not to enforce the law on the importation of pornography. This was revealed in 1985 by the General-Secretary of the Customs Officers Association, Mr Spanswick, who gave evidence to the Senate Committee during its inquiry. He said that on 29 June 1973 the Department directed its senior management to verbally instruct the bottom rank officers in the service, inter alia, to `see pornography and not to see it'. From that time until shortly before 1 February 1984 no judgments at all were made. Mr Spanswick added that during this period Customs officers took action a number of times to seize or detain imported goods in the belief that they ought to be referred to the Attorney-General. But senior officers of the Department took the goods from the officers concerned, cancelled the seizure notices and handed them back to the importing people. So, how do we resolve that? The situation in the Australian Capital Territory today, with the distribution of this pornographic material and of violent videos, is not much better. The Murphy liberalisation was carried further by Senator Evans when he was Attorney-General. According to the Vice-President of the Customs Officers Association, Mr Peter Bennett, Senator Evans promulgated customs regulations which allowed any printed material, videos or films to be imported into Australia unless there was a specific decision by the Attorney-General, or a person authorised by him, to prohibit it. Mr Bennett added. . . . because of the way in which the regulations were interpreted, instruction manuals on rape, murder, incest, fraud, blackmail, arson and theft were not prohibited imports, which was now confined only to political terrorism. You can get a video tape instruction manual on how to commit all manner of crimes. Mr Cobb —Evans has a lot to answer for. Mr HICKS —That is right. Mr Hunt —He used to be Murphy's secretary. Mr HICKS —He was Senator Murphy's secretary. According to the Liberal Party's Senator Peter Durack, the Government's decision in late 1983 to relax customs regulations on the importation of videos was followed by a flood of X-rated videos entering the country. So, we come to the present situation: we have been waiting for three years for a report from the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and, while we have been waiting, X-rated video material has been flowing into all the States where X-rated videos have been banned. I do not envy the Committee its job, but many people are looking forward to seeing its report to be brought down on 28 April. Those so-called liberal thinkers who believe that people should be able to read or watch anything would wonder why there is all this fuss. But I can tell them that, although arguments have been put to the contrary, the dangers of exposing children to the material available in X-rated videos have become more obvious. Dr Elizabeth McMahon, a medical adviser with the People Against Child Exploitation group, illustrated some of these dangers in a recent interview that was reported in the Melbourne Herald. Despite the assertions made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), who has just spoken, Dr McMahon says about the number of children sexually abused: There's a lot more danger in video porn than, say, magazines. Because it's audio and visual messages together, there are stronger images that mean more to an impressionable child. Dr McMahon says that gratuitous sex and unchecked violence in the videos lead to the `worst possible kind of sexual exploitation for children'. She continues: Watching pornography desensitises children and gets them to accept new norms of sexual behaviour. Of course, this does not apply only to children. That is why I would like to see the membership of the censorship board changed very regularly. We do become desensitised. Things that only a few years ago we thought were abhorrent, today we just accept as part of the norm, and we believe that there is nothing we can do about them. Dr McMahon continues: It teaches them sex without dignity, tenderness or relationship. It says sex is necessarily aggressive and treats people as disposable bodies on demand. Dr McMahon says that recent research has shown that such videos have a detrimental psychological effect on children. She also says: The South Australian Council for Children's Film and Television recently surveyed about 1500 primary school children for their report on `Kids and the Scary World of Video'. They found the majority of children had easy access to R-rated material, often in the privacy of homes of trusted friends or family. That is what I was saying before. She continues: The saddest thing, though, was that 80 per cent of the children surveyed said they had seen things they now wished they could forget. I do not know about other members, but I remember, as a child of about 10 years of age, seeing a pornographic magazine, and I wish I had not seen that. I see people on the other side laughing. That type of material does have a very detrimental effect on the minds of children, which lasts for the rest of their lives, and it is something we should avoid. The honourable member for Prospect was ridiculing some of the reports about the effect this has on people. But even in Russia growing street crime is partly attributed by officials to the influence of video pornography and violence, particularly that coming from the West. We, in a capitalist society, have a lot to answer for as the people who use the production of pornography use it mainly as a money making machine. That is what it is all about. Another newspaper article states: Dissemination of pornographic material was always regarded as a crime under Soviet law, but there were no provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with explicit violence on film or videotape. Now, with rapidly increasing numbers of video-recorders and tapes, both imported and locally produced, new legislation was passed last year . . . making manufacture, distribution, demonstration and storage of films and videotapes that `promote a cult of violence and cruelty' a crime with a possible jail sentence of up to two years. So, we find that even in the Soviet Union people have realised the effect of what we would call R-rated and X-rated videos. If anyone has any doubts about the trade in X-rated videos-the honourable member for Prospect had a few words to say about the numbers refuting what the honourable member for Gippsland said-we have only to read about a case last year when the Australian Federal Police confiscated in one raid 2,000 pornographic videos which were obviously meant for the mail order trade. If 2,000 videos were confiscated in one raid, we can imagine what is going on throughout Canberra. No doubt, this is just one of the types of instances that most members of Parliament can recall when some people in their areas have been charged with having this type of material. Recently I was appalled to read what the Canberra Chronicle-I must admit that I found this article just as it was about to be wrapped around the vegetables, but it is obviously a very good paper and widely read in Canberra-had to say about X-rated videos from Canberra. It said that they: are destroying families throughout Australia and should be immediately banned pending the report of the Parliamentary Committee looking into film classification . . . Of course, it is still not beyond the powers of this Federal Government to ban those X-rated videos even before the Committee's report comes out. The article continued: Mrs Dawn Casley-Smith said there was no doubt that x-rated videos were destroying families and that they had contributed to the disturbing increase in violent sexual crime in the ACT. A minister of religion appeared before the Committee and said that the last four marriage break-ups he had had to handle occurred as a result of X-rated videos and the way they had affected the husband and wife relationship, demeaning in particular the wife. That is simply not good enough for Australian society. I believe that the parliamentary committee on video material has nearly completed its report, and I look forward to reading its findings, given that it has a tremendous responsibility not only to the people in the Australian Capital Territory but to the people of Australia. I hope that when that report comes out it will recommend that something be done in the interests of the welfare of the Australian people and about stopping the people engaged in this. I hope that the honourable member for Prospect will ensure that this is the case and stop those people who are becoming millionaires by putting forward these tapes on pornography and violence, which not only are having a detrimental effect on the minds of young people in Australia but also are destroying families and helping to destroy our society. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.58) —I have only a couple of minutes in which to speak, thanks to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) speaking for a lot longer than the time agreed among the two Whips. It should be recognised that this motion is being put forward today only because the honourable member for Gippsland knows that the Joint Select Committee on Video Material is due to report within the next few weeks. The Opposition has done nothing for a couple of years and it has come forward today to do a bit of grandstanding, as the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has done over the last few weeks, knowing that the report is about to come down. It should be interesting to most members to note that, whilst there are a number of National Party of Australia members in the chamber, one of the governments in Australia that allows X-rated videos is the Country-Liberal Party Coalition Government in the Northern Territory. The mates of those opposite up there have not banned X-rated videos, and they are still available in the Northern Territory. Like the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), I am not going to enter into the debate on the whys and wherefors of X-rated material here. I will do that when the report is brought down. Because I am a member of that Committee, I am a little limited in what I can say. Suffice it to say that what the honourable member for Prospect said was quite correct. There is a total misunderstanding about what is in X-rated videos. In fact the West Australian newspaper, on Monday, 22 February, said, in relation to a move by the Western Australian Government: . . . The WA Government should be commended for its action. The stuff of which X-rated videos are comprised-bestiality, child sex and sadism-are beyond defending in any society . . . The facts are that none of those things are in X-rated videos. They are all banned now and have been for ages. What is now in X-rated videos is boring nonsense. I do not necessarily agree that we should have X-rated videos. I will debate that at another time. Suffice it to say that my thoughts are probably a little closer to those of the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) than they are to those of the honourable member for Prospect. Nevertheless, the rubbish we have heard today does not add to the debate on what is a very complex issue. It is not an easy issue. There are thousands of pages of evidence, documents and papers before the Committee. Honourable members will see the outcome of that in a few weeks when the Committee reports to Parliament on what is a very important issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The honourable member for Isaacs shall have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.01) —I move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) on 1 August 1975 the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Finland, by 33 European States, together with Canada and the USA; (b) the signatories committed themselves under Principal VII to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''; (c) the signing of the Final Act raised the expectations of the peoples of the Soviet Union for greater observance by the Soviet Union of human rights, gave rise to the formation of the Moscow, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian and Ukrainian citizens' monitoring groups to inform the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world about the Soviet Government's compliance with the Final Act; (d) 9 November 1987 was the 11th anniversary of the establishment of the largest such citizens' group, the Ukrainian Public Group, to promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (e) three members of the Ukrainian Group, Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuriy Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus died after years of inhuman treatment in Soviet labour camps while a fourth, Mykhaylo Melnyk, committed suicide as a result of continuous KGB persecution; and (f) seven members of the Ukrainian Group are still imprisoned under a severe regime, 3 are in internal exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union, while 17 have been released from prison and are living in the Ukraine and 9 have been forced to emigrate to the West after serving prison terms; (2) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the continued harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (3) seeks assurances from the Government of the Soviet Union that members of the Ukrainian and other public Helsinki Monitoring Groups be released from their incarceration and allowed to return to their homelands or, if they wish, emigrate to the countries of their choice; (4) seeks to convey to the Government of the Soviet Union its belief that such humanitarian acts and the demonstration that its citizens have freedom of expression will serve to reduce tensions between East and West and help to erase doubts about Soviet commitments to their international obligations; (5) calls upon the Soviet Union to allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitor, Yuriy Shukhevych, together with his family, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as an immediate demonstration of its goodwill; and (6) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. I might say that that motion, by consent, has been updated to reflect the accurate position at this moment. This is an historic day. It is historic in a number of ways, not the least because, while I move this resolution, we have in Australia a lifetime fighter for human rights in the Soviet Union. I speak of Mrs Oksana Meshko, a very fine lady of some 83 years of age who is presently visiting Australia, and I signal to her in the gallery. It is a pleasing day in a sense that an element of liberalisation is occurring such that this lady is able to be in Australia for a period of three months to have an eye operation. We certainly hope that that operation is successful. I know from speaking with Mrs Meshko that she has a great spirit and a desire to return to the Soviet Union to work for the freedom of those with whom she has been associated in monitoring the Helsinki Accords. She is a remarkable lady, not just because of her age and because of the faith that she has that carries her on and has seen her through a great deal of personal hardship. In February 1947 Mrs Meshko was charged with a political offence and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in a region of Siberia inside the Arctic Circle. She was released in 1956. Thereafter she was active in human rights issues again. Some would say she was haranguing the Soviet Government. In 1980 that led to a further term of imprisonment for this grand lady. She was sentenced to the wastelands once more, a labour camp for six months, and then exiled for five years to a small, remote village called Habarowsk in the far east of the region. Honourable members can see why I mention this lady and her presence in the chamber today and why this is a unique motion. Honourable members will know that we in the Australian Parliament have a Parliamentary Amnesty Group which has, in non-partisan political terms, an interest in pursuing without fear or favour human rights questions, wherever they occur throughout the world. I am a member of that group and I pursue these questions not only in relation to the Soviet Union but in relation to other countries, some that are seen to be allies of ours and some that are seen to be non-aligned. I pursue this matter in that same spirit because I believe human rights questions quite properly have to be pursued in a non-partisan way and at all times. It was remarkable 11 years ago that 33 countries came together and set down certain declarations of principles to guide states. Those declarations of principles, known as the Helsinki Accords, covered a large range of matters relating to building confidence for peace in Europe in the future and minimising the sorts of issues that have placed this world at risk from time to time. Amongst the issues that were important were human rights questions. I have to simply record those principles as guiding states because I think they put into some perspective what these people about whom I am speaking today were seeking to monitor. Principle 1 is sovereign equality, respect for rights inherent in sovereignty. Principle 2: refraining from the threat or use of force. Principle 3: inviolability of frontiers. Principle 4: territorial integrity of states. Principle 5: peaceful settlement of disputes. Principle 6: non-intervention in internal affairs. Principle 7: respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Principle 8: equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Principle 9: co-operation among states. Principle 10: fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law. A number of groups were set up within countries, and particularly within the Soviet Union and its various constituent states, to monitor the implementation of the Accords. There have been, and there could be available to honourable members, as there have been to me, documents which have been put together as groups of nations year after year come together to discuss the Helsinki Accords and the way in which they have been implemented. There have been conferences in Madrid, conferences in Vienna and conferences elsewhere in Europe from which we obtain reports year by year on the way in which the Helsinki Accords are being implemented and on the circumstances of individuals. These monitoring arrangements are particularly important because they reveal the real human dimensions. I wish to bring to the attention of honourable members, without quoting at any length, some of the speeches of Warren Zimmermann, the Chairman of the United States delegation, particularly his speeches of 14 November 1986 and July 1987 in Vienna. Honourable members will find there, documented in the most comprehensive way, the manner in which human rights abuses have proceeded in the Soviet Union, and the large number of people who remain incarcerated still because of their political views and their desire to monitor the way in which human rights issues are addressed. As a member of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group I simply note that some of those who have been placed in prisons from time to time, or sent to labour camps, are those who have been involved in Amnesty in the Soviet Union and who seek merely to take up human rights questions wherever they arise. In the short time that I have available to me I am able only to gloss over the great deal of information to which I have access. I wish to record that at this time in the Soviet Union there have been a number of moves that evidence a change of attitude. I welcome those changes and I am sure that all people of goodwill would want to acknowledge those changes that suggest that the Soviet Union's attitude towards political questions, even within the Soviet Union, might be undergoing a period of review. I note that some commentators who are experts in these matters, have drawn attention to the establishment of the Soviet Human Rights Commission, which was announced on 31 July 1987 to deal with various humanitarian issues and to inform Soviet citizens of their rights. I note also that the Soviet Union claimed in 1986 that it was liberalising its approach to immigration, one of the important human rights questions that are monitored from time to time. I also note that the Soviet Foreign Minister in that year, Eduard Shevardnadze, proposed that Moscow would hold a conference to discuss the whole range of problems in the field of humanitarian cooperation, including human contacts information, culture and education. I have also seen reports that Soviet psychiatric hospitals are about to undergo a change; they may be moved from the Soviet Minister of the Interior, where the staffs wore uniforms in the past, to the Health Ministry. That move may be the forerunner of an improved situation. I wish to make those points in the following way: it seems to me that they are general comments of prospective change, and if we are able to see, through those steps that are being taken, changes on the human front, no doubt glasnost, as we have heard it discussed, will take on a new dimension. This motion names a number of people still in detention, and it seems to me that if we reach a situation where those people are released, and are able to return to their homes and monitor the situation in the Soviet Union freely, we will have a changed situation. I would certainly urge honourable members to continue to monitor the situation. If change is really occurring, we will see it carried through in the human terms that are so important. Finally, I wish to make a plea, particularly in the case of Levko Lukyanenko, a prominent Soviet lawyer. Our guest here in Australia, Mrs Meshko, makes the point that he is a man before his time. Lukyanenko, as a lawyer, was trained to defend people, but, because of his involvement in defending those who were put on trial because of their political views, he became a political prisoner himself. A great deal of information about him is available. Because of the time constraints upon me I seek leave to table a publication produced by the Committee for Defence of Human and National Rights in Ukraine on Lev Lukyanenko, to ensure that it is available for honourable members. Leave granted. Mr RUDDOCK —I wish to table a further document with information on other Ukrainians that was prepared for the tenth anniversary of the Ukrainian Helsinki group, which records the background and experience of the large number of people involved in monitoring human rights issues in the Ukraine. It is one of the largest and most notable organisations of its kind. Leave granted. Mr RUDDOCK —I am grateful to have had the opportunity today in this debate to mention particularly our guest, Mrs Meshko, and Mr Levko Lukyanenko, the lawyer, a contemporary of Prime Minister Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. I simply note that this man for his beliefs has spent 25 years in Soviet concentration camps. He has now been sent into exile where the only available work for him, if he were to be employed gainfully, is the felling of trees. The real concern for Ukrainian monitors at this time is that this gentleman may well not survive his next five years in exile. I make a plea at this stage that his cause be taken up anew, that we seek to have him released, and that we hand to Mrs Meshko a message of support, strength, and encouragement that she can take back to her fellow citizens in the Soviet Union, as they work on human rights issues and work for the release of their friends and colleagues involved in these matters. Mr Shipton —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(11.18) —There would be no-one in this House who would oppose the motion of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Indeed, I am sure there would be wide bipartisan support for the view that the rights of individuals are being threatened and suppressed, not only in Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, but throughout the world in many areas. I am pleased to see in the gallery our visitor from the Soviet Union. I welcome her on behalf of the Government and assure her that the Government, and members of the Government, also view with concern the fact that individuals in the Soviet Union and its satellites are denied the rights and freedoms that we in Australia take for granted, that we in Australia believe should be universal and that we expect all governments, no matter where, should give to their citizens. I give credit to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas. I note the presence in the gallery of Senator Puplick, another noted civil libertarian. It is pleasing also to see that there are, among members of the Opposition, those who support, universally, rights and freedoms throughout the world. It is important that that recognition be given in a debate such as this. But what is equally tragic is that at this very moment there are six black condemned people sitting in a cell in South Africa who face the gallows tomorrow, having been charged with and convicted of an offence that did not involve evidence being required of their participation-the offence of murder. Rather their crime was that they were adjacent to and part of a general public political protest, and as a result of their presence at that protest they have been convicted of the principal crime of murder about which there is no evidence of their participation and for which they face the gallows on Friday morning. There could be no greater breach of a human being's rights than to be convicted of a homicide about which there was no evidence of participation. Having convicted those black South Africans, the South African Government is taking that action, despite pleas from around the world. I note with pleasure that even the President of the United States, not noted for his views on civil liberties, has now publicly joined the rest of the world in seeking that that tragic event not occur. Yet we in this country know from the record in South Africa, as in many other parts of the world, that the likelihood is that those six black South Africans will pay the supreme penalty of death in the morning-death by hanging. Although in all sincerity I acknowledge the work done by individual Opposition members, I am ashamed of the fact that Opposition members have yet to stand up publicly and condemn that act which will occur in South Africa tomorrow. It is surely a tragedy that in Australia, a country which recognises rights and liberties, the Opposition has not yet joined the rest of the world leaders in condemning the events that will take place tomorrow. The honourable member for Dundas, who has credibility as a backbencher in talking of civil rights, referred to the Helsinki Accords of 1975 but made no mention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This country is a signatory to that Covenant, but a Bill to enshrine those rights provided in the Covenant was rejected by the numbers in the Senate. Therefore, even today this country does not by legislation recognise the most fundamental and basic principles of human rights. It is a shame that that is the case in this country. It is a shame that we as parliamentarians, no matter what our political views or parties, have not enshrined those rights in legislation-the very rights that we demand from other countries. As a parliament and as a nation we should demand legislation enshrining those rights. Those rights which this Parliament rejected only last year are basic rights which no-one in this House individually would oppose. The rights are very simple. They are the right to life; freedom from torture and inhuman treatment; freedom from slavery, servitude and forced labour; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right of prisoners to be treated with humanity; freedom from imprisonment for failure to fulfil a contractual obligation; the right to freedom of movement; the rights of aliens in respect of expulsion; rights in relation to the criminal process, including the right to a fair trial; protection against retroactivity of the criminal law; the right to be recognised as a person before the law; the right to privacy; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to freedom of expression; a ban on propaganda for war, or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred; the right to peaceful assembly; the right to freedom of association; the right to marry and found a family; the right of children to measures of protection; the right to take part in public life, electoral rights and the right of equal access to public service; and last, but very importantly, the right of equality and non-discrimination before the law. Those are the very rights that this motion demands that a foreign government give to people now imprisoned. However, we as a parliament and as a nation have failed to enshrine those rights in our own legislation. How can we condemn other countries for failing to give those rights when we, as a parliament, have failed to enshrine them in our own laws? Yet this motion is not about that, although it gives me an opportunity to express those strong personal views. The motion is about individual human beings-people whom I have never met. Because those people have a view and want the right of expression and freedom of thought, they have been imprisoned. That has happened, without fair process of trial, not because they have done any harm to the state in which they live, but because their views are contrary to the views of the political leaders in that state. These rights should apply to people in the Soviet Union, or to negroes living in the American southern states who have yet to achieve economic freedom-although the American law may well enshrine the rights of American negroes, it is true that their economic freedom is far from established. These rights should also apply to South America, Costa Rica, Brazil or the Argentine, and to the people of Afghanistan who are fighting the Soviet Union in seeking the right of self-determination. Whether these provisions apply to people who live in Namibia, or to people anywhere in the world, I believe that this House has a concern to express often and publicly its strong and collective view that those rights are inalienable, and that they cannot be fettered or removed. In one sense they do not even need to be written. Certainly without them a person is less than a human being. Without them, one is not a political person and one has no political rights. The motion is important. It is self-evident and it raises far broader issues than are expressed in written form. The motion deserves bipartisan support from all honourable members of this House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.26) —This debate is about the denial of human rights in the Soviet Union, and I am pleased to second the motion moved by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). This is an important debate, as the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) said. It is important that it be understood by the Soviet Union that there is a bipartisan approach by members on both sides of the political spectrum in this Parliament as well as people in this nation. The term `human rights' sometimes appears esoteric because we in Australia take those human rights and fundamental freedoms for granted, but those rights are denied to people in many countries. I can get up in this Parliament and say anything about anybody, subject to the Standing Orders; the fact that we have a free Press; people are free to practise the religion of their choice and to come and go. Freedoms we exercise from day to day without thinking are denied to others. That is particularly so in the Soviet Union. The honourable member for McEwen attacked the Opposition on its stance on the hangings of the Sharpeville six that are proposed to be carried out in South Africa tomorrow. I put it on record that yesterday in the Senate a resolution was passed unanimously condemning the intended hanging of the Sharpeville six in South Africa. That resolution called on the South African Government to exercise clemency. In fact, Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Senator Hill spoke on behalf of the Opposition and supported the resolution. I also take this opportunity to ask the South African Government to exercise clemency. It would be a futile act if that Government were to carry out those hangings. On the important subject of human rights, it is only since the Second World War that `human rights' has been in the dictionary and in our lexicon. President Roosevelt delivered a famous four freedoms speech to Congress in 1941. He defined the four basic human rights essential to the restoration of world order as freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear everywhere in the world. Subsequently those thoughts were incorporated in the Atlantic Charter, a set of postwar aims announced by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. After the Second World War the United Nations (UN) Charter in articles 55 and 56 adopted human rights definitions. It said that that international organisation would promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Following the setting up of the UN declaration, as there was a need, regrettably, throughout the world for other forums and agencies to pursue human rights because of the denial of them, the next step was the formulation of the Helsinki Accords of 1975, which are the subject of this motion I am seconding. The Helsinki Accords define certain human rights and extract promises from signatory governments, including European governments, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The tragedy is that the USSR has not honoured and carried out its obligations under the Helsinki Accords, and that is why the honourable member for Dundas and I and members of the Government have to speak in this House in a bipartisan way condemning the Soviet Union for not putting into effect the Helsinki Accords. I acknowledge that there is some change taking place, some liberalisation, in the Soviet Union under the so-called spirit of openness, or glasnost. We are yet to find out what that really means. There is certainly a state of change, a state of flux, in that country, but whether it is more than rhetoric, whether it will become reality, we are as yet unable to judge. We must hesitate to make a judgment; it is too early to say. We saw changes after Khrushchev succeeded Stalin and he exposed the Stalin camps. We must refrain from making early judgments even though, as I have said, there are changes and they are welcome. I want to refer to some documents, including Amnesty International reports, that are relevant to this matter. There is also a relevant United States State Department report that is regarded by observers as objective. I shall refer quickly to the Amnesty report on religious prisoners, because I have a concern about prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. There is an offence there referred to as malicious disobedience, and the Amnesty International Report of 1987 says: Despite official moves towards glasnost, individuals who communicated uncensored information on controversial topics faced imprisonment under laws restricting freedom of expression. The report refers to the fact that people were sent to gaol and exiled, and continues: Another 30 individuals received sentences of up to three years' imprisonment on the less serious charge of `circulating anti-Soviet slander'. They were mostly religious believers convicted of distributing or printing Bibles and prayer books produced on home-made presses. I want to conclude by paying tribute to a very brave lady who is in the gallery today, a Mrs Oksana Meshko, who is out of the Soviet Union to undergo an eye operation in Australia. The honourable member for Dundas referred to her bravery. When I talked to her earlier in the day, she was more concerned about the plight, the fate, of Levko Lukyanenko than herself. She is a lady who is brave, and who has faith. She was 10 years in Stalin's camps, and in the 1980s she spent six months in a KGB prison and five years in exile. She is an inspiration to us as she sits here today representing not only people from the Ukraine but also Christians, Jews and people of all races and creeds in the Soviet Union who cry out for freedom. I asked her what kept her going, and she said, `My love for human beings and a sense of duty to the community, and a sense of patriotism'. I honour her. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.34) —Mr Deputy Speaker, before us today we have an important motion on human rights, and in particular human rights in the Ukraine as they affect particular individuals there. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks not only of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who has just resumed his seat, but also of the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who I thought made a very fine contribution on human rights in general a little earlier in the debate. It should be noted that a final act of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe was signed in Helsinki on 1 August 1975 by 35 nations. That became known as the Helsinki Accords. The West gained some Soviet acceptance of provisions guaranteeing basic human rights and freedoms, and the rights of national groups to self-determination. However, the Soviet Union does not have a great record on human rights, particularly the rights of its ethnic groups such as the people in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and of course in the Ukraine, which is referred to in the motion before us. Many people in those areas have struggled for many years, for many decades, for basic human rights not only for themselves but also for others. They have fought to retain their own culture, traditions and language so that they are not submerged into the Russian culture that surrounds them. The people of the Ukraine have been struggling for many years for self-determination, to be a separate state and to have their own culture-or should I say to keep their own culture and traditions. I welcome Mrs Meshko here today. She is a very fine lady who is here representing those people in the Ukraine. She is staying with her niece, Mrs Hrudka, who is from the lovely bayside suburb of Edithvale, in the middle of my electorate of Isaacs. Hopefully I will see Mrs Meshko more throughout her several months in Australia. If she stays with her niece she will be only a stone's throw from my office. She is in Australia, and here today, not only for her eye operation, which we hope is successful, but also on behalf of the people of the Ukraine to put the case in person so that we can understand the situation properly. All too often, particularly here in Australia, which is a long way from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), we talk ad nauseam about various subjects but it is of great assistance to us when we meet people from various parts of the world or when we travel to various parts of the world to get first-hand experience of what these people have to put up with. In the Ukraine, as I have suggested, the people have had to put up with all too much over the last 50 years or so. I have a number of friends in Australia who come from the Ukraine and the Baltic states and I applaud them for their efforts on behalf of their friends and relatives back in their homeland. Many people here in Australia through their local organisations-for example, the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations-do a tremendous amount of work for the human rights of people back in their homeland. One of the people covered by the motion is a lawyer, Mr Lev Lukyanenko. He is an important person because he has struggled for many years. He has put himself out, he has been in prison and he has had his human rights denied. We are asking the Soviet Union to give basic human rights and freedoms to these people immediately. As the honourable member for McEwen said, there are many human rights abuses around the world. The two Opposition speakers, the honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), have been assiduous in their efforts on human rights issues, as have many members on this side of the House over the years. It is extraordinary that on the first day on which we have debated private members' business we have such an important motion before us. I endorse the remarks of the honourable members who have already spoken. I understand that this motion will be passed unanimously so that we can send a clear signal to the Soviet Union that the basic freedoms and rights of people under its umbrella-be they from the Ukraine or the Baltic states or be they other minority groups throughout the USSR-should be recognised immediately. It is interesting to see some of the changes that are occurring in the USSR. I will be interested to talk later to Mrs Meshko about those changes and how real they are. Glasnost appears to be working, but ever so slowly. Of course, if one lives in a country which has had an authoritarian regime for 70 years, one cannot turn things around overnight. There is much opposition from members of the hierarchy of the USSR leadership who are fighting Mr Gorbachev on many of his reforms. Let us hope that Mr Gorbachev and others of a like mind have the will to pursue the reforms for the good of the vast majority of the people under the umbrella of the USSR. As I say, I endorse the remarks of honourable members who have spoken. I hope that the motion will be passed unanimously. I welcome Mrs Meshko and thank her for putting the case of the Ukrainian people to us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.43) —I move: That this House reaffirms its commitment to the establishment of a multicultural society in Australia and in particular recognises that- (1) Australians of all backgrounds are free and able to participate at all levels in the political, administrative, legal, economic, cultural and artistic life of the nation; (2) there should be freedom to maintain one's cultural heritage within the context of a common legal and political system, with English as the accepted national language; (3) all Australians should be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or culture, and should have equality of opportunity and equitable access to programs and services; (4) programs and services provided to the community as a whole should, as far as possible, be made accessible to all Australians by being sufficiently adaptable to cater to the specific needs of those born overseas and those whose preferred language is other than English, as well as the Australian-born, but, where necessary and appropriate, separate and specialised services should be provided; (5) programs and services should be designed and developed in consultation with all potential client groups, including those born in Australia and those born overseas, and should involve their active participation; and (6) a just and equitable society should be promoted which accepts all people irrespective of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In speaking to this motion I wish to say that the multicultural idea is at the moment at the crossroads, 14 years after it was first supported and implemented by the Whitlam Government. At first seen as a novel and exciting concept with enormous potential for social change and greater equality in Australian society, it is now being questioned by some people and attacked by some conservative writers, especially the New Right. While the Australian Labor Party is firmly committed to a policy of multiculturalism and the Liberal Party of Australia has also stated its commitment to it, genuine implementation still has a long way to go. It is vital in 1988, while the Government correctly continues its commitment to immigration, while a growing proportion of Australians come from non-English speaking backgrounds and while general economic problems face the community, to restate the meaning and aims of multiculturalism and to ensure its implementation. Let us go to the heart of the matter. The kernel of multiculturalism is that a diversity of cultures have a right to contribute to the evolving Australian culture; that is, the Australian culture of the future involves a synthesis of the elements of many cultures which immigration has brought. Multiculturalism in this sense is a completely different model from the assimilationist view of the past. Whereas assimilation required the eventual destruction of other cultures and the assimilation of people into a dominant norm, multiculturalism is the opposite. It promotes the co-existence of diversity, with equal rights and participation, precisely so that these cultures can contribute to the evolution of the Australian culture of the future. However, multiculturalism is not-I emphasise not-cultural apartheid. It is not a matter of live and let live in the sense of the dominant culture permitting the existence of other cultures and cultural groups, but not allowing them to make any impact on its own evolution. Those critics of multiculturalism who claim that it is identical to cultural apartheid have missed the essential elements of multicultural philosophy. One of those critics is Professor Geoffrey Blainey who, as late as last Saturday in the Australian, again attacked multiculturalism, calling it a dangerous slogan. It is quite clear in his interpretation of multiculturalism that he understands it to mean some form of cultural apartheid which, of course, it is not intended to be, and which it is not. So his arguments are addressed as a red herring against the actual concept of multiculturalism as it has been understood. One of the problems with Professor Blainey and a number of other academic critics of multiculturalism is that they criticise some conception that they have in their mind rather than the actual notion of multiculturalism which has been developed over a long time. We have been talking about this concept for 14 years. They keep claiming that it is vague, that they do not know what it means and that it is a dangerous notion. Frankly, I am starting to question the motives of some of these people who keep saying these things when they know very well that there are specific definitions of multiculturalism of the kind that I have given here today and of the kind embedded in this motion. If they want to debate it, let them debate that concept and not some false conception which they try to put up. Returning to the central point, I am saying that multiculturalism is not, as some like to believe, just tolerance of a wide diversity of people and cultures. It is not a superficial promotion of outward cultural features such as dance or cuisine. It is a very real commitment to planning policy and action to ensure that equal status is accorded to the diversity of cultures and equal rights to their claim to contribute to the evolution of Australian culture. A multicultural plan of action involves a program for the whole of society, an attack on major inequalities due to cultural differences, for it is a fact that when we look at high unemployment, poverty, the lack of cheap accommodation and inadequate health and education services it is very often the migrant communities which suffer the most. Therefore, it is very important as an aspect of multiculturalism to emphasise the removal of these inequalities through an access and equity program. The question of equal access is a key and important matter. It has been referred to in a number of reports. The Government has recently adopted an access and equity strategy and has brought out a report on it. Let me say something about what the Jupp report said about the access and equity strategy. It said that the strategy should be concerned with three elements of social life: participation in our social, economic and political structures; the opportunity to use, and be fairly treated in relation to, programs and services; and participation and consultation on the ways in which these programs and services are planned, delivered and evaluated. In other words, access and equity is concerned with ensuring a fair go in the very broadest sense, according to Dr Jupp. Similarly, as the final report from the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs states, the effective implementation of the Government's access and equity strategy can be brought about in the future only through detailed examination of major areas such as education, employment and social welfare and by the development of detailed measures to ensure effective change. In this regard the capacity of the Office of Multicultural Affairs to initiate such reviews, comparable to the Institute's work on the aged and on labour market programs, will be critical, as will be the availability of sufficient resources to utilise the findings of such reviews to bring about change. It is important that change take place in those directions. Perhaps I should outline some of the sorts of policies that are involved in the promotion of a multicultural society. Often the critics of multiculturalism get them wrong. They do not zero in on or identify what the policies and strategies are. The initial requirement of all Australians, if they are to have full opportunities, is an adequate skill in the English language. The teaching of English and the provision of courses for adults and children are a crucial aspect in the promotion of a multicultural society. In this regard it is very important that all governments and all parliaments do whatever they can to promote the teaching of English. At the same time, while learning basic English skills is important, people must have information about the country they are living in, their rights, the services available to them, the way institutions operate and how they can gain access to them. This is best conveyed in the language people understand best-their original language. This may seem a simple thing, but I know for a fact that many people in the community are not gaining access to services because of the insufficient provision of material in ethnic languages. We need to make that material available to them in the community languages. Employment is another area where assistance is needed. Many people, on migrating to Australia, do not have the benefit of career guidance or vocational advice and have the disadvantage of not having their qualifications and skills recognised in Australia. Whilst the Committee for the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications is doing a good job, it is important that we stress the need for greater emphasis and greater resources in this area as well as ensuring that in the case of some professions, such as the medical and legal professions, there is more flexibility-by the Australian Medical Association, for example-in the recognition of qualifications. Not only should we be encouraging a working knowledge of English in the community but also we should be implementing a national language policy. The Government has announced the national language policy. It is important to get further resources for funding the national language policy. The introduction of the national language policy was a very positive development. We should ensure that it is possible for children to learn languages in this country other than English not only because the promotion of multiculturalism in the future depends on the capacity of people to speak languages but also because we need the knowledge of other languages in the broader international context if we are to be a sophisticated community. Community languages should be taught in schools because most communities wish to pass on their first language to their children and, as members of the community, have the right to ask this of the education system. Literacy and fluency in one's original language assist greatly in the learning of another language, which is particularly important for adults in the learning of English. I hope that the national language policy will be promoted further in this regard. I could refer to many aspects of the motion, for example, migrant education, multicultural education, multicultural policies for the promotion of cultural activities, the arts, the grant-in-aid program for the provision of welfare for ethnic communities, the provision of translator and other services in the mainstream, the provision of community and governmental services and the provision of a multicultural media which, fortunately, continues to be provided in this country through the excellent service of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The SBS needs more funding so that it is able to provide more programs in the future. We need to provide more locally produced programs by actors, writers, producers and others who are very well qualified in this country and who are from a non-English speaking background. In addition, it is very important for us to ensure that we develop a greater understanding and tolerance in the community. As Professor Donald Horne has written, to suppress the ethnicity of migrants is literally inhuman since culture is one's definition of one's humanity. Ethnicity is a real, persistent human and humanising focus of group life and we should not be sweeping it under the carpet or regarding ethnic or cultural differences as a problem. Rather, we should regard them as an enrichment of our culture and, as such, as a focus so that we can gain the contributions of the many cultures in this country towards the evolution of a future Australian culture which we all look forward to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sciacca —I second the motion. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(11.58) —We have before us a very important motion, which I believe and trust will be supported by all members of this House. I am very pleased and very proud that of all the cultures in the world the Australian is probably the most multicultural. Our history is based upon immigration. Originally, in the nineteenth century it was probably to escape from poverty and persecution that many migrants came to Australia from a number of countries. For example, the Irish were escaping from subjugation and the potato blight. The Chinese came to join the gold rush and in many cases finished up only one stage away from slavery. We must remember that these people came to a country with challenges and hardships probably unknown to most other parts of the world. They took up those challenges and, because of their indomitable spirit, were successful and helped make Australia the great country it is today. In the postwar era I am happy to give credit where it is due and to recognise Arthur Calwell who, as a Minister in the Chifley Government, played a major role, with his vision, in breaking down bigotry and racism and setting the framework for the postwar immigration boom. That opportunity was seized by the Menzies Government, whose record for humanitarianism in accepting displaced persons from Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and neighbouring countries in the early 1950s was a proud one and one which was later continued by the Fraser Government in relation to Vietnamese refugees. I think it is fair to say that the Menzies Government was particularly successful in achieving a balance between skilled and contributing immigration and family reunion. This was done at a time when there was the maximal rate of immigration and yet there was virtually full employment in Australia. It is fair to say that historically our country has been based upon a number of cultures, the Aboriginal culture initially and, subsequently, an Anglo-Saxon and Judao-Christian culture with a system of Westminster government. More recently it has had input from continental Europe, South East Asia, India, the Pacific Islands and many other communities with a number of religions-Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and many others-all with the very precious freedom to worship in their own ways and all, I am very pleased to say, relatively free of interdenominational strife and bigotry, with a mutual acceptance and tolerance which I think is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. The motion itself is in the nature of a motion which supports motherhood. Surely no-one in this Parliament would disagree with it. It goes without saying that this House reaffirms its commitment to the establishment of a multicultural society in Australia. But I am pleased to take this opportunity of reaffirming those values on behalf of the Liberal and National parties. The other aspects of the motion are freedom to participate at all levels in all aspects of the nation's life; freedom to maintain original cultural heritage within the Australian system; freedom from discrimination with equality of opportunity, most importantly, and access to programs and services; and making those programs and services adaptable enough to cater for the needs of migrants as well as those born in Australia. The overall summary of the motion is that we should be able to live in a just and equitable society which accepts all people irrespective of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I, as a fairly recent migrant to Australia, like the member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), who is about to speak, am delighted on behalf of the coalition parties to reaffirm our commitment to these principles. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) reminded us that multiculturalism is not a superficiality, it is not just an increase in the numbers of pizzas or chop sueys or balalaika music. It is much deeper than that. It is a blending and yet it is the preservation of ways of life which may have different emphasis in different cultures. It is a blending, for example, of the values not only of the immediate family, but also of the extended family, the importance of the work ethic and the importance of other ethics. The concept and the social ideal of multiculturalism were developed and enhanced by past Liberal governments to create acceptance, respect and understanding of individuals from a number of different backgrounds. We, the coalition parties, very sincerely endorse the objectives of a cohesive society within which people are entitled to express their own identity. We of course support equality of opportunity to participate in our society and of course we encourage a commitment to the national well-being of Australia. Economic migrants, refugees, displaced persons and family reunion migrants all look for many of the same things in our society. The first settlers wanted liberty and opportunity and now people have been striving for the same goals for 200 years-since the birth of modern Australia. These values are the very core of our current nation-freedom, access to opportunity and family. People in Australia should be citizens and residents who are able to live in an environment which allows everyone to achieve his own individual potential, which allows equality of opportunity to participate in what is a competitive society in regard to the local community, to State and national affairs, and which encourages people to share both the commitment and the responsibility of the benefits of our country. Very clearly, it must be in order for our society to develop a commitment to the concepts of social cohesion, cultural identity and equality of opportunity. This equality must be of opportunity and not of outcome. We should all be able to reach upwards, not to be brought down by the Government to the lowest common denominator. The current Government has rejected these concepts; we in the coalition reaffirm them. Our opponents' concern with immigration numbers and the threat to jobs was enshrined in the prices and incomes accord. The significance of the different philosophical outlooks between the parties is easily demonstrated when the commitment of the coalition to the individual is contrasted with the socialist categorisation of individuals as class groups. I point out that during this Government's term there have been four Ministers for immigration. This indicates the lack of importance which is placed upon this portfolio by the Hawke Government. Let me remind honourable members about the importance this Government actually places on multiculturalism-the facts, not the rhetoric. In August 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: The Government through the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and on this occasion, through me, commits itself unequivocally to enhancing multicultural values. How did he and his Government respond to this? They merged the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service and then they unmerged SBS. They still do not know what they are going to do with SBS. They abolished the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, they abolished the multicultural education program; they slashed the English as a second language program, one which the honourable member for Calwell himself has just pointed out to be of significant importance to the ethnic communities; and they closed six regional offices of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Government did give a 12.1 per cent increase in grants-in-aid to migrant community groups. I laud the Government for this increase. But let us put it into perspective. At the same time as it gave a 12.1 per cent increase to the migrant groups, it gave a 23.1 per cent increase to the trade unions in grants-in-aid; almost twice as much. Quite clearly, this Government thinks it is twice as important to look after the unions as is to look after migrant groups. I say this not with a sense of gloating or point scoring, but with a sense of sadness. What the Prime Minister has given to migrants is the opportunity to be hit first and hardest in the firing line of past and probably future Budgets cuts. The Government has denied equal opportunities to migrants with its ad hoc and second-hand ethnic affairs program. What the Prime Minister has offered and will offer will, I believe, have disastrous implications for those people and their families seeking to make a secure economic base for their future and on the capacity of community groups to participate in equitable access to these services. The coalition has a commitment to freedom in all senses of that word and to all the people of Australia regardless of their race or religion. We sincerely welcome this motion. We hope that for once the Hawke Government's performance will live up to its rhetoric. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(12.07) —It gives me great pleasure to second this motion today. I congratulate the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) on his initiative in moving the motion. It is indeed an excellent motion and something which is very close to the heart of the honourable member for Calwell. I have listened to the remarks made by the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). He is an immigrant, as are all of us who have spoken on this motion. I think he is a little out of date because a lot of those matters which he complains of have been reversed anyway. New offices are being opened and there is an Office of Multicultural Affairs which advises the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Perhaps he did not do his research as well as he should. There are 4.5 million postwar migrants in Australia, which makes the consideration of this motion an absolute must for this House. Honourable members will note that the motion calls for this place to reaffirm its commitment to the establishment of a multicultural society in Australia. This is because the process of multiculturalism is an ongoing one and is obviously closely linked with the question of immigration. If one accepts the argument that migration is necessary and desirable for economic or cultural reasons, one needs to be prepared to support the points raised in this motion to bring about a society which can take full advantage of the cultural and economic benefits which migrants bring to this country. In my view the immigration debate makes the debate on multiculturalism in this place necessary. The very public views of the likes of Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Bruce Ruxton and, more recently, Senators John Stone and Glen Sheil also make this debate necessary. Headlines such as `Migrants: Libs on Attack; Shared policy to go after 43 years' indicate to me that we need to debate this issue in the Parliament. John Stone recently proposed the policy that only English speaking persons should be allowed to migrate to this country. This is an interesting point of view considering the great wealth of experience and culture which migrants of all nationalities have brought to this country regardless of whether or not they could speak English upon their arrival. At the time of Senator John Stone's comments I was quick to admit that when I came to this country at the ripe old age of four I was not able to speak English, nor were my parents. His proposed policy, if in place back then, would mean, in effect, that I would not be standing here today as a member of parliament representing a constituency of Australians. It is the experience of the Italian migrants with which I am most familiar because of my own heritage. I was told recently by my good friend Nino Randazzo, the Editor-in-chief of the Italian newspaper Il-Globo, that Sicily, my home country, was where multiculturalism was invented. It is perhaps for this reason that the Italians generally and the Sicilians in particular have integrated so well into Australian society. I must add though that, while we may have been successfully integrated, we have, in accordance with the terms of this motion, maintained our cultural heritage-so much so that many who return to Italy find that the customs and practices of old Italy are in much better shape here than in their home country. Not only have we maintained our heritage, but we have also integrated a few Aussies into our way of life. Who could imagine life in Australia without the occasional pizza or spaghetti bolognese, for example? I am sure that the shadow Minister for immigration and ethnic affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), would have enjoyed that. John Cattalini, the Italian born Mayor of Fremantle, was quoted in Times Australia recently as saying: I don't think that Italians care too much about whether or not we're accepted. It's irrelevant because we are part of the community. The Italians are the second largest migrant group in this country and it has been estimated that nearly one million Australians have some Italian heritage. Italians have a long and proud history in Australia. We began arriving in this country early in the nineteenth century and our presence has been felt in a number of social and economic ways. The overwhelming majority of Italians who came to Australia were not particularly skilled or educated but they have made their lives here and many have succeeded in their chosen professions, trades or businesses. The Italian presence in Australia is such that we can honestly say that we have our own unique culture and history here in this country which is inextricably linked to Australia's. Take, for example, the role of Raffaello Carboni in that most famous and, many would argue, uniquely Australian rebellion which took place in 1854 on Eureka Hill under that uniquely Australian symbol, the Southern Cross. Carboni was a gold digger in the Victorian fields of Ballarat. He was also a writer, leaving behind him the only written eyewitness account of the Eureka Stockade rebellion. Carboni was put in charge of the `foreign battalion' of miners by that other famous migrant of the time and now folk hero, Peter Lalor. My own situation is probably evidence of the way in which Italians have integrated into this society. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, my constituency of Bowman does not have a particularly high mix of migrants; yet the people of Bowman had little hesitation, I am proud and happy to say, in electing me to the Federal Parliament. It is always difficult to interpret events, but I would say that the fact that I was born in Italy had virtually no effect whatsoever on the results for Bowman in the last Federal election. I am sure that that is the case in other areas where successful candidates have been born overseas. Most of them, I am happy to say, are on our side of the House. Election to parliaments or the attainment of high public office is probably a reasonable measure, in a quantitative way, of the acceptance of a person and that person's culture and heritage. There is a bond of trust between a member of parliament and his or her constituency which is inherent in the very act of electing that member. Italian participation in public life in Australia dates back to the nineteenth century. In the Australian Labor Party there are four Italian born members of legislative councils around the country. They are Giovanni Sgro in Victoria, whom the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, would know, Franca Arena in New South Wales, Mario Feleppa in South Australia, and Sam Piantadosi in Western Australia. For the Liberals, Frank Calabro sits in the Legislative Council of New South Wales, although I understand he has recently retired so it will leave them all on our side of politics. Another highly respected area of public affairs is the judiciary. In this field two Italians have excelled. Perhaps the best known of these is Justice Sir James Gobbo of the Victorian Supreme Court. Whilst it is a little more difficult for parents who still remember the old ways of their home, integration for their children comes more naturally. Mr Hand —What about the Irish? Mr SCIACCA —There are plenty of them, too. It is St Patrick's Day today, is it not? The children of migrant parents often show a great understanding of the hardships faced by their parents and an understanding of the fact that their parents migrated to this country to give them opportunities which they never had in their own country. This fact is borne out by the number of participants in higher education who are the children of migrants. It is proportionately higher than that for children of the Australian born. People by and large appreciate the opportunity which their new life in Australia has provided them. The Government's and this Parliament's commitment to continue multiculturalism is essential, not just for humanitarian reasons, but also for economic considerations. In 1986-87 migrants brought $2.1 billion into the country, which is vital for our country to overcome its balance of payments problem. But it is not just a matter of having migrants bring their money with them; it is the economic contribution which migrants who are here, and have been here for years, are making which needs to be considered. At the moment three-quarters of all of our exports are sold to non-English speaking countries. In the early 1950s it was only one-quarter. Why the change? The reason is that our multicultural society is acting to make us aware of what the world desires. The creation of markets in Australia which cater for a variety of foreign tastes has heightened our ability to trade with the rest of the world. In addition no-one should underestimate the effect on purchasing habits of personal letters sent by migrants to their relatives in foreign lands. The motion being debated makes reference to English being the accepted national language. While this is obviously not in dispute, it is relevant to talk in the context of the economic benefits of multiculturalism about the benefits of a society filled with people who understand more than one language. After all, the language of international trade, it has been said, is not English but the language of the customer at the time. The proportion of secondary students currently studying a second language has declined markedly over the years. This is an alarming trend in what is encouraged to be a multicultural society. Multiculturalism has much to offer in the field of languages of which we should be more aware. For example, much has been done by the various ethnic groups themselves to teach their Australian children the home language. In a whole range of ways the Australian Government, the private sector and, for that matter, the trade union movement need to lift their awareness of multiculturalism and the effect which cultural diversity has on individuals and the nation as a whole. In a speech at the end of last year at the Flinders University, the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs indicated that for the sake of efficiency, as much as equity, we as a nation cannot ignore the existence of cultural diversity. The benefits to employers of cultural awareness in the world of markets and economic hard times include lower levels of staff turnover, less industrial unrest and more cooperation. These have direct economic benefits for those who wish to pursue these policies. It is heartening to see in the same context that this Government has provided funds to encourage tertiary institutions to have cross-cultural training incorporated into the training of future professionals. In the same speech as I mentioned before, the former Minister, of whom we have heard a lot over the last couple of weeks by way of certain conduct by the Opposition, revealed some disturbing statistics-- Mr Cadman —All his own work. Mr SCIACCA —I am glad I got Opposition members to say something. It shows they are listening to my speech. In the same speech as I mentioned before, the former Minister revealed some disturbing statistics in relation to the work which migrants to this country are performing compared with the work they are doing in their home countries. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission survey of people undertaking an advanced English as a second language course at a technical and further education college found, firstly, that less than half the people who enjoyed skilled jobs abroad were similarly employed in Australia; secondly, that less than one in four who had office jobs were similarly employed here; and thirdly, that less than one in six who previously held professional or technical jobs were utilising those skills here. These are amazing stories, particularly when one considers that our current migration test-quite rightly in my view-takes into account the skills level of a particular applicant. It is reasonable to require migrants to have the skills necessary to be able to contribute to their new home in a positive way, but there is a massive inconsistency when, once they arrive, they find that conditions are such that these skills, for whatever reasons, are underutilised. These facts point to the ongoing need to incorporate multiculturalism in the policies of government in the private sector and into the way of thinking of every Australian. It is through this incorporation that the economic and social benefits of multiculturalism can be realised. It should not be forgotten that the Business Council of Australia, which, not unlike the Liberal Party of Australia, is a representative organisation of business, seems to want to treat migrants as though they were raw material to be shipped in and out of the country as required. While the Business Council's suggestion to increase overall intake has merit because it will increase our consumer demand and arrest the population slide threatening our economy, to treat migration as a substitute for investing in Australians, including existing migrants and their children, is wrong. It is a quick fix approach to our training and education problems. It is the equivalent of wanting to buy a ready-made product from overseas rather than developing it in Australia. In this respect, it is the same attitude that has plummeted Australia into the external debt problem which we now face. Earlier in my speech I offered the names of many prominent Italo-Australians as evidence of the extent of Italian integration into Australian society. I know from my contact with the Italian community that we are grateful to Australia and its community for the opportunity given to us to make this place our home. I regret that this can probably not be said of all the various ethnic groups which go into making our society. The process is often slow. This motion sets out the fundamental conditions which are necessary, both attitudinal and practical, for a successful multicultural society to thrive, and for this reason, I urge its support. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(12.20) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this motion moved by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). Given that 40 per cent of the Australian population either were born overseas or have one parent who was born overseas-and I am amongst that 40 per cent-and, perhaps more importantly, given that 25 per cent of Australians claim their ethnic roots as something different from the majority of Anglo-Celtic Australians, this debate assumes very great significance. Indeed, in my electorate of Chisholm, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, there are large communities of people who were born in Southern Europe or South East Asia. They came to this country in recent years for very similar reasons to those why my family came to this country in the last century: looking for opportunity, looking for a future and looking for hope. The issue of multiculturalism is supported across both sides of the House. It is an issue that seeks tolerance, understanding and an acceptance of others who may have a vastly different background. It was born out of an aim for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. It is far more than pizza or chianti; it is far more than accepting that we have a lot of restaurants in Lygon Street. It seeks a real understanding of people from different backgrounds. I would like to address specifically some aspects of multiculturalism that are raised in this motion: the freedom to maintain one's cultural heritage within the context of a common legal and political system with English as the accepted national language. An individual is entitled to express his or her own identity. Some years ago I spent some time studying at the University of Wisconsin. In that state there are a large number of ethnic communities who, over 100 years after they settled in that state, still maintain very strong ethnic identities, particularly the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Finns. I visited a Norwegian community in which they still had a Norwegian-speaking church, the children were taught Norwegian, they had Back to Norway weekends and the children sought to go and visit the land that their great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents left. Yet in spite of this very strong identity with their cultural roots they were all great American patriots. Part of my cultural heritage is part of my family that came from Scotland. On occasions I very proudly wear a Gunn tartan tie as evidence of my ethnic roots, even though that part of my family left Scotland over 140 years ago. Equally so, a newly arrived Australian has just as much or even more right to express his own cultural identity within the context of living in Australia. Another aspect of this motion is freedom from discrimination. This is essential, as discrimination and the prejudice that it fuels eventually endanger society as a whole, because ultimately they deny us all the possibility of having a fair chance. This was put in A Man for All Seasons, when Sir Thomas More was speaking to William Roper and said, `And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you, where would you hide?'. This motion talks about equality of opportunity, which is absolutely fundamental to Liberal philosophy and Liberal policy. Indeed, in our own immigration and ethnic affairs policy at the last election we stated that `equality of opportunity is achieved when people of different backgrounds are able to participate in Australian society on the same basis as other Australian residents'. This motion talks about policies and the services available to ethnic communities. This is a very important aspect as it is this area of multiculturalism that is most misunderstood. Many people believe that providing separate services may in itself lead to separatism. My Party has an extremely proud record in this area, about which I will talk in a moment. I do believe that people who come from different backgrounds, who are newly arrived in this country, may very validly require additional help and assistance in order to become full participating members of the Australian community. However, I do not agree with the views of those, generally on the extreme Left, who believe that people, by virtue of being immigrants to this country, particularly ones with a non-English speaking background, are cheap and malleable labour, and who see non-English speaking migrants and their children today as continuing victims of this system. It is very commonly accepted that people suffer disadvantage simply by virtue of not speaking English. Recent evidence has shown this not to be true, and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) alluded to this. A recent article by two Monash University researchers, concerning a longitudinal study over five years of 3,000 students in secondary education, showed that if a student came from a background where both parents did not speak English he had a greater chance, other things being equal, of completing schooling. They gave figures of groups of low IQ-whatever that means-and of low socioeconomic status whereby, if both parents came from a non-English speaking background, there was almost three times the chance of a student completing schooling as there was if both parents were born in Australia. I wish to talk now about the achievements, and the proud achievements, of the previous Government formed by the Liberal Party of which I am a member. In terms of services to the ethnic community, the Fraser Government established the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; created the Special Broadcasting Service; extended ethnic radio dramatically; established the English as a second language program and included a great upgrading of the facilities for teaching English as a second language; established the adult migrant program; established 16 new migrant settlement hostels, about which I will speak in a moment; employed ethnic health workers, ethnic children's service workers and ethnic workers for the aged; established migrant resource centres; established post-arrival programs; made a great extension of the telephone interpreter service and, as a doctor, that is something I have used many times; expanded the role of the information branch of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; and appointed ethnic liaison officers in the Commonwealth department. These programs were aimed at helping newly arrived Australians to settle fully into the community. I do not wish to make this debate party political, but if we look at what is happening today we see that the Government has attempted to merge the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). We have recently seen a lengthy report on the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but nothing at all has been said about the SBS. Migrant groups in my community are particularly concerned about the future of the SBS and are wondering whether it is in fact going to continue or whether its future is threatened. The English as a second language program has had its funding cut quite dramatically and the funds have not been restored. Of the six regional offices that were closed, after a great public outcry only two were reopened after it was shown that it made no economic sense whatsoever to close them in the first place. The honourable member for Bowman mentioned that his Party had people of Ethnic background in State upper Houses. I wish to note on this occasion that my own Party in Victoria, in the seat of Waverley Province, part of which encompasses the Federal electorate of Chisholm, last Sunday preselected on the first ballot Savvas Grigoruepoulos, a man who is doing strong and active work in the Greek community and who will win that marginal seat. So, my Party, too, shows a commitment to giving people a wide range of ethnic backgrounds full and equal opportunity in this society. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the consideration of private members' business is concluded. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.30) —I wish to take the opportunity in today's Grievance Debate to raise a particularly disturbing matter of national security. What I am referring to is the offer by the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) to the Soviet Union of a new embassy site in the area bounded by Forster Crescent, Flynn Drive and Coronation Drive. The offer of this site is more than naive-it is downright stupid. The reason for the concern about this site is that it is in the critical foreshore area stretching from the Scrivener Dam to the East Basin on Lake Burley Griffin. The significance of this critical area is that it does put the en poste Russian intelligence service officers in a position where they can take full advantage of the direct line of sight the area offers to the Black Mountain telecommunications tower. Furthermore, it is perfectly placed to monitor a variety of communications from the diplomatic establishments of other nations, particularly those of our close allies. The friendly diplomatic establishments most affected are those of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada, who will, if the NCDC gets its way, be direct neighbours of the Soviets. These three embassies are located on the opposite side of Forster Crescent. Perhaps it is the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the words of his 1987 Singapore lecture, `We seek mutually beneficial cooperation with the Soviet Union in a sincere and open-minded way', that has led the NCDC to select this prime intelligence site as the new area for the new Soviet embassy. I have ascertained that the NCDC in selecting this proposed site informed, but did not consult, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Had it consulted ASIO, as it should have done, it would have been informed that the site is regarded as entirely inappropriate, primarily because of the concerns regarding Soviet signals intelligence (SIGINT) activities but also because the site would pose enormous operational difficulties for our own security service. In addition, it has been brought to my attention that elements of the Defence Department, notably the Defence Signals Directorate, are extremely alarmed by the NCDC's offer of the site to the Soviets. Whilst the United Kingdom's opposition to the NCDC's decision is well-known, it is the New Zealanders who have so far been the most vociferous opponents to this proposal. The New Zealanders have explained their feelings to the NCDC, which in turn has relayed them to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Some people would say that that could often be a mistake. That would appear to be the case because the doves in Foreign Affairs, who are always obsessed with never offending anybody about anything, have a vested interest in the Soviets acquiring a site of which the Soviets fully approve. Of course, the Soviets will fully approve only if the site accords them a better line of sight to the Black Mountain tower than their present location on Canberra Avenue in Griffith. The vested interest I refer to relates to negotiations that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been having with the Soviets in an attempt to obtain a site for a new Australian embassy in Moscow. The present embassy at 13 Kropotkinsky Lane is considered too small and is now overlooked by a high-rise building dotted with antennae that are believed to be monitoring communications and other emissions from our embassy-another part of the Soviet's massive SIGINT operation. The greatest fear of the doves in Foreign Affairs is that any controversy about Soviet SIGINT operations in Canberra will impede their efforts to move to a larger site in Moscow. Therefore, it is apparent that Foreign Affairs' best interests are served by suppressing any controversy rather than comprehensively addressing it with a view to minimising the threat to Australia's national security. The Soviet's SIGINT capability is massive. It is a worldwide effort and employs some 350,000 personnel. Of those, 1,000 are currently collecting SIGINT from diplomatic premises, including through their Canberra embassy. Approximately 55 Soviet employees are living and working in the Soviet embassy in Canberra, with about half a dozen engaged in SIGINT activities. Two areas of Soviet SIGINT interest in Canberra can be identified, and they are both fairly disturbing. The first is the monitoring of ASIO radio traffic through which the KGB resident can determine if and when covert operations might be mounted or ASIO counterintelligence operations frustrated. The second area of concern is the monitoring of Australian Government, diplomatic and military transmissions, the high frequency communications of other embassies and microwave telecommunications to and within Canberra. In this respect, it is worth noting that the Black Mountain tower carries 70 per cent of telecommunications traffic into Canberra. It is a vital link in Australia's communications system. The Soviets had the good sense to recognise this basic reality very early on. In 1976-77, soon after it was announced that the tower was to be built on Black Mountain, the then Soviet Ambassador, Mr Basov, submitted a request asking for a site on which to build a new embassy, an ambassador's residence and staff quarters. The two sites proposed were on Red Hill or at Attunga Point. The Red Hill site was to be close to the Deakin centre. It should be noted that both sites have direct line of sight to the Black Mountain tower. It can be seen from this that the Soviets' interest in facilitating their SIGINT operations in Canberra is by no means a new phenomenon. Unless the NCDC has acquired amazing new talents of which the rest of us remain ignorant, I would have thought that the NCDC was the least qualified to determine where to locate a new Soviet embassy. The security implications involved in the siting of the Soviets' embassy should be the primary concern when selecting the site. From that it follows that ASIO, as the principal domestic authority on security matters, needs to be involved heavily in coordinating the selection of the new site. I conclude by calling on the Prime Minister personally to intervene in this matter to ensure the protection of Australia's national security and put a decisive end to the interdepartmental wrangling that has been going on over the siting of the new Soviet embassy. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.37) —I participate in the grievance debate today because of a possible threat facing a place dear to all Australians. I am talking about Bondi. Along with kangaroos, koalas, the Opera House and vegemite, Bondi means Australia all round the world. It is part of our national image and it is part of our national heritage. The threat is that, rather than Bondi being looked after, cared for, restored, preserved, Bondi as we know and love it could be irreparably damaged, its character destroyed, if current plans being implemented by the New South Wales Government are replaced by those of the Opposition. A battle is being waged for Bondi. It is between those who prefer an established environment with local traditions, and those who like or profit from the `sort of city of newer societies which encourage continual redevelopment and less complex city planning'. That statement is taken from an article written by Michael Dickinson in the Bulletin that I would like to talk about later. The battle is about those who prefer the urban development which is becoming more demanded by the public now and those who would wipe it aside for commercial profit. What is it that makes Bondi so special? Why is it so associated in the public mind with our national and international image? First, of course, it is the breathtaking beauty of the beach itself. Every time one comes down that hill along Bondi Road and sees Bondi Beach, it literally takes the breath away. It is a stunning and magnificent sight. Nothing will change the beach itself. Then there is Bondi the suburb. It is so near the city. It is so accessible to all Australians and it is so associated, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are well aware, with the history of the great Australian surf life saving movement. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will agree-even though you have your own loyalties-that the surf life saving movement began in the Bondi area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —The Chair cannot be brought into debate. Ms McHUGH —I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. Bondi the suburb is home for 20,000 people. Let me read from the Michael Dickinson article in the Bulletin to tell honourable members a little of the history of Bondi and why it has become the way it is. Michael Dickinson said: The locals have long seen Bondi as a special place. For centuries, the vast sand dunes separating the ocean from the harbour were used by the Port Jackson tribes as workshops to produce stone implements. After 1897, the Bondi tram deposited much newer tribes at the southern end of the beach . . . They were those who came to visit the aquarium and roller coaster at the Tamarama Wonderland and those who trekked over the sandhills to Sydney's largest two-up school at North Bondi. He goes on to say that the dunes were subdivided in the 1920s and 1930s when Campbell Parade became a resort fronting a mostly lower middle class hinterland. He pointed out that of course the rich in Sydney always used the harbour as their watering hole. Then the colonnaded beach pavilion was completed in 1928 and Bondi dubbed itself the playground of the Pacific. After the war, like other similar resorts at St Kilda, and Miami in Florida, Bondi went out of fashion and settled into a scruffy somnolence. Now, of course, like St Kilda and Miami, Bondi has once again become hot property and the stories are similar. The battle for Bondi is on. There is a big difference between the attitudes of the two political parties struggling for government in New South Wales. Let us look initially at the attitude of the New South Wales Government towards Bondi and what it has been doing for Bondi. The New South Wales Government recognises, first, that each year millions of tourists visit Bondi and, second, that thousands of people work and live in Bondi; 20,000 people call Bondi home. Bondi is a dynamic, commercial, and recreational centre. The Government of New South Wales says that to preserve Bondi we do not stop change. To preserve Bondi we guide change so that the future stays true to the past; so that its greatest asset, the beach, is not ruined; so that its 20,000 residents, as well as those who visit the area, can enjoy it more. To preserve Bondi the Government of New South Wales recognises that we need a plan. That Government, along with Waverley Council, led by the local member Ernie Page, have a plan, and that plan is already working. The Bondi beachfront park redevelopment has already seen much work completed. There has been brick paving of paths and roadways, landscaping, and the planting of native plant varieties has been carried out already by Waverley Council and the New South Wales Government. On 22 January Premier Unsworth announced that beachfront development would be limited to five storeys. That means the beachfront park will not be overshadowed by high rise towers nor will it be swept by wind gusts created by anti-social overdevelopment. That announcement is in stark contrast to some of the desires of Liberal Party members. The five-storey limit is a positive decision to shape the future. Values along the beachfront will stabilise. Renovating existing buildings is now a good investment. Vacant land will not have its price inflated by speculative buyers. New developments will be approved on the ground that they fit in with existing building and services. To enhance the existing buildings, colour schemes of beachfront buildings will be guided by an overall plan that will reduce costs. Already the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning has released a draft scheme for repainting premises along the beachfront. A community-based committee was set up a couple of years ago by Ernie Page, which has been looking at the beachfront development and has approved the plan for repainting. The paints will be provided at discount prices and already several owners are very enthusiastic about the scheme. The colours will be in harmony with the style of the area and, of course, with the beach. This plan for Bondi is a complete plan. It has the support of the residents and of all Australians who value this part of the nation's heritage. Ernie Page and the New South Wales Government is committed to implement the plan. But what of the Opposition in New South Wales? Mr Greiner says that Waverley is high on the priority list for the Tourism Commission. Does that mean that Bondi will be taken over by the commission? If that happens, who will protect the needs of the residents? With that type of government will its members be completely heedless of the wishes of the residents, as the Liberal council was when it was in control in Waverley. That is exactly what it did; it rejected the wishes of the residents in relation to Bondi. That Liberal council was rejected at the September local government elections; it was thrown out. Indeed, one of the candidates who gained election last September ran on the single issue of the preservation of Bondi beach and the suburb of Bondi. At least one Liberal alderman is talking about Bondi being our Darling Harbour. Does that mean that the Opposition will allow, as one has projected, a 15-storey limit along Campbell Parade instead of the five-storey limit proposed by Mr Unsworth. Mr Greiner has talked about 50 per cent restoration and 50 per cent development along the beach front, but which half is going to be knocked down? Which half will he restore? Bondi pavilion is the absolute heart of the community of Bondi and the place that the Liberal council wanted to commercialise by selling it to the Hastings Development, but that proposal was totally rejected by the community. They do not even mention the pavilion. The Bondi pavilion is the heart of the community of Bondi. It has recently be repainted, it offers an information centre, a currency exchange, a gift shop, vacation and after-school child care, educational courses and exhibition space; it is a popular venue for public meetings, concerts, dance and drama performances and other activities. Let us look at the public attitude to urban environment nowadays. We have come a long way; people simply will not accept wholesale unplanned development. Bondi is home to 20,000 people but the Libs just have not caught up with that. They do not represent the interests of the people, they represent the interests of the developers. There is no doubt Ernie Page will be re-elected because the people in Bondi have known him for over 25 years. His understanding of the electorate assures his re-election but the fact is that we need a New South Wales Labor Government to preserve Bondi for the people of Australia and for all Australians. Bondi needs not only Ernie Page; it will continue to have him, and it must have the New South Wales Labor Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.47) —That argument could be extended for 100 years, Mr Deputy Speaker. `Give us a little bit more time', the Australian Labor Party (ALP) says in New South Wales. Every election it says, `We have not fulfilled our promises; give us a little more time'. That argument has worn thin on the electorate in New South Wales. It is sick and tired of giving has-beens and no-hopers a little more time. The planning opportunities and the destruction of the central business district of Sydney brought about by Neville Wran and his cohorts are a blot on the Australian Labor Party. It is a terrible result. One only has to look back through the Press records to see the reaction of the bleeding hearts of the Australian Labor Party to the destruction of the centre of Sydney. Look at it today. Where has Mundey been? Where is the left wing of the Australian Labor Party? It has been crushed by the right wing machine in New South Wales, and that bunch of rough and right and rotten people is about to be thrown out of office in New South Wales. Look at the development of the centre of Sydney. There is not a single historic building left down there on the quayside. Building after building and house after house have been destroyed. The last block is under the hammer and buildings are being knocked down right at this moment. Mr Hand —That is not true. Have a look. Mr CADMAN —I do not mind the interjection, Minister. You have not been there, you do not live there, you know nothing about Sydney. You have not seen the way in which Sydney has been destroyed. It is typical of the Australian Labor Party to mount these spurious arguments. The fact of the matter is that it cannot pay for its promises. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) admits that there is going to be a mini-Budget. There are going to be difficult days for every State and for the Commonwealth and yet Barrie Unsworth goes out promising billions of dollars. How can one believe the Premier of New South Wales. Mr Hand —On a point of order, I think the honourable member is attempting to mislead the House in the sense that Mr Keating said that Mr Greiner's promises could not be faithful. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his speech. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you as a New South Welshman understand the arguments that I am putting and you will agree that the State of New South Wales has been badly served by the current Government because it has grown remote from the people of New South Wales. There is one person in this place who depicts the New South Wales Right and its attitude to average Aussies. I refer to the Treasurer. He has fancy clocks, he is living in Canberra, he has a big Mercedes, he is remote and the Australian people know he is remote. And how did they react in Bankstown at the last election? There was the biggest swing against a sitting Labor member in the whole country. The people of Bankstown know what the Treasurer is like and they voted against him. They do not like his attitudes. They do not like his sense of superiority, his self-promotion or his remoteness from traditional Labor backgrounds. The fact of the matter is that the promises of Barrie Unsworth cannot be delivered, for two reasons: first of all, in May the Treasurer is going to grab them all back. He is going to say, `You cannot do it, Barrie. You cannot do it because I will not let you do it'. So, if Mr Unsworth is elected he will be saying, `Look, it is not my fault really. I did not know about this when I went to the election but that Paul Keating in Canberra tells me the country is in a bad state and I cannot deliver on these promises, you know. Sorry about that'. That will be the way in which things will go and the people of New South Wales know and understand it because the Australian Labor Party has been making those promises for many years now. The people of New South Wales have seen this; they believed Neville Wran for a while; they even gave Barrie a bit of a run and thought he would be all right. They have believed Keating and Hawke-the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-but not any longer because Labor has done it too many times. It has made promises and then snatched them away. That is what is going to happen in the New South Wales election. The people of New South Wales will not believe the promises of the Premier. It was reported in the Press that in January, at a special joint Cabinet meeting to plot the New South Wales election, the Treasurer told the Premier of New South Wales: `Do not make any promises, you will not be able to deliver them'. That is a fact of life and the Premier, knowing that, has gone ahead and made billion-dollar promises. It is a fascinating way in which Senator Walsh and the Treasurer have looked at the figures produced by New South Wales. Mr Hand —That is not true. It is a lie. That is a lie and you know it. You are telling lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr CADMAN —There is no capital cost included in any of the costings of the Government of New South Wales. It has got all the recurrent costs up front but it has not got any of the capital costs of its programs included in the costing. I guess one has got a fair deal of sympathy for Senator Walsh. He said, `In New South Wales no government lasts for ever and I am not going to predict the outcome of the New South Wales election, but the Labor Government has been in office for 12 years'. That is the kiss of death to Barrie Unsworth from Senator Walsh, Minister for Finance. He knows that the promises of the New South Wales Premier are inaccurate and cannot be delivered. The real costs of those programs are $600m a year. Over a five-year period the total cost, including capital and recurrent costs, is $2.6 billion. That is the real cost of what the Labor Party wants to foist on the people of New South Wales, but it will not deliver. The promises will be all cancelled. On Sunday, if Barrie is elected, he will say, `Chaps, I have to go down to this mini-Budget thing with Paul Keating. I am fearful of what he might do to me'-and he has a right to be fearful-`and those programs will be cancelled'. The other thing that the people of New South Wales are aware of is that these good promises sound good, but why were they not made 12 months ago? Why did Barrie not rectify the problems of that State when he had the chance on coming to office? He offered a new opportunity, a break with the past, a removal and a distancing of himself from the now Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, who seems to be able to enter and leave politics as he chooses, which I think is deplorable. But Barrie had a chance. The Premier of New South Wales had a chance to be able to break and clear the record. He chose not to, but 18 months later he is saying, `Give us a go. Give us a go for another term and this time I will fix it up'. That cannot be believed either, because of the problems with the police and crime and corruption in New South Wales. Crime and corruption in New South Wales have continued unabated. The problem in New South Wales with hospitals has gone on unabated and Peter Anderson and other Ministers of the New South Wales Government have just ignored the needs of the people of that State. They have continued to cut services. They have continued to ignore the needs of the people of western Sydney and other working class suburbs of New South Wales. The Premier of New South Wales had a chance 18 months ago to deliver, to fix up the hospital systems. He had a chance to put more police out on the beat; he had a chance to provide more child care services and he chose not to. One can only assume in these circumstances that he is desperate; that having been told that he cannot deliver his promises he has made them anyway. That is the act of a desperate man, and he will go down a failure because he is desperate. He is seen to be grasping at straws-`I will promise anything. Things I could have done six months ago, 12 months ago, 18 months ago, I will now promise because I want the votes'. The people will not wear it. People have had it. People will not cop a Premier or a State government that has had 12 years of opportunity, has performed at a low level and then comes out and makes unbelievable promises in an election campaign. Whingeing Wendy could really ask: `Mr Unsworth, where is the money coming from?'. Whingeing Wendy knows the story; that is why she has been pulled off the campaign. Senator Walsh knew the circumstances. The Treasurer has warned the Premier, the Premier knows the frail situation he is in and the people of New South Wales, come Saturday, will throw out the ALP. They are sick of 12 years of inactivity and corruption in that State. Mr Hand —When you talk about New South Wales being corrupt- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. He is taking the time of the next speaker. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(12.57) —Let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is absolutely right. We have just heard another episode from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) of the kind that is being bandied around New South Wales at the present time in preparation for Saturday. Let me say that the electors in New South Wales are neither as ignorant nor as stupid as the Liberals in New South Wales apparently believe that they are. On Saturday they will confirm again that very firm belief that I have in the excellence of their judgment because they are going to return the Unsworth Government. They are going to return the Unsworth Government because it deserves to be returned. We have just heard comments from the honourable member for Mitchell about the job creation situation in New South Wales. Let me give the truth, let me give the facts about what the Unsworth Government has done for the people in New South Wales, as far as employment is concerned. Until February this year the rate of employment growth in New South Wales was proceeding at 5.5 per cent a year. That is twice the average for the rest of Australia and it is about three times the average for the whole of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries-all of the advanced, industrial, developed countries of the Western world. New South Wales under the Unsworth Government has been five times better than that national average. Job vacancies in New South Wales have risen by 26 per cent since the December quarter of 1986, so it gives the lie to the sorts of claims that have been made. I have become sickened by the public facade of concern that we are seeing put forward in New South Wales by the coalition parties. I urge the people in New South Wales to remember that the Liberal establishment in New South Wales is the same today as it was during the Askin decade. It is full of the same people and their children and it is driven by the same motives. It is just as cynical, just as opportunist and just as dishonest in the pursuit of power; but in order to achieve power, in order to achieve government in New South Wales, it is necessary for the coalition in New South Wales to take the people of New South Wales for fools. It has to attempt to convince the people of New South Wales that what is, is not, and to attempt to convince the people in New South Wales that perhaps in some way there has been a dramatic transformation in the attitude of the Liberals in New South Wales to questions of organised crime and to questions of corruption. Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the greatest pieces of evidence as far as New South Wales is concerned is this book that I hold in my hand at the present time and which I present for the observation of the honourable member for Mitchell. What is it called? Mrs Kelly —It is a great book. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is a magnificent book. I appreciate the interjection by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. It is a magnificent book, a magnificent book indeed. It is The Prince and the Premier, by one of the greatest investigatory journalists that Australia has produced, David Hickie. What a magnificent expose! I am amazed that members of the national Parliament, representing the coalition parties, would so demean themselves as to come into this place and attempt to defend the appalling and disgraceful record of liberalism in New South Wales. The Prince and the Premier-who was the Premier? None other than Sir Robert Askin, a knight of the realm, the man who knighted himself. Let us examine, Mr Deputy Speaker, what is said about The Prince and the Premier. On the back cover it says: `The Prince and the Premier traces the history of modern organised crime in New South Wales from its origins among the gambling fraternity of the 1940s and 1950s through its institutionalisation during the Askin era'. The honourable member for Mitchell is a Liberal from New South Wales and he was active in the Liberal Party in New South Wales during these torrid years. He shakes his head in denial. I am glad that he would prefer to deny it, but what he is doing now apparently is attempting to defend it. Let me go on because I know that if the honourable member for Mitchell was not involved during those years he will be aghast at some of the things that are said. Let me proceed with what the dust jacket says: `This book tells the story of corrupt politicians, especially Sir Robert Askin and his Cohorts'. It goes on: Along the way the author documents secret police interviews and confidential murder investigations and reveals bribes to politicians and police and payouts for knighthoods. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much interjection from both sides. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It simply confirms the effectiveness of what I have got to say. It simply confirms the fact that the democrats on the Opposition benches would attempt to drown out what I am saying because I am getting a message across to the people of New South Wales at the present time. It is a message that they need to listen to and to heed. The last quote that I gave referred to payments for knighthoods. Payments to the Labor Party for knighthoods-we do not recommend them. We do not issue them. Payment for knighthoods-to whom? Only to the Liberal Party and the cohorts of Askin, people like the member for Mitchell. Get down below the dashboard again, honourable member for Mitchell. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me proceed. Mr Cadman —On a point of order, I cannot accept that. I was not a member of the Liberal Party in the time that he is talking about. It was 20 years ago. Get up and defend the Unsworth Government. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am talking about the corruption and the crime for which Askin and his cohorts were responsible. What the honourable member does is get up and defend them. The honourable member for Mitchell, New South Wales Liberal, defends the Askin era. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me go on through some of the references here. David Hickie refers to what he says is the vital importance of the Askin years in Sydney's evolution between World War II and the present day as the centre of organised crime in the South Pacific. He refers to the 1965-1975 period. What period-1965-75. When did the Askin Government come to power-1966? When did the Askin Government go out of power-1976. So what decade is he talking about? He is talking about the decade of the Askin years. The decade of the Liberal and National Party coalition Government in New South Wales and the last one. I appeal to the people in New South Wales to make sure that that coalition Government continues to be the last one. David Hickie said that Sir Robert Askin is an underestimated man. He said: While Sir Robert Askin was in power organised crime became institutionalised on a large scale in New South Wales for the first time. Sydney became the crime capital of Australia. Let me proceed with some of the other relevant matters. Frank Walker, when he was New South Wales Attorney-General, said this: The most important step in the war against organised crime is the unmasking of the facade of honesty and respectability that is maintained by principal crime figures. All too often only the smalltime crooks or the bottom line operatives of the major crime syndicates are caught and punished. In Australia we have seldom come even close to unmasking the identity of the godfathers of organised crime. But we have come very close to it and David Hickie asks: Why? Because the key watchdogs and defenders, the politicians and the police went along on Askin's 10-year joy ride to expediency and instant riches. Those halcyon days of baccarat, bankers and green baize tables mark the turning point in the history of crime in New South Wales. They were heady days when cash flowed, the drinks were free and the colourful casino bosses replaced the bushrangers as the folk heroes of their time. They were the days of . . . Bob Askin. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(1.7) —I can see that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is getting very excited about the New South Wales election. I would remind the House that it was Mr Neville Wran, the past Labor Premier of New South Wales, who said that 12 years is a sufficient time for any government to serve; after that you need a change. So he is predicting a change and he knows that a change is about to come about. Look at what Senator Walsh said the other day, warning the Australian Labor Party to get ready for the change because it is about to come. There is one thing in New South Wales that we have got-coalition of the Liberal and National parties that has never been stronger. Two parties are united, each party is not split into sections, such as we see with the Labor Party in Canberra at the moment. There is no Right, Centre Left and Left. They are all in one and they are led by two people-Nick Greiner and Wal Murray, whom the State of New South Wales respect. That is what the people of New South Wales are actually looking for. I mention those few things because they are so important to recognise. New South Wales people will, I am sure. The matter that I want to speak about today is the funding for roads, particularly in New South Wales but generally throughout Australia. The honourable member for Charlton continues to interject. Does he know that there is a fuel tax in New South Wales of about $200m a year and not one razoo of that is returned to roads or bridges in the State? He criticises Queensland; there is no fuel tax in Queensland, and this high taxing issue that goes on is a true factor. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Charlton has already spoken and he will cease his interjecting. The honourable member will resume his seat and respect the Chair. Mr COWAN —It is a shame that I cannot proceed in silence to tell this House and the people of Australia how important it is that more money goes into our road systems throughout Australia. This is what is badly required at this particular time. There is a crisis so far as the maintenance and the building of new roads in this nation are concerned. I raise it today simply because of the fact that the bureaucracy at this particular stage is examining a new system or a revised system of road funding for the next five-year period within Australia. We can expect the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to come in here with the mini-Budget and to say something about this revised or new scheme that the Government will implement throughout the country. The Local Government Association of New South Wales has been very forthright, because it has looked at some of the options that are being examined at present. The options include maintaining the level of the funding at $1,245m a year. The second option is to cut below the level of the present funding and the third of the options is absorb the arterial and local roads into untied financial grants to the States, alternatively to absorb local road funding into untied financial assistance grants which local government receives from the Commonwealth. Those are four very important issues, so far as we are concerned. Mr Deputy Speaker, let it be quite clear that for the past five years we have not seen any increase in moneys coming from the Commonwealth to the States, to local government, for road funding purposes in Australia. Twelve hundred and forty-five million dollars is the amount-we have pointed this out time and time again when the legislation comes yearly before the House-but that is a 31 per cent cut in real terms of the money to be available. There has been a 31 per cent cut since 1984-85. All the options that are being considered at the present time would appear to be the options that may maintain the present level or cause a reduction in the funding for roads generally throughout the Commonwealth. The present level of funding from the Commonwealth is 5.333c a litre, of which 2c is from the Australian bicentenary road program. There is 5.333c under the Australian Land Transport Fund. There is a strong argument for the indexing of, say, 6c a litre for money to be returned to the States and to the councils for roads. There is a general dissatisfaction of the States with the funding, particularly over the allocations and very much so so far as a designation of those categories is concerned. Local roads particularly need a guaranteed increased annual funding. The councils feel that at least 25 per cent of the tax returned ought to go to our local roads and particularly the rural local roads throughout the Commonwealth. I know that we must have increases for national roads, but we do not want to see the money going to national roads to the disadvantage of the arterial and the local roads generally throughout the Commonwealth. The Shires Association of New South Wales and the Local Government Association met on 29 February. There were 350 representatives of local government throughout the State present and they voiced the very concerns that I have just been speaking about. They then issued a communique of the meeting which has appeared in the Press. Local government looks after approximately 80 per cent of the roads within Australia. They are its total responsibility. The other 20 per cent are the responsibility of the governments. As I said earlier, a number of the States, particularly New South Wales, have their own petrol tax, from which they collect approximately $200m per year. But none of that funding, we are told, goes back on to the roads and the bridging or the maintenance or actual construction of the roads within New South Wales. Let us look today at the need for the extra funds because of the damage that is caused to roads, particularly by the increased traffic. Of course, there has been a lot in the Press lately concerning death by guns and it has been pointed out in an advertisement in the local State papers I have before me that substandard roads kill 150 times as many people as weirdos with guns do. It points out the reasons. These are facts, because it is not the gun problem which is of concern today but to a great degree the condition of the roads throughout the Commonwealth. I could say a lot today about the Pacific Highway because the chief engineer of the National Roads and Motorists Association has made certain comments concerning the roadway. He said that it is totally inadequate to meet the demands that are made upon it today. It is one of the busiest routes in Australia yet the overtaking is still effectively stopped for 52 per cent of its length and 468 curves still require speed warning signs. Even though it is not a national road, the Pacific Highway warrants a special grant not only to maintain it but also to improve it and get rid of the inadequacies and black spots along its entire length. Those are the facts. It is estimated that it is costing Australia $5,700m a year because of the deaths on the roads of the Commonwealth. That is one of our greatest killers today and if the Government wants to talk about priorities-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.17) —During the last two weeks considerable publicity has been given to claims by Aboriginal and Islander people in my area, particularly around Rockhampton, of harassment by what has been described as a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) group. The issue has generated significant media interest and it has resulted in the Human Rights Commission going to Rockhampton last week and it is back there this week. The allegations have also resulted in local State police officers undertaking what they have called an investigation. I am pleased to say that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), has acted too and has asked one of his senior departmental officers to go to Rockhampton to assist the Aboriginal and Islander people in the preparation of some of their complaints. My involvement began when I went to a meeting on 5 March-last Saturday week. I was asked by the Administrator of the Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service, Steve Vea Vea, to come along. There had been two meetings previous to my attendance. There had been a number of verbal and written complaints to police regarding the claims of Aboriginal people about harassment; claims that they had seen people wearing hoods in cars sitting outside their houses, claims that they had seen people in white gowns in other parts of the town, around a disco and so on. My first knowledge really came about when I saw an article in the Morning Bulletin, the local daily paper. It carried a story on 1 March, headed `Police to Probe Ku Klux Klan'. I must admit that I went to that meeting rather sceptical because I just could not believe a KKK-type group would be in the area. I really was putting it aside but I was very much aware of the violent harassment incidents that had occurred previously and so I was pleased to go. There were 150 to 200 people at that meeting and I say to members listening that there was fear, there was anger, there was a trauma in the whole atmosphere of that meeting. Some of the Aboriginal people-men and women-were suggesting that they start defending themselves; that they get their own guns and start protecting their homes. I sought permission to speak once these types of things were being said and I spoke against the law being taken into people's own hands. I suggested also that I would undertake to go and meet the police, either after that meeting or immediately on the Monday, to see what the police had done about the complaints that had been given to them about a week before. I suggested also that the Aboriginal and Islander people should gather more evidence because it is no use just making a complaint to the police. You have to know what sort of car is involved, something of the description of the people, when it took place and so on. I suggested that we might even use cameras to take photographs of cars and people, for that matter, who were hanging around places that were frequented by Aboriginal people, especially teenagers at discos and places like that. The meeting decided, however, to go public. There was a Morning Bulletin reporter at the meeting but they decided to go public to spread the idea of the camera surveillance teams with one special reason-to try to scare off the harassers. They also wanted to go public to try to engender a bit of interest in the police force so that they might act and do something about the complaints that had been made before. I was informed at that meeting that the Human Rights Commission had already been asked to come so I said to the leaders that they needed to make sure that they were fair about it. I urged them to prepare a submission that could go to the police prior to its going to the Human Rights Commission otherwise they would simply have police saying, `We did not know about it'. On the Monday following that meeting, the seventh, I met with police at 12 o'clock and put to them the concerns that people had. The result I got was mainly one of anger about the publicity and they claimed that there had been some sort of breakdown in communications. They had tried to contact the Legal Aid Service in the past but nothing came of it. I went to some pains to urge the police that the investigation that they should carry out should be centred on the harassment claims and that a claim about sighting some people in gowns up on Mount Archer was another issue. I said that they should put that aside. I told the Human Rights Commission exactly the same thing because I felt that the real issue was harassment and that they ought to check out why people were saying that these people who were harassing them in some instances were like the KKK. I did not want the issue clouded and the police promised to investigate everything, but clearly they were angry that none of the Aboriginal and Islander people had come to them. They said there were 85 police officers in the town and no-one had been approached. But they did start a full inquiry, which I think started really Monday afternoon, but regrettably finished Thursday morning because they rang the legal service people and told them that they were closing off the whole thing at 12 o'clock, and if they had anything else to bring they ought to get the people up there. It was rather ridiculous that they would do this and I suggest that the police have trivialised and ridiculed all the aspects of this matter. I suggest that they should not have got involved in this Mount Archer issue about the gowned people because it had nothing to do with the harassment issue. But that is what they did. They centred their whole investigation on a claim by Anita Brown, who unfortunately made a mistake about the date she was up there. The fact that she made a mistake is immaterial because there have been 14 pages of statements of people who have seen strange happenings on Mount Archer. A white man and woman found a scorched cross on Mount Archer. There have been couples who saw a procession of fire sticks on Mount Archer. A Mount Archer resident came across candles and all sorts of items in the rocks that had been part of a ritual and two other families saw a burning cross only a week or so ago half-way up the mountain. But the police still put their emphasis on that and I think that was regrettable, because later on they came out and said that what was on Mount Archer was a Christian group. They made a joke of it and ridiculed everything that Anita Brown said. They also came out with a report saying that the car they had investigated had, in fact, been driven by Aboriginal people. They did not bother to talk about the other three registrations that had been given to them; they simply centred on that. Then they came back to a group called SPONGE, which regrettably the Caroll at 7 program on Channel 7 in Brisbane also ridiculed and made fun by saying that this was just a drinking group of students, despite the fact that the SPONGE group was called the Society for the Prevention of Niggers Getting Everything which appeared in posters in April 1986; despite the fact that the local institute said there was no such drinking group at that time nor has there been; and despite the fact that the fellow went on Channel 7 and told the police that he was a student, which was a lie. He is not a student but the police centred on this and made it public to make a joke of what did happen back in 1986 when a group from the institute were going to harass Aboriginal people. As it was, the administration of the institute reprimanded that fellow and really put him down because of the very sick and racist joke that he had been involved in. I want to raise the point here as to why I believe the police have tried to whitewash this issue, as I said in the media, whiter than Tom Sawyer's fence. The reason is, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they know that if this investigation goes any further and into some depth, it will be the police who will be targeted. It will be the police who will have to answer. I say this because of the reports that have taken place not just in April 1986 but also in more recent times. Only last week a man in Rockhampton sustained wounds that he claims were forced upon him by a dog that was held by police. The wounds, as a doctor has said, are consistent with a dog attack and his bruised and tender sternum is in keeping with his claim of having been kicked by the police. That happened only last week. Only a few months ago an Aboriginal juvenile, of something like 14 or 15 years of age, claimed that he was with a group of young people when the police came along; they started to run away; they were called to stop and when they did not stop the police put the dog on the boy. There is a medical report that backs up, again, that the wound is as if a dog had bitten him. The interesting thing here is that, whilst the police went after the boys, they did not even bother to question them, nor did they charge anyone. We also had a situation last year where a white witness came forward to the Legal Aid Service about an incident at the airport when the police with their dog squad had called on a fellow in some pipes to come out and give himself up, or they would put the dog on him. As the witness says, the fellow gave himself up and then they put the dog on him. Is it any wonder the people out there are concerned? Other allegations have been given to the legal service and also to Father Neil Forgie, an Anglican priest who works with Aboriginal people. An allegation has been made of a police car driving past an Aboriginal meeting place with a policeman hanging his arms out of the window and going rat-a-tat-tat, as if he had a machine gun. We have had allegations, too, of an attempted arson of a car in which some Aboriginal people had slept. There have been two allegations of attempted arson and fire bombing-one, admittedly, in 1984. The police caught two fellows and charged them. But the last one I do not believe they even investigated-a fire bomb against the Toonoonba meeting centre. There have been allegations of uniformed men putting dogs on people down at the river bank and throwing their belongings into the river; of people being refused entry into nightclubs; of overcharging in an hotel; of children being stopped in the street and threatened; and of hooded men sitting outside a house where Aboriginal people live. There are problems on both sides of the street, I realise that, because there are allegations also of whites being bashed by blacks. I note, and I want to say it emphatically, that Rockhampton is not a racist city, but we do have a problem, and this problem must be investigated thoroughly. It is not proper for police simply to cast it aside because they might have the spotlight put on them in the future. I also believe it is time that the Channel 7 Caroll at 7 program got a bit of a conscience, because I believe it contrived the whole program that it did in Rockhampton, by bodgying up a group of fellows drinking in a club, pretending that they were some sort of drinking club. I want it said in this House, and I say it, that I do not intend to back away from my responsibilities to pursue the case of justice for the citizens whom I represent and I do not care what colour they are. I think it is time that police took away the blinkers and realised that there is a problem; that people have been harassed; that their dog squad is in the centre of this; that police officers have taken a wrong attitude, even threatening to charge members who came forward giving false information. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.27) —I am sure that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) join with me today in mourning the passing of the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart. Neither is a Catholic, I am a Catholic, but I am sure that they join with me in remembering the Archbishop of Hobart, the Most Reverend Sir Guilford Young, who died yesterday. He was born in 1916, the son of a Queensland shearer who was an Anglican and later became a Catholic. He was educated at the Presentation Convent in Longreach, where he won a scholarship to the Christian Brothers College at Rockhampton. From there he went to St Columbans College in the Blue Mountains to begin his studies for the priesthood. In 1934 he entered the Propaganda College in Rome. Sir Guilford was a most fluent speaker, eloquent, with a brilliant command of the English language, and was a great Tasmanian and a very charitable man and his passing will be mourned by many Catholics in Tasmania, in Australia, and by many other non-Catholics throughout Australia. He was a very charitable man. He and I had our differences. Of course, everybody differs with me, but there was one thing that we always stood together on and that was our hatred of communism. Sir Guilford got very embroiled in the communist influences a long time ago and he was attributed with many controversial remarks on communism. He was quoted as saying: `If we do not stop it in South Vietnam, it will embrace not only all of south and South East Asia but even Africa and Latin America as a preliminary to world domination'. He continually said that and I think he was right. It is St Patrick's Day today and I love the colour green. I notice that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is at the table wearing green. She remarked, `Why am I always in the House when you are here?'. Mr Deputy Speaker, of course, has green on and I am wearing a green tie. But I have come to hate the colour green and I will tell you why. It is because of the greenies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was about to say that this might just be out of order. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I am too cunning for that. I have come to hate it and I have become paranoid about it. When the decision was handed down by the judges of the High Court the other day, I was extremely upset, like many other Tasmanians. I thought to myself that these judges-- Mr Price —You cannot impugn the judges. Mr GOODLUCK —I have parliamentary privilege, have I not? I will do what I like in here, thank goodness. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin may have parliamentary privilege, but the standing order provides that you cannot call into question the activities of the judiciary. Mr GOODLUCK —All right. I can talk about these legal gentlemen who have had very little experience of getting up early in the morning and going out to chop a tree down and trying to work with their hands to survive. I am afraid that that is what has happened in Australia today. Regrettably the once famous Labor Party, those fellows who supported the workers, has gone. The honourable member for Denison is in the chamber and we will have some arguments over the years. When I saw him sitting down with the greenies having a drink of champagne with them I thought, `Well, Duncan, you have to represent those workers out in the northern suburbs, mate. You want to be very careful at the next election because they will turn away from you'. I have found that one cannot have it both ways in this world. One cannot support these greenies, and I use the term `greenies' because I have found that they are the most difficult people to deal with, as the honourable member for Braddon knows. They are the most difficult people. They are like people who want it all their own way. I do not agree with everybody, honourable members know that. If one does not agree with them, one is the worst person in the world and everywhere one goes they make it very difficult for one. They are very, very cunning. They conned the old Hawke Government. The night before the election when Hawke became Prime Minister I said to the honourable member for Braddon, `They are going to win that dams issue'. Mrs Hawke had `Save the Dams' on her earrings affixed to her ears and I thought to myself, `They are going to win that'. The honourable member said, `No, Bruce, they will not win the dams issue'. They won it, and that is only the beginning. They got into bed with the Labor Party or the Labor Party got into bed with them and they will live to regret it. I have been watching a few advertisements about the Monaro electorate-`Come on, Mr Unsworth, you have sold us down the chute'. They are very, very good advertisements and they are going to influence a lot of ordinary, hardworking people. When the judges made that decision on the dam, they did not know very much about those poor workers who had their trucks and their families-the old Labor Party. I do not mind dealing with the people within the Labor Party; perhaps their representatives in here are all right. They are here to represent people like me; they do not just stick to one thing. They are not so bad, but they have got embroiled with these greenies who are only using them. The greenies are only using them and they have got so involved they cannot get out. Poor old Duncan is over there-`Have a drink with Duncan'. The workers out in the northern suburbs will not, Duncan, at the next election. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the honourable member refer to other honourable members by their correct title. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Denison; they will be watching him very closely, having a few drinks with the greenies. They will be watching him and those workers out there will say to themselves, `This is not a Labor man. Crikey, he is a greenie, he has lost touch'. I have been reading a few editorials about this decision. Coming back to the judges again, I can say what I like about the judges. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin-- Mr GOODLUCK —They are not elected by the people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin should realise that standing order 75 provides that he cannot cast aspersions on members of the judiciary except by substantive motion. If he wishes to criticise a judgment of the courts, I imagine that that would be in order, but he cannot criticise the judges. Mr GOODLUCK —All right, the judgment. I will go back to that judgment. We have people making decisions who are not elected by the people. They are placed in positions by governments and by other people. Then all of a sudden they can override a State decision. Really what they are doing, as the honourable member for Braddon knows, is slowly eroding the rights of a government to make decisions-for example, on the dams issue. On this last decision, 30 per cent of Tasmania is locked up already and we have these silly, rotten coots from the mainland who think that it is a haven to put a haversack on their backs and have a look at the beauty down there. They forget about the ordinary people down there who earn a living from the bush, who earn a living from chopping down the trees to provide the timber for Parliament House. The roof in this building is made of blackwood. They forget all about that, all because they think it should stay as it is and nobody should touch it. I have a letter-I will pull it out of my pocket where I put it this morning-about a lady from Launceston. She is one of those greenies, one of those who are rude to me everywhere I go. They say: `That is Bruce Goodluck; turn your back on him'. Everywhere I go, they are rude. I am reminded of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) the other night. I know that the honourable member for Denison was not the cause of it. I went there, not to help the ABC, because I think at times it has gone overboard with the greenies, with the conservationists on the dams issue. I am still bitter about that. There are a lot of good employees at the ABC and there are going to be changes there. So I went there to represent them but I knew that I would not get to first base because most of the people there are of the same yolk-that is not a foul one either. But they are all the same, they are all of that same type and are against us. They are trying to beat us at every opportunity but they will not, because the average, ordinary working person in Tasmania is starting to realise what is going on. We are being taken over and the Unsworth Government, mark me, will lose on Saturday. It will lose because the workers and their families are starting to realise that this is not the old Labor Party of the past; not like my poor, late father who was a member of it. He was a union secretary who worked to give me a good education. He would not be a member of this Labor Party. As I have said before, in 1983, Mr Hawke is like Dorian Grey-he has sold his soul to the devil and by `the devil' I mean the greenies. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(1.37) —On Saturday, 19 March, elections will be held to elect representatives of the people on a system of electoral boundaries which is unfair, which is undemocratic and which will lead to the election of people unwanted by the majority of the electorate. This electoral system is supported by a State government which is interested in maintaining a system which is to its political advantage but to the disadvantage of the vast majority of voters. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be relieved to realise that I am not speaking of the State election in New South Wales but of the Queensland local government elections. Local government in Queensland is older than the State itself, as Brisbane was incorporated into a local authority area some time before Queensland separated from New South Wales. Local government in Queensland is 45 years older than our national Government. Local government in Queensland is on the whole elected on boundaries which are nearing their centenary and which have not been comprehensively reviewed in those 100 years. The first comprehensive Queensland legislation on local government was the Municipal Institutions Act of 1864 which embodied the voluntary method of incorporation by petition from residents in local districts. This method was abandoned and replaced some 15 years later by the Local Government Act of 1877. Further refinement and amendment continued in the 1880s, culminating in a royal commission on local government which reported in 1896. Its recommendations form the basis of the existing system in Queensland and were largely implemented through the Local Authorities Act of 1902. Between 1902 and 1936, reforms provided for universal adult franchise, compulsory voting, direct election of chairmen by the electors and triennial elections. The greater city program during 1916 to 1919 expanded Ipswich, Charters Towers, Maryborough, Toowoomba, Bundaberg, Townsville and Rockhampton. Greater Brisbane was created in 1924 and incorporated some two cities, six towns and then 10 shires. In 1927, there was a royal commission on local authorities boundaries but its recommendations were not acted upon to any large extent and only in 1948 were some boundaries altered as proposed. In 1957, when the Country Party won office in Queensland, local government was in fairly reasonable shape. For instance, at the 1952 council election for the Shire of Pine Rivers-which is the major council within my electorate-the proportion of voters for each of the three electoral divisions was as follows: division 1, 896 voters; division 2, 1,209 voters; and division 3, 722 voters. As honourable members can see, there was a rough equality between those three electoral divisions. In the mid-1970s the then Deputy Premier of Queensland, Sir Gordon Chalk, commissioned the Queensland University's Department of Town and Regional Planning to undertake a study of local government in Queensland. A feature of this report was a recommendation that Queensland was the only State that had not commissioned a complete review of its local council boundaries and that this review was long overdue. The majority of the boundaries existing in Queensland was drawn in the 1880s and the 1890s. No action was taken on this report. In the late 1970s the Government did intervene in some nine councils to introduce single-member ward divisions, but this was without local resident or council input. However, no comprehensive review has been taken of Queensland local government boundaries since the 1880s. As a result of the Queensland Government's deliberate inaction, many Queensland voters on Saturday will vote on boundaries which are simply a rort. They favour the National Party, especially those candidates who hide under the utterly false claims of being independents. For instance, in the Shire of Pine Rivers some 600 voters in one division can elect one councillor, while in another division it takes 6,000 voters to elect a single councillor. The fact that the State Government's motive is to maintain a political advantage for its supporters rather than their simple incompetence is revealed by the actions in Pine Rivers. In Pine Rivers the council took the initiative of inviting public submissions for a new electoral system. Having done this and getting overwhelming public support for a system which removed the sort of anomaly which I have just outlined, the council then requested the State Government to change its internal electoral boundaries, so that some fairness was removed. The Government for nearly one year simply refused to reply to this request. This was despite numerous follow-ups to the local government department and to the Minister. After that year a simple letter was received saying that no action would be taken; no reasons were given, simply that no action would be taken. The National Party-the National Party State Government, in my opinion-perceives that it benefits from the existing system in Pine Rivers. It refuses a request from a council, supported by the majority of the councillors on that council, to bring in a new system. It not only refuses the request, it does not have the courtesy to reply for one year to the request and when it does reply it simply says, `No, we are not going to agree to this'. No reasons are given, it simply ignores it. I have contacted the new Minister for Local Government in Queensland, Mr Randell, and I am pleased to report that he has agreed to meet with me to discuss particularly the situation in Pine Rivers but also the overall situation of local government boundaries in Queensland. This meeting will obviously take place after the council elections on Saturday. However, I wish to make some points clear. If this meeting with the Minister fails to convince me that the so-called new-look Ahern National Party Government will tackle the problem of unfairness in local government in Queensland, then I will ask for some assistance from this Government. Currently the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is considering the Michael Macklin Bill on electoral systems in Australia. I believe that this Committee should expand its terms of reference to have a look at the situation in local government. If at some time later this year or early next year a referendum is to be put to the Australian people on the question of one vote one value, I believe the Government should give very serious consideration to its implications for local government, for local residents are equally entitled to have the same sort of guaranteed fairness towards the election of their local representatives as they are towards the election of their State and their Federal representatives. The principles, the questions are equal-it is all about providing people with the right to choose, the right to choose in a fair system. This is a major challenge which faces the new National Party Government in Queensland. It is a challenge which it must tackle if it is to retain any credibility as a government which is willing to consult, which is willing to take into account the views of the public. In the past its record has been poor and, as I have outlined, it has refused to accept the views of an individual council. I hope that it is simply an outside example. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —Madam Speaker, thank you for the honour to be the first to make this quick statement. I am highly offended by an advertisement that recently appeared in a magazine in Australia. It is extremely divisive and I will just read parts of it. It says: `Be a green and gold Aussie for the Bicentenary. If you are a real Aussie then these products are definitely for you. Beautifully made in striking green and gold, our national colours. They represent the true spirit of Australia. Be a proud and green Australian'. One of the things that are for sale is a flag in these colours which is advertised as an Australian flag-`Fly an Australian flag', it says-and there is a flag with a kangaroo on it. But there is also a T-shirt which is available and which I will show it to honourable members. It has on it this flag and underneath it has `The Republic of Australia'. I think that is highly misleading and the people who are promoting this are misleading Australia. They are being extremely divisive and it should be offensive to all people who believe in the Constitution. It shows a complete lack of respect for the monarchy because we are still a constitutional monarchy and I think it is up to the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) to investigate this matter. Finally, Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of this advertisement. Leave granted. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia) —Madam Speaker, I want to appeal to the State governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, to act to address problems in the marketplace where violent and unfit goods are being placed on sale in stores frequented by children. Some weeks ago I raised the matter of edible condoms, edible panties and edible jockettes being sold by home improvement firms in amongst toys and dolls and things like that. There was also `Happy Sperm' soap and 18 months ago chocolate ice block moulds used for children were actually in the shape of vaginas and penises, actually sold in a grocery store. I just do not think it is satisfactory that we should have these types of things on sale in this country. We have pornographic comics being sold, we have the victim and violent toys being sold and the point is that the Federal Government does not have any power. It is up to the States to come to grips with the retailing activities of those in the marketplace. I do not think any honourable member here would believe that we ought to have pornographic comics that are promoting violence and violent sex sold in newsagencies. Even incest is in one of the comics given to me by a local minister. There is a need for a greater responsibility of retailers, a code of retailing and for them to put aside the cash register mentality where children are involved. So I make this appeal that the States come together with the Federal Government to let us set down a code, let us set down some laws that will control the marketing of products where children frequent. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling) —Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a problem that I have in my electorate concerning nursing homes. Recently an elderly lady, who lives with her husband in a nursing home, was taken to a hospital to have an amputation. As soon as possible she was reunited with her husband at the nursing home where she had to have dressings on her amputation wound. The problem is that in nursing homes the Government allows only from 15c per day per resident to about 30c per day per resident for non-prescriptive items. So over a period of a month this lady had a bill of $400. Who is to pay for it? The doctors are not to pay for it, the hospital cannot pay for it, the nursing home certainly cannot pay for it because it is outside its jurisdiction and it just cannot afford to pay for it. I think this is a disgraceful situation which the Government must look at. I do not think 15c today will cover the price of a band-aid and the labour to apply that band-aid. So I would ask the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to look at this situation in order that people in nursing homes receive their proper attention and the nursing homes need not go broke when these matters arise. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I want to use this opportunity to issue a challenge to the publishers of major Australian newspapers and magazines to exercise some social responsibility and ethics in what they publish. My great concern is that so many magazines and newspapers continue to publish what I believe are reprehensible advertisements by tobacco companies trying to encourage young children to smoke. I believe that all members of the House ought to unite behind the call I am issuing to ensure not only that these publishers fulfil their minimum legal responsibilities but also that they go beyond that and take up the sort of moral values and standards that Australian of the Year in 1987, Dick Smith, has sought to instil in business. It seems to me that it falls to those newspapers and to those publishers to take that stand because the tobacco companies clearly are out to encourage young Australians to smoke. One of the most reprehensible campaigns is that initiated by Amatil Ltd in its attempt to encourage a greater market for its product Freeport. The promotion of these cigarettes is directed towards teenagers and towards the children of the mothers and fathers around Australia and it is about time that we, as an Australian community, adopted the approach that is increasingly being adopted around the world. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —Madam Speaker, I want to renew today my call for a royal commission into the ownership and control of the Australian media. I believe it is of paramount importance that we are in no doubt that there is a diversity of ownership and that the owners do not interfere with the way in which the editors and the journalists write what they believe to be correct about Australia. There is nothing more important than the flow of information, ideas, opinion and news and yet we are seeing examples of news management, particularly by the Murdoch Press. I find the greatest difficulty in getting information into Murdoch Press even when it is written and I know it is written by journalists employed by News Ltd. There are links between News Ltd and the Packer organisation regarding the Canberra Times, there are links between News Ltd and other people allegedly in competition with them in Adelaide. We have seen the closure of the Brisbane Telegraph and the Sydney Sun and now the Times on Sunday and many closures are not just related to declining circulation or the mismanagement by Fairfax but to other deals that we all know are being done in the marketplace. It is time we examined the relationship between Murdoch and certain of the television station owners, especially Mr Lowy, and it is time that the Australian public was satisfied. It can be satisfied only by a royal commission into this most important area so that we know that this commodity which is different from any other is being administered in the interests of the public. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On Friday six black residents of Sharpeville are due to be executed by hanging, three days short of the twenty-eighth anniversary of the infamous 1960 Sharpeville massacre during which 69 black people were killed when South African police opened fire on demonstrators protesting against apartheid. The executions will take place, not because the six prisoners physically killed anyone, but because they were part of an angry crowd which beat the deputy mayor of Sharpeville to death for suspected collaboration with the Government. Government leaders from all over the world have made pleas to President Botha for clemency for the Sharpeville six, but mercy for black people in South Africa is not high on the political agenda of the Botha Government. Our own Government has added its protests against the appalling and inhumane sentence in support of which no evidence was presented but which was based on a doctrine which allows African judges to rule that all members of the crowd shared a common purpose guilt with the unidentified murderers. Apartheid is a creed which strikes at the core of humanitarian values and transcends all normal differences in political ideologies. South Africa should be outlawed from all world activities and, whilst I in no way condone the killing of the black councillor, I hope that our Government will, in recognition of the Sharpeville six who may be forced to pay the supreme sacrifice, scale down our diplomatic representation in Pretoria. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Madam Speaker, the new system in relation to petitions prevented me from presenting a petition today and I would like quickly to read it. It states: To the honourable members of the Parliament: If the Federal Government in its deep community concern intended supporting Telecom's proposal to charge local telephone calls according to length of time of the call, the undersigned call on the Hawke Government to indicate immediately that it would not give the approval required to make Telecom's proposal reality. Unfortunately, the wording of that petition was such that it was not accepted under the new rules and I am passing it on to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). It is a great pity because this petition would have set a record today, under the new system, of 9,248 signatures. It is an indication of how the people of Australia feel and I would say to the people of New South Wales right now who might be listening that I am not convinced that the Hawke Government has not just put it away until after Saturday. That is the way it performs all the way through. Be on your mettle and be alert and do not trust them as people in this country have sadly in the past. Mr LAMB(Streeton) —Two and a half years ago I urged the Commonwealth Bank to establish a branch at Monbulk and/or Mount Evelyn, two rapidly expanding townships in my electorate. The shopping centres have grown quickly but bank customers have had to travel five to 10 kilometres to have access to a Commonwealth Trading Bank or the Development Bank. The bank replied that the townships would be studied and I would be kept informed. Last month I advised the people's bank that its monitoring of the situation had not led to any action but in the meanwhile private banks, including a new branch of the Challenge Bank, had further consolidated their positions. I was staggered a few weeks ago when the bank's response was to admit that it had missed the bus but hoped to set up an electronic funds transfer at point of banking system at the Mount Evelyn and Monbulk post offices. This is simply not good enough for a government owned bank. Rather than downgrading its services, making it ripe for privatising, the Commonwealth Bank should be injecting real competition into the industry through more initiative and by setting an example of service and standards. This area, a farming community, with small businesses, is thus missing out on a service unique to the Commonwealth Bank-the Development Bank with low interest loans for approved enterprises. Privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank would not increase the level of competition but reduce it and the community would lose an important avenue of government policy at the grass roots. I urge the Government and the Board to revitalise the people's bank rather than bend to demands to sell it. Mr COBB(Parkes) —There is no better time than now for the Government to revitalise the economy by bringing in an across the board tariff cut. Tariff levels were put in place years ago when the exchange rate of the Australian dollar was much higher than it is today. Since then our dollar has collapsed by 35 to 40 per cent. This has forced import prices up by a similar amount, resulting in a de facto increase in protection to protected industries over and above the levels previous governments intended they should have. Tariff protection imposes an enormous cost on society. We do not want to add to that burden through windfall increases that have flowed through from a devaluation of the currency. We could reduce tariff and other forms of protection by substantial amounts and still leave our protected industries in a position at least as favourable as before. The winners of a tariff cut would ultimately be all of us, but especially our export industries, our consumers and our industries with little or no protection. Basic items like clothes, shoes and cars would tumble in price. This would reduce inflation and so ease the pressure on wage rises. The low income earners and pensioners in society would be especially advantaged as the poorest 20 per cent of them now pay more in tariff taxes than they do in income taxes. Jobs overall would not be lost but rather increased and located in more productive areas. The concept of an across the board tariff cut is an exciting one and I urge the Government to grasp the magic moment that exists and to do it. Mr KERR(Denison) —I rise to add my voice to the expressions of sympathy that have already been put before the House by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in respect of the death of the Archbishop of Hobart, the Very Reverend Archbishop Sir Guilford Young. Sir Guilford Young was an articulate and widely respected spokesman of the Catholic community in Hobart and he will be mourned by many of nearly one-quarter of the Hobart population who profess the Catholic faith. Let me say that he certainly was a controversial man who involved himself in the controversies of the day and there were instances where he expressed views which I am certain I would have been strongly against. Nonetheless, he was always a rigorous and vital intellectual force in the community. He always articulated the views in which he professed his belief and I join with the honourable member for Franklin in expressing, on behalf of this House and in my particular concern on behalf of the people of Denison, our last respects to the former Archbishop of Hobart. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Even at this late stage I want to appeal to the Government to change its mind over the closure of Medibank agencies. The Government is bringing in this measure which will be very damaging and difficult for people living in country areas throughout Australia. Through the tax system the Government is forcing people throughout this country to participate in Medicare but through closing agencies it is making it very difficult for people to get reimbursement of their costs. I believe that this is one measure the Government is using to try to force doctors to bulk bill and that is the only reason it is bringing this in. The Touche Ross organisation has pointed out that this will not save the Government money; in fact, it will cost taxpayers money, it will cost jobs in country areas, it will be very difficult and inconvenient for people in country areas and I appeal to the Government to change its mind. Mr HAWKE —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, will be absent from Question Time today. He is attending the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Brisbane. Questions normally addressed to the Attorney-General should be directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Holding. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that present in the gallery this afternoon is Mr Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. Mr Weinberger is visiting Australia as President Reagan's official United States representative to the bicentennial celebrations. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the established rules regarding post-separation employment which requires senior public servants or equivalents to obtain official assent if they wish to take up employment within two years of resignation or retirement from public employment in businesses or other bodies which may be in or anticipating contractual relationships with the Government, those in which the Government is a shareholder, those in receipt of government loans, guarantees or other forms of capital assistance and whose primary purpose is to lobby Ministers, members of parliament and government departments. In view of the Prime Minister's recent enthusiastic endeavours in relation to the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the fact that Mr Young has already obtained consultant employment with a body in which the Government is the sole shareholder, will he undertake to allow senior public servants to pursue similar post-separation employment opportunities to Mr Young? Mr HAWKE —I have no reason to believe that in the case of Mr Young's activities what he will be doing will compromise in any way the proper arrangements which have been made in regard to public servants. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What representations has the Government made to the South African Government to stop the execution of the Sharpeville six? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Hunter for his question. The Government has indeed made a number of representations to the South African Government on behalf of the Sharpeville six since December last year when appeals against their convictions were rejected. As recently as 15 March the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade instructed our Ambassador to South Africa to make a further urgent appeal. This morning I called in the South African Ambassador to add my personal representations on behalf of the six. I told the Ambassador that my Government is strongly opposed in principle to the death penalty but that its application in this case is particularly abhorrent. The crux of the matter is that none of the six was directly involved in the murder with which they have been charged. I said that we believed that the execution of the six would exacerbate an already volatile political environment in South Africa. If the six are executed, this will only add to black bitterness at a time when there is a great need, as we would all appreciate, to break this cycle of violence in South Africa. I put it to the Ambassador that, by the same token, an act of clemency would be interpreted as a gesture of goodwill and would contribute to internal stability in South Africa. I asked the Ambassador to convey my appeal to state President Botha, and he undertook to do so. Our embassy in Pretoria is also being instructed to convey these views to the Government of South Africa. Obviously this is not the occasion, nor do I seek to make it the occasion, to rehearse the fundamental differences which the Australian Government has with the South African Government over the general situation in South Africa. I did not seek to do so in my discussions with the Ambassador. We are concerned to save the Sharpeville six. I believe that our concerns about them are shared by all members of this Parliament and that we will all be hoping that our appeals, and those of so many others in South Africa and in the international community, will help persuade the South African Government not to go ahead with these unjust and unjustifiable executions. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the gravity of the legal opinion presented to the Prime Minister on Tuesday regarding the involvement of the Minister for Community Services and Health-- Government members-Ha, ha! Mr BLUNT —Well, he is not laughing-regarding the involvement of the Minister for Community Services and Health in releasing confidential Health Insurance Commission reports and the ongoing investigation into the incident by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), has the Prime Minister now forwarded this opinion, together with that of the Solicitor-General, to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and, if not, why not? Will the Prime Minister now ask the Minister for Community Services and Health to stand down until questions as to whether charges should be brought against him have been determined? Mr HAWKE —I have had a copy of the opinion provided to the Australian Association of Surgeons and the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons referred to the Attorney-General. The matters to which this opinion relates are the subject of a current investigation by the Australian Federal Police. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate to comment on those matters and I do not propose to do so. The Attorney-General does not propose to forward a copy of the opinion to the AFP or to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Both organisations will obtain any necessary legal advice from appropriate persons in the appropriate way. As to that part of the question from the honourable gentleman which refers to my colleague the Minister for Community Services and Health, I make it unequivocally clear that I do not intend to ask the Minister to stand down. The Solicitor-General adheres to the opinion he has given, and it is not appropriate for us in this Parliament to engage in a debate on the respective merits of different legal opinions. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Will the Treasurer identify and explain the importance of some of the economic developments that have taken place and the economic indicators which have been released since the Parliament rose in December last year? Mr KEATING —The economy has been performing quite well. The balance of payments figures, which came out the day before yesterday, revealed that the current account forecast is still on track. The February figures show that employment has grown by 116,000 since October 1987. Unemployment is down to 7.4 per cent of the work force. Inflation in the December quarter was 1.7 per cent, or 7.1 per cent over the course of the year, but on track for 6 per cent over the balance of the year to June as forecast in the Budget. Average weekly ordinary time earnings were up by a modest 1.2 per cent in the three months to November and by 5.3 per cent over the year. Plant and equipment investment was up 10 per cent in actual figures in the December quarter, 5 per cent in total. But, importantly, expectations for investment for 1988-89 show plant and equipment investment running at around 10 per cent real. Housing approvals were up 29 per cent, higher in the three months to January than in the corresponding period the previous year. A lot of data has been published since late last year. We have had the November, December and January balance of payments figures, publication of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economic Outlook, the December quarter's consumer price index, employment growth figures for November, December, January and February, the national wage case, a raft of leading and partial indicators of economic activity, forward estimates, the Industries Assistance Commission program, and then, this week, the February balance of payments. Not one of those issues has sparked a question from the Opposition about economic policy. Despite that enormous raft of partial indicators and quarterly figures, there has been not one question from the Opposition about any matter of substance. Instead, what we have are, as usual from the Howard-led Opposition, personal attacks on members of the Government in substitute for decent policy or questions about the economy. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition cannot ask me a question about the economy but he can discover some letter in some obscure casino about some breach of some rule in relation to gambling; nor could he discover letters from the Commissioner of Taxation for five years about the massive criminal avoidance of the tax system. He can put his hand in my letterbox but he could not discover the massive criminal avoidance of the tax system. Is it any wonder that the people of Wollstonecraft have got their letter boxes locked. I am sure some think that in those moist leafy glades, where the best protector of letters is basically a handful of redbacks, there is no need for a lock. But, I am sure, no self-respecting redback would bite the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that we have not had one question of substance from the Leader of the Opposition or his front bench about any matter of importance. On 3 March the Sydney Morning Herald, talking about the Leader of the Opposition's economic credibility, had this to say: To maximise the Liberal vote he turned his back on economic rationality. Mr Howard's approach seems to have damaged the Opposition's credibility with business generally. So it should. The Sydney Morning Herald went on: He will be without the intellectual direction and policy content that made him an attractive alternative to Mr Peacock. He will become Mr Peacock's poor substitute. This is the view of the Sydney Morning Herald. I know the Leader of the Opposition cannot cop it. Whenever we say anything to him he has a conversation with someone, so of course it is all deflected. He gives the impression he is unworried, unconcerned. We always have this little bit of theatre. The Sydney Morning Herald also said: The opinion leaders in business believe that it is time for the micro-economic reform that Mr Howard always intended but never quite got around to. He is Mr Nearly. He nearly deregulated the financial markets, but Fraser would not let him. He nearly got control of the Budget, but Fraser blew it out at the end. He nearly cracked down on bottom of the harbour schemes when they first came to light, but of course the Cabinet would not let him. He nearly took action to reform the tax system and broaden the tax base. In short, he nearly tried to do something but never got around to it, and now that this Government is reforming Australia the best he can do is throw muck at the Prime Minister, after he authorises his front bench to throw muck at me, the Minister for Community Services and Health or any other Minister, rather than deal with any issue of substance. The fact is that, as Mr Greiner has said, Mr Greiner does not have a John Howard problem but the Federal Opposition has a John Howard problem, and it will not regain any decent standing in the eyes of the Australian public until it gets back to the main game and deals with the issues of substance concerning the economy and Australian life instead of making public attacks on the private affairs of Ministers. Mr LLOYD —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy confirm that the Treasurer's close friend, Mr Warren Anderson, the owner of the Northern Territory cattle station Tipperary, has been given unrestricted approval to import between five and 20 tonnes of gamba grass from Brazil? Does the Minister realise that there is a grave risk of introducing exotic plants, insects and diseases such as foot and mouth disease in such a large consignment from Brazil, particularly as it could contain 40 per cent vegetable matter in the form of chaff and straw, both of which are prohibited imports? This is a very serious matter, so the Minister should listen. Is the Minister also aware that parthenium weed was introduced in a similar manner with buffel grass, and that it is only now that a new crop disease has been identified on imported millet introduced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation under far more restrictive quarantine conditions than those applying to the gamba grass approval? Will the Minister now agree to the representations of the Cattlemen's Union, the Grains Council of Australia and other organisations and require the slower but safer restrictive method of introduction, which necessitates multiplying seed stocks under quarantine? Mr KERIN —I will give a detailed answer to the honourable gentleman's question. I know nothing about Warren Anderson; I know nothing about him even having cows. I will give the question of the importation of plants serious attention. Basically, I will answer the honourable gentleman in detail. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Can the Minister explain to the House the Federal Government's attitude to the announcement by the New South Wales Premier that the expansion of child care places will be cost shared with the Commonwealth? Dr BLEWETT —I, along with the Prime Minister, welcome very much the initiatives of the New South Wales Premier in this area. Our two governments have worked very closely together over the past three years to expand dramatically the number of child care places in this country. The New South Wales Premier has set a fine example to other State governments with his commitment to the provision of child care. As I have previously reported, the Commonwealth will fulfil its commitment to establish 20,000 new places by the end of this year. This is a major achievement, one of which we can all be proud. It has been possible only because of the cooperation between the Commonwealth, the States and in many cases local government. I should like to point to the outstanding contribution made by the New South Wales Government to child care. It was the New South Wales Government which pioneered cooperative arrangements with the Commonwealth to expand child care services. The result has been 169 new child care centres opened or approved since 1983 in New South Wales. It was New South Wales which provided over $15m in the last three years for the entire construction cost of centres built under these arrangements. New South Wales is the only State which has met the full capital cost. The New South Wales State Government's commitment is further demonstrated by its very generous contribution to recurrent funding-about $6m a year. In view of the past record of the New South Wales Government we very much welcome the initiative announced last week by Mr Unsworth, which will build on his Government's substantial achievements. Families in New South Wales can now look forward to the continued expansion of affordable, quality child care services tailored to their needs. We hear nothing, of course, about child care services, health services or anything else from the collection of muckrakers opposite because their concern is with the gutter and not with policy. They have no child care policy; they have no health policy. Indeed, all they say about child care is that they will promise government subsidies to their friends in the private sector. That will mean no new child care places in this country. Their priority is simply subsidising the well off. Our priority and that of the New South Wales Government is about providing more child care places for ordinary families. Mr CONNOLLY —I refer the Minister for Social Security to his interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, reported on 10 March, in which he said: I think if the Government was going to be consistent about its line on reducing tax avoidance, then it has at least got to look at the superannuation area within that context. What evidence does the Minister have to support his contention that superannuation funds and, by extension, their 2.7 million contributors are engaged in tax avoidance? Mr HOWE —The Commonwealth Government, of course, is involved in occupational superannuation in that it gives very substantial tax concessions to encourage employer and employee involvement in occupational superannuation. In 1986-87 the cost of these concessions was estimated to be $3.5 billion. While responsibility for superannuation issues rests with the Treasurer, it is a concern for the social security portfolio because both superannuation and age pensions aim to provide retirement income for older people. A major issue, of course, is the relationship between superannuation arrangements and the age pension system. The question of the relative roles of superannuation and the age pension is fundamental to the nature of future retirement income arrangements in Australia. An immediate issue of concern is the interaction between superannuation and age pension systems because inadequacies in superannuation arrangements in terms of coverage, vesting, age and access to benefits and reasonable benefit limits mean that superannuation does not necessarily mesh well with the age pension. It is also a fact that superannuation coverage is incomplete and uneven. Women, part time and casual workers, blue collar workers and low income earners are significantly under-represented in superannuation schemes. Benefits are often available before age pension age. Where lump sums are spent prior to pension eligibility, individuals can receive a government pension in addition to the tax concessions provided through superannuation. What is more relevant to the question is the fact that, as part of its review of the business taxation system, the Government is reviewing superannuation concessions. The review is still in progress. The Government has before it no proposals for change on superannuation or anything else to do with the review. With regard to superannuation, honourable members will know that the Prime Minister has given several undertakings and they are that the Government will not consider any changes which would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation benefits, that the Government will not make any changes which would stop people taking lump sum superannuation benefits, and that superannuation will continue to be treated on a concessional basis. The question of a comprehensive retirement income policy, which the honourable member for Bradfield suggests the Government is not interested in, is part of the responsibilities of the social security review. Professor Cass will publish a paper on retirement income policies in the middle of the year. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that, in the period that we have been in government, in contrast to the period that those opposite were in government, we have systematically developed economic and social policies that have gone to the heart of the problems which face the Australian community. The record of this Government in terms of income security reform and its overall approach to income distribution stands up very well against the record of any previous government. But it stands up extraordinarily well against the non-policies of the Opposition when it was in government and, still more, when it is in opposition. It is hard to remember an opposition which has devoted so little time to the discussion of any substantive issue. Members of the Opposition attend Question Time day in and day out with a copy of the morning newspaper and the odd clipping, and ask questions that have no substance and nothing undergirding them. The reason for that is that the Opposition is fundamentally shallow. It is interested in smearing the Government and entering into personality politics because it has not been able to develop, on the basis of so-called Liberal or National Party philosophy, any substantial ideas on the fundamentals of either economic or social policy. That is a disgrace for an opposition. It damages this Parliament and, ultimately, the country. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business explain what research is currently being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) into superconductivity? Mr BARRY JONES —I thought the honourable member for Dunkley would never ask. A new high temperature transition or TC-we ought to get used to the abbreviation-superconductor without rare earths has been synthesised and characterised by S. X. Dou and H. K. Liu at the University of New South Wales and by Nick Savvides of the CSIRO Division of Applied Physics. The new material is based on the ceramic system bismuth, calcium, strontium-not strontium 90, I hasten to add-copper and oxygen, and was first reported in January and early February by groups in Japan and the United States of America. Measurements indicate so far two distinct phases, one with a superconducting transition temperature of 90 degrees Kelvin and a second one at 115 degrees Kelvin. Improvements in these temperatures are likely in the near future. This discovery may be very significant because the element bismuth is far cheaper than yttrium or the other rare earths. The new material is processed at lower temperatures and appears to be more stable than the rare earth based materials. Higher crucial current densities may be achieved. I point this out because this extraordinarily dramatic change that is going on means that the whole scene in superconductivity is changing month by month. The economic implications are enormous. Attempts are under way to separate the two phases. CSIRO is also attempting to synthesise systems based on the element niobium which have been reported as possible room temperature superconductors. CSIRO's Division of Applied Physics has devised an ultra-sensitive measuring device called a squid or break junction radio frequency `superconducting quantum interference device'-as we are among friends, I think we will just call it the squid-which operates in liquid nitrogen, which is far cheaper and far more readily available than liquid helium. I now hand descriptive leaflets on the device to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The material used in the detector is a disc of yttrium, barium and copper oxide. There is a tiny loop in the middle which is shown in a photograph that I handed to the Leader of the Opposition. There is a superconducting loop in the tiny hole-- Mr Cunningham —Do we have to sit for an examination? Mr BARRY JONES —The examination will be the judgment of history, as it turns out, as to whether we take up this opportunity or whether we lose it. The hole contains a very tiny Josephson junction. It operates in liquid nitrogen and the transition temperature so far is at 90 degrees Kelvin. This device is capable of measuring magnetic fields as small as one-billionth of the earth's field and has major significance in physics research, materials chemistry and medical diagnosis. Its inventor, Ian Harvey, received international recognition with the Morris E. Leeds Award of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers. Australia has an excellent world reputation with its scientific instrumentation, such as Sir Alan Walsh's atomic absorption spectrophotometer, which is the international standard. But the economic implications of superconductivity are infinitely greater. Opportunities like this arise only once or twice in each generation. It is essential that we develop our core capacity and then develop the infrastructure for industrial development. Mr COBB —I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to his remarks in Parliament on Tuesday when he expressed concern about the increasing cost of private health insurance cover to ordinary Australians and those in New South Wales in particular. Is it a fact that on 22 December the Minister wrote to the Hon. David White, the Victorian Minister for Health, approving a staged increase in public hospital charges from the present $121 a day to $155 a day? Is it further a fact that by his own Department's estimates this will increase basic private health cover cost by a national average of approximately $1 per week, with the `highest increase being in New South Wales'? Dr BLEWETT —As perhaps the honourable member for Parkes is not aware, the determination of private insurance charges today is essentially decided by the States. It is the States which determine the charges in their private hospitals and it is the private hospitals in the States which determine their own private hospital charges. Therefore, the rate in any State is essentially what is determined by the State Government and the private hospital in that State. A proposal was made by the Victorian Government to me to raise its charges on average to $144 at present. I approved that rate, but that is the case with all States which come forward with a rate for their hospitals and that is approved. I am not aware of any claim put forward by the New South Wales public hospital system or, at this moment, from any other State public hospital system that it wishes to raise its charges. I also point out that the new Victorian charge will not be very much above that which already exists in some other States. The expectation of that rise to $144 is approximately 50c a week on average health insurance. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to a long running dispute in Newcastle and the Hunter region, where eye specialists are refusing to carry out sight saving operations on age pensioners unless those pensioners agree to pay hundreds of dollars above the schedule fee. Is the Minister aware of the claims of an ophthalmic surgeon, reported in the Newcastle Herald on Tuesday, 15 March, that government bureaucrats and politicians are to blame for the problem? Can the Minister advise the House as to the truth of such claims? Can he further advise whether there is a need to make the public more aware of the charging practices of doctors so that patients can make more informed judgments about medical treatment and the appropriateness of fees charged by individual doctors? Dr BLEWETT —The behaviour of the eye surgeons in the Hunter Valley is the kind of behaviour that this Opposition is not prepared to subject to proper public scrutiny and debate, which has been the whole point of the Government's actions in these matters. It is, I am afraid, in the case of the eye surgeons in the Hunter Valley, a classic example of doctors holding patients to ransom for money. Eye surgeons are amongst the highest paid medical specialists in this country. Mr MacKellar —How much? Dr BLEWETT —I will come to that in one moment. The Hunter Valley eye surgeons are refusing to do sight saving cataract operations on pensioners because they claim that they are not being paid enough per operation. It is true that their schedule fee was restructured to take account of the technological changes which have made those operations faster, safer, simpler to perform and requiring reduced after care. Yet, apparently, the eye surgeons believe that the only beneficiaries from technological change should be themselves. This Government's view is that advances in technology should be shared between doctors and patients. The schedule fee for this operation, which takes on average less than one hour, is $575 per operation. Yet the surgeons are saying to pensioners, `This is not enough. Pay a lot more of your pension or we will not operate in the Hunter Valley'. There are cases of patients who have been told that they will never be able to have the operation in a public hospital but that if they pay $800 up front they can have the operation in a private hospital. The New South Wales Government has taken action to ensure that those operations can be done elsewhere. It has been transporting patients from the Hunter region to the Sydney Eye Hospital, where they can have their operations immediately. The New South Wales Government has also subcontracted with the NIB day surgery centre at Newcastle to have the operations performed but the eye surgeons in the Hunter Valley have torpedoed that option. I am glad to say that, increasingly, public anger grows at this kind of behaviour. It is not just this Government which is making these comments about this sort of behaviour. I quote from the Newcastle Herald of Monday, 14 March. It states: The eye doctors will convince few people that their protest is about anything but cupidity, about people who have a lever in their hands and are using it for all it is worth. The Opposition should listen to this: For this short operation and a few consultations the eye doctors are offered five times what their pensioner patients must live on for a week. I, and this Government, condemn the kind of behaviour by that minority of eye surgeons in the Hunter Valley. Yet it is that kind of behaviour that this Opposition makes every effort to prevent effective public scrutiny and criticism of. Mr MILES —Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs confirm Press reports that the Government has abandoned its proposal for a preamble to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission legislation that was announced with great fanfare last December? Mr HAND —I saw one report at the weekend which indicated that. The report was inaccurate, not only in that regard but also in regard to a number of other points it addressed. We are still engaged in consultation with Aboriginal people about the proposals we announced on 10 December. When those consultations have been completed the honourable member, like everybody else, will be told the outcome. Mr KENT —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade: Given the Australian Government's general interest in the field of human rights, what action is it and, in particular, the Foreign Minister, taking to ensure that Israel observes the human rights of oppressed Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied territories? Mr HAYDEN —This is a matter that the Government is concerned about and has taken the opportunity of raising with Israeli authorities on a number of occasions. About three weeks ago when I was in Israel I raised the matter in a speech at an official dinner hosted by the Foreign Affairs Minister for Israel, Mr Shamon Peres. More importantly, I handed over a letter to Prime Minister Shamir during that visit from the Prime Minister of Australia. In that letter the Prime Minister noted that the deportation of Palestinians to Lebanon was inconsistent with Israel's responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and an infringement of Lebanon's sovereignty. In the same letter the Prime Minister pointed out to Mr Shamir that the extent and nature of some of Israel's responses to the resistance to its presence in the occupied territories, including the deaths and beatings among the civilian population, have damaged Israel's image in Australia and have made even more difficult the task of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region. In February of this year at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and in December last year at the United Nations General Assembly, Australia voted in favour of resolutions expressing concerns about human rights in the occupied territories. Our ambassador in Tel Aviv has made direct representations. After discussions with the Prime Minister-it was on his proposal-it has been decided that a parliamentary group should visit the front line states of the Middle East, including Israel, and that this should be representative of all the parties in the Parliament. It will represent an extra parliamentary visit on those which will take place under the normal procedures provided this year. I would like to say one other thing for the record, and it is not without irony. While I was in the Middle East, the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs for the Opposition, the honourable member for North Sydney, made the observation that I was in distant areas peripheral to Australia's interests. I would think the comments I have expressed are very much shared by the Opposition as much as they are expressed by the Government. However, while the honourable member for North Sydney was making a comment that I was in remote areas peripheral to our interests, he took the opportunity of ringing up the Prime Minister and recommending, with others, that this sort of visit should be undertaken by parliamentarians. There does seem to be a double standard in his sense of urgency and priorities. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Federal Government abide by the recommendations of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Mr HAWKE —The Government appointed the Helsham inquiry. As the honourable member will appreciate, we appointed it because we were faced with a situation where two basically conflicting positions were being put before us, I think with integrity from both sides. The conservation movement, if I can put it generally, said that there was no need to conduct forestry operations in the areas of concern because there were sufficient alternative resources which would sustain an economic industry. Against that position, which I believe the conservation movement and those supporting it hold with integrity, an equally firm position was put by the industry in Tasmania, supported by the Tasmanian Government, that that was not the case, that without some authority and opportunity to log in what I will broadly call the sensitive areas it would not be possible to sustain a really viable industry. The Government, faced with those two diametrically opposed propositions, took what I would hope the honourable member would think would be the sensible course of action and established an independent royal commission of inquiry-the Helsham inquiry. I indicated to the two sets of proponents that this matter had to be resolved, this question of fact, and that we just could not sit back and have one side saying one thing and one side saying the other. The Helsham inquiry has been established for that purpose. We will study carefully the report when it is received and obviously, given that background which I put in answer to the honourable member's question, there will be a strong disposition on the part of the Government to accept the report. I think the honourable member would also accept the fact that no government can, in advance, give an absolutely blank cheque. But that is our predisposition and we will study the report carefully. I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the effects on the national economy of the State governments undertaking massive new spending programs which would rapidly lift the growth in State spending? Mr KEATING —When this Government took office in 1983, the former conservative Government bequeathed to us a Budget deficit of just on 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). As well as that, in the two or three years earlier the present Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer, let the States out of the Loan Council so that they could borrow willy-nilly, the result being that the public sector borrowing requirement of Australia in 1983-84 in prospect was a little over 8 per cent of GDP. This Government has taken that disastrous fiscal legacy and the public sector borrowing requirement down from 8.2 per cent of GDP to 1.8 per cent. In so doing it not only has carried most of the burden of cutting the Federal Government Budget deficit and bringing it to a surplus, but also has re-established what we call global borrowing limits over the States to rein in their expenditures and borrowings. That process is well under way and this year we will make further progress. But now in the State of New South Wales, in the course of an election campaign, we have the Liberal Party of New South Wales promising new spending commitments in the coming financial year of the order of $2 billion which, given the size of New South Wales and our national economy, is the equivalent of $6,000m of Commonwealth Government expenditure. Such a spending spree would do one of two things: firstly, it would simply reverse many of the gains the Commonwealth Government has been able to chalk up in bringing back the public sector borrowing requirement and, hence, lowering our dependency upon overseas savings and overseas debt to bring down our current account deficit. Secondly, such a program would mean that, in the main, Mr Greiner's promises would not be honoured, that he could not pay for them and that he could not deliver on them. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party Government, under Premier Unsworth in New South Wales, has gone to the election with a modest $260m worth of promises. Members of the Liberal Party have had the temerity to advertise promise after promise on behalf of Labor but have failed to mention that they have promised to outlay about $2 billion, almost 10 times the promises of the Labor Party, in an attempt to buy votes, to cadge votes in marginal seats. One disappointing feature of this campaign has been the unwillingness on the part of the media in New South Wales to expose the Liberal Party for this profligacy, this rerun of the last Federal election when the Leader of the Opposition was promising $8 billion of unfunded tax cuts. Now Mr Greiner is promising $2 billion, or the equivalent of $6 billion in Commonwealth dollars, to try to get himself elected as Premier of New South Wales. Were New South Wales in the unhappy position of having elected a Greiner government the Commonwealth Government would not bail New South Wales out. We will guarantee that no State dismantles the national Government policy of lowering the public sector borrowing requirement and changing the current account deficit. Let it be made quite clear that this profligacy, this irresponsibility, would not be tolerated by the Federal Government and the result would be that Mr Greiner would drop most of those promises because he could not keep them. He could not fund his commitments because to so fund them would destroy the financial base of New South Wales. I conclude on this point: such a policy would wreak havoc with the national Government's policy of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. We would come down very hard upon any conservative government in New South Wales that attempted so to destroy our policy. Mr KERIN —With respect to the question addressed to me today by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, I am informed that the original proposal to import 20 tonnes of gamba grass seed is again being pursued by the importer. The importer's name is Mr G. Beeks of Australian Pasture Seeds Pty Ltd in Nowra, New South Wales. It was the importer who cancelled his earlier attempt to import the seeds in mid-January this year. I inform the House that gamba grass seed is not a prohibited species under the Quarantine Act and, consequently, it may be imported without prior permission, but subject to inspection on arrival to ensure it is free from serious exotic pests, diseases, weeds and other prohibited matter, such as soil. Samples will be drawn for inspection using standards of the International Seed Testing Association. These standards are followed for inspection of the wide range of non-prohibited seeds imported into Australia under quarantine control. If there are contaminants in the seed in excess of quarantine tolerances the seed will be refused entry. The risk of introducing foot and mouth disease on grass seed has been considered by Australian animal quarantine authorities and is considered to be virtually non-existent. There is absolutely no evidence of the disease having been spread by this means anywhere in the world. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Speaker, I ask you a question with respect to your responsibilities. Your attention would have been drawn to an industrial stoppage this morning by the cleaners within Parliament House. I understand that their concern relates to the termination of their employment on 30 June next and the replacement of House cleaning services by contract labour. What attempts have been made by you, Madam Speaker, or by others on your behalf, to provide adequate post-separation arrangements for those cleaners? Have attempts been made to seek employment for them with those who are to be contractors in this place after that date? If you find it difficult to achieve post-separation arrangements that are satisfactory to you and to them, would you call on the services of the Prime Minister, who seems to have pursued, through various telephone calls, adequate post-separation arrangements for the former Leader of the House? Madam SPEAKER —I have intentions of making a statement concerning both the cleaning and the catering and of tabling papers in connection with both problems we are having at the moment. If having read the tabled statements there is anything further the right honourable gentleman needs to know I would be most happy to show him the entire program. I assure the House that everything that can be done is being done with regard to redeployment-some have moved into the catering area and some into gardening-and we are making every effort to place the cleaners. If that is satisfactory to the right honourable gentleman I will make the statements after the Prime Minister has finished the Irish contribution. If there is anything further he needs to know I will guarantee to let him know later. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, Government Business, being called on forthwith. Motion Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.52) —I move: That this House, on St Patrick's Day 1988- (1) recognises with thanks the profound contribution made by the Irish over two hundred years to Australian culture, religion, law, politics and the labour movement; (2) notes that the Irish community in Australia dates from the First Fleet, that one third of Australians are of Irish descent,and that Australia is the most Irish of nations outside Ireland; (3) affirms that the emergence of an Australian national character was due in large part to the creative presence of the Irish, whose passionate love of freedom prepared the way for a society in which people from many ethnic backgrounds live and flourish as equals; (4) acknowledges the special, deep and enduring bonds between Australia and Ireland; (5) in the Bicentenary year of European settlement in Australia, salutes the City of Dublin as she celebrates her millennium; and (6) resolves to send a delegation from this Parliament, led by the Deputy Speaker, to Ireland to convey the sentiments of this motion to the Irish Parliament and people. It is very fitting that on St Patrick's Day in our bicentennial year and in the millennial year of the city of Dublin the House adopt the motion I have just read out. In 1988 it is appropriate that we look back over 200 years of Irish involvement in and contribution to every aspect of Australian life-not least, as I look around here, to our political life. Quite simply, without the Irish presence throughout our 200 years of European settlement, this would be a very different society, and a much less tolerant and much less decent one. As we continue in the creation of a truly multicultural society, let us recall the struggle for equality of opportunity and religious and cultural freedom waged by the Irish, who constituted our first and largest ethnic minority. Ireland's contribution to our Bicentenary has been an outstanding one. In particular, the gift of microfilm records of the 40,000 Irish men and women transported to Australia from Ireland in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries will become a permanent source of invaluable historical information for our country. The fact of our shared history provides a strong foundation for the friendly relations which Australia and Ireland enjoy today. We are both flourishing parliamentary democracies. We have the same aspirations for peace, arms control, human rights, the principles of national self-determination and the elimination of apartheid. In the light of the tragic events reported from Belfast overnight, I take this opportunity to stress Australia's repudiation-a repudiation which is shared by the Irish Government-of terrorist violence in support of political goals in Northern Ireland. I made a memorable visit to Ireland last year. That visit confirmed the warmth and special character of the relations between Ireland and Australia and between the Irish and Australian peoples. Our Government looks forward very much to the visit to Australia by the Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, later this year. Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, it is very appropriate that a delegation of this Parliament, led by your Deputy, will visit Ireland next month. Mr Goodluck —Can I go? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will have to organise the numbers. It is very appropriate that a delegation of this Parliament led by the Deputy Speaker will visit Ireland next month to express the affection which Australians feel for the Irish people and, as my motion puts it, the special, deep and enduring bonds between Australia and Ireland. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.56) —In reflecting on the Irish heritage of Australia it is interesting to remark upon the very distinct contributions that Irish-Australians have made to-- Mr Ronald Edwards —To the Labor Party. Mr HOWARD —Yes, to the Australian Labor Party. I am very happy to say that. Anybody-and I say this very seriously-who understands anything about the political history of Australia will recognise the enormous and unique contribution that Irish-Australians have made to the Australian Labor Party. As I look across the chamber I understand something of the British Isles and other ethnic backgrounds of my many friends opposite and I think of the Irish strand in the Australian Labor Party. I recognise that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sees himself as very much a friend of Ireland. He has expressed today, I believe very genuinely, the affection he feels for Ireland, although he himself has correctly identified his ancestors as having belonged to the celtic fringe. It is also interesting that another of his colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), represents in a sense that more overtly Irish tradition of the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, I think it uniquely appropriate that on St Patrick's Day, the day this motion is moved, the Australian Financial Review should write an editorial saying that the Irish Keating should take over from the non-Irish Hawke. Mr Hand —You are a phoney. Mr HOWARD —I know that the Minister does not like it. I am very happy on behalf of all the members of the Opposition to join the Prime Minister in conveying to the people of Ireland-- Mr Hawke —You don't join me. Mr HOWARD —I know I do not join the Prime Minister He is getting very worked up about this. The Prime Minister would do far better to keep quiet for the duration of this debate and he would lesser proclaim his sensitivity to what was written today in the Australian Financial Review. Through the cackle of the Prime Minister's intervention I say how very happy we are about the many Irish and non-Irish descendants who now strongly support the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. We look forward with very great interest to the outworking within the Australian Labor Party of that historic struggle between Irish and non-Irish Australians. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Members have been circulated with a note on the withdrawal of cleaning services today. The Secretary to the Joint House Department circularised members today advising: Cleaning in the new Parliament House will be undertaken by contract and tenders are presently being evaluated. Concurrently action is being taken by the Joint House Department to ensure that as far as practicable alternative employment is found for cleaning staff currently employed and that the rights and entitlements of staff are protected. Consultations with staff and the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (FMWU) have been an integral part of this process. At a meeting this morning between staff and the FMWU they have advised that they have stopped work for the remainder of today. This action has been taken in support of issues arising from the abovementioned action. Consequently there will be no further cleaning undertaken in Parliament House today. Normal cleaning services will resume tomorrow. The Department has been engaged in discussions with staff and has taken a number of initiatives to find alternative employment. To date, jobs have been found for eight staff, with 18 yet to find alternative employment. I table my earlier advice to members on the redeployment of cleaners, for further background on this matter. As I pointed out to the Leader of the National Party of Australia, I am having the matter updated weekly. I would be more than happy to discuss it with him and to give him the other papers in connection with it if he so desires. Madam SPEAKER —Staff of the Parliamentary Catering Service held a stop-work meeting today which affected luncheon services. I apologise sincerely. I recognise that it is difficult on a Thursday when the House sits through, but I was not notified until too late. Services resumed at 1.30 p.m. Staff have advised that further rolling strikes may occur. The Joint House Department has requested urgent meetings with staff and union delegates. I table, for the information of members, the letter that the President and I sent to them early in January regarding decisions taken on cleaning and catering in the new Parliament House which is obviously part of the stirring of trouble. I intend to keep members informed on these matters as often as is necessary. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —In accordance with the resolution 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- Australian National Gallery-annual report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-section 40 of the National Gallery Act 1975 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Security Appeals Tribunal-annual report 1986-87-sub-section 83 (2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. Madam SPEAKER —We now come to personal explanations. I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in the tail end of an answer to a question, said something to the effect that while he was in Israel or the West Bank I indicated that what was then transpiring in that area was peripheral to our interests. I checked back on my statements. On 28 February 1988 I issued a statement which is quite to the contrary effect and which deals with Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. In it I referred to the continuing violence, laid down certain preconditions for the purpose of the peace process and stated that the difficulties posed to the successful conclusion of the settlement are longstanding and formidable, but of course they should be pursued. The Press release that I issued on 29 February was about the Foreign Minister's Jakarta visit, and this appears to be the point that he has picked up: The lesson from Mr Hayden's diplomatic fiasco is how inept the Government has been in improving relations with Indonesia and how unwise it has been to spend so much time and resources on issues and relationships-such as its concern to be a leading voice in Southern Africa-which are peripheral to our main interests. The Foreign Minister, as you know, Madam Speaker, moves from capital to capital like a magpie moving from bauble to bauble, and it is hard to keep up with him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the issue. He has put his personal explanation before the House. Madam SPEAKER —On 24 February I reported that a species of legionella bacteria, legionella bozemanii, had been detected in air-conditioning water cooling towers in the provisional Parliament House. I further reported that at the time of its detection the contents of the towers had been dumped, the towers scrubbed and the new water treated with biocides to control bacterial growth. The latest series of tests of the water cooling towers were carried out on 25 February, and the Certificate of Analysis for these tests provided by Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd advises that no legionella bacteria were detected during these tests. Weekly dosing of the towers to control any bacterial growth will continue and scientific testing of the water for legionella bacteria will be carried out on a monthly basis. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —by leave-Madam Speaker, during my recent visit overseas I represented the Australian Government in valuable and productive discussions with heads and members of governments and other community leaders in Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Kenya, Yemen Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Maldives, Singapore and Indonesia. These discussions canvassed a broad range of topics, including international and regional issues, economic and trade matters and official aid activities. There were two particular points of significance about my visit. The first is that the issues raised range across all our national interests and obligations: the Commonwealth and the Front Line States, for example; trade and aid; the Middle East dispute; the Gulf War and the arms race; human rights; and our immediate regional preoccupations. In Lusaka, I attended the first meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Committee which was set up by the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in order to bring about Commonwealth action to hasten the end of apartheid. The Lusaka meeting decided on a program of work to achieve two objectives. One was to widen and tighten Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa. Australia made an important contribution to this objective by presenting a report on work done by Australia towards the study-commissioned by the CHOGM-into South Africa's relationship with the international financial system. This study will provide a better understanding of possibilities for financial sanctions against the apartheid regime. Australia will continue to contribute to this study, which will be considered at a future meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers. The Lusaka meeting was not concerned solely with sanctions, of course. Its second objective was to find ways in which the Commonwealth can play a constructive role in a range of activities: reducing the economic dependence of Front Line States on South Africa; assisting with their security needs; facilitating contact with groups inside and outside South Africa; supporting victims and opponents of apartheid; and counteracting South African propaganda and censorship. The Front Line States opposing the apartheid regime bear a heavy burden, in the sense that their economic condition is in large measure determined by this regime. This was a recurring theme in my discussions with leaders of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. We make no bones about our concern for these economies. Apartheid is the most deplorable example possible of infringement of fundamental human rights. Unlike the Opposition, the Government will not tolerate compromise over this great moral imperative. I should say how disappointed I was during Question Time today that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) did not take the opportunity, as he could have, to associate the Opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the deplorable situation in South Africa in relation to the Sharpeville six. It was a splendid opportunity to provide a unified voice in this Parliament and to display bipartisanship, a level of moral concern and the sort of leadership that the community is looking towards. The Commonwealth has focused attention on the plight of Mozambique, a special victim of drought and famine complicated by campaigns of destabilisation by Pretoria. The drought is particularly serious and international awareness of its effects is spreading at last. Senior officials of the International Committee for the Red Cross and of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees describe the refugee situation in Mozambique as the worst they have ever encountered. The Commonwealth and the wider international community have therefore sought to respond out of humanitarian concern for the predicament in which the ordinary people of Mozambique find themselves. Australia's capacity to help is obviously limited. Our pledge of $100m in aid over three years to the countries of southern Africa, including Mozambique, is small compared to the commitments of Canada, for example, and of the Europeans. It is nevertheless an earnest of our commitment to a nation bordering on the Indian Ocean, which is a region of significance to Australia. It allows us, moreover, to continue our close involvement in an international issue of fundamental concern and to assist Mozambique to cope with the consequences of South African destabilisation. The Opposition's attitude on this point is churlish and shameful. Let me make two points about this meanness. One is that-for all the Opposition's indignation about aid to southern Africa-this level of aid will increase by a few cents to about 32c on average per head each year! Compare this to more than $95 per head spent last year in Papua-New Guinea, for example, or more than $100 per head in Vanuatu. The second point is that most of it is in the form of food aid and at least three-quarters of our food aid over the past four years has been spent on Australian produce. If the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), having heard this, still disagrees with the idea of giving humanitarian aid to the starving and the famished of southern Africa, let him go and explain himself to the high-protein biscuit producers in New South Wales or the sorghum farmers in Queensland or the dried fruit growers in Victoria. I found a clear wish in Mauritius, Kenya and Zimbabwe to develop closer trade and commercial links with Australia, particularly as these countries also strongly desire to reduce their dependence on South African sources. I made it clear that Australian expertise and technology have ready application in a number of product and service areas. In particular, my discussions in these countries identified agricultural development and minerals exploitation and processing as areas of great interest and commercial potential. A trade mission of Australian business representatives will visit Zimbabwe and Mauritius in May this year to explore at first hand the opportunities for increased commercial contact between these countries and Australia. To succeed in these countries, Australian corporations will need to be competitive and innovative in their approach. The effort is worth making. These are countries with an Indian Ocean focus in their worldview, a novel experience for Australian companies, and they offer long term prospects for Australia. Australia must recognise at the same time that these countries need assistance to develop their own export capabilities. My Department, for instance, will be extending such assistance to exporters in Zimbabwe to help them promote their products in Australia. The Middle East is an area of primary trading importance to Australia, with two-way trade of almost $3 billion last financial year. During my visit, I signed bilateral trade agreements with Jordan, Egypt and Israel. These agreements will facilitate closer economic and trading relationships, an important aspect being the establishment of joint committees in which business will have a dynamic role. In my trade discussions in the Middle East, I emphasised Australia's wish to strengthen and broaden our commercial relationship with the region beyond the present emphasis on commodity trade. I was able to highlight the suitability of Australian technological expertise in a number of manufacturing and services areas of relevance to the region's development needs. In addition, I was able to talk directly with customers in the $309.7m a year market for Australian wheat in Egypt and in the $58.4m Yemen Arab Republic market, where our market share is under threat. Moreover, at the meeting of heads of Australian missions in the Middle East-attended for the first time by senior officers of Austrade working in the region-we discussed integrated strategies to pursue Australian economic and political interests in the region. Australia's influence on regional political events is naturally limited but we do have obligations and interests in these events. One such development is the war between Iran and Iraq. The continuation of this war threatens our important trading links with both countries. It also imposes limits on our capacity to expand these links. It has to be said that the Iran-Iraq conflict is being complicated by the involvement of several nations in the supply of arms to both combatants. This is an obviously important factor militating against solution. It certainly emphasises the urgency and necessity of controls on conventional as well as nuclear weapons. The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is especially significant to Australia. Nearly half a million Australians of Jewish and Arab origin have a direct and often personal interest in this tragic and complex issue. My visit to the region immediately preceded that of Secretary George Shultz and took place in the atmosphere created by his attempt to bring the disputants together. The issue was accordingly the most significant in the subjects of my discussion with leaders in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel and with Palestinian representatives. In these discussions, I made clear our realisation that we were marginal participants in events and that we were therefore not in the business of pressing prescriptions on those who were central to the issue. I made clear also Australia's strong view that the Shultz initiative and those of King Hussein and President Mubarak should be taken up as a rare opportunity to begin the process of settlement. I was able to convey directly to Mr Shultz my impressions of the attitudes of leaders centrally involved and, in the light of these attitudes, to offer what I know our American friends appreciated as constructive suggestions. While I was in Israel, I expressed to Prime Minister Shamir and Foreign Minister Peres-through a letter from our Prime Minister and in my own words-the deep concern felt in Australia, as a friend of Israel, about the continuing violence in the occupied territories. I was able to see for myself in Gaza the legacy of hatred being created by the continuing inability of all involved to agree to solve the Palestinian issue through negotiations based on acceptance of the rights of Israel to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and of the Palestinians to self-determination. During the return leg of my journey, I took the opportunity to visit Singapore and Indonesia and the Maldives, our Indian Ocean neighbour. My visits to Singapore and Indonesia were part of our commitment to maintaining regular contacts with these important regional partners. They were also my first as Minister responsible for trade. I ensured that my program reflected this new responsibility in the fullest measure, in my discussion with ministerial counterparts and business representatives. My visit in Jakarta, of course, offered the chance of another in the regular exchanges I have maintained with Foreign Minister Mochtar, who is a good friend to Australia. A full agenda of discussion with Dr Mochtar included the issue of Kampuchea-on which Indonesia has continued to play a major role-progress on the Timor Gap question, the illegal entry into Australian waters of Indonesian fishing boats and access to Indonesia by Australian journalists. In the Maldives, trade matters were an important item of discussion with the emphasis on expanding our existing commercial links. Our aid program was also discussed. It was valuable to gain Maldivian views, particularly on topics bearing on our common interests in the Indian Ocean. My visits to the Maldives and South East Asia illustrate the extent and diversity of the regional diplomatic agenda for Australia. We must focus simultaneously on both the economic and political level on the Indian Ocean, North Asian, South East Asian and South West Pacific areas. The days are long gone when we could strike political postures against China, for example, while pursuing a trading relationships with China. Striking the right balance, judging the trade-offs costs in competing national priorities, deploying scarce government resources in the maximum national benefit: these are complex, connected strands in our diplomacy which have to be pursued with subtlety as well as energy if we are to protect and preserve Australia's vital interests. This raised the second point of significance about my visit. This is that the issue with which it dealt exemplifies in many ways the complexities in the conduct of diplomacy nowadays. By this I mean such issues as disarmament and superpower relations, for example; the international economic and trade systems; human rights, the effects of racism and colonialism; and the condition of Australia as a multicultural community. The recent speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Hobart by the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated significant differences of view on foreign policy between the Government and the Opposition. So have various statements by the newest spokesperson on foreign policy of the Opposition, that frayed intellectual fop, the honourable member for North Sydney. There should be no mistake about this. There is an influential minority in Australia which either does not understand the current complexities in external policy or is frightened and confused by them. Let me discuss a few examples. One is the Opposition's view that the southern African issue is irrelevant and, to use its word, peripheral to Australian interests. I will not dwell on the Opposition's tacky philosophy-as shown in its statements on the Grey case in Mozambique-that humanitarian aid should be used as a tool of political pressure; as a form of ransom. It is hard to imagine an attitude that could do Mr Grey more harm. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to point out the seriousness to us of the situation in southern Africa as an irritant in world affairs, as a major concern to the Commonwealth and a cause of growing insecurity in the Indian Ocean region. I regret this because it is a reflection of the Opposition's unacceptably benign view of the doctrine and effects of apartheid. With one or two honourable exceptions, such as the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the Opposition proclaims its distaste for apartheid but it opposes any Australian attempt to do anything about it. This hypocrisy does Australia great harm in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Nothing could be better timed to show the inherent inhumanity of apartheid than the case of the Sharpeville six. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition missed the opportunity to join with the Government to give a splendid display of unity, of purpose, as I said earlier, between the parties in this Parliament on this issue. Six people not directly involved in a violent incident are about to be hanged as a gesture towards the South African Government's attempts to prop up its apartheid system. I regret also that the Opposition's position on southern Africa shows a dangerous myopia about Indian Ocean affairs. This is a region which is so important to our strategic interests and our trade and communications links that we consult annually with the United States on developments there. These developments have great significance for us. This is why we have increased our diplomatic and defence presence there since 1983. It is why we have such an active interest in encouraging the work of the Indian Ocean Commission and the concept of the Indian Ocean zone of peace. One searches in vain through Opposition pronouncements for some recognition of this. The point, however, will not be lost on Western Australians. Another point of significance about the Opposition's reaction to the issues raised by my visit is the degree of misunderstanding, indeed, ignorance, about the conduct of policy towards the Asia-Pacific region. The Opposition makes typically vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government has dissipated its resources and energies in the region. I think my friends opposite should be introduced to a few facts on this point. Apart from my Department's specialist resources at home, almost half of all its policy staff overseas are working in this region. There are, in addition, officers working in the region from departments and organisations such as the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau; Australian Federal Police; Customs; Industry; Local Government and Ethnic Affairs; Defence and armed services; Department of Primary Industries and Energy; Special Minister of State; Austrade; Treasury; and Education. Since this Government came to office, there have been 192 ministerial visits to countries in the region and 144 visits to Australia by Ministers of Asian and Pacific governments. In the first half of this year alone, continuous, active contact with the region has taken place or is planned. I instance visits to China by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), and the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) on the occasion of the Joint Ministerial Economic Commission. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has also visited Hong Kong and Thailand. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) visited Hong Kong and Korea. Other activities include: trade discussions with China, Japan and Korea; further development of bilateral strategies for Japan and Korea; development of concessional financial arrangements with China to promote Australian commercial participation in Chinese economic development; and development of beef strategies for Japan and Korea. I plan to visit Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines next month and Japan again and China later in the year. Later in the year, apart from visits to South East Asia by other Ministers, I plan to continue the Australian presence at the annual meeting of Foreign Ministers of Association of South East Asian Nations dialogue partners with their ASEAN colleagues-an activity to which the Government attaches the highest priority. Australia has consistently supported the efforts of those Governments which are trying to find a practical and lasting solution to the Kampuchean problem, which is a major source of tension in the region. The Opposition continues to express fear about the relationship with Indonesia, especially since the reaction by the Indonesian Government to Australian media criticism in 1986. Despite this reaction, there has been continuous and productive engagement between the two countries since then at all levels. There have been six visits to Indonesia by Australian Ministers, including two by me. Defence contacts have continued; so have negotiations over the Timor Gap, which after my last visit are making very encouraging progress. Australian investment in Indonesia has increased. Indonesia will be represented at World Expo 88. Access to Indonesia has now been granted to Australian Associated Press and there is a reasonable prospect of access being given also to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I plan to make a comprehensive visit to the South Pacific again this year. This will repeat my visit to the area in 1986, when I visited all eight independent island states plus New Caledonia-the first ever such action by any Australian Foreign Minister. I have made subsequent visits to this area. Australia will continue to take part in the South Pacific Forum meeting at the highest level. We continue to play a full role within the Forum in developing regional institutions on security and other strategic interests in South Pacific countries. We continue to cooperate with other Forum members on rationalising and strengthening regional organisations. We have enhanced the trading prospects of South pacific island nations by our comprehensive liberalisation of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement and we are exploring areas of possible broader trade and economic cooperation. We have significantly increased our aid to South Pacific island nations. Papua New Guinea continues to be a principal focus for the Government. The Prime Minister and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Wingti signed a Joint Declaration of Principles late last year which will guide the conduct of the bilateral relationship into the future. Trade will be an increasingly important element in relations and the Government is actively engaged in a review of our trade agreement with Papua New Guinea. Despite problems induced by New Zealand's policy on United States ship visits, ANZUS, which is such a significant factor in regional security, continues to be fully in force between Australia and the United States and, separately, Australia and New Zealand. We played an active role in creating the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The honourable member for North Sydney has described this development as `a nonsense'. It shows how little he understands the region and how greatly he patronises it. The treaty is the result not just of the policy of the Australian Government but also the strongly, and widely, held views and desires of members of the South Pacific Forum. Finally, the Australian Government has actively promoted constructive relationships between Western governments and the island states. We strongly encouraged the United States, for instance, to enter a treaty with the island governments to redress the problems of United States tuna fishing in the area. We have encouraged Japan to develop its relations-especially its economic cooperation-with the island states. We have encouraged France to develop its relations in the area in a manner consistent with the interests of the people of the South Pacific as expressed through the Forum. The Leader of the Opposition, in his Hobart speech, said: Mr Hawke announced in Singapore that he would welcome `constructive' Soviet political involvement in the Asia/Pacific region. The Prime Minister did say in Singapore that he would welcome a constructive involvement by the Soviets in the region, but he went on to say that they would be judged in this not by their words but by their actions in, for example, Indo-China and Afghanistan. There is a world of difference in meaning and emphasis between the two. There ought to be some kind of limit to the degree of liberty to distort allowed to the Leader of the Opposition who, after all, purports to be the alternative Prime Minister. Mr Ian Cameron —The Prime Minister put his foot in it. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Maranoa interrupts. How is that copper's black eye in Brisbane? Has it healed up yet? We have embarked on policies to increase the competitiveness and productivity of Australian industry. We have set in train programs of structural reform in industry and greater flexibility in the economy. These activities are designed to reverse Australia's traditional low export orientation so as to take advantage of the economic development taking place in this region. The Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member saw the necessity for this but never had the courage to attempt it. The point is important because one of the results of this activity has been continued export growth in a difficult trading environment. Between 1983-84 and 1986-87, the rate of growth in exports-that is, export receipts adjusted for inflation-to China, for instance, was nearly 30 per cent, more than triple the rate of growth over the period 1975-76 to 1982-83. To Japan, the growth rate from 1983-84 to 1986-87 was nearly 5 per cent per annum, a significant improvement on the negative real growth rate of the 1975-76 to 1982-83 period, and to Hong Kong exports grew by nearly 14 per cent over the period 1983-84 to 1986-87, well up on the 6 per cent per annum growth rate over the 1975-76 to 1982-1983 period. Exports to other countries have also grown strongly in real terms in recent years: to South Korea by nearly 9 per cent per annum and to the South Pacific, excluding New Zealand, by 3 per cent per annum. Average annual exports to members of the Association of South East Asian Nations have grown by nearly 6 per cent, despite the problems experienced by those economies during this period. The Opposition charges that all this activity constitutes neglect. The kindest explanation for this is that its advisers have not kept it abreast of developments which are having such an influence on our developments as a force for economic and strategic progress and stability in our region. While all this progress has been taking place, we have heard nothing but negativism from the Opposition. It is constantly trying to denigrate the country and its economic performance-in the process, trying to instil uncertainty in quarters overseas which are involved in our more open economy. I am reminded of the Leader of the Opposition's speech in the United States in July 1986 where he spent fully 20 minutes criticising his own country before an audience of foreigners. It may be permissible, but I hardly think it advisable, constantly to denigrate one's own country at home. But to do so while overseas is a shameful and unpatriotic act. The Leader of the Opposition should still be embarrassed about what he did then. Another regrettable Opposition misconception is that this Government has damaged the relationship with the United States with `gratuitous criticism'. The fact is that certain aspects of United States economic and trade policy directly affect and even jeopardise our industry, especially agriculture. This was recognised by the all-party delegations sent to the United States by this Parliament in 1986 and 1987. It is certainly in line with comments by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. If the Government had not pointed this out to our American friends in a forceful but constructive way, it would have failed in its duty. If the Government had not made the point-and lobbied energetically for it with both the Congress and the Administration-some elements of the United States trade Bills with particular impact on Australia would not have been dropped or modified. For example, I refer, to the failure of proposals which would have affected our exports of sugar. In the meantime, we continue to be concerned with the protectionist tone of the proposed United States trade legislation which could increase the power of the United States aggressively to pursue bilateral solutions to trade problems. I repeat: failure to continue vigorously placing our concerns before the United States Congress and Administration would be to neglect our primary obligation to protect Australian interests. The Opposition it seems, prefers passive surrender in a situation for which it obviously has no stomach. Well, let Opposition members go and explain this to the farmers and others whose interests were and are under attack. We make no apology for fighting for Australia's interests. Failure to do so would be to neglect inexcusably a primary obligation to protect Australian interests. The United States accepts this, even if the Opposition in this Parliament does not. Admiral Hayes, United States Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific, understands it. Only three weeks ago, he gave an enthusiastic account of the state of the United States-Australian relationship to the National Defence University. He said: Security co-operation between the United States and Australia has never been better. It is heartening to see the extent of mutual benefits that accrue from the alliance relationship. Mr Shultz himself has pointed out that the relationship is `as strong and vigorous as ever, if not more so'. The Government is working energetically to support efforts to improve the framework of world trade through the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be interested to know that the Round has a very broad agenda, which Australia supports: market access across all sectors, for example removal of non-tariff barriers and subsidies; trade in natural resource products; dispute settlement; rules for new areas such as trade in services and intellectual property rights. The Government is also intent on ensuring that the Uruguay Round comprehensively addresses Australia's concerns for reform of agricultural trade. This form of trade has never effectively come under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules. It represents one of the most distorted sectors of world trade. Australia's active role in the Cairns group is intended to ensure that our interests will be effectively represented in trade negotiations. The final difference on foreign policy between the Government and the Opposition which I wish to discuss today is probably the most important. It concerns the timid, derivative and dependent outlook permeating the Opposition's policy, as displayed in its Leader's Hobart speech. This is an attitude which the electorate quite properly rejected in 1983, 1984 and again in 1987. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would oppose, rather than encourage, moves by the superpowers to develop greater accord on crucial strategic issues, especially disarmament and arms control. The Australian Government has done all it can to facilitate this process in multilateral forums such as the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament. We have actively encouraged the process which has produced the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, the first treaty actually to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. We welcome the treaty also because it sets important precedents for other arms control measures. It applies asymmetrical force reductions, for example, and its verification arrangements are uniquely intrusive and co-operative. Eliminating medium range missiles in Asia as well as Europe, it has particular relevance to us in that it reduces the threat to Asian targets which are significant to us-for example, in China, Japan and the Philippines. Moreover, it represents a significant improvement in superpower relations which only ideologues and the most reactionary Cold War warriors would deplore. Mr Shultz has welcomed the constructive dialogue now taking place between the superpowers. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation communique earlier this month hailed what it called `welcome signs of change' in Soviet policies which created `the prospect for greater openness in (Soviet) relations with their own people and with other nations'. A summit meeting will be held in Moscow between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, probably in May, at which arms control and disarmament issues will be prominent. Mr Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze are meeting on a monthly basis in the meantime. In the face of all this exciting progress, these encouraging and constructive developments, what is the Opposition's position? The Opposition's reaction to these positive developments has been moans and cries of alarm and suspicion. The Australian Government does not hold these current signs of change with fear and loathing, as the Opposition does. It welcomes the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty as an example of these changes. It will cooperate actively with those nations which are trying to utilise the treaty in the cause of further arms control. Australia will, for example, continue to work actively for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, an agreement to eliminate chemical weapons, and an agreement to prevent an arms race in space and to control and reduce the use of conventional weapons. There is an important point here. The superpower relationship is not the only area of change in international affairs. The whole field of international affairs is becoming rapidly more complex; its limits and its definitions are becoming ever more elusive. Global power has become more diffuse; the loci of power have multiplied. Issues have created themselves: human rights, for example, and its impact on the doctrine of national sovereignty and the domestic affairs of multicultural countries such as Australia. There is not a conflict between states or an infringement of human rights anywhere in the world that does not resonate in some ethnic community in Australia. There are many other complexities with which we must learn to cope. We have at the same time the characteristics of a developing and a developed economy, dealing with a fusion of economic and political pressures. We are a pluralist democracy in a region in which plurality and democracy can be alien and even dangerous concepts. Such a time and such an environment call for creative response. The Government and people of Australia are fortunate that they are served by professional officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who understand and demonstrate the necessary flexibility and adaptability to allow such policy responses to be developed. I would like to place on record here the Government's appreciation of this. The Opposition reacts to the complexity and change facing us by diving into a funkhole hoping that great friends come to the rescue. Its Leader's Hobart speech is redolent of this abject and lickspittle mindset, unchanged from the 1960s. All his attempts in Hobart to bluster and fulminate cannot hide it. The Opposition clearly has no pride in this country, its capacities and the respect it has earned overseas for its actions. This is why its Leader travels around, putting his country down here and overseas. Australians as a whole, on the other hand, are showing that they are prepared to accept the change confronting them as an opportunity for progress and development. In this, they will receive the fullest possible encouragement and assistance from the Australian Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the following paper: Visit to Africa and the Middle East-Ministerial Statement, 17 March 1988. and move: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Hayden)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for North Sydney speaking for a period not exceeding 39 minutes. