Tuesday, 19 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is absent from Question Time today as he is travelling to Perth to meet the Queen on her arrival in Australia. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney-General to the Temby legal opinion he tabled yesterday in which Mr Temby said that ministerial staff, and in almost every case the Minister, were not `officers' as defined under section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and were, therefore, excluded from the requirements of this, the confidentiality section. As the consequences of this opinion, if correct, are that the Minister's office can be used as a legal conduit for the publication of confidential information from the Health Insurance Commission, will the Attorney-General assure the House that he will act to introduce immediately the necessary legislation to close this loophole and, if not, why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter has been the subject of some debate and some investigation. I think the law is quite adequate in the sense that it says that there is to be no disclosure of information of a confidential nature. The facts of this case are that there was no disclosure of confidential information. That seems to be the problem that the honourable gentleman fails to understand. The issue is, of course, that Temby's report or opinion, which I have, says that, so far as the Minister for Community Services and Health is concerned, he did nothing either unlawful or improper. It relates to the facts of the situation. Whilst I would not expect the honourable gentleman to agree with me, the facts cannot be controverted. The issue is purely, in terms of the law passed by this Parliament, that there is to be no disclosure of confidential information. There was no such disclosure. Accordingly, I think the law is quite adequate. Other people who might feel that their identity has been disclosed might have other points of view. But nobody knows it, only them. That might be where the real sensitivity is. But I think the law is quite adequate. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of criticisms that spending cuts proposed by the Business Council of Australia (BCA) do not go far enough? Can he inform the House of what effect a reduction in the Medicare rebate would have on the health and welfare of ordinary Australians, particularly the elderly? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the extraordinary claim by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the BCA spending cuts do not go far enough. But I am also aware of his equally contradictory claim that ordinary Australians are hurting. Of course, if he says that those cuts do not go far enough and that each of those cuts hurt ordinary Australians, apparently he wants to hurt ordinary Australians even more. Members of the Opposition have created an extraordinary paradox. They get up and wax eloquent about the problems of ordinary Australians. Then they say, `Well, we have looked at the BCA cuts, all of which hurt ordinary Australians', but then they say, `They do not go far enough'. Let us take one of the practical examples recommended by the BCA when it was prepared to make quite massive cuts in relation to health. It said, `We recommend that you reduce the Medicare rebate from 85 per cent to 80 or 75 per cent'. Whom would that hurt? First of all, it would make it almost impossible for doctors to continue to bulkbill. All pensioners would be hit immediately by that kind of reduction. The Deputy Opposition Leader does not think through the things to which he commits himself. If the rebate were cut in that way, I understand that doctors would find it difficult to bulkbill and, therefore, pensioners would be hit. Mr Tuckey —What you are saying is that you have them on the margin, is it? Dr BLEWETT —I have them on the margin? The honourable member should read the BCA's proposals because one of them is another $50m cut in relation to doctors. However, let us return to the cut in terms of pensioners. As I have said, doctors would not be bulkbilling and that would affect pensioners. Of course, it would affect many other people at the margins whom doctors also bulkbill. Everyone would face increased out-of-pocket charges. The Opposition says that ordinary Australians are hurting, but when the BCA suggests a whole series of health proposals to hurt them more, it says they do not go far enough. I presume it is simply softening up this country for the Opposition's health plan. As we know, the Opposition's health plan would slash $3 billion from State public hospital funding so the States would be forced to full cost recovery. We know that everybody would be forced into expensive flat rate private insurance. Those who do not go into private insurance, according to the Opposition spokesperson for health, will be fined up to $1,000 in their tax. Community rating would be ended by the Opposition, so we would go to risk rating insurance. That is a tax on ageing, a tax on illness and a tax on families, because it particularly affects women in their childbearing years, families, and the chronically ill. So what we have from the other side is a risk rated insurance system which would lead to a tax on ageing and illness. Mr Tuckey —At least you keep talking up my policy. You have got it wrong, but I am glad that you keep mentioning it. Dr BLEWETT —Whatever noise the honourable member for O'Connor makes, he cannot get away from the real effects of risk rated insurance. Of course, he has demonstrated pretty clear economic incompetence in these matters. He said in the House the other day that Medicare benefits total only a few million dollars, when we are talking about something like $3 billion. But he can cut $3 billion from the States and somehow nobody will be affected by that cut! Last year the Opposition Leader rebuked him for some of his nonsense in this area. He made some kind of promise that the old, the ageing and the sick would not be affected detrimentally by the Opposition's health policies. They will certainly have to go a long way from where the honourable member for O'Connor has suggested they should go. The BCA's proposals, endorsed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as not going far enough, certainly discriminate against the elderly and the less well off in this society. Mr HUNT —Does the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy accept that Australian wheatgrowers and the Australian Wheat Board have an unequalled record in selling our entire high quality crop in spite of huge subsidies by European, American and other competing export nations? Will the Minister guarantee that the underwriting payment of $175m will be made in full, according to existing underwriting provisions? Does he agree that this is the first underwriting payment to the industry in 15 years and that competing Canadian growers will receive an estimated $2 billion under their scheme? Does the Government reject an Industries Assistance Commission recommendation to remove the Wheat Board's control over the export sales of wheat, underwriting provisions and changes to domestic marketing? Does the Minister also agree that the viability of the wheat industry depends essentially on a more competitive domestic economy and reduced costs in the transport, handling and storage of wheat? Mr KERIN —The first part of the honourable gentleman's question was about the performance of the Wheat Board. Given that we are up against the Europeans and the United States of America, which subsidise in export terms anything up to $A60 a tonne to gain sales, given that the European Community subsidises production as well, given that the Canadian Wheat Board has powers similar to those of the Australian Wheat Board and that Argentina, although a weaker seller, also has to get a market share, the Wheat Board certainly does a very good job. The second question was about the guarantee under the prospective underwriting payment. The latest calculation of that was about $225m. That, of course, will be paid. Basically the growers have that money now through the Board's accounts. The obligation there is for the Government when the pool is wound up. The subsidy given by the Canadians to their own producers, although it is not coupled to wheat production itself, amounts to a quite large subsidy. The only thing that distinguishes Canadian wheat producers from Australian wheat producers is that there is a bigger proportion who are truly specialist wheat growers. Given the prices over the last two or three years, we can understand the pressures on the Canadian Government. The Industries Assistance Commission report will need very close consideration by industry and Government. I think it is fair to say, and it is certainly my belief, that the directions we decide on now should not just be about yet another five-year wheat plan. We in Australia should be looking more towards the concept of a grains industry. The implications for barley and oats have always been very clear in respect to the domestic price set for wheat but now we see the development of pulses, lupins, the grain sector, growing more and more. The products that the next wheat plan needs to take into account are basically from the wheat-sheep belt and the whole grains industry. We have also tabled a report by the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. Looking at both those reports, I guess the key issue will be about the mix between regulation and deregulation. We will be discussing this with all interested parties. Tomorrow I will be addressing the annual conference of the Grains Council of Australia and I will be putting out a discussion paper that centres on those very key issues and the extent to which we need a mix of regulated and deregulated approaches. That paper will be looking at marketing. We will be looking at export marketing, domestic marketing and underwriting. I guess that with underwriting, one of the things the industry should be looking at, given that many are wool producers, is the extent to which producers can control even more the marketing of their own crops. In the deregulation framework we should be looking more at the extent to which we can remove whatever existing shackles remain on the Wheat Board's flexibility to compete in all markets. We will also be looking at the structure of the Wheat Board. I do not think that we can have a situation where people can pick and choose regulated or deregulated approaches to marketing as opposed to grain handling. I think the two are interlinked and we need to consider the two reports together. We have to get together the best approach for what I call the whole Australian grains industry. We have kept on Mr McColl, the Royal Commissioner, for three months to go through the implications of his report with the States, with the grains industry and with employees. He met national grower and employee representatives on 14 April-late last week-and he will meet with State governments. The discussion paper I will be putting out tomorrow should provoke debate. The key things, as I have already said, are the mix between regulated and deregulated paths from now on, the extent to which the remaining impediments to the Board's activities can be removed, and the extent to which the grains industry itself can take even more responsibility for its selling agency. Mr GEAR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Herald of 15 April concerning a student boycott of the Federal Government's higher education administration charge. Can the Minister inform the House as to the status of the students interviewed about the higher education administration charge, the percentage of students exempt from the charge and the impact of the boycott on the budget of higher education institutions? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and his great interest in these issues. It is true that the Herald newspaper, I think alone amongst newspapers in Australia, has been running a campaign concerned with the boycott by a small number of students against the higher education administration charge. But, as in so many things the Herald does, it refuses to tell the whole truth. The first point to make clear is that this protest is not directed towards the Government; it is directed quite clearly towards the institutions. In the case of Latrobe University, it is estimated that the consequences of the boycott there are that the institution has been denied some $2m in terms of recurrent funds. So it is a disadvantage to the students' institutions, not to the Commonwealth. It is also quite wrong to say that the imposition of this charge penalises the disadvantaged amongst the students because if we look at total enrolments this year we see that of the 430,000 total enrolments in 1988, 21,000 have been specifically exempted by the Commonwealth and 127,000 are quite specifically reimbursed by the Commonwealth to cover the cost of the fee which, this year, is $263. If we take the reimbursements to Austudy students and others who are eligible for a reimbursement, 50 per cent of full time students pay not a cent of that fee. Going to the question of who the students were who were interviewed by the Herald, two of the students are reported in the Herald as being in receipt of Austudy. If that is true, if they are currently in receipt of Austudy, they have already received from the Commonwealth a cheque for $263, which was intended to be passed on to the institution to pay that administration charge. Quite clearly, if the Herald report is right these students, far from being disadvantaged by this charge, are withholding an amount paid to them for the specific purpose of passing it on to the institution for this charge. I want also to refer to some other suggestions that have been made about what should happen to this charge. The document of the Business Council of Australia suggests that this fee should be increased more rapidly than indexation, with the same arrangements for retention of funds by institutions, in order to save $50m. I do not have to remind honourable members that this policy has already been embraced overwhelmingly by the Opposition. That means that the Opposition is in favour of a near doubling of the charge if the $50m is to be realised as a saving, as indicated by the Business Council of Australia. So the Liberal Party of Australia has a policy to nearly double the amount of the charge, not for the purpose of expanding higher education, but to make savings in higher education expenditure. I just say to the very small number of people who are protesting and involved in this boycott-the overwhelming proportion of students have paid the charge-that they are faced with a very stark choice. There is the policy of this Government which, when it imposed this charge, used the funds not for the purpose of saving but rather for expanding opportunities within the higher education system. That is a policy we are committed to support in the future whereas, on the other hand, there is a policy on the part of the Opposition to double the charge, not for the purpose of expanding opportunities but for cost cutting in relation to these expenditures. Mr Pratt having addressed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. If the Minister chooses to answer the question, he is at liberty to do so. Mr SNOWDON —Is the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel aware that the operation of the Defence Housing Authority is one of the areas targeted in the defence cuts proposed by the Business Council of Australia? What effects would such an approach have on the Government's plans for service housing? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his question. I have seen the proposal by the Business Council of Australia to save money on the operations of the Defence Housing Authority. As all of us in this House know, the shadow Treasurer has said that these proposals just do not go far enough. I wonder what he and the Opposition could tell us would be a satisfactory level of rents for our defence personnel. After all, under the Business Council's proposals the revenue collected for rent would have to fund all new housing construction and all new buying programs. Under the Business Council's proposals if defence personnel want new houses they would have to pay huge rents on their present houses in order that the Authority could buy new ones. That is the line of the Business Council. That has been endorsed by the shadow Treasurer. As usual, it totally contradicts the statements of the honourable member for McPherson in the debate on the Defence Housing Authority last October that rents should come down. That is usual. Usually on the one hand we have the shadow defence spokesman talking about increased levels of government expenditure. I instance the latest buying project for the Opposition-nuclear submarines. We then have the shadow Treasurer talking about further cutbacks in public expenditure. Of course, that does not add up. What would it mean for defence families? It would mean a repeat of exactly what happened in the Fraser years. It would mean close to zero expenditure on defence housing, a total neglect of maintenance and the creation of a huge problem that this Government is now solving. We are solving it. Since we came to office, honourable members will be interested to know, we have spent, allowing for inflation, $2 for every $1 spent by the coalition on defence housing. We have set up the Housing Authority. We have committed over $750m to housing in the next 10 years. We are making improvements in maintenance our first priority. In fact, just to demonstrate the clear difference between the Opposition's policies and our own, I am pleased to announce today that an additional $46m has been committed to the Defence Housing Authority this financial year. Ten million dollars of that will be spent on improving existing houses. The remainder will be spent on purchasing both houses and land throughout Australia where defence families are in the greatest need of decent housing. There is a clear difference between the policies of the Opposition and the policies of this Government. This Government is committed to improving the housing and conditions of the Defence Force, not just bringing back the rorts to the rich, as the Opposition proposes. Dr WOOLDRIDGE —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to figures from the 1987 Budget papers which show that for the financial year 1987-88 the increase in utilisation of Medicare services will be 5.5 per cent, following on from the two previous financial year increases of 6 per cent and 7.4 per cent. Given that in the past two years the Minister has abolished rebates for multiphasic screening, collection of blood, intravenous drips, warts, and removed the after-hours loading; given that the Minister has reduced rebates for pathology, gastroscopy, electrocardiography, optometry, radiology and some surgical services; and given that there has been no influenza epidemic and that the Australian population is increasing by only 1.3 per cent a year, how can the Minister explain these large increases in three financial years when prior to Medicare the increase averaged only 3.1 per cent a year? Does the Minister concede that it is Medicare itself that is causing the increased utilisation of services? Dr BLEWETT —It is clear, of course, that the honourable member for Chisholm does not support that proposal of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) which would take a further $50m out of medical rebates. So at least we have one clear division of view on the Opposition benches about those BCA proposals. The series of reductions in rebates that he talked about, as I have explained to this House before, were all based on the desire to make sure that doctors were properly paid and that the allowances for technological change were taken into the medical rebates. Indeed, there has been widespread support for the responsibility of those types of changes. I am glad also that the honourable member for Chisholm pointed out that over the last three years the increase in utilisation rates has been declining; that is, the utilisation this year is not as great as that of the previous year, and that was not as great as that of the year before that. In fact, this is the first time in something like 15 years that the utilisation rate has begun to slow down. Mr Tuckey —They can't get into hospital. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —The interjection of the honourable member for O'Connor shows how irrelevant he is to the whole health debate. Returning to the question asked by the honourable member for Chisholm, it is one of the achievements of Medicare that for the first time in that period we have begun to get a slowdown in the utilisation rate. If he were really interested- Mr Porter —The rates have increased. Dr BLEWETT —We have got a slowdown in the rate of increase. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. The Minister will ignore the interjections. Dr BLEWETT —We get all these wits on the Opposition side. They know that over the last 15 years, year by year the increase in the rate of utilisation had been rising and over the last two years of Medicare that increase in the rate of utilisation had been slowing down. Given many of the pressures in the community in relation to the growth of the aged in our community and the kinds of pressures they place on the medical system, I would have thought that anybody who really tried to understand the health system in this country would appreciate that that is a very real achievement. Mr CROSS —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen the Business Council of Australia (BCA) Budget submission suggesting substantial cuts in the defence budget? What impact would cuts of the magnitude suggested have on the capabilities of Australia's defence forces? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I have seen the suggestions of the BCA on cuts to the defence expenditure. What is suggested by it is that there should be a 4 per cent reduction on Forward Estimates. Forward Estimates are calculated on 1 1/2 per cent real growth, so that would be, in effect, a 2 1/2 per cent real reduction in defence outlays. Of course, it is suggested by the shadow Treasurer that this is insufficient but, nevertheless, its effect on the defence forces would be substantial. I note that in the areas where the Opposition has suggested cuts may be possible-in the factories and the defence logistics area-we are in fact taking very substantial reductions and have done so over the last couple of years. Two points must be made about that. First, I believe that we have picked up or are in the process of picking up most of the opportunities in those areas but, nevertheless, they tend to come through a great deal more slowly than would permit anything like a 2 1/2 per cent real reduction. Secondly, in most of the areas in which we could make savings and achieve rationalisation of facilities, the Opposition has opposed every suggestion that has been made to this point. We are not allowed to sell rifle ranges, and we are not allowed to sell properties, because at some point in time we might need them. So here we have it. The suggestions of the Business Council for coming down to those levels of expenditure have already been rejected by the shadow spokesman, so clearly what the Opposition now supports is defence cuts that focus front and centre on capability. Therefore, if we were to reduce defence by 2 1/2 per cent in real terms, reductions in the number of service personnel and cancellation of equipment programs would be required or else those equipment programs would have to be bled out further into the system. What we want to see and what we have called for repeatedly in this House is some conjunction of view between the Treasury spokesmen who really count in the Opposition and the other shadow spokesmen. On the one hand, we have a plethora of irresponsible promises made around the bases by those Opposition members who love travel. They turn up in different places around this country and, whenever a suggestion is made to them from someone's wish list, it is endorsed, passed to the shadow spokesman for Defence Science and Personnel, and then given a run in this place. That happens in regard to every proposition raised. On the other hand, there are the responsible people in the Treasury area on the Opposition front bench arguing, of course, that what is really required is massive defence cuts. When will a clear-cut position emerge from the Opposition front bench on that issue and in just about every other area? This is yet another example of the fact that a great deal of work must be done between now and August for honourable members opposite to get their policies in shape. One thing we could say for the Business Council proposition is that it has dramatically reduced the workload of honourable members on the Opposition front bench. The Council has identified about two-thirds of the cuts and has been specific about them and the way in which it wants to go. That has been endorsed by the Opposition so the target on cuts is now a little smaller. In addition, it has given the Opposition the advantage of an opportunity to discuss the cuts a little earlier than might have been anticipated otherwise. Given that Opposition members are always encouraging debate in the community, that will assure them of the opportunity to have their propositions well and truly understood two years in advance of when they need to be well and truly understood. Mr PROSSER —Is the Treasurer aware that the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, in its April Treasury Update, reveals that large amounts of capital inflow are not being caught in the official capital account statistics? Mr Scott —You are reading that. Mr PROSSER —That is dead right. I can read too. Does the Treasurer acknowledge that this undoubtedly means that Australia's recent overseas debt figures have been underestimated? How does the Treasurer respond to the ANZ Banking Group's conclusion that we should `watch out for large upward revisions in Australia's stock of foreign debt'? Mr KEATING —I have not seen the publication. I will have a look at it for the honourable member and give him a reply. Ms CRAWFORD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and concerns funding for higher education in Queensland. Is the Minister aware of claims that the Federal Government is discriminating against Queensland in the provision of funds for tertiary education, and that this is the reason why thousands of young Queenslanders have missed out on places in higher education institutions this year? Will the Minister advise the House whether such claims are correct and, if not, what is the true position? Mr DAWKINS —The Queensland Government, and particularly the Queensland Minister for Education, have been making accusations about underfunding of higher education in Queensland. The Minister needs to look at the historic basis for the funding of higher education and go back to the period before the Commonwealth assumed the overwhelming responsibility for that funding, which occurred for the first time in 1974. He will find that successive Queensland governments-National Party-Liberal Party coalition governments-in those years massively underfunded higher education in that State and created a situation where participation rates for Queenslanders in higher education were much lower than those in the rest of Australia. In every year since that time there has been a greater dedication of Commonwealth funds to Queensland proportionately than to any other State to try to overcome the shortfall created prior to the Commonwealth's assumption of this responsibility. That is something to which this Government has paid particular attention in the past five years. Therefore, it is hardly proper for the Queensland Minister to point the finger at us when we have been devoting proportionately more of our funds to Queensland in order to bring up the participation rate in that State to something like the national average. I give an undertaking that in the context of our program of expansion for higher education in the future, should that program be broadly accepted and agreed upon, we would continue to ensure that opportunities in Queensland were the same as in the rest of Australia. Mr PETER FISHER —I refer the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to his earlier response concerning decisions on recommendations in the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report into the wheat industry and the report of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. Will the Minister ensure that the Australian Wheat Board charter will not be downgraded and used as a scapegoat for any lack of resolve by State or Federal governments in dealing with industrial anarchy or restrictive work practices which are costing growers up to $15 a tonne and affecting the reputation of the Australian wheat industry as a reliable supplier? Mr KERIN —I do not think I can add much to the answer I gave to the honourable member for Gwydir. Basically there are two reports before the Government. The Government will introduce legislation about this time next year for the wheat industry for the period from 1 July 1989 onwards. Mr McColl's finding that there are potential savings within the system of storage, transport and handling of wheat generally bears more heavily on the States than on the Commonwealth Government. That is why, in terms of analysis and the facts of the situation, we are trying to bring pressure to bear upon the State governments so that they can see where they may be able to move. Given that most of the transport problems centre on the eastern States, I would expect that all honourable members in this House-including those on the Opposition benches-would bring pressure to bear, particularly on the Queensland and New South Wales governments, to see what can be effected in terms of the mix being put forward by Commissioner McColl. I often think that farmers do not benefit themselves when they lead campaigns which focus on only one aspect of problems within the whole transport freight handling system. For example, some of the changes made in the grain terminal in Newcastle have gone unremarked; but progress has been made. I am not endorsing what the honourable member describes as industrial anarchy. Some of those people have taken a 50 per cent cut in their wages and are engaging in a whole new set of work practices for which no credit is given and about which many people, unfortunately including the farm sector, seem to have a 10- or 12-year memory, but no memory of more recent events. All of these matters concerning industrial relations involve persuasion and consultation. They do not involve confrontation because it has been proved many times that progress simply cannot be made that way. What this Government has demonstrated, as no other government has done, is that by taking the work force into its confidence, by explaining what the problems are, far greater progress is made. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications Support aware of the low morale in Australian National's (AN) work force, particularly at Port Augusta, which has been created by a lack of communication and insensitivity by Australian National management when making job transfers? Will the Minister have discussions with Australian National management to rectify this outrageous situation? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. He may recall that he asked me a similar question on this matter a couple of weeks ago and I am aware of the honourable member's concern about the morale of AN employees at Port Augusta. All members understand that when a process of change is under way within an organisation, that process can bring anxiety and worry to all concerned. That is the nature of change. In those circumstances it is essential that there be full and adequate communication between management and employees about the nature and the rate of change. A fortnight ago, I said that Australian National has achieved a rate of improvement that is unequalled in the rail systems within Australia. That improvement in financial performance has been due to the cooperation of the Australian National Railways Commission, the employees, the unions and management. First, I reassure the honourable member that Port Augusta will remain a major and significant centre in the Australian National railway system, sitting as it does astride the Adelaide to Alice Springs line and the main east-west line. Because of the deep concern that the honourable member has expressed to me, which was conveyed in the nature of the question that he asked today, and because of his concern for those AN employees and families in Port Augusta, I will raise the matter that he has mentioned with the Chairman of the Commission and convey to the Chairman the Government's desire that there be adequate communication between employees, management and the Commission. At the first opportunity, I will accompany the honourable member to Port Augusta to speak myself with the employees involved. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government enforce the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act without fear or favour or will the Government amend the Act each time one of the large media owners wishes to extend his empire? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member is under a misapprehension. He will recall that, when the proposals relating to this matter that the Government introduced into this House were debated, the Opposition forced an amendment. That should be made very clear. That amendment is now the subject of further consideration as to whether it is really of any benefit to the industry. That is the matter that has always concerned the Government; its policy has not changed. The question is whether the Opposition's policy will change in accordance with the dictates of commercial interests and also the benefits of the viewing public of Australia. At all times the issue of licences and performance is one for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It can deal with these matters. Legislation is a matter for this House and the issue that the honourable member is on about is whether the ownership level should be 60 per cent or 75 per cent. The Government would like to know what his position is now. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) proposals, endorsed by the shadow Treasurer, to cut social security expenditure by including the family home as an assessable asset under the pensioner assets test? What would be the implications for Australian pensioners of removing exemption of the family home under this test? Mr HOWE —It is somewhat extraordinary, and I guess somewhat symptomatic of the current relations between the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and the leadership, albeit, temporarily, of the National Party of Australia, that the Business Council of Australia, a body that is extraordinarily influential historically-it is getting less interested; nevertheless, it is still very influential in relation to the Liberal Party-should make a proposition about including the family home within the assets test. Not only has this package been endorsed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-I do not know in what way-but also he is suggesting that really the BCA ought to have gone further. He is saying that the assets test ought to be, presumably, a very much tougher test. When one thinks of the opposition of the honourable member for Cowper and other members of the National Party to the whole concept of the assets test, it is extraordinary that when the Business Council of Australia came up with this kind of proposition the Deputy Leader of the Opposition immediately said, `Not only do we endorse that but we want to go further'. Quite clearly the BCA proposition would have quite a massive implication in terms of the administration of the assets test. It would mean that a valuation would have to be made of the family home of every age pensioner and claimant for the age pension. It is a little hard to believe that that kind of valuation could be carried out in any sort of non-intrusive manner. There would need to be periodic revaluations to take acount of movements in value. Both of these measures would be administratively costly and, as I have suggested, extremely intrusive to individuals. In addition, of course, the assets test limits would need to be reconstructed to reflect the inclusion of the principal residence, significant variations geographically in home values and the higher limit for non-home owners so that they are not disadvantaged comparatively. Of course, the Government is not going to pursue the line of thinking advanced by the BCA and endorsed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that the constituents of the honourable member for Maribyrnong will rest that much easier to know that that is the case. Of course, the Opposition is now in a terrible dilemma. In a sense, since the last election, when we had some idea of what Opposition policies were and what they were about, we have had very little articulation of policy at all. We have the situation where the Business Council has had to jump into the breach and put forward some propositions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the absence of any capacity for or interest in detailed work in the Treasury portfolio, has picked up that proposition and advocated it. I guess that is the kind of state the Opposition is in. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 April 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Defence-Safety principles for explosives. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 April 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Defence-Safety principles for explosives; and (2) That the report be printed. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DOWNER —On 13 April the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, and his political nanny, a man called Mr Rann, who is the member for Briggs, made totally false allegations about me, in a cowardly fashion behind the walls of the South Australian Parliament. Mr Rann- Government members interjecting- Mr DOWNER —I am surprised that the Australian Labor Party supports cowardly behaviour, but now we know that it does. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will continue with his personal explanation and leave out the adjectives. Mr DOWNER —Mr Rann claimed that I had said that the State Government Insurance Commission of South Australia had used public funds to `prop up mates and friends who had over-extended themselves in speculative and high risk activities'. I was referring to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission, not the South Australian State Government Insurance Commission. So that statement was completely false. Mr Bannon, the Premier of South Australia and the Federal President of the Labor Party, went on to say: Before me is a press report, which was released by the member, about crony capitalism and propping up mates-the various things that were mentioned by the honourable member in his explanation . . . He was referring to Mr Rann. He said: The SGIC was named as part of that process in that very serious allegation. Words such as `conspiracy' and others of that nature were used about the body of which the shareholders are effectively the citizens of South Australia. Once again, that statement was totally false. I was referring to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission-and many honourable members here know what that has been up to. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has-- Mr DOWNER —I am continuing, Madam Speaker. Mr Bannon went on to say: Last Thursday- that is, just over a week ago- the Federal member released a statement in Canberra in which he completely retracted the allegations . . . I did not release a Press release in Canberra retracting the allegations concerning the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission, and I do not retract those allegations. I released a Press release concerning a misunderstanding in relation to South Australia which had nothing to do with the allegations that Mr Bannon and his political nanny, a man called Rann, had referred to. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations) —by leave-The news has recently been filled with the emergence of conflicts in our international trade relationships, particularly over the future of our coal and beef exports to north Asia. Honourable members have heard of the very significant efforts this Government is making to deal with those problems and to ensure that Australia's key primary commodity industries receive fair treatment in world markets. Every opportunity has been taken to drive home to our trading partners the message that Australia expects non-discriminatory treatment for its competitively priced exports, not just because it is in our interest to get a fair deal, but also because it is in their own interests to make one. International trade is a business where both sides, producers and consumers, have to come out ahead or, in the end, no one will. Making deals that narrowly favour one side will lead to smaller trade gains, reduced investment and lost export sales on both sides of a trading relationship. The pressures for these discriminatory trade deals arise in large measure from the persistent international trade imbalances which plague the relationships between the world's major trading countries. These imbalances, while overshadowing the international economic environment, have thrown into sharp relief the cracks and imperfections in the international trading system itself. Such cracks can be seen in the inadequate General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules for agriculture, the unsatisfactory GATT dispute settlement record, the tendency of the majors to operate outside the GATT provisions relating to the use of temporary trade protection, the lack of direction in the GATT institution itself, and its inability to guarantee fair trade in the fast growing services trades. All of these have become areas of intense discussion in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations which is now some 20 months old. It is timely therefore, I believe, for me to step back a little from the issues occupying the headlines today and to review for Parliament the progress that has been made in the Uruguay Round. In particular I wish to give honourable members a sense of where I think the negotiations are headed and of the prospects for some agreements on some of these issues by the mid-point of the negotiations late this year. In doing so I will outline for honourable members the results of the Cairns Group ministerial meeting in Bariloche in February and the informal meeting of world trade Ministers at Lake Constance in March this year. Progress in the Uruguay Round remains an essential ingredient for sustained world trade and economic growth. While the results for growth in 1987 were sound, if not spectacular, expectations for 1988 are more modest. Large current account imbalances remain in the major developed countries, contributing to uncertainty and to pressure for protectionist action. In this environment, trade reform as a means of increasing stability has top priority. The House should not need to be reminded how important overseas trade is to our own economic health. Around 14 per cent of our gross domestic product in 1987 was exported. For some products in our agricultural sector three-quarters or more of our output is sold overseas; the same is true for minerals and energy products; and as a result of the Government's policies we have seen gratifying growth in the export performance of the manufacturing and services sectors. Australia's trading prospects are clearly constrained by the present uncertainties, not least because the pace of necessary reform by the major traders-the United States of America, the European Community and Japan-is so slow. Over the last year or so, we have had to contemplate the possibility of a major increase in United States protectionist legislation as the Congress discussed options for a new trade Bill. Some of the proposed statutes directly threatened Australia's interests and they and others had the potential to create enormous disruption in the world trading system. Australia has mounted a major effort to ensure that United States legislators were made aware of our concerns. I pay tribute to the work done by ministerial colleagues and parliamentarians, and in particular to the efforts of the all-party delegation led by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). Included in that delegation from the major parties were the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) from the Liberal Party of Australia and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) from the National Party of Australia. I pay tribute also to the work done by Australian industry associations, in particular the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, and by the Australian Embassy in Washington. As I indicated in my Press conference on 11 April 1988, we have welcomed the emergence of a more responsible Bill than existed in earlier versions. Although there remain elements of the current draft Bill which are of concern to Australia, it is pleasing that proposals which would have been most harmful to our trade in sugar and lamb have been dropped and that improvements have been made in other areas of interest to Australia. We can also take some comfort that protectionist options are not as prominent now as they were in the earlier stages of the United States presidential campaigns. There remains the danger, however, that the massive trade imbalances to which I referred earlier could lead to bilaterial accommodations between the United States and Japan, which could severely damage the world trading system. A similar danger exists in the trade conflicts between the United States and the European Community, especially in agricultural products, where the fallout of their subsidy war continues to affect adversely efficient exporters like Australia. I know the good news is that world commodity prices have improved of late, but that must not reduce the pressure for agricultural trade reform. The structural deficiencies which led to the crises of 1985 and 1986 remain, thus ensuring that the periodic crises that have plagued agricultural markets will recur, even if commodity prices have, for now, risen above the despairing limits of recent years. The recovery should be regarded as a breathing space to take action rather than a turning point. The Uruguay Round provides perhaps the only opportunity open to the international community to strengthen and secure the framework for multilateral trade and thereby to deal decisively with a number of current uncertainties. Past such rounds could point to specific achievements in trade liberalisation. For example, in the Tokyo Round tariff negotiations led average tariffs on manufactured products in industrial countries to fall from 7 per cent to below 5 per cent. Codes were negotiated which were successful in regulating the use of non-tariff measures, at least in some circumstances. But the Tokyo Round did not deal adequately with the agriculture sector and did not address the area of trade in services at all. Countries found ways of using non-tariff measures which were outside the ambit of the codes, and some of the codes themselves-especially the one on the use of subsidies-proved deficient. The Uruguay Round was launched in 1986 with the clear intention to deal with all these issues. The launching declaration speaks about the reduction or elimination of tariffs and non-tariff measures, and has as one objective the improvement of GATT disciplines relating to all subsidies and countervailing measures that affect international trade. Honourable members will be familiar with the successful efforts by Australia and its colleagues in the Cairns Group to ensure that the mandate given for negotiations on agriculture addressed the real problems underlying the crisis we faced at that time. And for the first time, the GATT is looking at the kind of rules which might be applied to bring trade in the fast growing services sector under international disciplines. The declaration acknowledges also the special need to secure trade liberalisation and expansion which will benefit less developed countries, with an eye also to the particular problems of the least developed countries. Australia attaches great importance to the Uruguay Round. We of course continue our efforts to secure improved bilateral trading opportunities and relationships, but even there our best prospects for success arise in an open and predictable multilateral trading environment. We have therefore taken a most active role across a broad spectrum of negotiating issues. This represents a major long term effort. The Uruguay Round is a four-year undertaking due to conclude in 1990, so 1988 is the second year of actual negotiations. Participating countries have agreed, however, that a mid-term review at ministerial level should be held in Montreal in December this year. This is a welcome development. It gives negotiations an early focus, so they will not drift towards 1990. It also provides the opportunity to achieve early agreements in a number of areas where good progress has been made. If this is done, it will not only make available benefits which would otherwise not appear until 1990, but give a boost to confidence in the capacity of the GATT to take the world trading system into the next century. The first year of negotiations in the Uruguay Round saw good progress. The technical and information base for negotiations was consolidated, specific negotiating proposals were tabled on a wide range of subjects and a smooth procedural transition was made to the substantive negotiating phase which began in January this year. In terms of the breadth of our interests and the initiatives we have taken, Australia has been the most active player in the negotiations to date. In addition to our leadership of the Cairns Group, we have advanced proposals in negotiations on services, tariffs and non-tariff measures, natural resource-based products-where we are making a particular attack on subsidies and other measures which distort trade in coal, dispute settlement procedures, emergency protection measures-commonly called safeguards-and arrangements to improve the functioning of the GATT system. It has been made abundantly clear that Australia is not a single issue country but has trading interests across the board. Despite the promising start to the round, we must recognise that the hard bargaining has yet to begin. The pace of negotiations this year will depend in large part on the attitude of the major trading powers, some of which have important domestic political preoccupations: for example, the elections in France and the United States of America. It is essential that the pressure be kept on the majors to ensure that what could be achieved by December 1988 will not be put off until 1990. I attended the recent meeting hosted by the Federal Republic of Germany at Lake Constance which provided an opportunity for informal discussions amongst trade Ministers from a broadly representative group of developed and developing countries, including the trade majors. At the meeting, we reviewed progress in the round and discussed prospects for agreements being reached in some areas at the mid-term review. Discussion suggested that there are prospects for early results in the so-called framework areas of the negotiations. These are dispute settlement, institutionalised monitoring and/or surveillance of trade policies, and provisions for greater ministerial involvement in oversighting the work of the GATT. This is encouraging, in that it at least signifies that countries want the GATT to stay, and to work better. They may not yet have applied this insight to their domestic policy-making as rigorously as we would wish, but it is an important step forward nevertheless. Tropical products was identified as a priority area for negotiations in the Punta Del Este declaration, with specific reference made to achieving early agreements. Developing country exporters of these products are anxious to see early results in this area, which will represent an important test of the major players' commitment to the round. Australia also has significant trading interests in tropical products, and we are advancing our own ideas for trade liberalisation in this area which call for extensive improvements in access to all markets. I was most disappointed to note at Lake Constance the strong disinclination of the European Community and the United States to give any ground at this stage in their negotiating positions on agriculture. The European Community has placed emphasis in its proposal on the need for short term actions to underpin improvements in commodity markets but has been vague on the extent to which it would be prepared to see agricultural supports dismantled over the longer term. Moreover, the Community is currently basking in self-acclaim following the February European Council which set new limits and disciplines on agricultural expenditure. While a significant agreement for the Community, it represents no more than a small step along the path of agricultural trade reform which we wish to secure in the Uruguay Round. Even modest domestic reforms need to be locked in through international commitments to ensure that they are not lost. The United States has tabled a most ambitious negotiating proposal which envisages the phased elimination of all agricultural subsidies and trade barriers by the year 2000. Regrettably, it makes no provision at this stage for early relief measures and United States negotiators maintain that, if agreement cannot be reached on satisfactory objectives for the longer term, we can expect `more of the same' in world agricultural trade. This would mean continued aggressive export subsidisation by the United States, and formulation of a tough Farm Bill to replace that which expires in 1989. Japan has tabled an agricultural proposal which has only limited appeal. While it supports the phased elimination of export subsidies-which Japan does not apply-it offers a minimal prospect of trade liberalisation and advances food security arguments in defence of supporting highly inefficient domestic production. It is against this background that the Cairns Group, at the meeting which I chaired in Bariloche, Argentina, in late February, established a work program and strategy relating to objectives which members wish to see achieved at the mid-term review in December. It was significant that the meeting was held in a developing country, because a number of Cairns Group members are developing countries. They recognise the importance of agricultural trade reform to the achievement of their national ambitions, and Australia has valued their participation. The Group believes that the time has come to narrow the gap between rhetoric and practice in the positions of the majors on international agricultural reform. Its members will be working to achieve commitments from the mid-term review covering both the long term framework and the immediate implementation of substantive interim results. In this regard, the Group has decided to press for results in the midterm review encompassing a freeze followed by a reduction in global support for agriculture in 1989-90. As a down payment towards longer term agricultural reform, this would include reductions in production and export subsidies and increases in markets access opportunities. Members of the Cairns Group will be pressing their views on the `early action' concept at every opportunity, including meetings of the agricultural negotiating group in Geneva, and at high level political gatherings such as the May Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Ministerial Council and the Toronto economic summit in June. Given the widely divergent positions of the majors, it is clear that the Cairns Group has a vital role to play in the negotiations. It is clear also, from our meeting in Bariloche and the further opportunity which a number of Cairns Group Ministers had to meet informally in the margins of the Lake Constance meeting, that there is a strong current of cohesion and unity of purpose within the Group. Cairns Group Ministers envisage holding a meeting in Hungary towards the end of the year to coordinate our approach to the mid-term review of the GATT negotiations. While I am not in a position at this stage to suggest grounds for optimism that a process of fundamental international agricultural reform will be agreed to as early as December 1988, I can indicate that the Cairns Group is determined to continue with its active role. If early agreements are not reached in this area, it will more likely be as a result of the failure of the majors to display the political resolve and political flexibility needed to establish the basis for meaningful compromise. There are some grounds for optimism in the new areas of the negotiations, particularly on services. Despite the complexity of this area, broad principles have been identified as appropriate for a framework agreement, and there is a reasonable prospect that the core principles of a future agreement could be settled by the end of 1988. In other areas, widely divergent views remain and the difficult negotiations may continue to the end of the Round. We are hopeful that agreement on the methods by which countries are to go about reducing their tariffs and non-tariff measures will not be delayed that long and these particular negotiations are showing hopeful signs. Great difficulty is evident in achieving progress on natural resource-based products, where there is resistance to focusing on distortions in trade especially in energy products and ferrous metals. Australia has been actively exploring the interests we share with a number of developing countries, to which this sector is also important. Another very difficult area is the safeguards negotiations-the achievement of an effective set of disciplines for the use of emergency protective measures. Because of deficiencies in the present rules, countries have turned to the `grey area measures'-voluntary export restraints and other practices which are contrary to the spirit of and threaten the future role of the GATT. It is not likely that early agreement will be achieved here, but Australia has co-sponsored with a number of Pacific countries a proposal for a comprehensive safeguards agreement. Those are the broad outlines of progress in the trade negotiations to this point. The Uruguay Round is an enormous enterprise which is seeking to throw light on some of the fundamental problems of the world economy. It requires intense preparation and negotiation, increasingly between Ministers themselves as the discussions begin to touch on the most sensitive areas of policy. Already, plans have been made for another informal meeting of Ministers in Pakistan next October to attempt to bring different points of view closer together before the December mid-term review meeting. Throughout the negotiations to date, Australia has sought to take an active and constructive role. We have worked to maximise our influence wherever possible through cooperation with like-minded countries. We have worked within our traditional alliances and outside them and have sought and found shared interests among both developed and developing countries. The Government recognises that a sustained and carefully focused effort will be needed to achieve tangible benefits for Australia in the mid-term review. Indeed, this effort must and will be maintained throughout the Round. We can nevertheless welcome the achievements so far made and capitalise wherever possible on the potential for progress which has been created in a number of areas. I present the following paper: International Trade Relationships-Ministerial Statement, 19 April 1988. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.12) —This is so good that I move: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.13) —I do not know that I necessarily agree with the comment by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) that the paper is so good that it needs to be noted, but it certainly deserves to be debated. I thank the House for the opportunity-- Mr Duffy —It was gratuitous. Mr SINCLAIR —Very gratuitous, as I say, but not justified. There is little doubt that there are within the Cairns Group of nations principles and pursuits which are certainly endorsed by all members on this side of the House. We are concerned about the trade imbalances. We are concerned about the difficulties of discriminatory treatment against our competitively priced exports. We are concerned about the build-up of protection in the developed world, and particularly at the consequences of the financial situation of the majors of the world who operate outside the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provisions, as the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) has commented, relating to various forms of temporary trade protection and generally coming to arrangements which disadvantage nations like Australia. So in the statement there are many aspects where those of us on this side of the House would find ourselves in disagreement. However, I think there are a few aspects about the whole situation in the trade scene that need to be canvassed. I am grateful that the Minister has given us this opportunity to talk about them. The first is that obviously in the constraints of the trade barriers that are applied-more often non-tariff than tariff-there are frequently areas where nations like Australia find themselves seriously disadvantaged. We have adhered to GATT. We have been participants within GATT. Part of the purpose of the Cairns Group is to try to enhance the value of this General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and in that we support the objectives of the Government. However, part of the problem is that so many countries do not adhere to the principles of GATT. We find ourselves following its principles. We on occasions have taken action under GATT, but we have had to take action against countries-as is now talked about, for example, against Japan-simply because many nations and significant trading partners of Australia find themselves more able to resolve their problems outside GATT than within it. The first thing that we would say to the Minister is that, while we go along with his adherence to the Cairns Group and his attempt to ensure a breakdown in the restrictions on trade that apply so often to the commodities, the services, the manufactured goods and the minerals that we export, we believe that for a nation like Australia at times there are doubts whether GATT in its present form is achieving the purpose for which it was first constituted. Certainly I believe it does not have the muscle that many of us would like to see. In other words, if there is to be an international agreement with which nations like Australia are to be forced to comply, it is hard to accept that when Australia complies, other nations thumb their nose at it. The sanctions under GATT are such that, really, there is little that a country like Australia can do. In case anyone thinks that that all sounds a little odd, we even heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) commenting only a few days ago, after his return from talks in Japan, that Australia was too small a market for Japan and South Korea and that reduced levels of protection were not a large bargaining point. In other words, even though Australia has modified its car plan and has made other changes, in comparing the dimension of our economy with those of the principal trading countries around the world, we see that it is very difficult for us to have any muscle. Indeed, as the article states, `Australia lacks muscle in trade talks'. That is one of our real problems. We do not have the muscle and, while we commend the concept of the Uruguay Round which extends that muscle, we recognise that there are fundamental problems for Australian negotiators because of the