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.46) —We have just heard a trivial, disordered and confused speech from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), laced with deliberate misrepresentations, bald inaccuracies and cheap gibes. It was a vintage effort by this Thomas Cook of Foreign Ministers, back here after his thirty-eighth overseas visit to speak to us briefly before he goes off on his next one. The bile, bitterness and mediocrity bubbled to the surface. About that I can do nothing but advise him to take a good rest. Let me go to two or three of the grossest misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Time does not permit me to go through them all but I shall take two or three. First of all I want to say something about the Sharpeville six. Yesterday I received a communication regarding the Sharpeville six. It concerned me greatly because it appeared that people who had nothing to do with the death of a man were going to be hanged. The person killed was a town councillor. He was killed in a particularly brutal manner. I will take some of the facts from the judgment of the South African court. In doing so, let me first say this: because I was concerned to get the facts of the matter, I spoke to the Minister's Department. I also spoke to the South African Embassy. I wanted to see the judgment of the appeal court. The Minister's Department has not been able to provide me with the judgment but the South African Embassy has provided me with considerable extracts from that judgment. As to the circumstances of the death of the person whose murder led to the trial of the Sharpeville six-there were originally eight-I quote this from the judgment: As he was lying on the ground stones thrown by the mob rained down on him. Some members of the mob went up to him and struck his head with stones. When he was lying quite motionless, he was dragged into the street. Attempts were made to place him on his burning motor car, but each time he slid off it. Petrol was poured over him and he was set alight. A human being was set alight. I now go to excerpts from the appeal court decision dealing with some of the accused. Eight were tried, six were convicted of murder. Two were originally convicted of public violence, but on appeal their conviction was overturned. Let me just take from that judgment three extracts, and as I do so let us keep in mind very clearly what the Minister said about the Sharpeville six. That was, I remind honourable members: Six people not directly involved in a violent incident are about to be hanged as a gesture towards the South African Government's attempts to prop up its apartheid system. Had that been so, it would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. Let me quote: Accused No. 1. He was one of the persons who grabbed hold of the deceased near the fence between the house of the deceased and Maile, and who wrestled with the deceased for the possession of his pistol. He was also the person who threw the first stone at the deceased as he was crossing the fence, which struck him on the head and felled him. I remind honourable members that the deceased was burnt to death. Does that seem to be, as the Minister would have us believe, a violent incident in which these people were not directly involved? Next I go to what is said by the court about accused No. 3: He was one of the small group of men who caught hold of the deceased as he was running in the direction of Maile's house, and who wrestled with him for possession of his pistol. He was the man who in fact succeeded in taking the deceased's pistol away from him. I remind honourable members again what the Foreign Minister, with all the support of his Department, has said to us: Six people not directly involved in a violent incident- I repeat: not directly involved in a violent incident- are about to be hanged as a gesture towards the South African Government's attempts to prop up its apartheid system. I ask the Minister: Does he really believe and assert that a person-to take accused No. 1-who wrestled with the deceased for possession of his pistol and who threw the stone which felled the deceased is not directly involved? Does he assert that accused No. 3, who wrestled with the deceased for possession of his pistol and who succeeded in taking the deceased's pistol away from him, was not directly involved in a violent incident? We are talking about murder. We are talking about a man being stoned and burnt to death. I cannot understand how the Foreign Minister of this country, with the great resources of the Department available to him, can make the statement in the House that he has made. I am reading from a document provided to me by the South African Embassy. I say again that I sought the judgment from the Department. Since I am a lawyer of many years experience and I understand judgments, I understand that sometimes little bits of judgments are quoted out of context, which can lead to a misunderstanding of events. Either what I am reading is totally wrong or the Minister, with those resources of the Department behind him, has directly misled this House. That misleading of the House was also made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because he said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! A member cannot assert that another member has deliberately misled the House, except by substantive motion, so the honourable member for North Sydney needs to withdraw the allegation. Mr SPENDER —Shall I say that he has misled the House and misrepresented the facts. Does that satisfy you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I need the honourable member to withdraw the allegation that the Minister misled the House. Mr SPENDER —If you require me to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, to accord with Standing Orders, I will certainly do so. Let me make it perfectly plain that this amounts-and I am not saying that the Minister lied to the House-to a direct misrepresentation, unless the facts that have been given to me are wrong. Let me move on to the next misrepresentation which has been made by the Minister. I quote something the Minister said on the subject of the Indian Ocean, when he moved on to address, in his haphazard manner, some of the great issues of the day: I regret also that the Opposition's position on southern Africa shows a dangerous myopia about Indian Ocean affairs. This is a region which is so important to our strategic interests and our trade and communications links that we consult annually with the United States on developments there. That sounds very strong. He goes on: These developments have great significance for us. This is why we have increased our diplomatic and defence presence there since 1983. I confess that that puzzled me because he was talking about the Indian Ocean region. Let me remind honourable members that in November 1987 this Government closed two embassies-the Ethiopian Embassy, which is not a littoral state to the Indian Ocean but which is to the Red Sea, and the Tanzanian Embassy, which is a littoral state to the Indian Ocean. Does that amount to increasing diplomatic and defence presence? I point out that we have withdrawn defence attaches from Pakistan and India under this Government. Does that amount to increasing diplomatic and defence presence in the Indian Ocean area? These are the two largest states in the Indian Ocean area in terms of population-India, of course, being far and away the greatest in importance, one might think, to our interests. Moreover, we are no longer funding Indian and Pakistani military participants at the Joint Services Staff College. Does that sound like an increase in diplomatic and defence presence? Of course, it does not. How can the Minister say these things? Next, he made a misrepresentation concerning myself. I will put to one side the cheap jibes with which the Minister seems to preoccupy himself and pick up what he said about me. He talked about problems in the southern African area regarding humanitarian issues, and said: If the honourable member for North Sydney, having heard this, still disagrees with the idea of giving humanitarian aid to the starving and the famished of southern Africa, let him go and explain himself to the high protein biscuit producers . . . Note the central part of that statement: If the honourable member for North Sydney . . . still disagrees with the idea of giving humanitarian aid to the starving and famished of southern Africa . . . I have made a number of statements about this foolish Minister and the unwise way in which this Government has dealt with aid issues. I shall come back to that question in a few minutes. I have not said that we should terminate or not give any humanitarian aid to the famished and starving in southern Africa as the Minister's statement most clearly states. Once again that is a direct misrepresentation. In this case it is a direct misrepresentation of what I have said. I have said two things. First, priorities need to be reconsidered. I have issued a number of statements on this subject. In a statement that I made on 22 February 1988 I said: Would it not have been a much more sensible use of Australia's humanitarian aid to Africa to concentrate it in one area of great need and supervision by Australian aid personnel to make sure that aid gets to the people who need it and that it is not politically or corruptly misused. I would have thought that there was a great deal of sense in that kind of approach to aid problems. Let me now turn to some other and broader issues and leave to one side the Minister's misrepresentations because, as I have said, time will not permit me to correct them all. The Minister has now held his position for five years. He has been, I would think, the most travelled of all Foreign Ministers and he has spoken copiously on subjects of foreign affairs. I suppose that it is worth while trying to make an assessment of what he has done and what he represents. Is he serious and constructive? Is he a person who pursues long-term objectives and policies and does so steadfastly? Or does he have an obsession with illusions, symbols, words, initiatives begun and abandoned and policies adopted and compromised? Certainly, he cannot get facts right. Let us judge him by some of the issues which he has raised. Some of them are touched on centrally in what he has said today. I refer to the issues of peace, aid, southern Africa and human rights. Let us take, first of all, the issue of peace and two particular concerns of the Minister-first, the Ambassador for Disarmament and, secondly, the Indian Ocean zone of peace, to which he referred today. The position of the Ambassador for Disarmament was an initiative of this Minister. On 20 October 1983 he said: To make Australia's voice heard in the councils of the world in a way unparalleled in the past- which was a Government aim- an important part of that decision was the appointment of the first Australian Ambassador for Disarmament. What was the Ambassador for Disarmament to do? What more could he do than could be done by our diplomatic representation overseas in the United Nations? What special qualities would he have? Of course, that question has never been answered. What has happened? The position of the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, whose time in that office cost us $3m-and were it well spent, I would not be the least concerned about it-has been scrapped. I do not believe that any statement has been made by the Minister as to the reasons why his position has been scrapped, but it has been. The job that he was doing has gone back to being done by the United Nations representation. Is that not sensible? Is that not where it should have been all the time? What did we have? We had, with the Ambassador for Disarmament and, as well, we have with the Peace Research Institute which has been set up, merely empty posturing, the kind of warm and meaningless banality that so appeals to some members of the Australian Labor Party. The bauble has been taken from him by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Let us next go to the Indian Ocean zone of peace proposal. This is another proposal dear to the Minister's heart. He referred to it again today. In the Evatt Memorial Lecture, which he gave on 7 July 1983, he said this of the Indian Ocean: Our position is different from that of the previous Government: we will not oppose the development of a consensus in support of a conference on an Indian Ocean zone of peace. This we believe to be a thoroughly desirable ideal. We all support peace but let us support peace in a way which has meaning. What is this Indian Ocean zone of peace proposal? The United States is not in favour of the zone of peace proposals, which would keep naval forces out of international waters. The Indian Ocean zone of peace is not supported by the Reagan Administration. The Indian Ocean zone of peace would cut across current United States strategy. I believe that it is very necessary for Australia, in its own self-interest, to support United States strategy in the region as United States strategy recognises naval deployment as an essential element in the defence of United States and, therefore, Western security interests. An Indian Ocean zone of peace would eliminate all bases, military installations and logistical supply facilities, according to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 2832 of 16 December 1971. This would directly affect the United States Indian Ocean naval presence which, at present, amounts to one battle group and would also affect the very important United States facility at Diego Garcia. In short, we have a proposal which is, in a very real sense, meaningless. To say that one has a zone of peace means nothing. One is not going to prevent Soviet ships from traversing one's zone of peace. It has about as much realism going for it as some of the council signs one sees in Sydney and other places saying, `This is a nuclear free council' or `You are in a nuclear free zone'. Yet if one reads some of the other things this Minister has said one finds that he has made it perfectly plain that he believes, as I think most of us do, that in the dreadful eventuality of a nuclear war we would all suffer. One does not make zones of peace by agreeing upon words. I must ask this question: Where, incidentally, would that leave the interests of India? India has taken delivery of a Soviet nuclear-powered submarine. Reportedly, she is to take delivery of two or three more. I turn to the subject of aid, as it is another matter which the Minister has given great prominence to, although he gave much greater prominence to it in opposition than he does now. There is, as is known, a United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of national income of the wealthy industrialised countries which should be applied for the purposes of aid to the poorer countries. Australia has never met this target, but in the last year of the Fraser Government foreign aid amounted to 0.47 per cent of gross national product (GNP). Labor came to power with a commitment by this Minister to apply 0.7 per cent of GNP for foreign aid with a further commitment to apply foreign aid equal to one per cent of GNP by at least 1990. That latter figure looks merely fanciful. In fact, foreign aid under this Government has sunk to 0.36 per cent of GNP, the lowest level of support provided by any Australian government in the last 25 years. That has been one of the outstanding contributions that this Minister and this Government have made in the foreign aid area. Nevertheless, the Minister speaks of our foreign aid obligations. Let us look to some of the things that we should be doing. The Minister accepted the recommendations of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. In the Jackson Committee Review and in the Minister's own speeches, humanitarian, strategic and economic purposes are laid down as the criteria for foreign aid. One of the other criteria for the giving of foreign aid should be consistency and predictability, as well as getting one's priorities right. What is one of the most important countries in terms of foreign aid and closeness to Australia? It is Papua New Guinea. What did this Government do? It cut foreign aid in a way which damaged our standing with that country, without warning to that country and which could only leave other island countries in our region pondering about our commitment to giving foreign aid. I refer to the Age of 18 September 1986, which states: The Papua New Guinea Government has reacted fiercely to the new Australian aid cuts and accused the Hawke Government of discourtesy and paternalism. This was said, incidentally, about a government which is constantly accusing us of both those things. It goes on: The Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Julius Chan, said the proposed cuts of up to $45 million a year would seriously weaken the relationship with Australia and open the way for Soviet manipulation of PNG. Sir Julius said PNG had never enjoyed good relations with Labor governments and the aid decision confirmed a deterioration since `the best years' during the Fraser Government. The Prime Minister, Mr Wingti, accused Australia of a lack of courtesy in announcing the aid cuts and said they could `defeat' his Government's strategy to make PNG more self-reliant. These were aid cuts of $10m in each of the next two financial years. That is the way in which we dealt with aid-no warning, no priorities, no consideration and no understanding that we had made a huge long term investment in aid to Papua New Guinea. There was no understanding of the strength of the relationship and how it was influenced by the view Papua New Guinea had that we were reliable people to do business with. What happened? We have aid cuts brought about in a way calculated to damage our interests with Papua New Guinea and in the South Pacific region. On his recent trip, however, the Foreign Minister went to southern Africa. He went with an original grant of $55m which was topped up by another $45m-incidentally, equal, I believe, to the previous cuts in aid to Papua New Guinea-which was to go to the Southern African Development Coordination Conference which was made up of nine nations. The question that must be raised is whether the aid that the Foreign Minister took with him satisfied the criteria that this Government had laid down, which I think are sensible criteria. Those criteria have been followed by other governments, namely, humanitarian, strategic or economic interests. Certainly, we are not talking about the advancement of Australia's economic interests. Certainly, the states of southern Africa bordering on or adjacent to the states bordering on South Africa are not central or even marginally close to our strategic interests. Nor was the aid given for humanitarian purposes. I say that because the problems of the area were long known before the Minister went there. He went there to take an aid package with him. If this Government had been deeply concerned about the needs of the area, this $45m would have been applied well before the Minister went. But he went taking it with him and giving it for what purpose? It was for the furtherance of a political objective which was to justify the high profile that we had taken over the apartheid issue and the high profile that we had taken more particularly over the issue of sanctions to try to give some sort of a buttress to our claim to be a leader in this area. It was not given as humanitarian aid because one of the countries it was to go to was Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a country with a highly efficient farming industry. The Minister will know that; he has been there. I know that; I have been there. So let us understand that this cynical little exercise was an exercise in attempted political manipulation-no more and no less than that-in an area which has incidentally seen such things as the closure of the Ethiopian Embassy, an embassy that we should arguably have kept open because of the aid commitments that we have to that country and the very great problems that country has. I think it is the home of the Organisation of African States. I want to say something about South Africa and southern Africa. The Minister in his speech has repeated the canard that Labor constantly puts around, the old misrepresentation that Opposition members really do not care about apartheid, that they will not do anything. Apartheid is a system which we find repugnant because it is based on race. It is wrong because it is based on race. What, therefore, should be the policy of the Australian Government? It should be a policy to secure peaceful transition from what we now have to a peaceful, power sharing situation in which all South Africans can participate in the democratic process. God knows that is hard. There is little on the South African scene that gives one very much heart. This was the view that I expressed to my colleagues on 5 August 1985. I will read it to make two points: first of all, to point to what the Opposition policy is and, secondly, to point to the illusion that is perpetrated by those who take the soft option which is to impose sanctions. I stated: Opposition policy on South Africa seeks fundamental changes in South Africa's internal policies. These changes can occur peacefully, or at least with a minimum of bloodshed, or as a result of a prolonged and bloody process of internal conflict. Change through violence (aside altogether from the carnage and destruction it would involve) poses incalculable risks, and is likely to lead to a very much worse regime, and one with a pronounced anti-Western bias. A takeover from the extreme Left would be a distinct possibility. South Africa is a very rich prize. I went on to say this about the sanctions argument: Of cardinal importance is the consideration that sanctions can have precisely the opposite effect on the target government and its supporters to that which it is hoped they will achieve. The current moves by different countries to impose sanctions could well lead white South Africans to think their very existence is threatened. The more conservative elements will be reinforced in their opposition to change and the position of those urging reforms will be undermined. Sanctions are all too likely to become an external enemy against which the South African Government, and the whites, feeling increasingly isolated will unite. Their concern for the future can only be sharpened by events in Zimbabwe and Uganda, and by Mr Hayden's statement that the government's objective is a `multi-racial society based on a single vote franchise'. There is no prospect that a majority of white South Africans will agree to a simple one man one vote franchise without safeguards. It would amount to agreeing to their own disappearance. Furthermore, if only minor or petty sanctions are imposed, they are very likely to produce the reverse political effect on the South African Government and its supporters to that which is desired without exerting any real pressure. On the other hand, if sanctions with teeth are imposed, and the South African economy damaged, the direct consequence (as well as having the reverse political effect) will be to harm those we are trying to help, the black South Africans, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale. A damaged economy will produce unemployment; unemployment will tend to raise the level of social unrest, and hence the level of violence. A stagnant economy, with high levels of unemployment and social unrest, is not a good prospect for peaceful change. To sum up, the probable effect of sanctions will be to stiffen resistance to change-precisely the opposite to what is intended. Is that not exactly what has happened in South Africa? Change has come to an end. It came to an end in about 1985. Reforms have been made which, in our context, are small; in the South African context they are large. Just as changes which are taking place in the Soviet Union are, in Soviet eyes large, in our eyes they are small when we gauge the Soviet system against our system. We have had Mr Botha winning an election on the basis of Western sanctions. I will quote very briefly from an article in the American Spectator by a former associate editor of the Johannesburg Sunday Times who stated: But just how effective has the whole sanctions package been-disinvestment included? How have the promises survived more than a year of practice? The first answer is not long in coming. President Botha cashed in quickly, using this unexpected American bonus to call and win an election in early May, calculating correctly that external threat would induce the white electorate to rally round the flag. I quote again: . . . that external threat would induce the white electorate to rally round the flag. That is what has happened. Political and social reform has halted. Disinvestment by overseas companies, especially American companies, has seen the end to many social responsibility programs and integrationist work practices. Black unemployment, and with it black suffering, has increased. The perception of isolation from the world has strengthened the views and positions of the extremists with sanctions seen as the external enemy. Support for the extremist conservative party has grown and, with it, the reform minded progressive Federal Party has suffered a wounding loss of support and has been unseated as the official opposition. Sanctions are opposed by many moderate reformists in South Africa-by Chief Buthelezi, Helen Suzman and Alan Paton. Let me come to the question of damage to the blacks. It is very easy standing here or sitting here to say, `Well, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that we should apply sanctions and forget about the consequences'. One reason why we reject sanctions is the damage sanctions do to the people at the lowest end of the pile-the poor black workers. This is precisely the reason why the front line states have refused to apply sanctions. I was clearly reminded when I went to Zimbabwe in 1986 that it will not apply sanctions because it understands that if sanctions are applied and the border closed its economy will suffer very greatly. Suffering in its economy will cause unemployment. Unemployment will cause further suffering. Zimbabwe does not want that and that is exactly the reason why it says, `Impose sanctions upon South Africa. Let the suffering take place there, but we will not be involved in the imposition of sanctions because we do not want our own people to suffer and, indeed, that would be politically dangerous'. It is a very cynical exercise. I think we have to understand that there are some very bad governments in Africa and some gross violations of rights there. Let us remember that in terms of every day living there have been far worse countries for blacks to live in than South Africa. Take Uganda, for example. What is our aim? Our aim is to achieve peaceful transition. I believe that a far more thoughtful approach to this problem is needed. The situation is tragic. It involves all South Africans: the Cape coloureds, the whites, the blacks and the Asians. Unless a peaceful solution can be found, the consequences for the people of South Africa could be perfectly dreadful in a very brutal way. The isolation of South Africa and the imposition of sanctions will not induce peaceful transition. Indeed, as I have said, they have stalled the process of reform, tentative although at times that has certainly been. Let me say, lastly, something about the subject of human rights. The Foreign Minister has extolled human rights policy. On 9 December 1983 he said: As an effective policy this will require us to exercise skill in choosing our moment knowing whom to contact and which levers to pull. What about Mr Grey's position? He has been in Mozambique for four months-he is only charged in the last two or three days. When the Minister went to Mozambique he knew about Mr Grey's situation-he would have been briefed on the matter-and he got, he tells us, assurances. This is a pitiful exercise in diplomacy. These assurances were given to him by the Government and were not kept. The Minister was asked a question from his own side as to the reasons why the assurances were not kept. The answer was, he said: When I was there I took the opportunity of making inquiries in Mr Grey's interests and in particular to see what processes were in place to have his trial brought forward. It was my understanding that there was an undertaking to bring the trial forward within a relatively short time. It has been asserted by the Mozambiquans that they only undertook to bring the papers in relation to Mr Grey's case before the court. That could easily have been so in that translation may have been a problem. The translators are not translating, the assurances are not understood, undertakings are broken. The position we took upon this was a very direct one-that no aid should be given unless and until Mr Grey got a fair trial, one that was demonstrably fair, or was released. If the Australian Government does not come to the assistance of an Australian citizen in that kind of situation, who will protect his interests? It is wrong to use, it is said, aid to protect the rights of an Australian. That was put in the course of an interview I conducted on radio with a foreign service representative speaking for the Minister. He said, `You cannot link the two'. Let us remember this: it is wrong, according to this view of things, to use aid to protect the rights of an Australian. You cannot have linkage. Yet it is right to use aid for the political objective of seeking to justify and maintain a high profile on the South African issues, a profile, incidentally, which the Government of Mozambique and similar governments obviously treated with contempt, knowing as they do that an attempt is being made to buy a position through aid. Let us look at where the Minister stands: on aid, promises are not kept; Papua New Guinea is affronted and used as a political weapon to further political interests; but aid is not used as a defence of the rights of an Australian to a fair trial. The man will be tried by the revolutionary military tribunal, on last notice. On peace, the Ambassador for Disarmament has been dropped. The Indian Ocean zone of peace is still being talked about. Effectively it is stalled and would be against the interests of our closest ally and against our own security interests. On the subject of South Africa, sanctions have played into the hands of extremists and attitudes have hardened. That is a summary in those areas of the stewardship of this erratic Foreign Minister. Debate (on motion by Mr Charles) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in his statement to the Parliament. He criticised a number of things I said in a speech I made in Hobart a few weeks ago. I put them to one side as being proper exchanges in the nature of political debate. However, there is one paragraph in his speech that is completely wrong and I therefore take the greatest possible exception to it. He said: I am reminded of the Leader of the Opposition's speech in the US in July 1986- I continue to be flattered that he takes such a close interest in these speeches- where he spent fully 20 minutes criticising his own country before an audience of foreigners. He went on to say that it was a shameful and unpatriotic act. I have looked at that speech. I started that speech with the following sentence: There is a strong element of bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy. Both the Government and the Opposition recognise the importance of Australia's relationship with ASEAN and New Guinea . . . I went on to indicate areas of agreement. The point I simply make is that at no stage did I attack my country. I strongly attacked some of the policies of my country's Government, particularly that policy relating to the MX missile and the strategic defence initiative. I will always assert the right anywhere in the world to criticise the policies of my country's Government. The idea that compliance with Hayden-Hawke policies is synonymous with patriotism is a doctrine that I totally reject. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 24 March 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 22 March 1988. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 24 March 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee and delegation reports There is no business relating to committee or delegation reports for Thursday morning, 24 March 1988. Private Members' business will be called on immediately following the announcement of petitions. Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted 1 MR SHIPTON: To present a Bill for an Act to confer honorary Australian citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg. (Notice given 16 March 1988. 5 mins (pursuant to sessional order 104A). *2 MR LANGMORE: To move-That, in view of the severe constraints on global economic growth and on the development of lower income countries caused by severe trade imbalances, high real interest rates, massive debts of many countries, historically low commodity prices, and industrial and agricultural protection, this House urges the Group of Seven major Western industrial countries (the G7-the United States, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada) to- 45 mins (1) co-ordinate their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rate and interest rate imbalances and instability; (2) strongly encourage current account surplus countries to adopt expansionary macroeconomic policies so as to increase their imports and stimulate world trade; (3) reduce their wasteful military expenditure and urge Warsaw Pact countries to do the same so as to reduce fiscal imbalances, reduce interest rates and increase resources for economically and socially useful activities; (4) establish facilities through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for phased, partial debt forgiveness and rescheduling; (5) increase overseas aid for developing countries to the greatest extent possible with the ultimate goal of reaching the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Product; (6) support a new issue of Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund allocated to developing countries to allow relaxation of their balance of payments constraints; and (7) convene a global conference on reform of the international monetary system. (Notice given 15 September 1987. *3 MR LLOYD: To move-That this House recognises the need to maintain a strong and expanding trade relationship with the USA and that to this end the Government should- 45 mins (1) invite a delegation of key US Congressmen to visit Australia for talks with key farm and government personnel as a matter of urgency; (2) devote more resources to the promotion of Australia's primary industry produce in the US, as less than half of one per cent of Commonwealth outlays go to the Primary Industry portfolio, even though Australia's primary industries account for some 40% of export earnings; (3) establish a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Primary Industry, with US trade a matter for immediate discussion; (4) seek to arrange further talks between Australian parliamentarians and US Congressmen and farm leaders; and (5) maintain regular and direct contact between US administration leaders and Australian Ministers, including the Prime Minister. (Notice given 15 September 1987. *4 MR BURR: To move-That this House urges- 45 mins (1) the political party that wins the next and subsequent elections to appoint all Ministers of the Government from the Members of the House of Representatives; and (2) the Senate to further expand its committee system and to adopt greater powers of investigation and inquiry. (Notice given 16 September 1987. *5 MR SCHOLES: To move-That this House advises His Excellency the Governor-General that the arrangements for the opening of future Sessions of the Parliament, whether after the dissolution of the House of Representatives or the prorogation of a Session, should be altered to remove all elements which place the House of Representatives in an inferior position to the Senate and, in particular, that- any remaining private Members' business time (1) the declaration of the opening of a Parliament by a Deputy appointed by the Governor-General and the speech of the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of a Parliament be delivered in the Member's Hall or the appropriate equivalent in the new Parliament House; and (2) all parliamentary arrangements for the formal opening be the joint responsibility of both Houses. (Notice given 8 October 1987. * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order with regard to the report which has just been tabled. I do so on a constructive basis. My point of order relates in part to the new procedures obtaining for the first time in the history of this Parliament. I am minded to do so also because private member's Bills are precious commodities. There have been fewer than 90 Bills introduced since 1901 and only nine of those have ever made it into law. Madam Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the Sessional Orders adopted on 9 December 1987 operative from the ides of March. I refer you particularly to page 14, which states: The Bill shall then be read a first time and notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 218 the next sitting Thursday shall be appointed for the member to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The private member's Bill introduced this morning very capably by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Flags Amendment Bill. I fully support that Bill. What needs clarification is that I received an intimation after that Bill was presented to the House that in fact the second reading would come on next Thursday. We have now had the Chairman of the Selection Committee in a most proper manner bring down his report. Whilst we will not know until the Notice Paper is printed in the formal sense, I am led to believe that the very important Flags Amendment Bill will not now come on for second reading debate next Thursday. I submit to the House that that is in part possibly in contravention of that sessional order. That sessional order says: Notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 218 . . . Standing order 218 says: Notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 217 . . . So, in effect, the sessional order knocks out both standing order 218 and standing order 217. I submit that in that circumstance, notwithstanding convention and commonly used phraseology, the second reading of this Bill should not only be listed as an order of the day associated with that part of the Notice Paper but in fact the Leader of the Opposition should have the right to move that the Bill be now read a second time in a private member's role, as it is denoted private members' legislation so that the House could consider the Flags Amendment Bill. I raise this in a constructive way in view of the new Standing Orders and I invite your ruling and determination in respect of this matter. Madam SPEAKER —The new procedures adopted by the House for the ordering and consideration of private members' business provide for certain precedence to private members' Bills. First, priority is given to notices by private members to present Bills. Upon presentation the sponsor may speak for a short period prior to the Bill being read a first time. The first example of the operation of this procedure was this morning, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing his Flags Amendment Bill. The rationale behind this provision as suggested by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure is that it gives all members a chance to peruse a Bill as early as possible and gives the Selection Committee the opportunity to examine the Bill in assessing its claims for later precedence against other Bills and motions. Second, the sessional order provides that once a Bill has passed the second reading, further consideration is accorded precedence over other private members' business. Sessional orders do not provide that, once introduced, a private member's Bill must be considered on the next sitting Thursday. It is up to the Selection Committee to determine, in accordance with the general principles agreed to by the House, on which sitting Thursday the sponsor may move `That this Bill be now read a second time'. The words in sessional order 104A that `the next sitting Thursday shall be appointed for a Member to move ``That this Bill be now read a second time'' ', insofar as they relate to Thursdays, are no different in effect to the commonly used words `resumption of debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting'. That is, any future priority on `the next sitting Thursday' or `the next sitting' is determined by the provisions of the standing and sessional orders. In the case of private members' Bills it is determined by the Selection Committee subject to the provisions outlined above, and I rule accordingly. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —I refer to an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 4 March entitled `Liberals echo Labor on super' and to an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program the World Today on 3 March. The article states: Interviewed on the hustings in Adelaide on the ABC's World Today program, Mr Connolly said: `We have no objection to looking at superannuation in a comprehensive review or anything else . . .'. In fact, on the ABC program I was asked: Well, should not superannuation be looked at in a comprehensive review of the taxation system? My response was: We have no objection to looking at superannuation in a comprehensive review or anything else, but may I emphasise to you that since May 1983 this area has been under constant review. Keating introduced his first changes at that stage, but instead of talking about a coordinated retirement incomes package, what he was aiming for then was to increase taxes on superannuation. That is what he did, and it is perfectly obvious that he wants to do the same thing again. I went on to say: If they go down that road, the real danger is that they are going to cut the guts out of superannuation in Australia. The point is quite clear. The implications in what was contained in the Australian Financial Review article are absolutely incorrect in the context of the total statement which I made on that occasion. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The abuse of position and power causing a decline in the standards of Government under the Hawke administration. 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 BLUNT(Richmond)(4.34) —This afternoon we are going to debate a political scam that went horribly wrong. We are going to debate the involvement of a Minister who was too clever by half and who had this political stunt blow up in his face, and we are going to debate the failure of a Prime Minister who is hamstrung by fear over his own political position and scared to take the action that is required of someone who holds that high office. What we are going to debate is the involvement of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in the release of confidential Health Insurance Commission (HIC) records. So that everybody who is listening to this debate today will understand what we are talking about, I propose to go through it step by step in great detail. I note at the outset that since this issue first came up the Minister has not issued one word in his defence. He has not come into this chamber and been prepared to debate this issue with anyone on this side of the House. What happened was that the Australian Labor Party, for its own political gains and motives, decided that it would score points off the doctors in Australia. Its members thought, `How can we do it? We will establish a political vehicle'. They called it the national price watch network, and they found the pawn who would be part of this stunt, and he was the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). He got together with the Minister for Community Services and Health and said, `What I really need, Minister, is some information that will let me score points off the doctors, something that will let us argue our point of view in this medical debate'. So the Minister said, `Right, we will get it for you'. So the Minister or his office got on the phone, or wrote a letter or somehow conveyed their desire to the Health Insurance Commission to have certain information. That information came to the Minister's office and from there it was conveyed to the honourable member for Canning. The Minister knew from the outset what was going on. He knew what the information would be used for and he knew exactly the type of information the honourable member was seeking. This is the point of the entire argument. The Minister knew the character of that information. He said in statements in various places that it was statistics, but later I will explain exactly why he is wrong. The important point is that the Minister was in complete agreement with the honourable member for Canning and was prepared to cooperate in the obtaining of this information. This information, of course, was specific case information relating to the affairs of people. We have subsequently learnt that in addition-and that is what the Minister authorised to be provided, and it is very important that it be noted that he did authorise its provision-there was identifying information provided also. There were doctors' provider numbers attached to that specific case information. The Minister has said, `I did not know'. That is not accurate; he did know. He authorised the obtaining of the information. He then said, `I did not do it; my staff did it'. That does not matter. As the Minister, he is responsible. He is the officer as defined under the Health Insurance Commission Act and he has to wear the responsibility. He said, `Anyway, even if the other two defences don't stand up, they were statistics and we are allowed to publish that sort of information'. The fact is that they were not statistics, and I will demonstrate that later, and in no way could they be described as statistics. It is interesting that the involvement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this issue so far has been to the extent of obtaining a quick opinion from the Solicitor-General. He has said, `The Solicitor-General has said the Minister has got nothing to worry about, so I am not going to worry about it. We have got one opinion that says that'. There is now another opinion that has been presented to the Prime Minister. He has had it for 48 hours and he has had time to peruse it. He told us today that it has gone to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) but that it is not going to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Where is the logic in his approach? If there is one opinion that says the Minister is free and clear and the Prime Minister is not going to do anything else, and if there is a second opinion, an authoritative opinion, an opinion well regarded in the profession, which says that the Minister has got a case to answer, why is the Prime Minister not prepared to act? I would like to quote the Prime Minister at a different time and in a different context, because his attitude changes depending upon the context. He said: If a man . . . shouts from the roof tops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly those standards applied to itself. The Minister is in high office. He should have the opportunity to be examined publicly; there should be scrutiny. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, I believe, in the past has said that those in high office should have the opportunity to prove their innocence in public. Well, it is about time that this whole issue was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Let me go to the Minister's defence. Section 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act makes it very clear indeed that the Minister has a case to answer. That section states that a person shall not: . . . 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 . . . That provision relates to information about another person. It does not say that it has to specifically identify that other person. It simply says that he shall not make available information that relates to another person. As I said, the information given to the honourable member for Canning was a computer printout of cases-not statistics, but cases, information, relating to specific professional medical treatment of individuals by specific doctors. One could not get a more clear cut case of information relating to another person. Section 130 of the Act is a large section. Subsection (14) of that section makes it clear that the Minister is an officer. Subsection (14) says: In this section, ``officer'' means a person performing the duties, or exercising powers of functions, under, or in relation to this Act. What clearer definition of an officer, as it applies to a Minister, could one have than that? The Minister's defence that he provided statistics just does not hold water because subsection (5) of section 130 says: Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section prohibits the publication of statistics by the Commonwealth, by the Commission or the Commonwealth Statistician but such statistics shall not be published in a manner that enables the identification of any individual patient or an individual practitioner. It is obvious that the material provided was not statistics, and, because the provider numbers were attached, it did provide for the identification of doctors, and perhaps even the patients. I think it is also illustrative to look at the definition of statistics. As I said, computer print-outs were given to the honourable member for Canning. The definition of `statistics' in The Macquarie Dictionary-since there is no definition of statistics in the legislation-talks about the use of numerical facts or data bearing on a subject or matter, their collection and classification. The computer print-out was just a crude statement of information; there was no attempt to classify it. The publication of this material is an interesting question. There was no attempt by the Minister to actually publish it. If it was published, it was published by the honourable member for Canning. The Minister authorised the release of information from the Health Insurance Commission to one person, the honourable member for Canning-not to the public. For the benefit of those listening, let me read the definition of `publish', again from The Macquarie Dictionary. One of the definitions is `to make publicly or generally known'. Did the Minister do that? No. He sought the information from the Health Insurance Commission, authorised its distribution to the honourable member for Canning-one person, hardly generally known-and the honourable member for Canning took it upon himself to publish this material. There is a strong prima facie case, without referring to the opinion of which the Prime Minister now has the benefit, to indicate that the Minister got involved in a political stunt that has gone seriously wrong because he did not bother to honour his obligations as set down in the statutes under which he operates in relation to the HIC. The Minister has said, `We may have been in breach of the Act but it is not my fault; my staff did it, so I am free and clear'. Let me say that there is an absolute liability upon the Minister. There is no option under section 130 (1) for him to say that he did not know. That is not a defence. An honest and reasonable belief that the information was not going to identify a person is not available to him because the intent of the section is very clear: it is to preserve the confidentiality of individual government records, and there is no indication in the words used in that subsection that there should be any defence of ignorance. It is about time the Minister recognised that and shouldered the responsibility himself rather than trying to fob it off onto his staff. In addition to that, the Minister took no actual or specific steps to ensure that the material did not provide specific identification of any individual. He knew the type of material, he knew it was not statistics, he knew it was case by case material, but he did not bother to ensure there were no provider numbers. He referred to some vague office practice. We still have not seen a definition of what that office practice was. No specific inquiries were made by the Minister of his staff about the nature of the material or its format and there was no specific reminder to his staff to ensure there was no identification of doctors or specific patients in that material. That just compounds the transgression that the Minister made when he first authorised the supply of material-that he knew that it referred to actual cases and he knew he was going to supply to a third party, namely, the honourable member for Canning. What really makes it worse is that he knew the political purpose for which that material would be used. It is an abuse of his office to provide political material to a third party for blatant party political purposes and the Minister should pay the price. If he had one ounce of honour, he would resign. Of course, the Minister is aware of the consequences of not guarding the confidentiality of HIC information. This is not the first time we have seen this Minister in trouble over the release of information. In the middle of the doctors' dispute in New South Wales-a very political dispute-confidential information about doctors' incomes, available to the Government only through the HIC, suddenly became the property of the Press and was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Minister knew that sort of thing had happened in the past and he knew the sensitivity of it. We also saw what happened in the Dr Parker case in Newcastle, when it took the Minister six weeks to get the Australian Federal Police involved in the case to find out how the information provided to Dr Parker became generally known. Of course, there is the McGoldrick case in Victoria where a magistrate strongly suggested that confidential Medicare information had been made available privately to the Victorian police. So, the Minister has a record of being quite slack in the protection and safeguarding of the confidentiality of this information. This is compounded by the track record of the HIC itself. It is a suspect organisation. It spent millions of dollars developing the ID card without parliamentary authority. The Auditor-General has said of the HIC that it deliberately understated the cost of developing the ID card. This is the nature of the organisation. This is the quality of the management that the Minister is used to dealing with. When he sought this information for the honourable member for Canning he still did not take any specific action to make sure he fulfilled his obligations under the legislation. There is a prima facie case that the Minister has to answer, and in the light of the ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation it would be desirable and honourable for the Minister voluntarily to stand down. If this is not going to happen, the Prime Minister should act, but the Prime Minister's position is so weakened by recent events that began with a by-election in Adelaide and progressed through a whole series of seedy and unseemly incidents over the past couple of weeks that his political position is so tenuous that he cannot risk the jettisoning of another Minister for any reason, no matter how strong the case. It is an indictment not only of the Minister but also of the Prime Minister and of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to the government of this country. Let me recount exactly what we are talking about today. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is standing in as surrogate defender for the Minister for Community Services and Health-without much enthusiasm, I should say-will try to obscure the whole issue. We have a political stunt, with a Minister who was a willing accomplice, that blew up in his face. He released private and confidential information that identified doctors and possibly patients-the information of another person. He is classically in breach of section 130 of his own legislation. Ignorance is no defence; he cannot blame his staff. There is a conflict of legal opinion. It is not good enough to refer it to the Attorney-General. The matter should be dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is improper for the Minister to remain in office while an Australian Federal Police investigation is going on into this incident, and the Prime Minister should stand the Minister down, if he is not prepared to stand himself down. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.49) —Two things can be said in favour of the Opposition's matter of public importance today. The first is that it constitutes an appropriate apology from the tactics committee of the Opposition for its unsuccessful efforts to fling mud yesterday on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with respect to the pathetic little report on gambling activities. The Opposition's mea culpa is to introduce tedium into the House today. If this is put by way of apology to the Government for the Opposition's extraordinarily unsuccessful tactic of yesterday, and if the Opposition is prepared to prolong or accommodate us in our efforts to have a totally tedious House-and any government of the day always finds tedium in the House useful-then we as a government ought to be grateful for that. The second thing that we ought to be grateful for concerning the Opposition's matter of public importance today is that whilst Opposition members chose to focus on the now thoroughly dead issue with regard to the handling of this question by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) it has, by the breadth of the coverage of its matter of public importance, given us an opportunity to debate generally the question of the standards of government and requirements upon government and, by implication, requirements upon oppositions. Both in the issue that has been raised in this matter and, more generally, by the Opposition's conduct on policy matters overall, we are confronted with a situation where we have an Opposition that has been in opposition for five years and an Opposition Leader who has been the Opposition Leader for three years. In that time we have yet to see, on the major issues of the day, a single policy emanating from the Opposition about anything-not one thing. The Opposition in its five years in opposition and the three-year term of the Opposition Leader has not conformed to the fundamental obligation of an Opposition to oppose, to present alternatives, and to bring forward policies to enable those policies to be debated in the general community. That is the nub of parliamentary democratic practice. In regard to the performance of the Opposition, its members have been and continue to be abject failures. They could not form an alternative government. They can be simply parties of snipers. They hide in the bush, ambush us and sling mud, but at the end of the day they cannot offer an alternative to the people of this nation. This week the Opposition's tactics have been manifest by that type of mud slinging, ambushing tactic normally performed by backbenchers. But because there are no alternative activities available the Leader of the Opposition without policies has, in this case, unprecedentedly performed these tactics himself. The only reason the the Opposition has pursued these tactics this week, so far as we on this side of the House can see, is that it does not want policy issues debated while the campaigning proceeds for the New South Wales State election. It realises that if policy issues are debated while the New South Wales State election proceeds, Mr Greiner's case will be manifestly damaged, despite the fact that Mr Greiner attempts to distance himself massively from John Howard's type of Opposition Leader performance, by virtue of the sorts of comments Mr Greiner has been making all through his campaign, `I do not have a John Howard problem'. Let me just completely dismiss the substance of what was raised by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I point out to the honourable member that the debate has moved on somewhat to an attempt by both journalists and ourselves to get some understanding of what the health policies of the Opposition are. First, the Solicitor-General gave an opinion based on the available facts. If there is anything further to be done about the matter, there is a federal police investigation proceeding and that investigation is properly before them at the moment. In terms of whether this matter has been adequately covered, I think the Government can safely stand by the opinion of the Solicitor-General. What is posed as the alternative to the opinion of the Solicitor-General is the opinion of a former Liberal Minister on behalf of orthopaedic surgeons. We know what the hidden agenda of the orthopaedic surgeons is. We have that hidden agenda of the orthopaedic surgeons here in a document apparently leaked to the President of the Doctors Reform Society New South Wales. That leaked document from a New South Wales public hospital reveals a list of demands from orthopaedic specialists, which was a blueprint for exorbitant fees and the end of the public hospital system, according to the President of the Doctors Reform Society of New South Wales, Dr Robert Marr. The document was a proposal from orthopaedic surgeons addressed to the Department of Health, leaked from a public hospital. It suggested that all patients, except for pensioners, be classified as private patients in public hospitals, and that patients be billed at the discretion of orthopaedic surgeons. Dr Marr claimed that the leaked document revealed a scheme where surgeons could make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from public hospital work. When are we going to hear from the Opposition a position on doctors' overcharging; that minority of doctors who seek to exploit the system by overcharging, and that group of doctors who are the instigators of legal opinion that they want us to take seriously, but who are quite clearly attempting, in New South Wales and other places, to manoeuvre into a situation where they can charge the public purse and individual members of the public massively. It has to be understood that so far as this whole issue is concerned there has been so much persiflage in this place by members of the Opposition on the question of privacy and the question of public interest. It has to be understood also where the Minister for Community Services and Health and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) were coming from. They are not trying to make a quid for themselves. What they are trying to do is to expose a minority practice of overcharging the Australian public, sometimes to the extent of sixfold. We have heard from the Opposition repeated criticism in this place that somehow the Labor Party is losing touch with its base. I suggest that Opposition members have a chat to the base, which happens to be the general electorate of Australia, about how they would feel about being charged sixfold above the schedule fee. I suggest that Opposition members have a chat to the base about how they would feel about being ripped off in a public hospital in the manner that is suggested in what apparently is a leaked document picked up by the Doctors Reform Society of New South Wales. I suggest that Opposition members rock on down to the western suburbs of Sydney and have a chat to the people in that area who are trying to keep a family together on $15,000 and $16,000 a year, and suggest to them that a point of high principle is involved here-the opportunity to rip them off mercilessly. That is what the Opposition stands for here. The Opposition should not think that over the next two years the Government is not going to take full advantage of the opportunity to get across to the general public that what we stand for is the protection of their interests against this sort of rubbish. I cannot believe that members of the Opposition would come into this place and again run the nonsense that they have been running for the past couple of weeks. What a position of a tactics committee. At the end of a great week in which the Labor Party was going to be fought on all fronts, when we could see the panzers rolling over the hills headed towards our firmly entrenched positions-we could see all that coming-what happened? The Opposition brings out a board and a game of Trivial Pursuit and says, `Here you are boys. The panzers have all been recalled. Have a set of dice and we are off with Trivial Pursuit'. That has been the Opposition's position all through this week. What a joke! It has been a week also in which we have seen the Leader of the Opposition in this place, and on the doorstep of Parliament House raise himself up to his full height and puff out his great stance of principle. On Monday we heard him say, `The Liberal Party would never give an apparatchik a government position'. When we sit down and have a look at the record we find that apparatchiks are put straight into government positions so far as the Liberal Party is concerned when it is in office. That was one piece of misleading from the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition wandered out onto the steps of Parliament House and said, `Of course, never under me would we consider this jobs-for-the-boys type environment that the Australian Labor Party introduces'. When we go back to the record we find that in his later years as Treasurer he appointed two former Liberal Cabinet Ministers to the Reserve Bank of Australia Board, one of the most prominent bodies in our community. I do not quarrel with the two people he appointed to that Reserve Bank Board; they were distinguished Ministers and they served this country well. But what we on this side of the House will not tolerate is receiving moral lectures from people who are clearly in this place operating on a double standard. Then we saw the Leader of the Opposition on a spit this morning after his great effort to embarrass the Prime Minister yesterday on his alleged efforts, in the Opposition's view, to fix a gambling game. Let us look at him backing and filling. He was asked: Mr Howard, do you think that Mr Hawke is cleared of any impropriety in the matter? He replied: I think that people will have different views. Look as far as I, look, I don't know because I wasn't there and I don't have personal knowledge of the circumstances. He went on: Well, it's not a question of running strongly, it's a question of if you have material which can properly be raised in the public interest, it is raised, the Prime Minister gives a reply which appears to be at variance with some of what is contained in the material originally raised, people will be unsure as to the true circumstances. That was the John Howard on the steps of Parliament. The well-prepared John Howard, the well prepared mud-slinger, yesterday in Parliament said: It is not surprising that the Prime Minister, this great sportsman, should want to increase his odds, particularly at present. He went on: Perhaps the answer to this will be that it is of no great account that the rules of the game have been bent at the Prime Minister's request. That was John Howard totally certain yesterday in Parliament. That is the lesson as to why a Leader of the Opposition should not be used to sling mud because leaders of opposition always muck it up. One can guarantee that mud sticks to those who fling it. That will be the epitaph of John Howard's period as Leader of the Opposition when Liberal members finally get around to doing something about him some time before the next election. Before the next election Opposition members will also have to confront, since they seek to censure us on the handling of government, the document that was prepared by the Opposition's finance spokesman Senator Stone to advise John Howard as Treasurer if Howard had been returned to government back in 1983. Let me read selections from this document, and I shall do so quite frequently in this House over the next couple of years because it is a wonderful indictment of a would-be alternative government. Senator Stone said this about the $9.6 billion: The magnitude of the fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peace time, as is the level of Government spending. Secondly, the speed of deterioration is remarkable. The underlying fiscal situation is projected to deteriorate from near balance to more than 5 per cent of GDP in an eighteen month period, beginning, for the most part, from November 1982 . . . Thirdly, there are the ongoing implications of the spending increases. The sharp expenditure increases are coming on top of a series of years of continuing record levels of government spending and in the wake of an increasingly serious budget `lock-in' problem. This is the collection of geniuses who wish to lecture us on whether we can form a government. We have been struggling for the last five years to deal with the product of that incompetence. The reason that we occasionally have to do things that are found offensive by some Labor voters is that we have to struggle with those matters or the country will go down the tube. That is what Ministers confront daily. It would have been nice to hear from the Opposition in the five years we have been in government, as a form of mea culpa, a sensible policy suggestion, a real alternative presented to us so that we could give it some form of consideration. We have got none of it. What we get is mud-slinging from the highest level of the Opposition benches. It is failed mud-slinging based on a complete misunderstanding on its part of the principal role of an Opposition and the principal way in which an Opposition should be conducted. Dr Blewett stands readily acquitted. The Opposition has introduced nothing, except an opinion by a group that stands for overcharging and ripping off the Australian patient. That is contemptible, it should be rejected, and it is rejected by this Government. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.04) —For the benefit of those people who are listening to the broadcast today, I begin by outlining what the House is debating. Certainly one would get no idea from listening to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). This debate is about the abuse of position and power causing a decline in the standards of government under the Hawke Administration. We started this debate with a compelling contribution by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) against the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). If that Minister had any respect whatsoever for the Westminster tradition, he would be in this House this afternoon putting up some sort of response to the matters which we have raised today and which we will continue to raise. The one outstanding fact which was not addressed by the Minister for Defence was that what we have clearly and blatantly is a breach of the law of the Commonwealth. No sort of haranguing, no going back to 1983, will get this Government away from that fact-an allegation of a breach of Commonwealth law. The reality is that on ministerial propriety for this Government the only question that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asks himself-whether it is a jobs for the boys situation or an issue about cheating at the Perth casino-is `Can I get away with it?'. No principle stands in the way of the Prime Minister in considering these issues. If an official report says that the Prime Minister has asked to bend the rules, the Government gets some bunny to stand up and deny it. If it is Mum's shares in the Bell group, the Government changes the rules-it is all very easy. If it is one's family home in Sydney that is a problem when one lives in Canberra, the Government changes the travel allowance rules. If it is a breach of the law, as we have before us today, the Government toughs it out and hopes that it will go away. The Government drags the Solicitor-General out of bed at 11.30 at night and flourishes his advice as evidence that the Minister is not guilty. My contribution to this debate is about the legal issues. As I said in opening, it is the legal issues which, in the end, will bring this Minister down. The Opposition is not attacking the Solicitor-General in any way. He was asked to give an opinion and, as would a solicitor in private practice in respect of any client, he simply provided that opinion as requested. Our criticism of this Government is the way it briefed the Solicitor-General. If one asks a question in the right sort of way, one will get the answer one is looking for. We asked Senator Tate how it was that the Government briefed the Solicitor-General. We had a revealing-in fact honest-answer from Senator Tate, compared with the evasive answer from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at Question Time at the same time. It was after 11 p.m. and Senator Tate concluded his description of this late night phone call rush to find Dr Griffith with, `We need an opinion for the morning to clear Dr Blewett'. In the end Senator Tate said: No written request by me or brief in that sense was provided to the Solicitor-General. All the Solicitor-General got was what Dr Blewett said in the House that night. He got a minute from the Department and, I suppose, he was lucky to get a copy of the Act on which he was asked to advise. The next morning the Government was out pronouncing Dr Blewett innocent. What a contrast that makes to the statement today when the Prime Minister was asked, `Will you give that opinion which we have from Mr Ellicott, QC, to the Director of Public Prosecutions?' His answer was, `Oh no, we do not want to debate legal opinions in here'. Yet two weeks ago he was in here saying, `Dr Blewett is innocent, off scot-free-nothing to worry about'. Again, the Minister of Defence has said that it is a dead issue. The only thing that will be dead on this issue is the dead political body of Dr Blewett. The Government got the headlines it wanted. I quote the Age: `Blewett in clear, says chief lawyer'. That was made to measure-thank you, Dr Griffith, it was a job well done. What next transpires? Ah, they are off asking the police to go and collect the facts. That is interesting timing-they get the legal opinion, but they get the facts after they have that legal opinion. There was no explanation from the Minister for Defence on that matter. We have approached this issue with a very simple, straightforward proposition. On the facts as they have come out into the public arena in the few weeks since this matter became public, and given a legal opinion I will talk more about in a moment which raises certain matters of a legal nature in regard to the Minister for Community Services and Health, our simple proposition is this: there is a clear prima facie case against the Minister that he has broken the law of the land. On that basis, and on the basis of most minimum ministerial standards, this Minister ought to stand aside. If he will not stand aside, the Prime Minister ought to exhibit some sort of leadership, step in and have him stand aside. Unless that action is taken there is no ministerial standard, there is no leadership from the Government whatsoever. We base our opinion not just on the views we have formed ourselves as a matter of commonsense but on the basis of views put to us in a legal opinion-a very carefully considered opinion produced with the benefit of the facts in the public arena by Mr Ellicott, QC. Mr Ellicott is a former Solicitor-General and a former Attorney-General, a first law officer of the land, and a person with experience in dealing with and assessing the opinions of others, including the opinions of the Solicitor-General of the day. He is also a former Federal Court judge. In layman's terms, this man has been there, done that. He has come up with a conclusive opinion as to how this matter ought to be looked at from a legal point of view. The reality is that the Government is so worried about this matter that it does not even want the Director of Public Prosecutions to see the opinion. It has put up the shutters left, right and centre, absolutely, because that is the bottom line. I turn briefly to the legal opinion. Anybody who knows anything about the law will note when he reads it that it follows a logical sequence. It sets out the facts that have been made available-I inform the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) that there is no question about that-and it then goes through them in a logical sequence. The first point made in the opinion is that the Minister is an officer and bound by the confidentiality provisions of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act. The second point in the sequence of advice is that the provision of any information with respect to the affairs of another person is an offence. That is a very clear statement. In fact, to quote from the opinion: . . . even if the Minister only authorised communication to Mr Gear of information which did not contain provider numbers, it is our opinion that this constituted a breach of s.130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act. Section 130 (1) prohibits the communication of any information `with respect to the affairs of another person'. The words `with respect to' and `affairs' have a very wide connotation. The Government is not going to get past even that hurdle. The third point made is that, even if the provider numbers were provided-and we have that admission from the Minister-the opinion says: . . . it must be clear beyond argument that the inclusion of the provider numbers constituted a contravention of the legislation. The fourth point relates to an offence of absolute liability. Mr Ellicott's opinion states that keeping information confidential is so important that there can be no excuse and therefore the interpretation is that it is an offence of absolute liability. The opinion goes on; it is very conclusive. Let me finish with the remarks of the Minister for Community Services and Health, who said in the Age of 25 February: I think I have the same confidence as Mick Young that the kind of charges, the quite outlandish charges, that were being made against me had no basis in fact. If he puts himself in the company of Mick Young, all I say to him is that he will soon be with Mr Young out there in the employment agency, ringing the Prime Minister to see whether he can fix up a job for one of his mates. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.15) —Once again this afternoon we have witnessed an absolute load of drivel and an attempt to protect absolutely a small group of unscrupulous doctors who have been endeavouring to rip off the system for a long time. We have seen feigned indignation from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith); we have seen an attempted reasoned case from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-neither of which stacks up in fact. Those honourable members are quite prepared to turn their backs, as is the rest of the Opposition, on the problem that exists in some sections of society today. I refer to attempts by an unscrupulous group of doctors to rip off the poor, those people who cannot afford to pay the fees the doctors would like them to pay. I will demonstrate later on in my contribution the sorts of antics we have seen mirrored in New South Wales. Some of the statements made so far in this debate have been absolutely contemptible. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), said much the same thing in his concluding remarks. I do disagree, though, with one thing he said. I know that the Opposition does have one policy, and it is in the health area. I am sorry to tell the Minister this, but it does. That policy is to smash Medicare, to take it away from all the poor unfortunates-the pensioners, the low income earners, the $15,000 a year earners in the western suburbs of Sydney, and those in the Illawarra who fit into those categories. They are the sorts of people that some members on the other side would throw on the scrap heap once again. I hark back to the situation before this Government came into office. How many people were not then covered by any form of medical insurance? There were two million of them. I remind honourable members that that figure has now changed. The Opposition spokesman on health and other matters has come in here and said, `Dr Blewett had done wrong. He has provided information which suggests that there are doctors ripping off the system'. Why does he not put the same amount of investigative journalism into coming up with the facts surrounding what the doctors in New South Wales, the orthopaedic surgeons, have tried to do? The Minister referred to that. Let me just give the House one little story to illustrate that point. Last week I was at a meeting of a pensioner group in Wollongong, in my electorate. That was a group of 300 very good people who believe that this Government is doing the right thing by them. One of them came up to me and said, `I need some advice, Mr Martin, can you give me that advice? I have a very bad problem with my feet and I have been to my orthopaedic specialist'. I asked when she first went to her doctor, and she said it was two years ago. I said, `But you are shuffling around. Why hasn't it been fixed?' She said, `Because the orthopaedic specialist said, ``Get private health cover and then I will fix you up'' '. So this poor woman, this pensioner, is expected to shuffle around for the rest of her life because on principle she says that she is a pensioner who is paying under Medicare, why will the doctor not go back into the public system and fix her up? I will tell the House why: it is because the orthopaedics and a number of their mates-the Opposition talks about mates!-have stitched up a deal with Nick in New South Wales. They have stitched up a deal with Nick Greiner and his hidden agenda that has been mouthed off by our good mate Mr Collins, the Opposition spokesman on health in New South Wales, and they have come up with this deal to smash Medicare. The Minister referred to a particular leaked document. I would like to put that matter on the record once again. This leaked document from the New South Wales public hospitals has revealed a list of the doctors' demands. They do not even have the courtesy to say they will negotiate; they say they have a list of demands that will get them back into the public hospital system. The first demand, of course, is that we get rid of Medicare. They are saying, `Goodbye Medicare; all you battling pensioners need not worry, all of you low income earners from Sydney's western suburbs, from the Illawarra and from the Hunter have no need to worry because we will take care of you all right'. But they will have to pay six times what it costs now to have an operation, if they can get in, and if the orthopods are prepared to go into the public health system. What about people in the Hunter? We heard in Question Time today about the eye specialists there. Under Medicare, they are getting $500 to $600 for an operation-not bad for an hour's work, I would have thought. But that is not good enough for some of these people in the Hunter; they say they want a little more. Multiply it by six and that will tell honourable members how much more they want. It is absolutely outrageous. Yet the two Opposition speakers on this matter of public importance so far today have the gall to come in here and say, `We will stick up for them, that is all right'. They are also sticking up for their little mate Nick, who is clawing desperately to get up that greasy pole of success and take over the running of the State of New South Wales. He is running on this absolute nonsense, on the sleazy deal outlined in this particular leaked document that has been stitched up with the orthopods in New South Wales. He will take care of his mates when it is all over. They have the unmitigated gall to lecture this Government about propriety. They say, `Deals for mates'. They keep talking about Mick Young and the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). What absolute garbage! There has been talk about standards of government. The honourable member for Flinders referred to the text of the proposal for the matter of public importance, which reads: The abuse of position and power causing a decline in the standards of Government under the Hawke administration. The honourable member should talk to all of those people who have benefited from five years of stable government under the Hawke Government, such as those people in the western suburbs. He should tell them about the increased opportunities for housing loans. He should tell them about the increased opportunities for health care cover. He should tell them about how the unemployment rate is being lowered. He should tell them about the child care facilities that have been provided. But he says, `The Hawke Government is pretty hopeless-there's no administration'. What absolute garbage! On top of that, the honourable member for Flinders said, `Mind you, with respect to Dr Blewett and the opinion of the Solicitor-General, we're not attacking him. He was not given enough information, but we're not attacking him'. Like hell they are not! Members of the Opposition want an umpire sitting in the box next to them in the grandstand. They see the game going on below and say, `Hang on, we'll have the umpire here so that we can whisper in his ear, ``Mate, this is what the decision has to be on that particular play'' '. They say, `Dr Griffith doesn't have all the information, he hasn't got it right, but we have. We have the Acts and we have Ellicott'. The honourable member for Flinders ran past us the tremendous credentials that this bloke has, but he left one out. I think he said that he was an Attorney-General, but he did not say what party he was from. What party was it? It was the Liberal Party-fair dinkum. My mind was immediately taken back to the last few hours of the good old days of the Whitlam Administration. There was some thought at the time that the Governor-General was receiving some advice as to what he should do. Once again a fairly senior legal person was involved. Some people said that it was a gentleman by the name of Barwick and that he had some connections with a party. I do not think that that was a reference to a 1970s party; I think it was actually a reference to the Liberal Party! So now we have these guys saying, `Ellicott's got all the credentials. He is a member of the Liberal Party. He has produced an opinion which contradicts what Dr Griffith said, so it is right'. Members of the Opposition are unbelievable. They sit back and let the poor little old lady in my electorate shuffle around because she cannot afford private health care so that she can get her feet operated on. That is a story that, I am sad to say, is in existence in a number of parts of Australia because of a small group of doctors who are unwilling and unprepared to get back into the hospital service. My electorate secretary is a member of the Area Health Service Board in the Illawarra region. He tells me appalling tales about the orthopaedic specialists. My friend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) has told me about the eye specialists in his electorate and why they will not go back into the public health system. Old Nick in New South Wales and his mate Colin have said, `Surgeons, charge what you like. Scrap Medicare and charge what you like. We will get rid of all that. Beds will be there. We will build you a couple of extra hospitals'. One forgets who owns the private hospitals. Who has shares in the private hospitals? It is not the pensioners and the $15,000-a-year earners. Mr Chynoweth —The doctors-- Mr MARTIN —Well, I would not go quite that far. Certainly, many of the specialists are not prepared to do what the Government has paid them to do. Who foots the bill for their training? The Government and the taxpayers of Australia foot the bill for their training. There are no university fees; the Government pays for the lot. We are the people who are paying for it, and it is no good. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday next at 2 p.m. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Child Support Act 1988 and together they constitute the major elements of the Government's child support scheme. Many Australian families over the last 10 years have experienced the pain of marriage breakdown. That is something governments can do little to help-but government can take action to alleviate dramatic and sustained drops in living standards for children in those families. For too long poverty has been the traumatic result of marriage breakdown for children in sole-parent families. This Government is committed to ensuring that by 1990 no child need live in poverty. The child support scheme is a central part of our program to achieve that objective. The centrepiece of the child support scheme is the Child Support Act, which will ensure that parents who have the capacity to pay do not abandon the financial responsibility of supporting their children to the social security system. The Child Support Act establishes an agency which will ensure that maintenance is efficiently collected from those liable to pay it and that maintenance is distributed to the families entitled to receive it. The Family Law Amendment Act, which passed through both Houses late in 1987, encourages more substantial awards of maintenance than had been customary previously. This scheme overall will increase the number of families receiving maintenance, increase the level of that maintenance and ensure that it is received on a regular basis. This Bill will amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to provide for changes in the way maintenance income is treated in the social security and veterans' benefits systems. I turn now to outline the features of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill. The Bill will bring into account a wide range of maintenance income received by social security and veteran pensioners and beneficiaries. The most straightforward of these is cash maintenance paid on a regular basis. At present this is taken into account as income for only some pensions and benefits. In addition, the Bill will provide for the assessment of in-kind maintenance income. Maintenance in kind may take many forms. For example, it may be food provided, household items supplied, payments of medical benefits insurance, the provision of housing or payment of rent, payments of household accounts or educational or child care expenses. It could come in the form of payment of motor vehicle registration and running costs. Another type of maintenance payment which has not traditionally been assessed by the Department of Social Security or the Department of Veterans' Affairs as income is the transfer of a substantial lump sum of capital, perhaps in the context of distribution of property following a divorce. The Bill will include such capital transfers as maintenance income in so far as they are completed for the purposes of providing maintenance to the pensioner or beneficiary, or his or her dependent children. The Bill will provide in most cases for the assessment of capital maintenance amounts by their imputation over a number of years. This imputed income will be taken to be received fortnightly. The Bill seeks to encourage sole parents in receipt of maintenance income to increase total income by seeking other forms of income, especially income from remunerative employment. This will arise through two income test free areas in the Act. One affects maintenance income and the other applies to all other types of income. The advantage which flows from the receipt of both general and maintenance income is a total income test free area considerably more generous than where only one type of income is received. It is expected that additional non-maintenance income will generally be in the form of casual or part-time earnings. The cornerstone of the scheme is to ensure as far as possible that, where maintenance is payable to a pensioner or beneficiary, it is in fact paid. This will shift some of the burden for the maintenance of Australian children and their parents from the social security and veterans' benefits systems to those who are liable to pay maintenance. The Bill will further advance this intention by emphasising the requirement that sole parents, in order to qualify for pension, must take reasonable action to obtain available maintenance. Similar provisions have existed for a long time in the Social Security Act. This Bill will rationalise the requirement and will be supported by departmental guidelines which will balance the public interest in encouraging maintenance action with the factors in particular cases which might render the wisdom of such action questionable. I assure the House that action will not be required where there are genuine fears of violence to the custodian or children or where there may be a threat to the security of the custodian or her children. There are in the Bill special rules which apply to certain types of in-kind and cash maintenance income so as to reduce their effect on the resulting rate of pension, benefit or allowance. The first of these is all in-kind maintenance income provided by the pensioner's, beneficiary's, or allowee's spouse, or ex-spouse in the first six months following separation. The purpose of reducing the impact of such maintenance income is to facilitate the adaptation by the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee to his or her new situation. The second is maintenance in cash and in kind provided in respect of expenses arising directly from any of various disabilities of a dependent child of the person in receipt of pension or other social welfare benefit. This rule will assist in limiting the adverse effect that the receipt of such necessary maintenance might otherwise have on the rate of pension, benefit or allowance. The final special maintenance category will be in-kind housing maintenance in respect of the home which is the actual residence of the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee. This reflects the importance of secure housing for the children and the difficulties that separated couples often face in providing adequate housing for their children. In recognition of the disruption that could be caused to some existing pensioners and beneficiaries as a result of these reforms, the Bill will provide transitional provisions for the preservation of the total income of a pensioner or other beneficiary so that maintenance income would not apply to reduce total income. The provisions will benefit the person until he or she no longer needs them because total income has risen above that which applied at the date of commencement of the maintenance income test. The child support scheme involves major reforms to Australia's family law and social security systems. It will involve the Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security collecting and paying out child support. It will achieve more adequate income support for more custodial families in a way which closely links the levels of private and public income support. This Bill is a key element in that scheme. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Amendments to the Ministers of State Act which sets this sum are from time to time thus required to cover changes to ministerial salaries. The Remuneration Tribunal in its 1987 review recommended that ministerial salaries be increased by 3.8 per cent with effect from 1 July 1987 as the first step towards resolution of the agreed anomaly which the Tribunal found has existed since 1984. The Tribunal has also recommended that parliamentary salaries be increased by a further 2.2 per cent from 1 July 1988. The anomaly arose as a result of the Government's consistent demonstration of wage restraint. The percentage increases awarded to Ministers are the same as those awarded by the Tribunal to parliamentary office holders and other parliamentarians. In addition, the maximum number of Ministers of State has been increased from 27 to 30. It is therefore necessary to raise the upper limit on the amount appropriated for ministerial salaries to accommodate the 3.8 per cent increase of 1 July 1987 and the expansion of the Ministry. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum to $680,000 from $475,000. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.37) —A comprehensive statement was presented to the House this afternoon by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), a statement that canvassed many important issues for Australia and our region, in particular, and other important issues such as disarmament and peace. Peace is probably the most important and complex issue in our time. The Foreign Minister also canvassed the Opposition's policies, or lack of them, throughout his statement. I was interested to hear the reply of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) earlier this afternoon. The first point I would like to take up is the South African question. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about the Sharpeville six and proposed hanging or execution of those people within the next 24 hours. He proceeded to place before the Parliament a document that he had received from the South African Embassy which, in his great legal mind, meant that they obviously should be executed. I do not think anyone in this chamber would decry a hearing of the honourable member for North Sydney or anyone else. But it starts to get a little galling when one continues to hear the same theme, when there is absolutely no balance in the comments or statements made about South Africa. I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or the honourable member for North Sydney say a bad thing about the South African Government. If there were any balanced statements one could say, `He might have something here today'. But, once again, out we come with a statement produced from the South African Embassy. Mr Hollis —They are apologists. Mr CHARLES —They are apologists for the South African Government, again having a go at the black South Africans. Apparently, we cannot bring in sanctions because that will hit the little people. What absolute nonsense. After a person has had his head kicked in every day, day in and day out, there does come a time, not only in South Africa, but also in other parts of the world on many human rights issues when he says, `Enough is enough. I really don't care what sanctions or people from outside do because I really cannot suffer much more than I am now'. Let us get back to the honourable member for North Sydney and his incredible statement this afternoon. It is interesting that the Government received a cablegram today from Pretoria. It states: An urgent application was brought today (16/3), before the Pretoria Supreme Court, seeking a stay of execution in the case of the Sharpeville six, scheduled to hang on Friday 18 March. The application was based on an eleventh hour admission by a key state witness that he had perjured himself at the behest of police. The cablegram goes on for another page and a half stating the facts of the person who was at that hearing. Ironically-I find this incredible-that was before the trial judge. Notwithstanding the fact that the person said he had perjured himself, the trial judge thought that this raised an element of doubt that should at least be investigated, but it was thrown out. The appeal was not upheld and the execution will go ahead. So much for civil and human rights in South Africa. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that members of the Opposition continually, via the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, and the honourable member for North Sydney, come into this House and in one way or another continue to support the South African Government or find an excuse not to denigrate it on every conceivable issue that comes up regarding that Government. There must be a balance. If there were a balance we on this side of the House might take a little more notice of the things those opposite say. But there is an extraordinary imbalance in the comments that are made on South Africa. My colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said before that Opposition members are apologists for the South African Government. The Foreign Minister raised a very important point. He said that it is becoming an increasingly complex world-dare I say a smaller world-with many issues that can touch us in an instant. No longer do we have to travel for weeks to get to a particular point; nowadays it takes virtually a few hours. Today nuclear weapons and even conventional weapons that are absolutely catastrophic can destroy other continents within a matter of hours. Subsequently, we do not have many peripheral matters in regard to foreign relations or defence concerns. Of course, one should try to keep to one's own region where it is more important. We have done that, albeit through a whole range of measures. The Foreign Minister again talked about the Pacific region and how we have upgraded our visits and the quality of our diplomatic representation to that region, just to mention a couple of points. He mentioned that he will, once again, be going on a comprehensive tour of the South Pacific this year. It is interesting to note that we have the bleating again from the honourable member for North Sydney about Papua New Guinea (PNG). It may interest the House that since the election of the Hawke Government the honourable member for North Sydney, in an official capacity at least, has not been to PNG. Guess how many official visits the Opposition has made to PNG in the last five years? We have had three-one from the former member for Denison, Mr Hodgman, for two days and one by the Leader of the Opposition and the former spokesman for foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong, (Mr Peacock). They went together to represent the Opposition at the tenth anniversary of Papua New Guinea's independence. They were there for only two days in an official capacity at the celebrations. There was one other visit from Mr Hodgman. Mr MacKellar —I was there last October. Mr CHARLES —I refer to official visits from the Opposition front bench. In contrast, Mr Hayden has been there on five occasions. There have been 20 ministerial visits by this Government to the South Pacific, with the visit by the Foreign Minister, as I have mentioned, later this year. It is extraordinary that the honourable member for North Sydney comes in here and bleats about our relationship with PNG, which is as good as, and I would say much better than, it has ever been because of the continued communication between the two governments and members of parliament of the two countries in the last couple of years. That culminated with the signing of the declaration of principles in December last year between the two respective Prime Ministers. As I have said in this House before, for the first time defence was mentioned in that declaration which never occurred under the conservative Government. It is an interesting point that the honourable member for North Sydney can bleat about PNG and not go there, but he can whiz off to Yugoslavia and try to do a bit of grandstanding, albeit a complete failure, to try to score a few political points for the Opposition as he did a few months ago. On disarmament and arms control, peace is probably the most important issue we have before us today. I was fortunate enough to chair the subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on disarmament and arms control. The report was very comprehensive and well received. It is interesting that the Foreign Minister again raises the question in his statement today. He stated: Australia will, for example, continue to work actively for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, an agreement to eliminate chemical weapons, an agreement to prevent an arms race in space and to control and reduce the use of conventional weapons. They are all matters, but for a few, arising from the recommendations that came from the subcommittee that I chaired. They have been pursued by this Government ever since its election in 1983. All we have heard is bleating from the Opposition about how we are trying to go soft on the Soviet Union. We have heard from the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), as to how we should look at obtaining nuclear weapons for ourselves. There has been no positive output from the people responsible regarding Australia's participation in the many forums in the United Nations, such as the participation in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler, on these important issues over the last three or four years. It has been comprehensive. We now have many countries asking Australia to keep up the good work because the comprehensive and detailed work we are doing, even though it is long and laborious-it is a long and slow process-is working. The drip theory is working. We are now seeing the two superpowers getting together and reducing their nuclear weapons and their throw weight. Again, that is another recommendation of my subcommittee's report. The interesting thing is that we are starting to see some action in this very important area. As the Foreign Minister has pointed out today, there is still much to be done. A lot of work can be done by us. We can be putting our viewpoint forcefully in the various conferences and forums around the world. Countries such as Sweden, Norway and others have combined with Australia to put a forceful viewpoint on behalf of the peaceful people in the world. It is also interesting to note that Opposition members talk about the alliance and comments made lately by a few very important people in the United States. It is worth reiterating a couple of quotes given by the Minister this afternoon. One was from Admiral Hayes, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific-in fact, his area of responsibility stretches from the Pacific right across to the African coast. Admiral Hayes said recently, and it is worth repeating: Security co-operation between the United States and Australia has never been better. It is heartening to see the extent of mutual benefits that accrue from the alliance relationship. The Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, pointed out that the relationship with the United States is `as strong and vigorous as ever, if not more so'. So on all sides we have a more vigorous debate and a more vigorous relationship because this country, under the stewardship of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), is continuing to put its view. If we do not agree with a viewpoint put forward by our allies we will say so. It is no good kowtowing to the viewpoints of our allies merely to forsake them in their operations. It will not work. It has never worked before. We have shown that with a more forceful relationship, putting our viewpoint forward, there is a much stronger relationship between us. I congratulate the Foreign Minister on the many issues he has raised. It is important that Australia has enhanced its alliance and its relationship with our neighbours in the Pacific and Asian area. Our trade has increased in Asia quite dramatically. I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done through the Government on the peace and disarmament issue. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.52) —The statement we heard today from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) comes after his first visit to the Middle East since he assumed his dual responsibilities for foreign affairs and trade. There are many in this Parliament who are watching with a great deal of interest to see how those dual responsibilities interact and the impact of this new arrangement on the effectiveness of each of these areas of critical importance to Australia. That it is a demanding responsibility to add such an important portfolio as overseas trade to the Minister's existing foreign affairs responsibilities is absolutely indisputable. The recent media publicity as to the tensions within the Minister's Department in the absorption and integration of these two portfolios is obviously a matter of great disquiet. In any such administrative change, the primary objective must be to not lose sight of our national goals and their effective achievement. If administrative difficulties interfere in any way with those objectives I would assume that the Government would be alert and willing to review those arrangements as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, actions may already have occurred which have taken the administration of our foreign affairs in a direction from which it might be impossible to retrieve the diplomatic skills developed over so many years. There is some evidence that we are in the process of diluting those skills into a broad public service morass of generalist administration. If that is so, we are witnessing the death of the professional foreign affairs officer and his replacement by a generalist public servant. That, of course, will reflect very quickly in the standards and achievements of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is a very high price to pay for the experimentation by Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with the Australian Public Service. I make these comments because of the stories we hear and because of the emphasis we have seen on trade matters in the Minister's statement today, which cause me some concern. With this in mind, I now want to address myself to the Middle East. There can be no denying that the Middle East is assuming considerable importance for Australia on the trade front. In recent times we have seen a broadening of our previous narrow trade base, away from commodities and towards more sophisticated commercial ties. The potential is great, and it is important that Australia's Trade Minister have first-hand knowledge of the area and its senior representatives. I have no argument with that. The Minister's visit came at a time of unprecedented difficulties for Israel in the occupied territories on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I am disappointed to see how little of the Minister's statement has been devoted to this matter of vital importance to the Middle East and to Australia. Here we have civilian unrest in the occupied territories of a magnitude and nature as to cause serious embarrassment to the Israeli Government and to strain its relationship with the world community in a way we have not seen before. Yet in reporting to Parliament about the Middle East, what do we hear from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade? The very first words by the Minister tell us that the Middle East is an area of primary trading importance to Australia, with two-way trade of almost $3 billion last financial year. This is dwelt on for paragraph after paragraph and concludes with a comment that the continuation of the Iran-Iraq war threatens our important trading links with both countries. There is no mention of Australia's critical interest in having stability and peace in the Gulf, or the role we might play in helping to bring this horrendous and needless war to an end-none at all. Rather, what we have from our Foreign Minister is a talking down of our possible role. He talks of obligations and interests in the events of the region as though it is something far removed from our sphere of involvement and beyond our ability to assist in any effective way. I remind the Minister and the people of Australia that it was the Hawke Government which cut back and restricted the role of Australia's peacekeeping force in the Sinai. That decision did not endear us to the many countries so vitally seeking a peaceful solution to the Middle East problem, and must cause many of them to believe that, if Australia has, as the Minister claims, only a marginal role to play in that region, it does so by choice. Surprisingly, while the Minister sees the Iran-Iraq war as being very limited, the conflict between Israel and the Arab nations is not treated with the same casualness. There the Minister tells us that the conflict is especially significant to Australia, but he then goes on to admit that in his discussions with Middle East leaders he made it clear that Australia was only a marginal participant in these events. If it is of such significance to us, then Australia must be more than a marginal participant. It should be in there seeking to assist in achieving solutions to problems that have, or seem to have, the potential to seriously disrupt the economic well-being not only of the Middle Eastern countries but also of our nation. I would have expected Australia's Foreign Minister to take the opportunity offered by his visits to reinforce Australia's thinking and concern on the matter of the occupied territories and the self-determination of the Palestinians, and to seek detailed discussions on what the future holds. The Minister's speech, in this respect, was meagre in the extreme, and I am left to wonder, as we all are, at the extent to which the Minister did concern himself with these important issues during his visit, or whether there might be some substance to our fears that Australia's foreign policies and objectives are being relegated to a secondary place below those of exploring for increased trade opportunities. I recall that Australia's Prime Minister visited some countries in the Middle East during a visit in January and February of 1987 and that in his subsequent ministerial statement to this House on 19 February 1987 he identified Australia's basic policy attitude to the Arab-Israeli dispute and informed us in some detail of the thorough, detailed and friendly discussions he had on those principles. There is no such detail from the Foreign Minister in his statement today. What have we been told about any movement towards a lasting settlement to the Middle East dispute, to our commitment to the security of Israel, to the importance of the Palestinian issue, their right to self-determination, and the dangers for those objectives in the current events in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? We have been told nothing, except a brief reference to his having expressed Australia's concern about the continuing violence in the occupied territories. The Prime Minister told us over 12 months ago that Australia did not see itself seeking a mediating or other direct role in settling the Middle East dispute but that Australia was firmly committed and willing, if requested, to do all it could to bring peace to that region. Did the Foreign Minister reiterate that willingness? If he did, what response did he receive? How strongly did he express Australia's concern at the undeniable evidence of excessive force and brutality being used by the Israeli Army in putting down the stonethrowing by Palestinians in the occupied areas; or, as I have already noted, did he merely express Australia's concern? The Middle East is a region of critical importance to Australia when one considers its significant oil resources, its straddling of important shipping routes, its potential to destabilise the northern Indian Ocean region, and the large number of immigrants in this country from countries in that area. I see nothing in the Minister's statement today to reassure me that this Government has a real appreciation of that significance. The Minister's somewhat feeble expressions of concern about the occupied territories and his perception of Australia having merely a marginal role in events in the region are totally inadequate and inappropriate. If this is what our foreign affairs have come to, I suggest that Foreign Affairs is a ship already ponderously slow in international waters and is in no shape to take on the added tonnage of Australia's overseas trade responsibilities. Having said that, I turn to the African section of the safari. Africa, particularly southern Africa, is unquestionably of great importance to Australia, and I reject completely the Minister's suggestion that the Opposition considers the events in that region to be irrelevant. Frankly, I am disappointed that Australia's Foreign Minister has used such cheap political point scoring in an important ministerial document which purports to report to this Parliament on a four-week visit to 13 countries in regions of great global interest to Australia. That he is bereft of worthwhile comment on what he achieved in real terms is indicated by the fact that his 20-page speech devotes almost five pages to an attack on the Opposition's foreign policies. That is hardly the action of a Minister who, one imagines, should have been able to present 20 pages of detail as to the discussions he held overseas, our objectives in those discussions and the successes he had in offering an Australian contribution to the resolution of international conflict and disagreement in the countries he visited. South Africa is a particularly pertinent example. The Minister castigates us for what he claims is a failure to do anything to alter the South African Government's appalling attitude to apartheid. I reiterate and underline my disgust with the attitude, the example and the actions of the South African Government, particularly in its continuing efforts to subjugate the black peoples there. But what does the Minister offer? He tells us of $100m in aid to several countries of southern Africa, but he makes no mention of the necessity of making such a pledge before one of those countries would agree to a visit by an Australian Foreign Minister. He had to put the $100m up front before one particular country would even consider a visit by an Australian Minister. He also tells us that he attended a meeting in Lusaka to widen and tighten Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa. There are many on this side of the House, and I suspect that there are some on his own benches, who have a firm conviction that sanctions will add to the problems of South Africa and even contribute, in the longer term, to the very breakdown in law and justice that so many predict. It is quite wrong, as some on the Government side would suggest, to say that to argue against sanctions is a way of supporting apartheid. There is a legitimate discussion as to the best means of eliminating apartheid, and the question of sanctions is one of those areas of argument. People forget that South Africa, like the rest of Africa, is a country with an exploding population, and the particular focus of that explosion is the black population. Those people, particularly those black people, will need jobs, goods and services on an increasing scale, and if economic sanctions have the effect of stopping or slowing that flow it will be the black men and women who will increasingly feel the hardship. They will need education, technical training and management expertise if they are to survive in the modern world. If economic sanctions have the effect of blowing those things out of the water, who will suffer? The majority of the people of southern Africa will suffer, and of course the majority of the people of southern Africa are black people. Furthermore, sanctions are the very action that will give the white South Africans the conviction to dig in and defend their principles. They feel threatened in the face of sanctions, and there is already strong evidence in South Africa that the international attack on the beliefs of white South Africans has caused a disturbing move to the right in local elections. And who would want that? There are radical elements within the Right, and I genuinely fear that the wider and tighter the sanctions imposed by such misplaced policies as those of the Australian Government, the greater will be the resistance from a threatened and frightened white minority in South Africa. As their actions become more and more menacing, the black man will be encouraged to defend his few remaining rights and possessions with increasing ferocity. Such a situation lends itself to confrontation and revolution, and, regrettably, the very circumstances where the ultimate collapse of the radical Right leaves wide open the opportunity for equally radical attitudes of the Left. What better evidence is needed that events are spiralling into this vortex of tragedy than the South African Government's recent decision to ban a number of black non-political organisations and its callous and inhumane decision to make an example of six black people by hanging them for being somewhere nearby when a black mayor was shot dead some four years ago? Desperate people take desperate decisions, and our Foreign Minister would have impressed many of us far more if his statement had properly addressed the problem of worthwhile and workable solutions for South Africa rather than his lampooning of the Opposition and his ill-considered clinging to internationally discredited action through economic sanctions. I would have been more impressed if we had had some discussion about events in the Indian Ocean, which is an area of enormous and increasing concern to Australia. But what did we have in his statement about that? We had very little indeed about recent events in the Indian Ocean-just a marginal reference here or there. It simply is not good enough. It is something he should turn his mind to and it is obviously something that this Parliament should have an opportunity to debate. In conclusion, I believed and hoped that the Foreign Minister would use this opportunity to tell the people of Australia and this Parliament something of Australia's foreign policy needs in the areas he visited and to discuss some of the fundamental aims of the Hawke Government in its relationships with these countries. That this has not occurred will add further to the very real concern felt by many people about the direction in which the Hawke Government is taking this country, about the denigration and downgrading of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and about the escalation in the lack of expertise and the administrative turmoil which is becoming characteristic of that Department. Foreign affairs and trade are two very important areas. The Minister with those two important responsibilities has done nothing in this statement to dispel the fears and the doubts that many people have that the amalgamation will do nothing to assist in either of those areas of responsibility. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.58) —It is a pleasure to follow my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) in this debate. Much of what he said in his intervention I found to be a genuine contribution to a reasonable dialogue on foreign policy within this Parliament. Unfortunately, a good deal of what he had to say was not; but I felt that he had to make those ritual statements to support the rather unsupportable positions that the Opposition has got itself into. Its lack of positions came through clearly in the remarks made earlier by the Opposition's official foreign affairs spokesman. Nonetheless, I thought that what the honourable member for Warringah had to say was sufficiently to the point that it is a pity that he is not on the front bench speaking for the Opposition on these matters rather than somebody so bereft of ideas as the official spokesman. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) on the statement that he put down and on the visit to which his statement mainly refers. I begin by mentioning the countries he visited and the leaders with whom he had discussions on this most recent visit, simply to indicate the breadth of the concerns with which he dealt. The countries that he went to are not the watering holes of western Europe or North America. They are countries which many Australians would never visit as a matter of wish; they are not tourist capitals. They are: Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Kenya, the Yemen Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the Maldives, Singapore and Indonesia. I might say that these places are, more or less, casino-free. They are certainly not the kinds of places that a person who is not a hardworking, conscientious Foreign Minister would go to. Many discussions that the Foreign Minister referred to in his remarks were thankless. They involved vital interests for Australia, just as vital, say, as the interests in Kampuchea which the Foreign Minister has been so assiduous in pursuing, but they are not something for which he is likely to get congratulations or plaudits. They were necessary jobs, and I congratulate the Minister for having done them. I congratulate the Minister also for the emphasis he placed on Australia's trade interests. These are exceedingly important interests. In saying so, I want to rebut what the honourable member for Warringah said about the amalgamation of the Foreign Affairs and Trade departments. It seems to me absolutely crucial these days, when easily the most significant problem facing Australia is the difficulties of our current account, that one must amalgamate one's resources of diplomacy and trade promotion in such a way as to maximise the return from both of them. If anything was liable to tempt me to return to my previous profession as a diplomat, it would be that this amalgamation has now taken place and that undeniably the biggest game in town is being played by that amalgamated department and, in my opinion, being played very well indeed. I want to comment on several issues, but the most important is the one to which the honourable member for Warringah devoted a good deal of his time, namely, the Middle East. Recent events in Gaza and on the West Bank have brought that matter into very sharp focus. A number of international efforts have been directed at attempting to obtain a solution to those seemingly intractable, intransigent problems that exist there. Mr Shamir, the Prime Minister of Israel, is presently in the United States in close discussions with Mr Shultz and members of the United States Administration. A great deal is focused on the potential for harm and damage to the interests of Israel by the tactics of some untrained and ill-disciplined Israeli troops in suppressing the riots in Gaza and on the West Bank. What is not focused on too much is the potential of those events to spark a genuine dialogue directed at a genuine settlement. The United States Administration is to be congratulated for the way in which it has exerted itself into this process, much as it did at an earlier time with the Camp David process, in an attempt to suggest a solution. Tragically, one main barrier to that solution is the paralysis-which is the best term one could use for it-and intransigence of the present Israeli Government towards the prospect of advancing a settlement. This country has been a firm friend of Israel from the time of the creation of that state, and, indeed, before that. Australia played an important role in the creation of Israel. I share that friendship with Israel and it will take a great deal to shake me from it. What will shake moderate and reasonable opinion in this country, what has already shaken moderate and reasonable opinion in this country, is the perception that the ingenuity of Israel, the genius of Israel, the capacity for inventiveness of its people, is being directed nowadays not so much towards looking at the possibilities for a solution but to emphasising the difficulties in the way of finding such a solution. It seems to me to be a great tragedy that these extraordinary people, many of whom have made a life in this country, should now be squandering the goodwill they have built up by the intransigence not of themselves but of a government which simply does not seem to be responding to the wishes of a very great number of people in Israel. I was encouraged recently to read an article by the former Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, which argued extremely powerfully that Israel, if only for its own sake, had to begin a process of negotiation for withdrawal from the occupied territories. I want to read from that article, which appeared originally in the Observer. Abba Eban said: Israel, after 40 years of independent nationhood, can justly present itself to the world as an unusual celebration of resilience and vitality but it enters its fifth decade in deep reflection about its own structure and values. Recently Israel's leading academic figures, including those who have never before uttered a controversial political word, joined together in their hundreds to urge an early end to the occupation regime. Nothing like this has ever happened in our- that is, Israel's- intellectual community before. He goes on: In the area in which its legal system applies, Israel is an exemplary democracy. I interpolate that that is one of the reasons for the friendship that has always existed between Israel and the democratic countries of the West. He goes on: But in Gaza the right to vote, to be elected, to express grievance and protest, to have recourse to serious legal process, to be protected from punishment without trial or proof of guilt, to hold a passport, to revere a flag, to enjoy social benefits, to have a decent non-menial economic future, above all to walk the streets with dignity, are beyond the reach of the 650,000 Palestine Arabs. He goes on: I came away from my last visit to Gaza with the feeling that it would take a Dante to give adequate literary expression to the intense concentration of dejection, bitterness and despair crowded into the small squalid enclave of gloom. Later in his article Abba Eban goes on to recall that Golda Meir, in her last words to the nation, had written: No sane Israeli ever believed that we could permanently rule all the territories and populations in the West bank and Gaza. New borders would have to be fixed with Jordan. Of course, that is a position which the Australian Government ascribes to through its support of Resolution 242 in the United Nations and which most countries of the world also adopt. Something has to be done about the Palestinians and to me it is a tragedy that the wit of the Israeli people cannot be harnessed towards finding out, finding the compromise, finding the way to bring that solution about. Recently I signed an advertisement in the Adelaide Advertiser calling for just this. I notice that in the most recent edition of the Australia-Israel Review it is called `an anti-Israel advertisement signed by the Chairman of the joint parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee', which is me. It goes on later to say what the advertisement actually said. The Australia-Israeli Review said: An advertisement authorised by the Palestinian Human Rights Campaign Committee of South Australia called for condemnation of Israeli troop behaviour in the territories and for an international forum to discuss the creation of a Palestinian State. I make no apology whatever for the action I took. I believe it is supported by the very great majority of opinion in Australia, by the very great majority of opinion in the rest of the Western world, including the United States. It is a matter of sadness to me that, through intransigence or paralysis, more is not being done to address this urgent problem. It is not a problem in which time is on Israel's side. At the moment there are living in Israel about 750,000 Arabs. A further 1.3 million Arabs live in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967. With a birthrate that is considerably higher than that of the Israeli population it is estimated that eventually, within 20 years, there will be an Arab majority in the territory now controlled by Israel. What is Israel to do? Is it to formally annex the territories and deny the Arab population a vote, in which case it denies one of its most precious possessions, namely its existence as a democracy? Or, is it to annex its territories and allow the Arab population a vote, in which case it will no longer be a Jewish State? It is something that has to be addressed by any Israeli government. It is a tragedy that the present Israeli Government finds itself unable to address the particular problem. It will disappoint me greatly if the reaction of Friends of Israel and the Israeli Government is confined simply to expressions of shock and dismay at statements such as I made, and many other people have made, without asking why it is that moderate and knowledgeable people-as I am described by the same writer-are saying such things now, here and elsewhere in the western world. I now wish to take up the point made by the honourable member for Warringah that there is not much about that in the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. There is a very good reason why there is not much about this in the statement. The reason precisely for that is that the Minister was considerably involved in negotiations and remains under an obligation not to convey too widely some of what he was informed. Some of it he has passed on to be fed into a central process which is an attempt at peacemaking which is proceeding at the moment. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on the emphasis in his statement, not only about the matters I have mentioned but also about the issue of food aid to southern Africa, and his efforts directly to bring about some sort of settlement in South Africa. I congratulate the Minister also on his continuing efforts to develop an independent foreign policy directed towards the abiding interests of this country. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(6.23) —Today for 39 minutes we heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) a statement in which he set out to acquaint the House with the results of his activities in recent weeks, of a substantial excursion he undertook overseas in the course of his duties. Unquestionably the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is a most industrious Minister; that must be conceded. It must also be acknowledged, however, that his dilemma is that which often confronts this House: that this House is seen to be quite industrious but some doubt remains as to whether it produces anything. I should have thought that a 39-minute speech would have contained substantial detail to better acquaint this House about critical matters concerning our country and countries with which Australia has substantial relationships, and about matters of joint concern. But that the Minister should have used so much of that time to address himself to real and imagined deficiencies in the Opposition's position rather suggests that he himself was conscious that he was going to fall short of the expectation of the House. It is unfortunate that those outside this place who may look to the submissions and presentations of members for their own guidance in coming to conclusions, should be so denied in this case. We were subjected to a dot-point speech from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In relation to matters that he might have expanded, we were left somewhat disappointed. However, of course, Foreign Ministers from the beginning of time have probably been subjected to extraordinary frustrations simply because of the nature of our foreign affairs-the ebb and flow, the continuing state of flux. Within recent years we have seen a substantial change in relationships; for example, between China and Russia. Israel, which matter the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) just addressed, is at risk of facing significant change in attitudes from other nations. That state was once the champion of the world, since it established itself after the World War II holocaust. However, now because of the circumstances in which it is placed, it is becoming subject to criticism because of what is perceived by others to be reprehensible acts in which it is involved whilst it tries to engage simply in the act of survival. So we have a continuing change. Foreign Ministers, of course, are left in this inglorious state of flux where one has to not only deal with today but also try to read tomorrow. In particular what saddens me is that in a number of instances there is something that is a little short of misrepresentation possibly from both sides of the House. I am concerned essentially with the comment of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who handles himself extremely well in this place. He misinterpreted the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who I thought made an excellent contribution when he addressed the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I say that with total sincerity because I reserve the right to be critical of members of this side of the House, just as I am of Government members when occasion invites. The honourable member for Macarthur charged the honourable member for North Sydney with having stated that the six condemned people in South Africa should hang. The honourable member for North Sydney said nothing of the sort. He dealt with what in turn he alleged was a misrepresentation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who said: Six people not directly involved in a violent incident are about to be hanged. Quite properly the honourable member for North Sydney took up the words, `not directly involved'. His argument, from an extract of the transcript of evidence in the trial, pointed out clearly that the six people were involved. The honourable member for North Sydney said not a word about whether they should hang or what fate should be meted out to them. He challenged the probity of the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that the six people were not directly involved. Unless we discount totally the evidence found in the transcript provided by the South African Embassy, we must accept its veracity. If we dismiss it as being without veracity, we will have somewhat of a dilemma in explaining why two of those initially charged had their cases dismissed. This rather suggests to me that there is a system of justice within that country, albeit within narrow parameters. The statement made by the honourable member for North Sydney proves beyond question of doubt that the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, that the six people were not directly involved, was a misrepresentation of the facts. It was said that subsequently the honourable member for Macarthur charged the honourable member for North Sydney with having asserted that the six people in question should hang. One can if one wishes, on an inferential basis, say that that was the intention. That was unfortunate for this Parliament and for the honourable member concerned because I trust he guards his own integrity as jealously as most of us do, which often, unhappily, results in singular failure in that endeavour. It was however, a laudable ambition. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr MILLAR —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was addressing the statement which the Minister for Foreign Affairs put before the House earlier today. In the minutes remaining to me in this debate, I wish to touch on a few random matters. It is sufficient to say at this stage that Australia's concern with the state of world affairs is justifiably one of major proportion. Rarely have we seen a world in such disarray; there are festering sores virtually wherever one looks and certainly we must maintain our presence in foreign affairs. One recalls the days when a glance at the atlas would have revealed substantial areas of the world coloured pink or red. `Red' became almost a dirty word, but when one saw areas marked in brilliant pink one knew that that was the extent of the British Empire. It must be acknowledged that in those days, for better or for worse, many of the problems that confront our globe today would have been promptly resolved by sending out a couple of battleships to a particular area. Yet, paradoxically, history rather proves that in those circumstances, although people may have been oppressed, generally they were well fed and there was a tranquility about the place. Today sadly, particularly in Africa-a continent in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs spent a considerable portion of his time-we have the paradox of independence being a concomitant of empty bellies; not only empty bellies, but also genocidal characteristics with countries which had looked forward to independence but which now for a number of reasons demonstrate a lack of ability to handle their new freedom. The man in the street is perplexed by these things. He reads in the newspapers about the situation in Ethiopia, where aid trucks carrying food have been destroyed by insurgents or elements within the country, but where people are dying in their thousands. It is almost genocide. The man or woman in the street says, `Why are we sending money there when it does not get through to the people who need it, and why do we send out money when there are clear instances of poverty in our own country?'. That is a simplistic view. Naturally, we have to maintain a presence. It does not take a great deal of imagination to appreciate that in the case of some of our primary exports and the competition or threat emanating from the United States of America in trade arrangements, if there were not an Australian presence there, certainly the natural tendency of United States congressmen and senators to succumb to the blandishments or insistence of their constituents would involve the United States of America in arrangements that would be counterproductive to Australia's proper involvement in global trade and its quite proper ambitions. Therefore, we must have a presence. I mentioned earlier the gunboat strategy. The extraordinary paradox in today's world is that whilst we have all the elements predisposing such an event with the intrusion of a major force to restore some order or, to put the matter in uglier terms, to ensure that its own best interests are preserved, there is an avoidance of such action-a restraint-because, believe it or not, the horrendous nuclear deterrent has worked and is working. It is a frightful thing to have hanging over our heads but unquestionably it has preserved-- Mr Peter Fisher —For 43 years. Mr MILLAR —For 43 years, as the honourable member for Mallee points out-his skill at mathematics and calculation is renowned in this place-we have been free from global encounters. There would have been at least two over that period in my estimation and there are all the elements in the world now which in older times would have precipitated a crisis. Mr Hunt —There were 100-year wars. Mr MILLAR —Indeed, there were 100-year wars. There was a continuation of hostility, alienation and, by and large, a failure by man to come to terms with reality. Apparently, we cannot contain our ambition, and if it is not one country that has ambitions it is another. I am reminded of that delightful anecdote of the old, bent lady sitting in the village square while everybody else was rejoicing because of the passing of a tyrant. Somebody said to her, `Why aren't you rejoicing too?'. She said, `Why should I rejoice? I have seen four tyrants deposed'. It seems that a succession of tyrants come to power. It is the nuclear deterrent which has curbed the ambitions of some of the major countries when, in earlier years, undoubtedly there would have been a major confrontation. Whether we look at South Africa, the Israelis, the Palestinians, at countries anywhere in the world we see people striving for survival. Often they are used by those with a lust for power who seek to divert that honest, instinctive motivation to achieve unto themselves a power that is totally inconsistent with their entitlement. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that basically we are all simple human beings and we pursue that which we see as being consistent with our own measured entitlement, which often, unhappily, proves to be no more than expectation. Invariably there is a substantial gulf between the two. We are encouraged to believe that arms limitation will enhance the prospect of peace. I have reservations about it, even though I am not displeased with what is happening. If we were disarmed totally the resolution of disputations would simply become a matter of numerical strength. If we were reduced to fighting with spears, it stands to reason that Australia would have little prospect of defending itself if marched upon by a country with a population 10 times Australia's size. Mr Hunt —Who could strangle the most. Mr MILLAR —As the honourable member says, it would depend on who could strangle the most. I do not know whether the honourable member is obliquely suggesting that my speech is making him choke, but he did use the word `strangle'. As I mentioned earlier, there was an expectation that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be bringing to the House a more detailed statement than in fact he presented. He covered a lot of ground. There are a host of situations of more than ordinary importance to Australia, and he rather skipped through his speech on a dot-point basis and left the House with a considerable curiosity as to where Australia's foreign affairs might be best secured. I also mentioned the fact that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs made an excellent speech in response and he gave a greater balance to matters advanced by the Minister. It is a sad reflection perhaps on this House that honourable members seem possessed of a compulsion to exploit the political opportunities, without letting the facts stand for themselves and be judged accordingly. I fancy that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would have been surprised at how well his statement might have been received if he had dealt exclusively with the positive points emanating from his own activities, rather than wasting a considerable portion of his 39 minutes to concentrate on alleged Opposition aberrations. They impress nobody and invariably in the end prove to have little substance. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(8.38) —I congratulate the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) on his whimsical contribution to this debate. Mr McGauran —It was serious. Mrs HARVEY —It was serious and whimsical. I am complimenting the honourable member on his contribution to the debate. It is nice for young, pragmatic, new members of this House, such as the member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) and, to know that there are people like the honourable member for Wide Bay who can take a broad historical perspective. It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to respond to the report by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) on his recent trip overseas. It would seem that his talks and activities in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia were cordial and productive. I add my congratulations on the success of his endeavours. Australian foreign policy has broadly two aims which operate at different levels but frequently converge. One is a relatively self-centred focus on geographical areas which are of direct political and economic significance to this country. Contrary to what the Opposition has said, no-one in this Government resiles from that approach nor plays down its importance. The Minister's recent activities aimed at forging bilateral trade agreements and the considerable resources which this Government devotes to the Asia-Pacific region attest to this. However, this Government's foreign policy rests also on a broader aim-to protect and promote wherever possible democratic and human ideals, which the Australian Labor Party, at least, holds dear. Our platform pledges us to support human rights and economic equality, and to oppose oppression and racism. It is this aspect of our policy which has been behind this Government's support, both moral and financial, for the African front line states, and Mozambique in particular, in their struggle to overcome South African oppression and destabilisation and the tragic economic and human devastation which prevails in these countries. The Opposition, of course, is very good at making motherhood statements about human rights and freedom. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in his speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Hobart earlier this month, criticised this Government's stand on South Africa, and then said: This is not to deny that the situation in South Africa and any solutions to its problems is of immense complexity, nor should it prevent the strongest possible condemnation of the latest restrictions on political expression in South Africa. So the Leader of the Opposition condemns the situation in South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition can verbally condemn until the proverbial cows come home, but what would he or his Party actually do to promote freedom and justice in South Africa? He has not let us into that secret. All he has done is criticise in the most destructive and mean spirited way positive actions which this Government has taken to further the cause of equality and freedom in that region. He and the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), have condemned-there is that word again-Australia's $6m emergency aid grant to Mozambique, purportedly because an Australian missionary is being detained there. First of all, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade made it quite clear in answer to a question in this House on Tuesday that all that can possibly be done is being done to secure an early and fair trial for Mr Ian Grey. Australian consular authorities and the Minister himself while he was there have made representations on Mr Grey's behalf in relation to his legal representation, the bringing forward of the trial and support during the trial. Also, it would be a dereliction of our moral duty to ignore the plight of the Mozambican people. After years of civil strife the city of Maputo and the countryside are devastated. Shops are empty, the people totally demoralised. With a devaluation of 1,000 per cent in little more than a year, the currency is almost worthless. Inflation is conservatively estimated at 120 per cent. But worst of all, of a population of 15 million people five million are reported to be suffering from acute starvation, and the average life expectancy is 46 years. Yet when this Government gives a modest $6m to help alleviate this tragic situation, the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Sydney jump up and down and say that that is not in Australia's national interest. I suggest to those honourable gentlemen opposite that it is not, in the short term at least, Australia's national interest which is at stake here. What is at stake are the lives of 15 million largely innocent and powerless men, women and children. I also suggest that in the longer term it is very much in Australia's national and international interest to share and to be seen to be sharing in the aid effort for that region which is currently being carried largely by other Western nations such as Canada and western European countries. Aid figures indicate that the $6m we are giving to Mozambique is modest not only in absolute terms but also in relative terms. If we look at Australian food aid to Ethiopia, another African country stricken by famine, we find that in the three years from 1984-85 to 1986-87 Australia gave $34.4m worth of food aid to that country and $6.76m to Mozambique. On a per capita basis, all forms of Australian aid to these two nations work out over the three years to $1.23 per Ethiopian and $1.25 per Mozambiquan. I do not recall the Opposition ever claiming that we should not be sending aid to Ethiopian famine victims because it is not in our national interest, as they are now saying about our aid to Mozambique. Perhaps members of the Opposition actually have to see a nation's people dying on their television screens or wait until someone organises a pop concert or a cause becomes popular before they consider taking action. Perhaps the Opposition considers that there are more or less deserving classes of famine victim. Mr Bilney —Perhaps they are just playing politics. Mrs HARVEY —Exactly. If we compare overall aid to Mozambique over those three years with our aid to Fiji, which the Leader of the Opposition claims is a nation we are neglecting, we find that the $1.25 per capita expenditure in Mozambique pales in comparison with the $76.76 per capita grant we have given to Fiji. In the last three years we have given more than 50 times the aid to Fiji on a per capita basis as we have to Mozambique. So let us not have any more false claims from the Opposition that we are favouring African nations at the expense of the nations of our region and therefore supposedly are not pursuing our national interest. Is it not also in Australia's national interest that we be taken at our word when we express revulsion at what is happening in South Africa and what the South African regime is doing to the economies and the people of the front line states? It is not enough to do as the Leader of the Opposition has done and stand up at yet another meeting in Australia mouthing pious platitudes condemning the South African regime. If Australia is to be taken seriously in this regard it must put its money where its mouth is, and that is quite literally what our Foreign Minister has done in the course of his visit to that region. Relations with these African states should go beyond the provision of aid. This region offers new frontiers of commercial enterprise to Australian companies and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade pointed out, a trade mission of Australian business representatives will visit Zimbabwe and Mauritius this year to explore those opportunities. The Opposition forgets that Australia and these African countries form the eastern and western perimeters of the same ocean, albeit a large ocean. It is sensible that Australian companies, particularly Western Australian companies, should turn their attention westward to capitalise on the trade opportunities that present themselves there. I now turn my attention to the Middle East, which I must say is more than the Leader of the Opposition did in his address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs two weeks ago. I was surprised when earlier in the debate the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) spent five of his 15 allotted minutes criticising our Foreign Minister because he allegedly did not address the Middle Eastern question and give it the due consideration that the honourable member thought he should. I have here the address of the Leader of the Opposition to the Institute of International Affairs-and I have read it, which obviously is more than the honourable member for Warringah has done-and there is not one reference to the Middle Eastern problem, despite the fact that this speech was supposed to reflect the Opposition's world view. The half million Australians of Jewish and Arab origin might well ask themselves what importance the Opposition places on events in their countries of origin and on the welfare of their compatriots when the region does not rate even the most scant mention in an Opposition speech on broad foreign policy. For almost four years, from 1981 to 1984, I had the pleasure-and it was a pleasure-to live and work in Jordan and to travel extensively throughout that country, the occupied territories and Israel. I was able to see at first hand and from both sides the conditions which prevailed and still prevail in that region. Through my family's involvement in an Australian agricultural aid program I came to appreciate the inestimable importance of our involvement in constructive aid and trade programs to the economic development of the region and for Australia's own commercial and political interests. The conflict for sovereignty over the occupied territories is not simply one of self-aggrandisement or expansion for militarily strategic reasons. It is also a desperate struggle for access to physical resources-agricultural, mineral and water resources-which are vital for the survival of the people of the region. Relevant, well targeted and even-handed Australian aid programs aimed at developing, maximising and rationalising these resources can go a long way in expediting the resolution of political conflict. In addition, offsetting opportunities for trade in Australian foodstuffs, equipment, technology and expertise make these initiatives a wise economic move for Australia The events of recent weeks in the occupied territories, tragic and destructive as they have been, may constitute some sort of flashpoint-a catalyst for new and, hopefully, more successful negotiations towards peace. There is evidence that a growing number of Israelis in the Government, the army and the community are leaning more favourably towards the idea of some sort of withdrawal from the occupied territories and that a growing number of moderate Arabs are perhaps willing to bend a little to bring about a solution. But the possibility of withdrawal at this time has been made much more difficult by actions of the Israeli Government back in the days when the idea of withdrawal was unthinkable to most Israelis. I am referring here to the Israeli decisions, first, to transfer the Israeli Parliament-the Knesset-from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem and to declare that city the capital of Israel; and, secondly, to establish new and permanent exclusively Jewish settlements on the West Bank. These acts were provocative and based on that primitive and crude precept that possession is nine points of the law. The establishment of the Israeli seat of government in a city which is held purely by military force, a city which is sacred to Moslem, Christian and Jew and which is the repository of the historical lifeblood of the people of Palestine, was an act of overweening presumption. In addition, incursions into Arab East Jerusalem and, in recent days, the storming by Israeli troops of the Dome of the Rock-one of the two most sacred site in Islam-were unwise and untenable. The Jewish settlements which have proliferated on the West Bank in particular are an Israeli attempt to establish a concrete-and I use that term literally-presence in that area. But the settlements have no place there. Apart from being physically offensive, they accommodate Israelis who merely reside there and who commute to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem to work. They form no organic part of the landscape or of the local economy or community. Their residents sit behind their bunkers and barbed wire in a self-imposed state of siege while around them thousand-year-old communities slowly die of economic and cultural starvation. It is the location of the Israeli Parliament in the occupied city of Jerusalem and the presence of permanent Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank which will make the achievement of a significant Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories a formidable task. But I wish both parties, Israeli and Arab, good luck and fortitude in any future negotiations. The policy of this Government towards the Middle East, one which I personally endorse, is one of an even-handed but consistent effort to contribute to the achievement of a just peace which upholds the sovereignty of the state of Israel, self-determination for the Palestinians and the maintenance of security, freedom and human rights for all people of the region. This most recent visit of our Foreign Minister has furthered the respect and regard in which Australia is held by governments and authorities in that area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.53) —I wish to continue my remarks in relation to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988. I was referring to some clauses of the Bill. I will now refer to another clause. In relation to that, if there is one group of business people who benefit from elections, that group is the printers. They certainly have real pickings at election time, as we in this House all know. That is fair enough; generally they do a good job, and I have no problem with that. Certainly in my own case I have been well satisfied with the end product of their labours. So I have no argument with the amendment which will repeal the requirement that printers furnish returns on referendum printing. Both the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and the Australian Electoral Commission agree that printers' returns related to elections and referendums are of limited value for the purpose of crackdowns and cross-checks. The requirement for the making of a return should therefore be removed. This Bill also removes the obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish returns for a referendum where it is held in conjunction with an election. It is very difficult to distinguish between election and referendum expenditure in returns furnished by broadcasters and publishers. I am also pleased to see that clause 6 amends section 11 of the principal Act to allow for the official preparation and distribution of arguments for and against any referendum proposed in forms which are suitable for the visually impaired. At present the Act provides for the presentation of materials only in the form of a written pamphlet. This change will be welcomed by the visually impaired in the community. Last Sunday I attended the opening of the National Championships for the Blind, which were held in Perth, when I presented a flag. There is no doubt that people who have a visual handicap want to be seen as normal people. They want to participate in normal community activities. Participation in future referenda is another step in that direction which should be encouraged. I am pleased to see that we are encouraging it in this Bill. In conclusion, I again emphasise that the proposed amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act are based on recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. As I said earlier in my remarks, this was a most excellent document and one that deserves praise from both sides of the House. In fairness to Opposition members, they have indeed praised that report. I certainly support the Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.57) —In rising to speak in the debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988, at the outset I commend the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) for the amendments which he proposes to move to this legislation on behalf of the Opposition. They are section specific amendments which make a lot of sense. I hope that the Government, between now and when the legislation goes to the Senate, will consider whether those amendments might be agreed to. They are not extraordinarily controversial amendments. Indeed, they are practical, legitimate amendments, with no major cost implications, and ones that we commend to the House and to the nation. Perhaps it is time to think a little more broadly about the question of referendums. I noted previous speakers' comments with interest. It is always edifying to look at the record of referendum results since the very first referendum was held in Australia at the Federal level on 12 December 1906. Ironically, that first referendum concerned Senate elections. An extraordinarily high 82.65 per cent of voters-a majority in all States-were in favour of the proposal. I do not think that that record has been bettered on too many occasions since then, except in the referendum relating to Aboriginals and the Constitution, held on 27 May 1967. That proposal also attracted a majority in all States, with 90.77 per cent voting in favour of it. If that question were to be asked in a modified form today, perhaps that vote would be slightly different. But when one looks at the number of referenda that have been held since 1900, one is looking at a total of 38. Only eight out of 38 proposals have been passed in the history of the Federation of Australia-since 1901. So the Constitution and questions referred to the people by way of referenda have not been considered lightly by the people. They have been considered cautiously by the people of many generations. This reflects not so much an innate conservative approach to tampering with the Constitution but the very practical consideration that one does not lightly tamper with the Australian Constitution document which was drawn up at the turn of the century to bring the six State colonies and the nation together as a whole. It should be respected. I commend the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) for his comments in that regard. One of the key meetings associated with forming the Constitution and bringing about the Federation of Australia took place in my electorate at Corowa in 1893. That meeting led to subsequent meetings which, in turn, led to the adoption of our Federal Constitution. Tonight the House is considering machinery provisions for the conduct of referenda in the light of the fact that just eight out of 38 referenda have ever fulfilled both requirements, that is, a majority of States and a majority of votes overall. It is important to consider that historical context before moving on to discuss some aspects which arise from it. One might ask why the Government is bedding down these referendum voting provisions now. The Government says, and we accept this, that it is to adopt similar provisions which have already been adopted for the conduct of elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate for the conduct of referenda as well as to add three other concepts in accordance with the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. But let us get down to the truth. It is to clear the decks for a series of national referenda which the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), has indicated he would like put to the people in July of this year, our bicentennial year. It is relevant to allow me to continue to make these comments within the context of the Bill. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that these requirements were essential before the conduct of any future referendum. Let me explain to the House some of the proposals which are in the pipeline for future referendum questions. They are very worrying proposals which have caused enormous concern across Australia. I signal here and now that they will be the subject of a vigorous debate in the community and will probably add to the graveyard of previous referendum questions which have been defeated by vote of the people. The first proposal, and the biggest worry, relates to circumscribing the powers of the Senate, the House of review, the upper House of our Federal Parliament, in a most horrific way, a way which will significantly alter the balance of power in our parliamentary institution and our Constitution. It will pave the way for the possible destruction of the Senate at a future date in accordance with the secret agenda of the Australian Labor Party. It will pave the way for shackling the Senate and removing its independence. This first question is in the Constitutional Commission pipeline. Both the Liberal and National parties are totally opposed to destroying in any way the independence of the Senate or introducing artificial shackles on its powers which do not stand up to proper scrutiny. The role of the Senate has at times annoyed members of the lower House, on both sides. But that is as it is. Overall, the contribution of the Senate to the good governance of this country has been tremendous. If we are annoyed on both sides of the House from time to time by the handling of legislation in the Senate, by the motions and behaviour of the Senate, so be it. On balance, the contribution the Senate makes to the good governance of this country has been such over decades that one does not tamper with its powers. One does not destroy the independence of the Senate. I signal to the House and to the nation that that proposal is step one in the constitutional pipeline for referendum questions later this year. The second possibility requiring the passage of this Bill, in accordance with the Minister's second reading speech, is to limit the powers of the Governor-General. The Governor-General is an integral part of the Constitution of Australia. Again, it is something which should not be lightly tampered with. If I might say so, although I know Standing Orders restrict my reference severely, one could have nothing but praise for the manner in which the current occupant provides service to this nation as Governor-General. I add to that my praise for the role played by his wife. This House, this Parliament and this nation cannot embark on the path of reducing the powers of the Governor-General which is, once again, part of the secret agenda of the Labor Party to have a Constitution which suits it and which suits its endgame, which is, as several honourable members have said, part of paving the way of the abolition of the Senate. The third proposal relates to the Federal Government's powers in the management of the national economy. It will be interesting to see how the details of this question are framed when eventually the public is allowed to see the details of the referendum questions later this year. The fourth proposal is patterned on the Bill of Rights. The people have already, through a grand grass roots revolution, expressed their total opposition to all that was involved in the Bill of Rights. The people, I dare to say, will once again argue and campaign heavily against a Bill of Rights and throw it out as they did with the ID card. If the Government wants to put up a referendum question enshrining aspects of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it can expect the same fate. The fifth proposal in the pipeline from the Constitutional Commission relates to the abolition of the Queen's residual powers. Once again, it is all in one direction. It is all part of the secret agenda of the Labor Government which we should reject. The sixth proposal tampers with the preamble written into the Constitution with regard to Aboriginal people. The seventh proposal regards the implementation of one vote one value. The eighth proposal, behind which all else will shelter, is the four-year term for the Federal Parliament with a government having to run a minimum of three years. On the face of it, a four-year term has a great deal to commend it. New South Wales moved to a four-year term at the last election. Next Saturday will see the general election for the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales and one-third of the Legislative Council, coming more or less four years after the March 1984 election in that State. It is argued that four years is sufficient time for governments to make the hard decisions they have to make and not have to go to the people with the cost burden and so forth associated with general elections. If that is all this proposal does, and if it does it in a legitimate and proper way, perhaps the four-year term will be looked upon favourably. However, I suspect that the Government will shelter behind the attractive four-year term proposition and sneak into the Constitution the seven other unattractive propositions it is going to draft into these questions by way of referenda to the Australian people later this year. There will be a very careful and difficult decision for all major political parties to take with regard to the forthcoming constitutional referenda. There will be a very difficult decision to take with regard to the four-year term. I for one am not prepared to sacrifice the sanctity and strength of our Federal Constitution for the right to sit for one extra year on these benches in Parliament without facing the people. I actually do not mind the people having a right to pass judgment on the Government. I think that is central and integral to our democratic process and I suspect the real motives of the Government in paving the way for these constitutional questions to come forward as part of and flowing from the legislation which is before the House at this time. I say to the House and to the nation, `Beware of the forthcoming constitutional referenda questions because there is a lot more in them than meets the eye'. It is not a case of burying one's head in the sand. It is not a case of denying that there are justifications for updating a constitutional document which was, in the main, drawn up at the turn of the century. As I have pointed out to the House, on eight occasions people have adopted referendum questions and that is quite acceptable. But on this occasion we have a series of Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Ministers and Attorney-General, who have signalled that they are on the verge of retirement. They are anxious to get in place their particular monuments to their careers and the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I have some respect, is angling to get his constitutional referendum questions up. For that he needs this Bill, an attractive proposition for the electorate and a strong campaign. He would argue that hopefully people will adopt it. Again, I say to the people of Australia, `Be very wary of what the Government is proposing later this year, or whenever it brings forward constitutional questions, because there is an enormous amount of danger associated with them'. I serve notice that the Liberal and National parties will be watching extremely closely and reaching proper and responsible decisions with regard to their attitude to those specific referendum questions. Earlier today, for the first time, the House witnessed a new procedure which saw a Bill known as the Flags Amendment Bill come forward. It is relevant in passing to mention the Flags Amendment Bill. This Bill proposes that our national flag cannot be changed unless it is submitted to a national referendum which has the normal requirements associated with a national referendum. I want, firstly, to indicate as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and as the Federal member for Farrer, my total support for the Flags Amendment Bill and my total support for bringing our national flag within the scope of referendum questions rather than exposing it to the danger of an unholy alliance between someone like the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and someone like future His Excellency, Mr Bill Hayden, should the honourable member for Oxley make it to Government House, as was discussed in the media two weeks ago. As the law now stands, the Prime Minister of this nation can go to Government House on a Sunday night and put a piece of paper in front of the Governor-General. The Governor-General can sign that piece of paper and by Monday morning this nation could have administratively, overnight, a new national flag. That right should be denied any Prime Minister of any political persuasion. I believe that the Flags Amendment Bill does just that by providing that our national flag can be changed only by way of a referendum which would be conducted under the procedures laid down by the legislation before the House. I know that many Returned Services League sub-branches, many veterans and the majority of supporters of all major parties, as the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), pointed out this morning-the vast majority of all Australians-support the retention of our national flag and support the right for it to be changed only by way of referendum. They would be furious if the Prime Minister were to take the administrative option without reference to the Parliament or the people. I hope that the two Flags Amendment Bills, the one introduced to the Senate by Senator Short and the one introduced to this House by the Leader of the Opposition, will be favourably dealt with. I challenge the Government to declare its attitude to the legislation before much longer so that hopefully it can be dealt with in the autumn session of Parliament. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill in many of its provisions has the support of the Opposition in the modernisation of some of the procedures laid down. One issue which is not dealt with by this Bill is the now accepted polling hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. across the nation. Not so long ago that in itself was quite a controversial issue, but it has now been generally accepted that it is in the right direction. The fact that two hours have been taken off the hours of polling day I do not believe has altered the result even in country seats, even during the middle of harvesting, although it has created some difficulties. But there is universal acceptance of the 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. polling hours. That is not at issue. A number of other measures are at issue, particularly with regard to the yes and no questions which have been adequately covered by other speakers. In commending to the House the amendments which deal with those questions I conclude by reiterating my strong concerns over any moves to sabotage our great Constitution. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(9.17) —I have pleasure in rising in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. I join with my fellow colleagues who have indicated their thanks and appreciation of the work that has been done by previous joint select committees on electoral matters. They indicated a number of suggestions for amendment to our electoral laws. The purpose of this Bill is to bring the principal Act, that is, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think that the sorts of things that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) wanted to read into this Act are nothing but nonsense and whims of fancy. This legislation is an attempt to bring the two Acts into line. Basically the major provisions are designed to ensure, amongst other things, that overseas polling officials are subject to the same penalties for neglect of duties as those officials in Australia; to remove existing time limits on the ability to alter polling day or the return of writs; and to allow the preparation and distribution of arguments for and against proposed referendum proposals in a form suitable for the visually impaired. I think the latter is very important because it enables the access of people with that sort of handicap to information that forms the basis of referenda proposals. Other provisions in the Bill are the consolidation of requirements relating to the forwarding and declaration of votes; the provision that only those votes that are unequivocally yes or no should be regarded as formal; and the provision that there be no obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish returns for a referendum where it is held in conjunction with an election. Whilst this is machinery-type legislation, it gives us an opportunity to discuss a wide range of matters about referenda and about Australia's ability to alter its Constitution. The honourable member for Farrer made reference to the fact that out of 38 proposals that have been put forward to the Australian people to alter the Constitution, only eight have been successful. I think in some cases the alterations proposed were so straightforward that their success was never in doubt. I instance the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill of 1967 in respect of Aborigines. Which sought to remove any ground for the belief that the Constitution discriminated against people of the Aboriginal race. As the honourable member for Farrer indicated, that was given overwhelming support by Australia. It obtained a majority in all six States and an overall majority of some 4.6 million votes out of a total of 6.1 million possible votes. That was perhaps one of the most outstanding referenda successes, and justifiably so. Perhaps we should ponder why, when popularly elected governments put forward proposals to the Australian people, it is so difficult to achieve success in amending the Constitution. One of the issues that I think is worth canvassing is a proposal that has been put before the Australian people-I acknowledge that it has been rejected-and my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) touched upon it in his contribution to this debate. I refer to the provision that not only do we need a majority of those who cast votes to support the proposition but we also need a majority in a majority of the States. So in four of the six States we need to get a majority plus the majority of overall voters. The substance of the contention of my colleague the honourable member for Calwell was that perhaps it was sufficient that we look at requiring only a majority of voters for a proposition to be successful. May I suggest that even the proposal that was rejected is again worthy of reconsideration. That simply stated that not only would we require a majority of those voting, but also that we would alter the number of States required back to three. As I said, that proposition was rejected. In talking about the Constitution it is appropriate to note that our founding fathers were not as enlightened as we are in matters of gender. Perhaps that is something we should think about. There has been a great deal of change in the basis for a number of the matters that were put into the Constitution in 1901. We had six colonies with conflicting interests who were trying to come together to form a nation. Obviously, there was a great deal of suspicion of the denial of those colonies' rights, and therefore a great deal of compromise in protecting any perceived deficiencies in the formation of the Federation. That brings me to the next point I wish to raise. We already have evidence of the difficulties apparent in making meaningful amendments to the Constitution. The honourable member for Farrer tonight took part in a campaign-a campaign in which some of his colleagues have also been involved-pandering to that natural suspicion about changes to the Constitution and running a whole series of red herrings about what may or may not be proposed later this year for constitutional change. The basis of the contribution by the honourable member for Farrer was that the Government would naively put forward propositions which, because of this natural suspicion, would have little chance of success. History has shown that governments must not merely put forward constitutional changes at their whim and fancy; they must give the proposals careful consideration. I contrast the contribution of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who chastised the Government because it has not yet made clear which proposals will be put forward. The honourable member for Farrer and his colleagues in the Senate, Senator Chaney and Senator Short, have already commenced a campaign in which they are asking for some form of action. The honourable member for Farrer talked about some hidden agenda. Senator Chaney earlier this year said, `Opponents must mobilise now. Labor's plans to nobble the Senate and change the Constitution to its own political advantage can be thwarted without resort to an expensive referendum campaign'. He used the lowest commonest denominator and played on people's natural suspicions. In the best traditions of bipartisanship, we should be looking at some of the things that have been proposed because. I believe that some of them are worthwhile. Some of them reflect contemporary attitudes. In proposing that we should look at and discuss change to the Constitution there is no suggestion that the present Constitution is bad. It is simply suggested that perhaps the Constitution could be made better. It is about time we took a mature approach and looked at some of those questions. Many honourable members opposite have decried the efforts of the Constitutional Commission, a Commission that has given us an ability to seek community input and to have community discussion about proposals. The honourable member for Curtin suggested that in some way the Commission was an abrogation of the Government's and the Parliament's responsibilities. I see it as a good way of getting some input from the community, some reflection of community attitudes on a number of the questions that have been raised. I now turn to some of the proposals mentioned in this legislation. Of the amendments for the committee stage that have been foreshadowed, the coalition has chosen to highlight-it believes that in some way this opens the Commonwealth Electoral Act to widescale rorting-the change to the residential qualifications for enrolment with the deletion of the need to have lived within the division for three months prior to polling day in order to vote. Senator Short, who I understand is the spokesman for home affairs, was quoted in the Age yesterday under the heading `Law change led to increased claims of multiple voting . . .' The article suggested that a number of voting irregularities arose because of this change, that there were allegations of phantom and multiple voting. In some way it is suggested that if this were done on a wide enough scale there could be rorting of the electoral system that would be crucial to the result in certain marginal seats. I believe that that would have to be on the very widest of scales to have any effect. The important thing is that these matters will be looked at by the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. The Committee, under the chairmanship of my colleague the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), will be looking at the conduct of the 1987 election. Given the way that members from both sides of politics have worked on that Committee in the past, these allegations will be thoroughly investigated and the internal investigation being conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Commissioner can also be reviewed. I do not see the necessity for the proposed amendment to withdraw this amendment from the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. If we accept the Opposition's amendment and this amendment does not go through there will be confusion and the need for two different roles. As my colleague the honourable member for Calwell indicated, why should we be looking at this point in relation to referendums when, as he put it, it does not really matter whether somebody is enrolled for the division of Calwell or the division of Burke, because if we are to suggest that there is some form of rorting going on, in order for it to be effective the transport of votes across State boundaries would have to occur? I think the suggestion that in some way this provision has led to multiple enrolments can easily be looked into by the processes that are used by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. I do not deny that the Electoral Commission should perhaps be looking at some system to tighten up its inspection of people's qualifications to enrol, but I am not suggesting, and I do not agree with the contention of people such as Senator Short, that there is wholesale rorting going on. I believe there are minor instances where people unwittingly do the wrong thing. As an example, I instance the case of somebody who genuinely thought that he had taken out Australian citizenship. He had an invitation to attend a ceremony but, due to illness or some other reason, he could not attend the ceremony. At some later stage he filled out an electoral card and got his name on the electoral roll. Subsequently, when trying to get a passport, he could not prove that he was actually an Australian citizen. So there are isolated cases. I acknowledge that perhaps there is a need to tighten up some of the procedures. But let us not get hysterical; let us not come to these conclusions that there is wholesale use of phantom and multiple voting as a result of some rorting of the residential qualifications for voting. As with a whole range of matters, the Opposition has recently reached record heights of hysteria about popular matters. One of those in regard to electoral matters of course was the way that the Opposition, with some assistance from parts of the media, was able to beat up the comments of the Electoral Commissioner, Dr Hughes, about the need to investigate some inconsistencies in the way that the results had been reported. There was never any suggestion that those inconsistencies in any way altered the results of any seats, but the Opposition chose to portray these inconsistencies as being of the gravest and most dastardly consequence. I think a more considered debate and discussion of matters that are raised would be best, especially when we have a very good organisation in the Australian Electoral Commission, an independent organisation which is in charge of and which conducts elections. I think that by proper cooperation, especially through the efforts of the Committee on Electoral Reform, a number of these matters can be canvassed. Perhaps we should still be looking at a number of matters in relation to constitutional change. Time precludes my canvassing a number of those, so I shall mention but a few. Last year I made a comment in an adjournment speech on the failure of one of the few constitutional alteration amendment Bills which were successful to really specify the proper action, and that was the constitutional alteration legislation regarding casual Senate vacancies. This proposal sought to ensure as far as practicable that a casual vacancy in the Senate was filled by a person of the same political party as the senator chosen by the people, and that the person should hold the seat for the balance of the term. As I mentioned in my adjournment speech last year, apparently-and pardon the pun-this is a grey area because of the actions of the Tasmanian Premier at the time of the resignation of the then Senator Grimes. Perhaps it is something we, on both sides of politics, should be looking at, because the apparent intention of the referendum was not clear enough, and people such as Premier Gray were almost able to get away with what he attempted in the middle of last year. That is one of the changes we have to look at to tighten up that area. I do not suggest that, when we talk about the Senate, we do so loosely, because people think that in some way we are trying to undermine its role. But I take it that at the time of Federation it was considered that the Senate would truly be a States House. I think, in the fairest consideration of its 87-year history, that is not entirely the case. It is a very political chamber of this Parliament. I understand that many people see its House of review role as worth while, and I do not contemplate canvassing some sort of ultimate demise of that chamber. But if we accept it as a House of review perhaps we should be looking at the basis of that review. I think that is a fair enough proposition. Mr Nehl —You want to change the rules. Mr JENKINS —It is something we should do in a mature way and without the emotion that that interjection indicates. All I ask is for fair consideration to make the Senate's role contemporary, of relevance and not merely just a continuation of some perceived role of the Senate as at 1901. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill, and I commend it to the House. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.36) —I thank the Government for providing me with an opportunity to make a few remarks in regard to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. I wish to give the Australian public two short, sharp warnings about the referendum debates that we are likely to have this year. Whilst there is some back-pedalling on referendum proposals this year, I expect that the present Government in New South Wales will be back-pedalling a lot more when it loses on Saturday. However, I say to the Australian public: be warned, because this Government has very particular views about the Constitution. The Opposition is not idle and is preparing itself for the debates that will come later this year. The last time we had a major debate in this Parliament about similar legislation was when the Government wanted to stack the odds in its favour and spend more money on the Yes case than on the No case. That was in 1983 and 1984. It ended up backing off on that referendum proposal, but it never backed off on the idea that, because it had access to taxpayers' money, somehow it was justified in spending taxpayers' money to a greater extent on one side than the other. The matter went to the Senate, and there was an amendment which attempted to preclude the Government from using its financial muscle to spend moneys on propaganda pushing Labor's agenda for the Constitution. So the Government devised this rather clever mechanism to be known as the Constitutional Commission. It scrapped the conventions which we had had for a number of years and which had been quite successful by any reasonable measure, and introduced the Constitutional Commission. Whilst I make no comments about the personalities-and some very fine Australians have been associated with the Commission-the reality is that, when it came down with its first set of recommendations, lo and behold what did we find but good old Australian Labor Party policy. What was that Labor Party policy? Nothing but to undermine the powers of the Senate, a cherished ideal of the Labor Party for many years. The fact is that this Constitutional Commission has had $6m of our money to push a particular line. I say to the Australian public: beware of the recommendations coming from the Constitutional Commission, because it is our belief that some views coming out of that Commission would be of no advantage and in fact would be to the detriment of all Australians. The second point I want to make again relates to the sorts of proposals coming from the Constitutional Commission and Government members. Government members say that it is all sweetness and light and that they have nothing but the best of intentions. Let me quote something said by Senator Gareth Evans when he first went into the Senate. He was reported in the Canberra Times on 2 July 1987 as saying: The way to abolish the Senate, or at least muzzle it, is to white ant from within. That is the policy-get in and plug away, take away a brick here and a brick there, until the whole foundation of the Senate's powers falls down to Labor's ideological views about the Parliament and how the Parliament should submit to Labor's philosophy. Senator Evans is not on his own. In 1980, when Mr Hayden was leading the Labor Party, he also had something to say on this issue. The Sydney Morning Herald reported: Mr Hayden urged Party members to work as hard for Senate candidates as for House of Representatives hopefuls . . . He said there was a tendency for the Party to undercommit itself to the Senate campaign. ``Because we are committed to its eventual elimination, we must take it seriously,'' he said. That is the true voice of Labor: get in there and white ant it from within. So, I say to the people of Australia, `Be warned, be careful, be cautious'. I say to those who opposed Labor's ID card, `You have a vital stake in the future independence of the Senate'. To those people who supported coalition moves in the Senate to oppose Labor's retrospective taxation legislation, I say, `You have an interest in the independence of the Senate'. To those people who supported the coalition when we attacked Labor's Bill of Rights-otherwise known as the Bill of wrongs-I say: `You have a stake in the independence and strength of the Senate'. To those people who supported the coalition when we threatened to use the powers of the Senate to stop Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to put unions above the law, I say: `You have a stake in a strong and independent Senate'. The coalition parties are not silent on this issue. We have mounted a campaign across Australia, a campaign honourable members will hear much more of as thousands of Australians look to the coalition parties properly to ensure a strong fight to maintain the powers of the Senate. I conclude by saying to those listening that we are taking a lead on this matter, on the powers of the Senate. This week we have released, and I formally launch in the House tonight, a very telling pamphlet entitled Australia has a strong constitution? Why weaken it?. I say to those who share our concerns about the Senate and our great constitution: `If you are interested in this campaign, contact your local Liberal Party or National Party member, get a copy of the pamphlet and join the community committees that will spring up during the year as we prepare for the referendum campaign in 1988'. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(9.44) —As one who is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and who was previously a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I have found the debate very interesting. Not all of it has been relevant, of course. Opposition members have been ranging far and wide with their hysterical references to possible questions in the possible referendum. Of course, these changes have to come in because we cannot have election eligibility criteria different from that which relates to a referendum. Only people as inconsistent as members of the Opposition would have the hide to suggest that we should do such a thing. It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party's position on this matter has changed. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) spent a great deal of time speaking about the possible referendum, and so did the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). I am amazed at the Opposition's cavalier and cynical approach to this matter and its lack of consistency. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) pointed this out in his speech on Tuesday when he mentioned that those opposite opposed the changes now, but they supported the same initiatives in the Electoral Act last year. I am also amazed and disappointed at the Opposition's attempt to classify these changes as somehow partisan and favouring one political party over another. Mr Sharp —Who said that? Ms JAKOBSEN —The honourable member should listen to his own speeches. The truth is that both the changes to the referendum provisions and the changes to the Electoral Act from which they are derived improve the opportunity for Australians to participate in the democratic process of elections and referenda without being hindered by artificially contrived restrictions. In particular, the change to the residency status of an elector requiring an absent vote is an important improvement in ensuring that franchise can be extended to people who have moved away from their enrolled address more than three months prior to the election or referendum for which they are seeking franchise. From now on, because of recent changes to the Electoral Act, at Federal elections an elector will no longer be asked whether he or she has lived some time in the past three months at the address for which he or she is enrolled. Under the previous legislation a negative response to this question would have rendered the would-be voter ineligible to vote even though that voter had taken the trouble to come to the polling booth. In a speech in this House some months ago-obviously on the electoral Act changes-I pointed out that the three months residency provision for absent voters served only to deprive honest or ignorant people of a vote as it could be sidestepped in a number of ways by people who knew the system or were prepared to lie in order to obtain a vote. I know it happens, and I am sure all honourable members know it happens. For the purpose of this debate, given the claims that have been made by some honourable members opposite, it is obviously necessary to repeat that information. For instance, people who realise that their enrolment has not been updated may simply return to the area in which they are enrolled and attend a local polling booth where they can be almost certain that no-one will challenge their residency qualification. The Committee discussed this and none of the members present could recall being asked that residency question when they attended their local polling booth-generally because the polling booth clerks are too busy to ask. So it is totally unfair to require the same question to be asked of people lodging an absent vote request when it is not asked of people turning up at their own polling booth. Alternatively, those people who are incorrectly enrolled can ask for a postal vote and give their current address as the address to which their ballot-papers should be directed. There is very little to stop people doing this. All they have to say is that they will be more than 10 kilometres from a polling booth on election day-no-one will check that they were-and they just fill in their postal ballot application and have their ballot-papers sent to the address at which they currently reside as if it was a temporary address. Although I accept the claims of the honourable member for Gilmore that, under the new arrangement, some people voting absent on election day are subsequently and incorrectly appearing on new electors' lists after the election when they no longer reside at those addresses and have not done so for some time, I emphasise that this problem is largely due to the design and wording of the declaration form that the prospective voter is required to sign in order to receive an absent vote ballot-paper. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of this Parliament, the Electoral Matters Committee or the Electoral Commission to come up with a solution to this relatively simple problem. For instance, an elector has to sign a form which details the address for which he or she claims to be enrolled. Nowhere on that form does the elector have an opportunity to declare a current address. How difficult would it be to require both the address for which the elector claims to be enrolled and the address at which the elector currently resides, if this is not the same? That would mean that honourable members would receive up-to-date lists that did not contain the addresses of people who no longer lived in their electorates. The declaration could be treated as an enrolment form in much the same way as it is currently, but it would have the advantage of updating the electoral role in respect of the current residential addresses of all absent voters. On the matter of itinerant voters and the provisions of this Bill, I say simply that my colleagues the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) were absolutely correct in their remarks concerning the irrelevance of Opposition arguments against this change in the context of a referendum, when the decision of voters is counted on the basis of a State rather than an electorate. Even in the context of a Federal election, and Federal electoral boundaries, the hysterical scenario outlined by the honourable member for Gilmore is impossible to sustain unless one subscribes to an elaborate conspiracy theory and suffers from severe political paranoia. The itinerant provisions of this Bill are meant to permit people who have no fixed abode to vote back to a nominated and permanent address. When no such address is applicable the elector may be enrolled in an electorate with which he or she has some particular connection; for example, it may be their place of birth or the place where their parents live. Generally it would be a place in which they have a special interest and not a marginal seat. This provision is hardly capable of rorting on a grand scale and is carefully monitored by the Australian Electoral Commission officers, as are all new provision particularly those relating to secret enrolments. Previously itinerant workers were deprived of the opportunity to vote because of the transient nature of their employment and lifestyle and the rigid residency requirements of the Electoral Act before it was amended, which is obviously the three-month rule. Why should any person be deprived of a vote simply because he happens to move around the State or nation? Rural labourers such as shearers and fruit pickers contribute to the wealth of Australia in the same way as do all other workers; but their lifestyle is rendered more mobile as a consequence of their employment. Do they not deserve to have a say in how the nation is run? I am sure that none of the National Party members in this place would want some of their rural workers not to vote-but that is currently what happens. Certainly it happened before the last changes to the Electoral Act. It seems that members of the Opposition have a fundamental problem with this legislation as well as with the earlier amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act even though they were supported by the Liberal Party. Members of the Opposition do not really believe that every adult Australian should have the right to vote. At least that is how it appears to me. They would prefer to put people in little boxes from which they could not escape. Those who do not conform to their rigid view of life and responsible behaviour are denied the right to participate in decision-making processes at all levels, commencing with the right to vote. I am certain that many Opposition members would be far happier to see a return to property franchise. Fortunately, however, adult franchise is here to stay, and this Bill will ensure that the right to participate in a referendum is extended to as many Australians as practicable, as the right to vote in a Federal election was extended. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.55) —in reply-First, I thank all honourable members who participated in this debate both on the Government side of the House and from the Opposition ranks. Most of the points raised tonight in this debate by the Opposition relate to what might occur or what might be put before the people of Australia in future referendums. The points raised by the Opposition were not about the content of this Bill. One can only conclude from those facts that the Opposition is not serious about putting forward objections to the purpose of this Bill otherwise we would have heard much more about those objections when the opportunity presented itself during the past hour or so. I simply say that the Government has always said that it accepts most of the 86 recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and the amendments to the Commonwealth electoral legislation. In 1987 we amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act accordingly in line with those beliefs. As all honourable members understand, this Bill brings the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and will give effect to those committee recommendations that specifically affect referendums. The Opposition stated that it gives qualified support to the Government on this Bill. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), outlined seven of the specific amendments that are agreed. He said in his contribution at the second reading stage of the Bill that he disagrees with three aspects. As I understand it those three aspects are clause 8, which relates to the definition of informal ballot-papers; clause 10, which relates to the extension of time for acts by officers; and clause 11, which deals with the schedule that amends different sections as set out in the foreshadowed amendments of the Opposition. I inform the House that I have examined closely the proposed amendments and I am not of a mind to accept them. I shall give my reasons for not accepting them when I have heard what the Opposition spokesman has to say during the committee stage of the Bill. I refrain from further comment at this state on the foreshadowed amendments; I am sure I will have no difficulty shooting down the Opposition's amendments in a short while. Again I thank those honourable members who participate in the debate, particularly those who were more thoughtful and who restated their commitment to democracy in this country-a concept with which I and the Government wholeheartedly agree. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.58) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 8, page 5, lines 13-16, omit paragraph (b). (2) Clause 10-Opposition to oppose. (3) Schedule, page 6, omit the following: ``Subsection 30 (3): Omit the subsection. Paragraph 30 (5) (a): Add at end of paragraph `or'. Paragraph 30 (5) (b): Omit the paragraph. Subsection 30 (6): Omit the subsection.''. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) did, I take this opportunity to thank those honourable members from this side of the Committee who contributed to the debate. I thank the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). Some honourable members from the Government side also made worthwhile contributions. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) also contributed. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) made an interesting and well considered contribution, from his point of view, as did the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). I listened with interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen). Before I address the actual amendments that I moved, I believe it is important that I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that the honourable member for Cowan spoke tripe when she said that it was quite clear that members of the Opposition believed that people did not have the right to vote. Obviously that assertion is totally and utterly untrue. She said also that Opposition members believe in property franchising rather than the adult vote concept. Again that assertion is not true. I take this opportunity to deny those statements. It is fatuous that anyone should make such a claim. The three specific amendments the Opposition is moving as a whole tonight are: the deletion of clause 8 (b), clause 10, and the first four amendments to proposed new subsection 30 of the Bill. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Gilmore that in relation to clause 10 the notation is `Opposition to oppose'. It is not actually an amendment. Mr SHARP —That is so. The Opposition is opposing it. The first amendment relating to clause 8 (b) refers specifically to the determination of a valid or invalid vote. We believe that the Government's proposals would confuse the issue rather than clarify it. The Government in clause 8 (b) is seeking to provide: For the purpose of ascertaining a voter's intention, regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. The crucial words there are `written alone or without words of qualification'. We believe that that will lead to possible confusion not only among voters but also among scrutineers who are seeking to ascertain the proper results of a referendum. At present section 24 of the Act reads: The voting at a referendum shall be by ballot and each elector shall indicate his vote- (a) if he approves the proposed law-by writing the `Yes' in the space provided on the ballot paper; or (b) if he does not approve the proposed law-by writing the `No' in the space so provided. Section 24 lays down specific and clear instructions as to how people are to fill in a vote in a referendum, yet the proposal the Government has put before the chamber states: For the purposes of ascertaining a voter's intention, regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. This is an area in which we have a concern. To give an example: if the referendum was, `Do we approve of Queen Elizabeth being the monarch of Australia?', it is possible for a person voting in the referendum to write in the box that asks `Do you approve?' the word `Yes', and next to it the words `God Save the Queen'. If one reads the proposal put forward by the Government containing the words `written alone or without words of qualification', it can be seen that the intent of a person who clearly marks in the box `Do you approve?' the word `Yes' does approve of the Queen remaining the monarch of Australia, but if that person writes next to it `God save the Queen', according to the new proposal, would that vote be invalid. We believe that the voter's intention is the primary consideration. We say the intention of the voter in the example I gave is quite clear, namely that he approves of Queen Elizabeth remaining the monarch of Australia. We believe, by comparing the present Act with the proposed legislation, that voters who for various reasons want to say something on the ballot paper apart from just putting in the box `Yes' or `No', will invalidate their vote. It may not be that example; a person could vote in approval of a referendum proposal and put beside it `Bob Hawke is a great bloke' or `John Howard is a great bloke'. Because he wrote that beside his vote the vote would be invalid. Yet it is clear from the outset that a person's intention, and what he believes the referendum is all about, is clearly indicated by putting `Yes' or `No' in the box provided. Therefore, we propose to delete that provision. The second point I raise relates to the 48-hour extension which the Electoral Commissioner will have at his discretion in the event of industrial disputes. The Minister in his second reading speech said: This will enable the Electoral Commission to extend by 48 hours the time in which acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function. We believe that that is a complete backdown to industrial muscle, to the union movement. It should be opposed right from the outset. If anybody-whether he is a district returning officer or somebody working in a mailing house or printing shop-tries to interfere in the proper voting or electoral procedures in this nation, he should not be given a second chance, as is indicated by the Government's proposals to extend the actions relating to industrial activity by 48 hours. The Electoral Commission has to be firm and precise and there cannot be any indication of the Government being prepared to move, compromise or back down on this issue. One of the most fundamental issues of our democracy is that elections be carried out in a proper way without industrial action interfering with them, and the same applies to referendums. This is purely and simply complete acquiescence by the Government in relation to industrial action. We do not stand for that sort of thing, and therefore we oppose it. The third part of our amendments relates to the residential requirements for a person who will be eligible to vote in a referendum. Much has been made of this matter tonight and on previous occasions when this matter has been debated. I make it quite clear that we realise that in this specific legislation we are talking about a referendum and not a general election, but it has been proved since the last general election in July 1987 that there is considerable doubt as to the wisdom of this method of ensuring that people are correctly enrolled in a division of an electorate. In about three weeks time the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters will be reviewing this aspect of the July election. I am sure that in a couple of months time it will be bringing down recommendations. If those recommendations are that the Government should change these residential requirements, we should not accept tonight those residential requirements for referendums. If the Government does not accept our amendments, perhaps in a few months' time the Joint Select Committee will propose a totally different method of ensuring that voters are correctly enrolled. We believe that the wise, sensible decision is to wait until after the Joint Select Committee has carried out its review of residential requirements for enrolment before this provision relating to referendums is included in the legislation. To sum up, the three points are as follows: on the yes or no vote we believe that the Government's proposal will only confuse the issue rather than clarify it. We believe that the extension by 48 hours for industrial matters is purely a backdown to the union movement. As for the residential requirements, we believe that by far the most sensible and wise thing to do is to wait until after the Joint Select Committee has reported on these matters to see what its recommendations are, so that we do not end up with two totally separate means of identifying voters in their subdivisions. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(10.08) —The Opposition seeks to amend the Bill by deleting paragraph (b) from clause 8. The Government does not accept that. The Opposition says that the paragraph will confuse rather than help the counters of ballot papers because section 24 of the Act states: The voting at a referendum shall be by ballot and each elector shall indicate his vote- (a) if he approves the proposed law-by writing the word ``Yes'' in the space provided on the ballot-paper; or (b) if he does not approve the proposed law-by writing the word ``No'' in the space so provided. In view of the Opposition's comment that the Government's proposal will confuse the intent of section 24, I turn to paragraph (b) of clause 8 of the Bill which the Opposition wishes to delete. This provision amends not section 24 but section 93. Section 93 is a separate section and has regard to the formality or informality of ballot papers, which position the Government is seeking to clarify. Clause 8 (b) seeks to add words to the end of certain paragraphs. There are eight criteria in section 93 which qualify formality or informality in the Act. The Government seeks to add a ninth paragraph to the Act, namely: For the purpose of ascertaining a voter's intention, regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. How can the combination of section 24 in the original Act, which is not amended in any way, and section 93, as amended by clause 8 of this Bill, cause further confusion? It definitely cannot be confusing. I refer now to advice I have sought which I can relay to the chamber. The nature of that advice is that prior to the 1984 referendums the Australian Electoral Commission sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department in respect of the formality of certain hypothetical referendum ballot papers, including votes marked with ticks and crosses and with slogans comprising the words `yes' or `no' inside the voting square and a word or words inside or outside the square. The advice supplied, firstly orally, on 29 November 1984 from the Attorney General's Department and confirmed in writing on 21 December 1984 confirmed that section 24, prescribing the method of voting, should be read subject to section 93 (8), which deals with the saving of ballot papers where the voter's intention was clear. After consideration of the issue of the formality of referendum ballot papers the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its report No. 2 of December 1986 recommended that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act be amended to provide clearly that only unequivocal yes and no answers should be regarded as formal, as set out in recommendation 100. Of course, clause 8 of the Bill does exactly that. We have accepted the Joint Select Committee's recommendation. The purpose of the amendment is to remove any confusion in the mind of the electoral officer as to intention by simply stating unequivocally and without reservation that in ascertaining a voter's intention regard will be had only to the words `yes' or `no' written alone or without words of qualification. So I cannot see how what we intend to do would create further confusion in the mind of the electoral officer because there could be no doubt whatsoever that the combined effect of section 24 and amended section 93 is simply to say that a person writes yes or writes no and nothing else, otherwise the vote shall not be formal. Members of the Opposition can criticise this for being overefficient or overpedantic, but it cannot be criticised on the ground that it will cause further confusion. So we reject what the Opposition has said, and I have to reject the amendment. The second amendment would delete clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 creates a new section to provide for an extension of time to perform certain acts. Mr Sharp —If I could clarify the position, the Opposition is saying that it is opposing that clause, not seeking its withdrawal. Mr WEST —The Opposition is opposing it; I am saying that we support it. As the honourable member raised the matter during his contribution, I will tell him why he is wrong in opposing it and we are right in supporting it. I want to explain why we have included this clause because I really want the honourable member to accept what I say and agree with me rather than oppose me. Briefly, the proposal to provide an extension of time in which acts must be completed in the event of the unforeseen failure of a person to discharge a statutory duty was put to the Joint Select Committee by the Commission in 1985 following industrial action by divisional returning officers in New South Wales in 1984 which nearly messed up the election. It threatened the progress of the December general election. The Opposition says that by allowing for an extension of time to get over that threat we are actually capitulating to industrial action. The amendment contained in clause 10 will reduce the effectiveness and therefore the attractiveness of industrial action in a dispute during an election or referendum period by introducing some flexibility into an otherwise concrete situation. So, far from being an acquiescence to industrial muscle, the clause recognises that because the election process would be irretrievably damaged by such action the Commission must be given an opportunity to minimise the disruption by allowing time for its officers to fulfil their duties and, if they have not done so, to restart the process as soon as possible. Once people know that that can happen and know that their industrial action will be ineffective, that will lessen the chance of industrial action taking place. Rather than capitulating to industrial action, we are actually firming up the situation and are signalling that industrial action will not be effective so that the people would not be likely to take it. On the final point, the third amendment, I understand the Opposition wishes to delete the provisions of the schedule which amend section 30. These amendments are, I understand, designed to delete the requirement that an elector should have resided in the division in which he or she is enrolled at some time in the three months immediately preceding polling day in order to vote in the division. The point has to be made that the three months residence rule as it stands now operates only as an additional test over and above the requirement that a person should have resided in a subdivision for one month before being entitled to enrol for that subdivision. So the residence requirement for enrolment is not to be changed in any way. The amendments will simply make a person's appearance on the role conclusive evidence of his or her entitlement to vote, which is what most people presume to be the case anyway. The amendment to the Electoral Act was made in 1987 on the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In the course of discussing the issue, the Committee noted that the three months rule is in practical terms incapable of across the board enforcement. It went on: . . . its operation is anomalous in that it only works to disenfranchise those electors who have not correctly maintained their enrolments, but are honest enough to admit it. The Committee went on further: The rule . . . is not an obstacle to fraud or impersonation. Very few electors were ever asked the complex pre 1983 prescribed questions . . . and there is nothing to suggest that any more were asked the sub-section 229 (3) question regarding places of living during the previous 3 months. Any person contemplating fraudulent voting can, without difficulty- this was before we changed it- state addresses or make declarations which will not of themselves prevent the admission of the vote. Finally, real practical difficulties would arise in a joint election referendum if the three months rule were to be retained for referendums only. The most important would be the frustration which would be caused to electors who would be allowed to vote in the election but not in the referendum. Different question would be prescribed to be asked of persons voting at the election and the referendum, and different declarations might also be required. This means that if it is necessary to do this under the Electoral Act, it is now not practical not to do it in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. I do hope that those I admit rather technical explanations, but nevertheless necessary explanations-and I have drawn heavily on the report of the Joint Select Committee-will convince the Opposition that there is no need for the chamber to carry its two amendments tonight and that there is no need for those opposite to register their opposition to clause 10. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.19) —There are one or two facts of life in relation to elections that I wish to explain. If on Saturday the Liberal and National parties are to win in New South Wales, they will have to get in excess of 52 per cent of the vote. If the Liberal and National parties are to win in this place at the next Federal election-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the amendments before the Committee. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am speaking to the amendments and the reason for the residential requirement. We have to gain 53 per cent of the vote to win government in this place. What I am suggesting, Mr Deputy Chairman, is that your Party-and I am not reflecting on the Chair when I say this-is capable of the most subtle skulduggery when it comes to fiddling the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Labor politicians in this place take a pious approach and pretend that they are standing up in the name of justice, but what they are doing is indulging in one huge fiddle. The justification given by the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), for instance, in her heartrending story about fruit pickers being disenfranchised was absolute rot. The reason that the Government initially introduced the one-month enrolment rule was so that it could shuffle people into those seats in which the margin was close. My friend the former member for Forde, David Watson, won in 1984 by about 45 votes. At the last election he lost the seat. One can be absolutely sure about what was going on. It is no wonder that the Government pushed through that change before the last election. The Australian Labor Party shifted people into the electorate of Forde to ensure that it would get the right result. I am sickened by Labor politicians making their claims in the name of democracy when all that they are indulging in is a more subtle approach than Johannes Bjelke- Petersen, who used to proscribe different zones and was quite open about it. These people opposite do exactly the same, if not worse-in the name of feigned democracy. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) described his speech as technical. I do not really think that it was. It was quite basic. It was a paper that was probably prepared by the Electoral Commission or some other group. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not drawing his remarks to the matters before the Committee. He seems to be ranging far and wide. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I am listening very carefully to what the honourable member is saying. I draw his attention to the amendments before the Committee, as I did earlier. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The amendments are wide-ranging. I believe that we on this side asked for our amendments to be taken together so that we did not have to repeat all the points. I am trying to discuss a wider range of issues. I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for responding to my request for a glass of water so that I can continue to attack his Party. The claims made by the Minister at the table were supposed to be technical, but all that he was doing was parroting some pre-written response to the very legitimate objections that the Opposition holds to this legislation. I see that the Minister is leaving the table to seek some more technical advice. My comments have been fairly uncomplicated. I support what the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), has said. I wonder whether it is true that those on our side of politics were sufficiently naive during the earlier stages of deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which was set up with Senator Robert Ray as its head, to go along with the Labor proposals. Ms Jakobsen —You could hardly call John Carrick naive. Mr DONALD CAMERON —John Carrick may well have been so shocked by the subtleties of the Government's approach that Government members misread a shake of his head for approval when it signified disapproval. They have now claimed that the Committee's findings were unanimous. John Carrick was one who, at a very early stage-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will return to the matters before the Committee, which are two amendments. Mr DONALD CAMERON —We are talking about John Carrick, an ex-senator. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —No, we are not talking about John Carrick. If the honourable member cannot relate his remarks to the two amendments, I will ask him to resume his seat. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will return to the two amendments. The 48-hour extension rule is a weak expression of the Government's inability to say, `We can't control the electoral officers. If they want to put on a bluey, to slow down counting or something like that, we will be embarrassed'. It lacks the courage to stand up to people who might be acting in what is almost a gangster-like style. It says, `By adding a couple more days to the time that is required to count postal votes, they will be less likely to take us on'. I say to the Minister that his Party is losing touch. The whole nation is saying that. This is one example of a government that does not have the guts to stand up, but bends at the knees and gives in by amending the legislation. I realise that the Government wants to pass this legislation tonight. I will comply by sitting down and allowing divisions to be called so that we can take our stands. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.26) —I want to reply to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). Mr Nehl —You have had one go. Ms JAKOBSEN —Not in the committee stage. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member will address her remarks through the Chair. Ms JAKOBSEN —The honourable member for Moreton accused as naive people on his side who were members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and who are on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I think that that is a most incredible statement, considering that the sort of people on those committees from his side are very senior Opposition members. I refer to the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I also mention Sir John Carrick, who was probably a member of the Senate for longer than the honourable member for Moreton has been alive. He was a notorious user of the rules of elections. Mr Sharp —On a point of order, I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Chairman, to the amendments before the Committee. I do not think that the honourable member for Cowan is referring to them at all. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I can assure the honourable member that there is no need to draw my attention to them. I am trying to insist that members stick to those two amendments. I ask the honourable member for Cowan to do so. Ms JAKOBSEN —I will. I am saying that there is obviously a pretence in the Liberal Party about the reason for opposing these very valid and necessary changes. It is now disallowing the qualifications of its own members of the Electoral Reform Committee. These people are very senior members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Richmond, was a member for that Committee, as were the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and former Senator Sir John Carrick. They are very senior people who worked on the Electoral Reform Committee and considered these changes. To suggest that they are somehow naive and that that therefore justifies the Liberal Party not honouring those agreements now that they are in the process of being included in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988, when they voted for the changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is nonsense. Mr Nehl —Why do you want to destroy the Senate? Ms JAKOBSEN —It has nothing to do with the Senate. If Opposition members had any knowledge of politics they would not have to worry about things like getting people on the roll and their residence requirements in order to win an election. Mr Nehl —You get dead people to vote for you. Ms JAKOBSEN —They do not vote for me. We are not worried about having these changes brought in because we cannot win an election without them. We are worried about them, as I said before-and this was a remark which the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) called fatuous-because we are concerned about democracy in this country and the Opposition is not. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Sharp's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— 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.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hewson, J. R. Sullivan, K. J.Hunt, R. J. D. Webster, A. P.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lavarch, M. H.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Downer, A. J. G. Duffy, M. J.Tuckey, C. W. Dawkins, J. S.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Questions so resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr West-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Question put: That the Bill be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lavarch, M. H.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Duffy, M. J. Downer, A. J. G.Dawkins, J. S. Tuckey, C. W.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FIFE(Hume)(10.49) —I wish to inform members of the House how the Wagga Wagga community youth support scheme (CYSS) is being politicised. Until recently the project officer was Mr Scott Milne. He has been dismissed by the local management committee, and the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) has advised me that numerous absences from work by Mr Milne, some which he said were without authorisation of the committee, left little alternative. It is interesting to note that Mr Milne was the Australian Democrats candidate for Hume at last year's Federal election. Following Mr Milne's dismissal, Mr Rod Milliken who was the Labor candidate for Hume also at the last election was appointed the executive officer of the project. The Minister has claimed in a letter to me that Mr Milliken's appointment was unrelated to the dismissal of Mr Milne. I am very concerned about the high rate of youth unemployment which prevails in Australia under the Hawke Labor Government and am therefore prepared to support initiatives designed to assist unemployed young people, even some that I consider not to be cost effective. However, I am not prepared to support Government funded programs that are allowed to become political cells of a political party. When the events I have referred to were brought to my attention I called for a public inquiry. This has been refused by the Minister. If the Minister for Employment and Education Services was not prepared to establish a properly constituted public inquiry he should have removed Mr Milliken from his newly acquired position or at the very least obtained an assurance from him that he would discontinue his political activities whilst he held that position. Such a position should not be filled by a person actively engaged in political activities. The community youth support scheme is designed to assist young unemployed persons and no government should allow an activity of this kind funded by it even to appear to be politicised. Young people's futures are at risk as a result of the record high youth unemployment I have referred to. Youth work in this field is specialised and only trained and experienced personnel should be employed to direct such a scheme. The Hawke Government has earned the reputation-this has been highlighted during the last week-of making inappropriate political appointments at the national level, and what I am reporting to the House tonight is clear evidence that this is now being extended to the local level. The Minister in his response to my request for a public inquiry has endorsed the decisions of the Wagga Wagga CYSS committee and has failed dismally to provide a satisfactory explanation for what is taking place. I view this matter seriously. I am concerned that a CYSS scheme in my electorate is being used as a political cell, and I believe that the Government should take immediate action to clear up the matter. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.52) —I rise tonight to mention to the House another political event of some magnitude which is occurring in Western Australia on Saturday, 19 March. There is not only the New South Wales election going on this Saturday, there is also a by-election in the State seat of Balga, which is in my electorate of Cowan, that has been occasioned by the resignation of the previous Premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke. Because today is 17 March, which is St Patrick's Day, as most honourable members would know, it is appropriate to mention that the former Premier of Western Australia, who was the member for Balga, is now going to be Ambassador to Ireland and also Ambassador to the Vatican. Mr Chynoweth —To the Vatican? Ms JAKOBSEN —Yes, to the Vatican. I am sure that all the residents of Balga would join me in wishing him and his wife Sue all the best in their new role and in their new home. I know that he will do the job supremely well. Brian has undoubtedly served the Balga community with great distinction during his period as both member for Balga and Premier. He is extremely well known and admired, as are his wife and family. He has always maintained that the people of Balga should be proud of their district and he has helped them to be so by being proud of it himself and setting an excellent example. The Australian Labor Party candidate in Saturday's by-election for Balga has, in his own words, `big shoes to fill' but I am confident that he can do it. Ted Cunningham is a good man who understands the problems of ordinary people, unlike some of the honourable members opposite. Mr Brumby —Is he a family man? Ms JAKOBSEN —Yes, he is a family man. He has a lovely wife, Julie. He will be a hard-working representative of the people of Balga when he is elected. I look forward to working with Ted when he is the elected member for Balga. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.55) —I did not wish to speak tonight about electoral matters, but as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), has raised one, I will. Three years ago, in March 1985, after 24 years in office, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) lost the Brisbane City Council election. As a consequence, we have had three years of inspired development in that area. Rates are down, roads have improved and there has been a Liberal administration which contrasts favourably with some other administrations, particularly in Queensland. Leading into this election we had the remarkable situation of the ALP not being able to find a Lord Mayor candidate. Mr Martin —Now, that is not true. Mr MOORE —It is quite true. It tried around the place and eventually, it found the wife of a State member. He has made an enormous contribution-so much so that the State Secretary of the ALP has been trying for years to get the seat. Beattie came down here to talk to these guys opposite and all the head throwers around the place, but they did not go for him, they went for Goss. So Goss gets the leadership of the Labor Party in Queensland. As a consequence, after the election on Saturday Beattie will be gone because they have promised him the seat of the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), who will go out the door. That is how the great Labor Party in Queensland works. Mr Griffiths —That is not complicated enough for the Labor Party, especially in Queensland. Mr MOORE —I know. The Party could not get anyone to run for the position so it got the wife of a State member. Beattie goes; Goss gets the job. One wonders what will happen next in the Queensland Labor Party. I can tell honourable members what will happen next. The State President of the ALP in Queensland- Mr Brumby —Have they got one? Mr MOORE —Yes, it has got one. We do not hear much about him. He is not a bad sort of guy, but he is a leftie. He is one of Stewart's mates. The Labor Party will throw him into the State House to keep the balance because Goss does not have the numbers. Warburton has the numbers in the State House-16 to 14. Mr Smith —Did they give Warburton an ambassadorship? Mr MOORE —No, Warburton is on the back bench. It needs to keep a balance; Warburton is a little burnt out. It is going to give the current State President of the ALP the job. When it has done that the balance of power in the Queensland ALP, which is somewhat different from here-the faction divisions in Queensland do not quite relate; they are different-- Mr Brumby —What about the-- Mr MOORE —I know the honourable member does not understand it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Ryan will ignore the interjections and address the Chair. Mr MOORE —If the honourable members opposite knew what the factions were in Queensland they would know where they stood. You know differently in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a consequence of these incredible divisions within the ALP we will see on Saturday a sweeping victory for the Liberal Party in the Brisbane City Council elections. Poor old Beattie will get the shove; Manfred Cross is for the bush; Beattie comes down here and joins the avalanche of ALP apparatchiks who come into this House. One thing about Beattie is that he knows how to get publicity. Mr Chynoweth —Who does? Mr MOORE —The honourable member probably has not heard of him and I can understand that. That is his problem. When he does come down here all those other Queensland members had better look out because Beattie will be a darn sight smarter than the rest of them. The ALP has more to risk on Saturday. Not only will it lose, but also it will get the State Secretary of the ALP down here. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Brumby —What about the price of petrol? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, the price of petrol again. The Trade Practices Commission is inquiring into the price of petrol in Australia. With some of the things that have happened over the years, it is about time we had a proper inquiry into the activities of the oil companies-not that I am against all oil companies because they provide jobs for many people in Australia. When the price of petrol in Tasmania is compared to the price of petrol in other parts of Australia, not only Tasmanian motorists but all Australians are concerned. With the price variations in the heavy volume areas of Australia, sometimes the price is below the wholesale price. What is the use of having the Prices Surveillance Authority? We may as well get rid of it. It is not worth anything. The former Minister for Consumer Affairs in the Fraser Government, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), would have heard this all before. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Upgrade of Army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. Mr Ronald Edwards to move- That this House- (1) rejects the continued focus by the Opposition on matters of trivia and deplores the Opposition's repeated failure to debate issues of substance, and in particular, economic policy; and (2) recognises that the reason for the Opposition's failure to debate economic policy issues is the success of the Government's economic strategy, as demonstrated by the decline in Australia's current account deficit, falling inflation, reduced unemployment and the strong fiscal position of the Commonwealth. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 March 1988: Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor- General fixing 31 March 1988 as the day on which sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 shall come into operation. Public Service Act-Determination-1988-No. 31. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Interpretation Ordinance-Statements relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of the Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Report for 1986-87. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 257) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: How many (A) qualified social workers and (b) welfare or community workers (i) had positions funded by the Commonwealth in (A) 1980-81 and (B) 1986-7 and (ii) were employed in those years by the Minister's portfolio or its appropriate predecessor. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Community Services and Health Department of Veterans' Affairs Social Workers (i) (A) 1980-81 ... Not available* Nil (B) 1986-87 ... Not available* Nil (ii) (A) 1980-81 ... 50 50 full-time, 3 part-time (B) 1986-87 ... 82 66 full-time, 2 part-time Welfare/Community Workers# (i) (A) 1980-81 ... Not available* Nil (B) 1986-87 ... Not available* Nil (ii) (A) 1980-81 ... 4 21 (B) 1986-87 ... 1 22 * Information concerning staffing in external organisations funded by the Commonwealth is not readily available. Substantial resources would need to be made available to supply this information. # There are no formal classifications in the Australian Public Service of Welfare/Community Workers. The figures shown relate only to those people who have a full-time role in welfare work. (Question No. 579) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether Mr S. Parnell, an organiser for the Transport Workers' Union (TWU), has or had a trustee company of which 98% was owned by TNT executive, Mr J. Doig. (2) Is he able to say whether the trust bought 2 properties in the early 1980's, neither of which was mortgaged. (3) Is he also able to say whether (a) Mr Parnell was given a Jaguar car, a boat, and thousands of dollars by transport contractor Mr L. Edwards to secure a beer carting contract, (b) the N.S.W. Secretary of the TWU, Mr H. Quinn, was given 100% complimentary travel from Sydney to Hobart and accommodation at the Wrest Point Hotel Casino and (c) renovations at Mr Quinn's home at Yowie Bay were also paid for by TNT. (4) Is he able to say whether the Australian Federal Police investigated these matters; if so, what has been the outcome of these investigations. (5) If the AFP have not investigated these matters, will he pursue the matters further by instituting a wide-ranging Royal Commission similar to that in Victoria which exposed a system of bribes and kickbacks to the Builders Labourers' Federation. (6) Is the behaviour by Mr Parnell, Mr Edwards, Mr Quinn, and TNT consistent with the Government's aims and objectives of its industrial relations policies. (7) After having the facts fully ascertained, will he ensure that the Industrial Registrar and other law enforcement officers are informed so that appropriate action might be taken. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) I do not know whether these statements are correct. (4) and (5) Allegations along the lines of the matters referred to in parts (1)-(3) of the honourable member's question appeared in the media in 1985 and 1986. In view of the seriousness of the 1985 allegations, I drew them to the attention of the Attorney-General, the then Special Minister of State, and the Commissioner of Taxation. I was advised by the Ministers and the Commissioner that there was no basis for the Commonwealth to take action in relation to the matters which were the subject of the allegations. The Special Minister of State informed me that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (``AFP'') had advised him that no breaches of Commonwealth law were involved. I also referred further allegations which appeared in the media in 1986 to the Attorney-General and the then Special Minister of State. The Attorney-General advised me that there did not appear to be a breach of Commonwealth law involved. The Special Minister of State informed me that the AFP had not been able to proceed with its examination of the allegations because a particular witness could not be located. Since then, some further information has been given to me, which I have referred to the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General for consideration as to what further action should be taken. (6) In the light of the previous answers, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to make a judgment of this type. (7) Having regard to the action already taken and the advice provided to us, I do not consider action of this type to be warranted.