relations that exist between other countries. The second real concern of honourable members on this side is that while GATT exists it also parallels a general deregulation of the financial system around the world. We on this side support that deregulation, yet we are concerned at the consequences: the relative value of most of our major exports can change very much as a result of factors outside the control of Australian exporters. Of course, billions of dollars in Australian currency and in other currencies are moved constantly from one nation to another. In many instances those sums are even more significant than the commercial deals between countries. The movement of money and the degree to which currency relativity is vital in the whole trade scene have perhaps been best illustrated by the way in which the countries of eastern Europe, particularly the COMECON countries, are now prepared to embark on almost any sort of proposal in order to obtain foreign exchange. We heard a little about that during the recent visit of the Romanian President, Mr Ceausescu. Obviously he is very keen to embark on countertrade deals. The only major trade proposals that Romania seems capable of negotiating at present are predicated on that country's shortage of foreign currency. Romania is not peculiar in that respect. This country faces enormous difficulties because Australian exporters are faced with a fluctuating world currency exchange rate, with large movements of money and with changed nations of investment; in other words, large sums invested from one country to another, which affects, to a degree, our ability to sell our goods where we wish. I believe that that is one of the concerns that many people have expressed regarding overseas investment in Australia-the degree to which overseas investors are buying in the resource generating areas in Australia. Concern has been expressed about the extent to which they will dominate and determine prices and stock movements. I do not believe that, to date, that has in any way adversely affected Australia; in many ways it has been an advantage. But concern has been expressed in the public arena. So we do face problems in regard to currency relativity and the fact that in a deregulated currency situation in most of the areas of agricultural and mineral trade quite tight restraints on trade are imposed by many countries. We seek to reduce those discriminatory barriers and, of course, that is one of the prime objectives of GATT in the present negotiating rounds. The other countries of the world must keep in mind that we parallel the freedom of movement of exchange and currency to the fact that there are so many restraints on the movement of goods. The third area of our particular concern is that at the moment the Australian economy is in a far more serious position than we believe many members of the Government accept. Of course, we have had statements from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the last few weeks telling us that we need no longer feel that things are tight in Australia and that the banana republic syndrome is now something of yesterday; we do not have to worry about the economy. I found it interesting that only a few days after the Treasurer had made his statement that the banana republic economy was no longer a reality, we also had a statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade telling us that Australia needs to adjust more quickly. He said: Our macroeconomic policy must continue to support Australia's international competitiveness, to restrain domestic demand growth, to avoid excessive growth in imports and to continue to bear down on inflation. I agree with those sentiments totally. Frankly, I think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has his finger on Australia's economic pulse far more than the Treasurer, who seems more intent at the moment on trying to advance his own stakes in the succession than trying to come to a valid conclusion about the state of the Australian economy. If we look at the situation and then at the amendment which has been moved in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, the debate on which is about to resume in this House, we realise the extent of Australia's overseas indebtedness. The only way we can overcome that is by expanding our exports. We will not expand our exports unless we are competitive. Part of the problem in our approach is that there is a neglect by the Government of the problems of improving Australian productivity. It is not just a matter of trade barriers; it is a matter of improving our competitiveness, and that very much comes back to the industrial area, where we see a number of actions by the Government as being inadequate. If we look for the greatest success stories in trade performance in recent years we cannot move away from Japan and South Korea. I was interested to see a report in the Australian Financial Review only a day or two ago outlining the change in the South Korean debt situation. The report stated that South Korea's debt had declined sharply from $US44.5 billion a year ago to $US35.6 billion at the end of last year. It had done so because of South Korea's strong export performance. The point of all that is that it is not just a matter, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, of removing trade barriers abroad. The principal obstructions to Australian trade performance lie within Australia. Until the Government gets the sums right in the management of the Australian economy, until it cuts down public sector demand and until it generates a situation where all parts of the Australian productive sector can compete reasonably, we will not echo the performance of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong or any of the other countries in our vicinity. Let us face it: that is another consequence of the unfortunate misdirection of this country's foreign policy under this Government. It has tended to neglect these areas which have enormous trade potential. In looking at the wider scene it has forgotten that by concentrating a little more on the South Pacific, South East Asia and eastern Asian countries it could find many of the solutions to our economic problems because our future geographic and political interests must also lie there. Of course we are concerned about the extent to which agricultural subsidies, both in Europe and the United States and then in Japan, affect Australia's export position. But let us remember that this Government, over the past few years, has tended to neglect the fact that both agricultural and mineral exports still have a vital role in ensuring the viable economic state of this nation. Indeed, if it were not for their performance over the past 12 months, which was totally outside the expectations of the Treasurer and the Government, this country would be in real strife. By all means let us encourage our service exports and let us help moves into the field of manufacturing, but the percentage of Australian manufactures which go in exports is still relatively small at about 7 per cent. In terms of total exports, the contribution of manufactured goods is still relatively minor at about 13 to 15 per cent. What Australia must do is capitalise on the continuing new opportunities and not neglect our traditional exports. To the degree that the Cairns Group is concentrating on them, we commend the Government for it. Domestically, and in the pursuit of the Government's policies here, those commodities and minerals tend to be placed on the back burner. One need only look at the rearrangement of the former Trade Department for an illustration of that. The Minister is now responsible for one-quarter of it, with Austrade separate altogether with no relationship to commodities and minerals. Another aspect of the statement that is important and on which I will comment is the visit next year by the all-party parliamentary delegation to the United States Congress. One of the big concerns in the near future is what will happen to commodity prices. In the United States, there seems to be a turn away from some of the more restrictive measures in the original farm Bill. The parliamentary delegation has been established in recognition of the fact that not only do we have to deal with an Administration which, as the Minister said, is now going through the throes of an election process; we must also deal with Congress. The purpose of the parliamentary mission was to ensure that members of the US Congress recognised at a parliamentary level the concerns that we have at a parliamentary level. The American system is different and, in spite of all the excellent efforts undertaken by representatives of Australia's foreign and trade services and Austrade, we are not getting through to members of Congress in the way that we should. I am pleased that the Minister for Trade Negotiations believes that there is some opportunity in the general context of this GATT round but it is my own view that it is only by parliamentarians talking to parliamentarians and, for that matter, representatives of the rural industry and the mining industry talking to their counterparts, that we will get Australia's picture through. Above all, what we need to do in Australia is recognise that, unless we can stop the advent of legislation such as the restrictive farm Bill which was introduced in the United States last year, Australia will face enormous difficulties, which are reflected in special deals with Japan and Europe which further restrict Australia's access. Australia is facing difficulty in those areas and I commend the Minister for having recognised through that all-party delegation that there are alternative ways to approaching problems at a ministerial and administration level. This is more of a motherhood statement, but it is an extraordinarily important subject. Australia needs trade access. It cannot afford to be beaten around the ears by the major powers of the world; yet, I repeat, the major solutions to Australia's trade problems lie not in what others do to Australia but what Australia does to itself. In that, I suggest the Government look very closely at its economic and trade policy within Australia. If it does so, many of the difficulties that the Minister foreshadows could be more easily overcome. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.28) —The area that I would like to concentrate on with regard to this trade paper has been touched on by the previous speaker, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair); that is, the all-party parliamentary approach that the Government has taken in relation to some trade issues. That covers very clearly the statement made by the right honourable member for New England that, because of the size of our nation, we do not have any great trading muscle that can be thrown around as some of the great world powers do. That is a fact of life. A nation of 16 million people is not in a position to pretend that it can use muscle to achieve its objectives. Therefore, it is very important that trade issues be looked at from a joint parliamentary approach. Very good consuls and trade and other departmental officers work overseas on Australia's behalf but, in this particular area, the two delegations that have already been to the United States were very important in supporting the Government's measures. The delegation that I was privileged to lead in 1987 went to the United States basically to discuss the United States trade Bill with members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Of course, that Bill still has not been proclaimed. It is in its final stages. As the Bill had been through both legislative procedures in the United States and as many measures in the original draft of the Bill were going to impact on Australia, it was very important that we set out to do something about it. One of the delegation's objectives in going to the United States was to press Australia's agricultural concerns and those policy reform proposals with the United States Congress and the appropriate farm groups. We set out to address those aspects of current and prospective United States trade legislation which would have an adverse impact on Australia's trade. Our primary purpose was to influence, as far as possible, congressional and farm organisation attitudes in respect of United States trade legislation which was before Congress. This fairly long procedure has been going on for some 18 months. In particular, the delegation aimed to achieve moderation of proposals with a view to achieving certain objectives. These included the limitation and removal, if possible, of the export enhancement program and marketing loans program that the United States was looking at and has in place. We were concerned about reform of the United States sugar policy. We sought the abandonment of moves to introduce discriminatory sugar import quotas. We sought the abandonment of proposals for import restrictions on lamb and casein. We also sought the abandonment of moves to enforce mandatory retaliatory actions and bilateral reciprocal treatment to the detriment of third country suppliers like Australia. It is very pleasing at this stage to have seen that almost all of our objectives have been achieved. The trade Bill, which is now before the joint House conferences, is almost finalised. It has to go through this process before it goes to the President. Of course, the President has the power to veto the Bill if he is unhappy with it. We were concerned to see that Australia's message was put through loud and clear to those members of Congress who we and our officers overseas felt should be influenced in relation to this. Essentially, we argued along certain lines. We argued that the basket of trade and agricultural measures taken by the United States had been damaging Australia's economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. We also argued that some of the provisions in the trade Bills which had passed the House and the Senate financial committee had the potential to do us further harm. We were very keen to see and to talk to those people who would be looking at those very important issues. The members of the all-party delegation were: Senator Macklin from the Australian Democrats; the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) from the Liberal Party of Australia; the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) from the National Party of Australia, who will be following me in this debate; and the honourable members for Brand (Ms Fatin) and Burke (Mr O'Keefe), who are members of the Government Caucus committee on rural affairs. They all participated very actively in work that was done by the delegation. I think all members of parliament should, if possible, be given the opportunity to participate in delegations of this sort. I believe-and this has been stated by the right honourable member for New England-that a nation the size of Australia should participate in as many negotiations as it can at all levels. As I said earlier in my remarks, we are not a big power. We will never be in the situation of being able to use muscle to achieve our objectives. So we have to use every method possible to see that we get our message through. When we came back from our visit we reached several conclusions which I think are very important. We were very pleased to see that the departments have appointed staff in Washington who collate and record ongoing details of the information that is collected. Ministers, backbenchers and members of delegations are now able, when they arrive in Washington, to have all the information that is required for them to talk on a one to one basis with congressmen in order to put Australia's case. We consider that that information is crucial to the success of Australian representations. We also need to have strong briefings on what United States congressmen may know about Australia. In some talks with congressmen we quickly found that they were more versed in what we were doing in certain areas than we were versed in what they were doing. I am sure that that situation has been rectified since we went on the trip. Everything should be made available to people going overseas. We should be in a position on every occasion to have the information on which discussions will be based. One of the very important issues in respect of the trade Bill is that the Bill itself contains a mandate for United States officials to negotiate the Uruguay Round. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Bill is not vetoed. After 18 months of hard work in the United States and the efforts of many delegations and many people from Australia, it is important that the Bill gets through the United States Congress and the presidential administration. Of course, if the Bill does not go through and is vetoed, the United States will not have the mandate to negotiate the Uruguay Round. At present, several measures are being tacked onto the Bill as it goes through its final stages and this could cause problems even at this late hour. At the moment a provision is being put forward in respect of the Bill which is very important to people who are concerned about the restructuring that is going on in the United States At the moment several senators and congressmen want to tag new articles to the text being negotiated, one of which is a requirement of 60 days' notice for factory closures. This is a very important matter to some people; it is also a measure which, in the present climate in the United States, may cause a presidential veto. Therefore, in one way, I see it as extremely important that we keep up our communications. I think it would be very appropriate if members of the delegation who went to the United States drafted a letter, even at this late stage, and sent it to the United States to reinforce the view that this Parliament has endorsed the approach taken by the all-party delegations that went to the United States Perhaps even at this late stage members of the delegation could urgently impress upon the United States that we support the trade Bill now that it has finally reached the point where all of the elements within it which caused us great concern have been renegotiated. For instance, the United States originally proposed to have quantitative restrictions on our lamb exports to the United States. This has been replaced by provisions which would require the monitoring of lamb imports and entitle the United States industry to special fast track relief against injury from imports. Certainly there would be no problems in relation to that as far as Australia is concerned. We felt that we would have the most difficulty with the provisions in the Bill that related to sugar. This is the area on which we spent the most time in our negotiations. We are pleased to see that in this area the proposed duty drawback has been dropped from the trade Bill. The duty drawback would have provided additional funds to sugar refiners and, in effect, would have constituted a subsidy in United States sugar exports. It is rather strange to think that some of the measures that were proposed originally in the trade Bill have an enormous impact in the United States and South America in particular. The ultimate outcome of what had been proposed would have created more problems for the industry than the subsidies were worth. In the United States, a complete new industry of sweeteners based on the corn farming industry could never have survived without the massive subsidies that had been developed under the sugar program. We have great pleasure in standing in the Parliament and saying that we have participated in that all-parliamentary delegation. We are now very close to witnessing what I believe will be the final outcome of the trade Bill. This should occur in the next few days or weeks. It is very important that the Bill goes through and is not vetoed. As the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) has said, the capacity of the United States officials to negotiate the Uruguay Round and the ongoing work of the Cairns Group are going to be vital to Australia. It is absolutely imperative that, even at this late stage, we put every possible effort we can into making sure that our negotiations and discussions, whether they be at the ministerial level, at the level of our trade people working around the world, or at the parliamentary level in this chamber, are of such a nature that we achieve our objectives on this very vital issue. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.40) —I commend the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) for his statement on the progress to date in the immensely important Uruguay Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations which are expected to conclude in 1990. The Minister has informed the House of where he thinks the negotiations will have reached by the mid-point of the negotiations later this year. No-one should underestimate the importance of the outcome of these negotiations to the living standards of all Australians. I support the suggestions made by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) that members of the all-party delegation should find time to put their signature to a letter, particularly to all those people with whom we were privileged to have discussions in May last year. We received a very courteous and good hearing from them. I think that to some extent our efforts were very successful. Two factors will determine the fate of our living standards into the next century. They are, firstly, the success or failure of macro-economic policies to make Australia a competitive trading nation, and, secondly, the success or failure to achieve a fair trading international environment for agricultural producers and, to a lesser extent, services. I will say something later about the importance of competitiveness. Firstly, I want to deal with the substance of the Minister's statement. I commend the efforts made by the Government to focus attention on the need to remove artificial support mechanisms from agricultural production in Europe and the United States of America. The Government has taken several worthwhile initiatives that caused both the European Economic Community (EEC) and the United States to give more serious consideration to the agricultural trade issues in the current multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) round than on any previous occasion. I suppose one of the most important steps that was taken was the study initiated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). A report was published in 1985 under the authorship of Dr Stoeckel, the then Director of the BAE. It was the first in-depth study of its type. This study was important because the European Economic Community is the major culprit of the unfair trading environment for agriculture. Dr Stoeckel, in the foreword to the policy monograph No. 2, made the following comment: The CAP and associated mechanisms were based on a perceived need to insulate the agricultural sectors of the EC countries from the effects of international competition. Dr Stoeckel's report went on to show that the common agricultural policy (CAP): resulted in high costs to their own consumers and taxpayers, while the generation of surpluses depressed world prices causing severe financial management problems. The report established beyond argument in 1985 that the CAP had resulted in: 60 per cent of the value added by agriculture in the community coming from taxpayers and consumers; a cost of between $A60 billion and $A70 billion per year in 1984 values; the loss of one million jobs in Europe; and a cost to Australian farmers of $1 billion a year. Not only was the report critical of the CAP but it concluded that the EEC policy objectives could be achieved at a much lower cost not only to the Community but to Australia and other countries. That report received widespread distribution in Europe and the United States and set the stage for a constructive debate as a lead-up to the current Uruguay Round. I found on my official visit to the United Kingdom and Europe as shadow Minister for Primary Industry in 1986 that the Stoeckel report has shed embarrassing light on the naked stupidity of the common agricultural policies. On a broader front, I commend the Government and the many organisations, including the National Farmers Federation, for the united and combined efforts that all have made to make meaningful progress in the course of the current Uruguay Round. The Opposition parties have given bipartisan support to the Government's efforts. Unfortunately, the United States adopted a complex agricultural support system to counter the predatory trading policies of the EEC in order to win back market share. The result threatened devastating consequences for the Australian farm sector and our trading position. We found ourselves sandwiched between the giant powers, as indeed were other nations producing agricultural exportable items. There is no doubt that the United States Farm Bill and other protective devices have had some sobering effects on the EEC. But the combined short term consequences for Australia were not only threatening but also horrendous. What was more distressing to Australians generally and farmers particularly was that we regarded the United States as our ally and friend. Rather than engage in a vitriolic war of words and consequent damage to our relationships, it was essential for every effort to be made to talk to not only the President and the United States Administration but also the real decision-makers-the United States congressmen, who, in the final analysis, determine policy. I give credit to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for adopting my proposal to send two all-party delegations to Washington-the first in July-August 1986, ably led by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), and the second in May of last year, led by the honourable member for McMillan. The purpose of both delegations was to talk with leading congressmen face to face to press Australia's agricultural trade concerns and policy reform proposals. This purpose was achieved by influencing our friends, Republicans and Democrats alike, not to apply their domestic subsidy and export enhancement programs (EEP) to the direct disadvantage of their friends in Australia. Some of us, including the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), even attended a church service in Washington at the African Episcopalian Church. I am pleased to relate that the church congregation, in total, prayed for the outcome of our efforts on that occasion. On the first occasion the delegation succeeded in stopping dead in its tracks a congressional action which would have devastated the Australian wheat industry. On the second visit to the United States, the Cunningham delegation spoke to the widest range of leading congressmen and United States farm leaders while the United States omnibus trade Bill was before the Congress. Our efforts were supported by the Special Ambassador in Washington, Mr McCarthy, and the Ambassador, Mr Dalrymple, and his staff. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Wheat Board and the sugar industry representatives added their weight to the combined efforts of the Government and the Opposition. Our objective was to seek the limitation and removal of the EEP and marketing loans; the reform of the United States sugar policy; the abandonment of moves to introduce discriminatory sugar import quotas; and the abandonment of quotas on lamb imports and casein. The efforts were largely successful and for that we can be grateful. They were successful especially in helping to sustain the United States Administration's support for the Cairns Free Trade Group's efforts to make the breakthrough at the Uruguay Round of negotiations. The support of the United States for the Cairns Group is vital if we are to make any real progress in the current MTN. If the United States Congress had overthrown the stand of the President of the United States in his fair trade stand, we would have suffered a continuation of the corrupted, damaging world trade in agriculture. I give the former Minister for Trade, the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), full marks for his initiative in getting together the 14 nations-like-minded nations with Australia-which are concerned to achieve fair trade. This powerful group of nations may make progress in breaking down the predatory trading practices of the EEC and the countermoves of the United States. If all efforts fail to remove heavily subsidised production of farm products in the EEC and the United States by 1990, the question of the future of Australian farm policy must be revised. For instance, how can comparatively unsubsidised Australian farmers continue to compete with farmers if European farmers receive, on average, over 150 per cent subsidy and United States farmers about 100 per cent. The wheat industry is at the forefront of the problem with the following levels of assistance: EEC, $US82.80 per tonne; United States of America, $US69.58 per tonne; Canada, $US22.49 per tonne; and Australia, $US9.20 per tonne. These are the subsidy levels. Agricultural export income is vital to our balance of trade and living standards. How can we go on leaving agricultural exports unaided if no progress is made? I now come to the second issue which will influence living standards. It would be unfortunate and economically irresponsible to neglect the need for adequate economic policies to maximise our trade competitiveness. We must not assume that the liberalisation or partial liberalisation of world trade practices will alone be our salvation. We could have no better proof of that than the watershed report by Dr Andy Stoeckel and Mr Sandy Cuthbertson titled The Game Plan. They point out that our trade problem stems from both overseas and domestic influences. They say that overseas factors of low world economic growth and rising protectionism are being addressed, at least in part, by the multilateral trade negotiations. They say that on the domestic front, macro-economic policies, wages and productivity policies, tax policies and industry policies have all impaired our competitive position. This is their blunt warning: Simply, many of our polices are anti-trade. With our incredible foreign debt approaching the level of a number of Third World countries, Australia must make an all out effort to restore our trading competitiveness. In fact, Stoeckel and Cuthbertson estimate that 60 per cent of this effort should be directed towards domestic policy reform and 40 per cent towards influencing global trade order. We have no excuse for saying that changes cannot take place. Much has been done and there are opportunities in the 25 May mini-Budget. Australian agricultural and mining production earn between them more than 75 per cent of export income. The gross value of rural production in 1988-89 is now forecast to reach $21 billion. That is an impressive figure-until we learn that production costs will be close to $17 billion. Since 1980 farm producers have been hamstrung by appallingly low returns, inflation and near record interest rates which have stifled investment on the farm. As a result farm debt has soared to record levels, estimated now at close to $10 billion when all sources of lending are taken into account. The real net value of rural production has slumped from an index of 100 in 1980-81 to 75 this year. Improved wool and other commodity prices have offered us some breathing space, but improved prices alone cannot overcome the inherent structural problems of excessive costs and lack of competitiveness. Some of the good commodity prices, such as those for wool, may not last. On the matter of labour costs, the Government is currently undergoing a large scale review of wages policy and is entering discussions with employer and trade union bodies. By bringing unit labour costs under control we will go much of the way towards bringing our inflation rate back nearer to parity with our trade competitors. There are indications that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will announce a further cut to the deficit on 25 May. If he achieves that simply by increasing taxes he will not achieve our real purpose, which is to improve our competitiveness as a nation. Economic policy must be shaped towards further cuts in interest rates, which remain far too high, especially in relation to our trade partners. Finally, I commend the Government on its efforts to bring pressure on the culprit countries to abandon the idiotic agricultural and export subsidy policies that have devastated commodity prices and have created great difficulties for Third World countries and countries such as Australia. While progress may be made on this front we must not let up in making every effort to improve our competitiveness as a trading nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988 Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1988 Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988 Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Labor Government's complete disregard for the freedom of Australian workers through its support of compulsory unionism. 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 SHACK(Tangney)(3.55) —This matter of public importance goes to the core of what is fundamentally wrong with this Government. This Government continually abrogates its responsibilities to Australian workers in the face of the trade union thrust for monopoly power. It continually displays craven obeisance to the direction of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and it continues to support outrageously workplace intimidation, sometimes to the point of thuggery. Nowhere do these abject features of this Government come together better than in the issues of the closed shop and compulsory unionism. What we are talking about in this matter of public importance is the denial of jobs, the denial of employment, the denial of working opportunities for ordinary Australian workers-not because they are not fit for the job, not because they are not capable or qualified, but simply because they are not members of a trade union. This issue is never far below the surface. It has bubbled to the top most recently with the high handed decision of the Australian Labor Party National Executive, of which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a member, to dictate-I quote from a letter that the ALP Secretary sent to members of the parliamentary Press Gallery-that `all journalists, photographers, film and sound crews working at all ALP national conferences be required to be financial members of a relevant trade union, and that they be required to produce proof of union membership at the time of their accreditation at national conferences'. Last week, as you will recall, Madam Speaker, I asked a question of the Prime Minister on this issue. I asked him what action he would be taking to ensure that this disgraceful, intolerable enforcement of compulsory unionism and restriction of Press freedom was not proceeded with by the ALP or tolerated by the Government. In his answer the Prime Minister hid behind the screen of standards and professionalism. That same day, Senator Button was asked in the Senate what he would do. He directly refused to consider action to reverse the extraordinary closed shop direction by the ALP National Executive. He said in his answer: . . . I do not find the suggestion that in order to be admitted to any particular forum journalists should be members of a union to be a matter that inhibits freedom of speech. Senator Chaney—Freedom to practise in order to carry on their job. Senator BUTTON—I do not regard that requirement as being either of those things. That is, the matter of the freedom to carry on the job or the matter of freedom of speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you: how outrageous would it be and what would we hear from this side of the House if the Liberal and National parties issued an edict that only non-unionists could attend our parliamentary forums? It would be outrageous. It would be opposed by those opposite, and rightly so. There is one thing about journalists and the media: they can speak for themselves and rightly they are doing so in the media available to them. They are speaking out on the issue of compulsory unionism and they are speaking out on the issue of the freedom of the Press. Today the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery had a meeting-senior members of the Gallery report that it is the largest meeting of which they have been aware-and passed this resolution: this meeting of the FPPG cannot accept the principle that any legitimate media representative is denied access to an event of genuine public interest on the grounds of union membership or non membership. this meeting requests that the national executive of the ALP rescinds its directive of April 7 that media representatives covering the June National Conference must be trade union members, pointing out there is no trade union directly relevant to the needs and interests of a number of technical personnel who are gallery members and who would be involved in TV coverage of the conference. This meeting welcomes the efforts of the AJA to rectify this anomaly. The people I want to talk about in this matter of public importance are not so much the journalists because they can speak for themselves and they have taken appropriate action. I want to talk about the tens of thousands of ordinary Australian workers, the tens of thousands of cases of other Australian workers that we never hear of, who cannot talk for themselves and for whom there is no publicity; the tens of thousands of workers who joined a union because they were intimidated and could not afford to stand out; the tens of thousands of unionists who refused to join or left their union and have subsequently been dismissed or black-banned. We have heard the Prime Minister and other Ministers denying in this place the existence of compulsory unionism and the closed shop. I will refer to the Building Industry Job Stewards Handbook 1987, issued by the Victorian branch of the Building Workers Industrial Union, No. 1 Lygon Street, Carlton. On page 33 of the Job Stewards Handbook there is a section entitled `Financial Unionism'. It says: A 100% union job is a strong job. It goes on to give the following advice to new job stewards: On being appointed delegate, one of the first aims is to make the job 100% financial unionist. This has two aspects: (1) getting everyone who is already on the job financial and keeping them financial, (2) dealing with new employees, in this respect the union's policy is-no O.K. Card, no start. Further down in this booklet, under a section entitled `New Members' is a little gem which I will quote to the House: In dealing with non-members the delegate must exercise a lot of diplomacy and commonsense. As a first step, seek to convince the worker of the benefits of unionism and outline some of its achievements; indicate that he would be welcome into the union and outline his rights. If he still refuses to join after you have made every possible effort to convince him otherwise, you should advise the employer that he is not allowed to start work as it is a union job. The Prime Minister and Ministers can come into this House as often as they like, denying the existence of the closed shop and compulsory unionism. We know differently; the Press Gallery knows differently; and tens of thousands of workers who have been subjected to this kind of intimidation know differently. One case was reported in the paper only last week. A Mr Reginald Gregory, aged 48, who previously was an electrician with Philip Morris Ltd, and who is married with three children, was dismissed in November 1986, immediately after he was expelled from the Electrical Trades Union because of a row stemming from a wage claim. The employer dismissed him because he had been expelled from the union. That is another example of a closed shop and compulsory unionism. The courts had no doubts about it, I am pleased to tell the House, because they awarded Mr Gregory a $30,000 compensation payment. Let there be no doubt as to where the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia stand on this issue. We clearly spelt out our position prior to the last election campaign and our commitment remains as strong as ever. We will remove the power of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to award preference to unions or union members. We will make it an offence for a union to coerce any person to join an organisation or for a union to force any employer to force a person to join an organisation. We will protect the right of an individual to resign from a union. No union will be allowed to take industrial action to obtain or maintain a closed shop. To ensure that these changes are not arbitrarily reversed by another Labor government some years down the track and that they extend to all employees, we will initiate a referendum to enshrine the principle of voluntary unionism in the Constitution. Our stand is right; our stand is correct. We uphold the right, the fundamental civil liberty and freedom of people to join or not to join a trade union. We uphold the right, the freedom and the civil liberty of people to associate freely or not to associate with an organisation of their choice. The importance of a referendum is that we have laws that are currently flouted by the trade union movement. But when we enshrine a principle such as this, of the freedom to join or not to join, in the Constitution, we bring the whole weight of the Australian nation to bear on this fundamental principle. We are confident that such a referendum would be passed. Already public opinion polls show that our stance is supported by 83 per cent of the population, who reject compulsory unionism. It is interesting to note that in this survey not only do 83 per cent of all Australians now want voluntary unionism, not compulsory unionism, but the number of people amongst trade unionists alone who hold such a view is a surprising 77 per cent. The issue involving the parliamentary Press Gallery is important. A political party attempting to dictate that members of the Press cannot come to one of its national conferences unless they are union members is an issue about the right to join or not to join a union. Fundamentally, so far as the Press is concerned, it is an issue about freedom of the Press. It is a position and issue that we on this side of the House support very strongly. The beauty of that issue, bubbling as it is at the moment, is that it allows us to focus once again-because it is not the first time we have raised this issue-on the outrageous nature and reality of what is going on in industrial work places around Australia. The Prime Minister can deny the existence of the closed shop and compulsory unionism for as long as he likes. There are tens of thousands of fellow Australians, just like us, who are being intimidated, often to the point of thuggery, into joining a union and obeying the dictates of that union-because they have no choice. They do not have the power of the Press, a newspaper in which they can write, a television station or radio program that they can appear on. It is a private anguish often experienced only by them and their families. They are forced to join a union when they do not want to and often forced to go on strike when they do not want to. There is another category of Australians. They have stood out against the unions. Do they have people to stand up and speak for them? In Mr Gregory's case, thank goodness, he was able to take it to court but there are many others, the vast majority of which we have never heard of, who have been expelled from their work places, sacked by their employers and black-banned by their union-and their lives are a living nightmare. Why has this happened? They have simply stood up in a free, democratic place such as Australia and had the temerity to hold the belief that they have the right to join or not to join an organisation. That is the right that we will carry through for as long as we have breath to speak. When we are elected to government we will enshrine that belief in law, enact it in legislation and back it up with a referendum-and we will tap the view of the people that we know exists. This is not the first time we have raised this issue-and it will not be the last. This issue is about the Government's support for compulsory unionism and its complete disregard for the freedom of Australian workers. We will continue to press this matter. We will continue to press it until the Government recognises its responsibilities to act fairly in the interests of all Australians and abandons its slavish subservience to the ACTU and the trade union elite. We will continue it until this Government is thrown from office by the anger and resentment of the Australian people. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I had some sympathy for the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) because-- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I ask the honourable member for Chifley to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Moreton on a point of order. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, we presented our case with a member of the front bench. I think that the Minister at the table should be called on to respond. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr PRICE —The Opposition was so serious about this matter of public importance that it brought on a censure motion yesterday to knock it off and defer it. The Opposition's order of priorities for the real issues facing the people of Australia was such that the censure motion moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was far more important than this issue. Let us look at the issue to which the honourable member for Tangney has referred. He referred to the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Let me say that the request put to journalists breaks no new ground. It already exists for Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) conferences. It exists for a number of the conferences of the State branches of the Labor Party. The honourable member for Tangney posed the rhetorical question: `What if the Liberal Party were to deny access to journalists who have union membership?'. Well, of course, that is the prerogative of the Liberal Party of Australia. That is its right. Why would journalists want to go to a federal conference of the Liberal Party when for donkeys years those conferences have been closed to the Press? There is no point in journalists going to them because all the decisions are made behind closed doors. Therefore, why would journalists want to go? Incidentally, that is that Party's right. If it wants to pursue that point, that is its right. I invite it to do so in regard to the next Federal Council conference. This decision is not about compulsory unionism. It is simply a requirement which applies to those wishing to cover the ALP National Conference. For 20 years we have opened the doors to our Labor Party National Conference. For the first time two weeks ago, the Liberal Party opened its doors. No journalist is going to lose his job. It is not as if journalists cannot get access to this conference by sitting in the public gallery. Those journalists who are unhappy with the decision or who do not have a card will have to go to the gallery and will not get the facilities that are provided to other journalists. They will have to make phone calls from their own phones. A lot of media attention has been given to this issue. I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article by Paul Malone in the Canberra Times of 16 April. He said: Journalists are not free simply to walk into the National Press Club and put questions to the prominent figures who speak at the club. You have to be a member of the club to have the privilege of attending the function and you have to be a member of the ``working Press'' to ask a question. Major decision-making meetings are held across the country where no journalists are allowed access. Is the honourable member for Tangney suggesting, for instance, that journalists should have access to the board meetings of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or, closer to home, Elders IXL Ltd? The argument in the newspaper article goes on: Journalists cannot sit in on the BHP board meeting to observe proceedings and report the debates which affect the lives of thousands of Australians. The Liberal and National parties' policy decisions are made behind closed doors. Even when members of the Liberal Party open up their Federal Council meetings they proclaim loudly that the real decisions about policy, unlike those of the Australian Labor Party made in open conference, are made by the parliamentary Liberal Party behind closed doors in this place and other places. No journalist has access to those. I reject those sorts of charges that have been levelled by the honourable member for Tangney. On compulsory unionism I just want to say that there is a myth that somehow this Labor Government legislatively imposes compulsory unionism. The honourable member for Tangney is prepared to talk about thuggery in closed shop situations, compelling people to become unionists. What about the New Right? What about the small business organisations that intimidate workers not to have union membership? That is not a concern to honourable members opposite. That is a legitimate form of thuggery; that is a legitimate form of intimidation about which honourable members opposite say nothing. Let me say that under no legislation of this Parliament-either in force or proposed by this Government-is compulsory unionism enshrined. We provide, as do the Acts of the States provide, for preference to unionists. We recognise the legitimacy of the union movement. I do not shrink from the fact that members on this side are very proud of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his trade union antecedents. I think that the Australian public as a whole recognises the tremendous job the Prime Minister did when he was President of the ACTU. I do not want to mislead the House. I certainly have trade union antecedents of which I am very proud. I was an honorary official in my union. I worked very hard. I am not ashamed of it. I am not trying to hide it. Of course, in the Public Service we have very high levels of trade union membership. This furphy about the position of the Government really does need to be denied. We have a Conciliation and Arbitration Act which enshrines and recognises the role of trade unions. It provides for preference to trade unionists. What the honourable member for Tangney would not tell this House or the people of Australia of course is that there are provisions in that Act for conscientious objectors-those people who do not wish to be members of a trade union. He would not mention that fact. I thought one of the real ironies of the honourable member's comments was that if the Opposition were ever on the treasury bench it would have a referendum on voluntary trade unionism. I think that this is really ironic because as most people know the Government is currently considering a series of referendums to try to entrench some simple rights and to try to bring Australia up to the 1980s. What is the Opposition's stand? It will oppose each and every one of them. When it comes to union bashing, when it comes to denigrating ordinary Australian workers-the men, women and young people of Australia in the work force-honourable members opposite want a referendum to put that question to the people. I think their stand is really hypocritical. I think the majority of Australians find it really hypocritical. I think the real issue is: what is freedom for Australians; what does freedom for Australian workers mean; and, really, what has niggled the Opposition about the Government in relation to the workers of Australia? Firstly, it has to be recognised that this Government, with cooperation from the trade union movement and, I must say, the business sector as well, has been able to get the strike rate down by a massive 54 per cent compared to what it was when the Opposition was in government. Herein lies the difference between the Government and the Opposition. We believe that there is an appropriate role for unions to represent the legitimate rights of workers, to negotiate with management and to come to agreement. What does the Opposition want? The Opposition does not want unions. It wants individual workers to negotiate with management. It is prepared to pursue policies of confrontation, to shoot up the record of this Government of a reduction in strikes back to the days when it was in power, to the days when confrontation was an article of faith. It is interesting to note that the Opposition has not lost that article of faith. What is the other aspect of this Government's relationship with the trade union movement that gets up the nose of the Opposition? Frankly, it is that real labour unit costs are down by 9.3 per cent compared with the costs when it was in office. What does that mean? It means that every working Australian man and woman has been prepared to take real salary cuts in the interests of getting the economy of Australia going, getting employment back, restructuring and refashioning manufacturing and service industries so that people can have a reasonable outlook on life. That is really what gets up the noses of honourable members opposite. They have all the rhetoric about being the best managers, being closest to business and being able to fashion the economy and industry; but the reality is that this Government has got the runs on the board. There are many things that we could point to to illustrate the sort of industrial relations environment we have constructed. For example, look at the Government's proposals as far as manufacturing industry is concerned, when it acted to ensure that we got cooperation from the trade union movement, cooperation from business and an involvement of the Government when we introduced things such as the steel plan, the car industry plan and the heavy manufacturing industry plan. These things were not brought about by confrontation; they were not brought about by trade union bashing; and, may I say, they were not brought about by business bashing. They were brought about by a real understanding of the economic environment that we live in, a realisation that we have to cooperate and that we have a vested interest in working out things collectively. I draw the attention of the House to what must be one of the most dramatic examples currently on the boil, and that is the agreement that is being reached between the metal industry and the metal trades unions, by which they are proposing to reduce 300 different work classifications down to nine, where they are implementing plans. This is being done cooperatively; not in an atmosphere of confrontation or an atmosphere of union bashing or worker bashing, but by sitting down at the table, looking at the industry and what its long term future is and arriving at decisions that are mutually acceptable-acceptable to the workers and acceptable to management. What astounding progress they are making. Who would have thought that in the metal industries we would be on the verge of reducing so many classifications down to about eight or nine and that instead of deskilling metal industry unions and unionists we are actually skilling them up and making them more effective. I commend to the House the opening speech of Greg Harrison, the National Secretary of the Metal Trades Federation of Unions, at the Metal Trades Federation of Unions National Conference. A similar paper was delivered by, I think, Bert Evans, on the employer side. It is well worth reading about the real gains that we are making. The honourable member for Tangney claimed that the Opposition is really concerned about the plight of Australian workers. He cried crocodile tears about their plight, but it was really horrifying to hear over Question Time today and to read in the Australian Financial Review yesterday that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Peacock) has endorsed the massive cuts proposed by the Business Council of Australia. In fact he said that they do not go far enough. If anything is going to affect the real living standards of Australians, it is the policies of the Opposition. Look at the hypocrisy of the Opposition when it came to the last election in relation to industry policy. Time and time again in this House I heard the shadow Minister supporting initiatives of this Government, but come election time and what did it promise? What did the new shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Science, Senator Messner, say to the people of Australia? After he had spent three years agreeing with the Government, overnight he said, `We are going to remove every form of assistance that this Government has been putting in to manufacturing industry'. Let me say that if there is one thing the workers and business can agree on, it is that these rapid policy changes-or should I say leapfrogs-are disastrous when one is trying to encourage long term investment and trying to provide a real employment future for ordinary Australians. That is the quality of the policies brought forward by the Opposition. They can change overnight in an election period. What proposals of the Business Council of Australia is the Opposition endorsing in terms of cuts? It is going to reduce the Medicare rebate from 80 per cent to 75 per cent. For those who have pensioner parents it is going to include the value of the family home. Next, is the first home owner's scheme. I am very proud to represent a working class electorate. My electorate has the second highest number of first home owners in New South Wales. The Opposition is proposing, by supporting the proposals of the Business Council of Australia, to remove the scheme lock, stock and barrel. This matter of public importance is phoney. The Opposition shadow Minister was not really able to put too much energy into it and the workers of Australia are not going to be deluded by the illusionary freedoms referred to by the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(4.25) —I rise to speak in this debate not as many on the Government side did, who have had little experience of actually working in industry, but as one who, until I became a member of this House, was a union member first in a blue collar union and then in a white collar union, so I have had experience in digging the trenches, on the shop floor and on the drawing board. I do not raise these matters in any form of a boast, although I am proud of my background, but to show that unlike many of my contemporaries on the Government benches I have shared the experience that many Australian workers have had. Being originally from Broken Hill, I am aware that there was a need in the past for a strong union movement to protect the lives and livelihoods of mine workers and the welfare of their families. But having said that, I am also aware that today many sections of the union movement in other parts of Australia are existing not for the welfare of their members but as an organisation looking for a cause, and many of those causes are not industrial; they are political. Today I rise to support the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) in this matter of public importance opposing compulsory unionism, because from my firsthand experience I have come to regard it as anathema to this supposedly free, democratic nation. Only occasion does the matter of compulsory unionism come to the fore, when some brave or naive individual tries to buck the system. In the past conservative governments, weak in resolve, or self-interested Labor governments, have told these people that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism; there is merely a clause which gives preference to unionists. I draw the attention of honourable members to a question by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in reply to which the Prime Minister said: . . . neither under the law of this country nor under the policy of this Government, is there the practice of compulsory unionism in this country. Of course, it is not policy; it is just fact. There is compulsory unionism. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) replied to another question: As the Prime Minister said in Question Time last week, we do not have a system of compulsory unionism in this country. He went on to say: We do not have a legal system which imposes unionism on unwilling members . . . And so on. In answer to that, of course, Opposition members said, `Ha, ha, ha'. Well, it would be funny if it were not so serious. I say to those who wish to work, `Try to get a job with Telecom, on the waterfront, in the Public Service, or in many private organisations without a union ticket, and see how you get on'. Mr Pratt —Or in the submarine project. Mr HICKS —Or in the submarine project, as the honourable member said. Job seekers are told that if, for one reason or another, they do not want to join a union, they can make a conscientious objection under section 144a of the Industrial Arbitration Act. In my opinion and that of many Australians, union membership through legislation must be made voluntary, so that the prohibitive practice of proving a conscientious objection to unionism, as required under that section of the Act, can be done away with. Currently anybody wishing to gain exemption from union membership needs to lodge a formal application with the Registrar of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for exemption on the basis that the person's conscientious beliefs do not allow that person to be a member of any kind of association. The total inadequacy of this provision can be gauged from an examination of the applications lodged with the Registrar under section 144a. For example, during 1986, of the 344 applications lodged only 241 were approved. Even though the number of applications lodged seeking relief under section 144a has increased from 142 to 344 since 1984, the very low numbers demonstrate graphically that the hundreds of thousands of ordinary working Australian men and women who object to joining a union are having their individual freedoms trampled on by the present system, the present union leadership and the present Federal Labor Government. The most recent case that has been brought to the fore is that affecting members of the Australian Journalists Association (AJA) who wish to cover the Australian Labor Party National Conference in Hobart. The honourable member for Tangney has adequately covered that point. I would just like to say that journalists who attend that conference have been instructed by the Labor Party that they must show their union card. As we all know there has been strong objection to that dictate, just as there was strong objection when the AJA executive moved to affiliate the AJA with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I do not know-perhaps honourable members could fill me in-but I just wonder what the Labor Party expects to get out of that dictate that the journalists and their assistants must show their card. Does it expect that the members of the AJA will report on the meeting with a particular slant? I hope that is not the basis, but I cannot understand the logic. Mr McGauran —It is intimidation. Mr HICKS —It is intimidation, and we have come to expect that. No doubt the journalists have made their own decision-and I am pleased to say that that is the case-in line with their code of ethics. Clause 1 of the AJA code states that journalists shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis. But, more importantly, this ruling gives AJA members who show their card a distinct advantage and that is totally against clause 5 of the code of ethics, which provides that journalists shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall disclose any such offer. So here we have the Labor Party once again pushing its compulsory unionism line, and once again I commend the journalists on their stand. Of course, this is not the only case where compulsory unionism is being pushed as never before. We all know that, despite increased union activity, the number of people in the union movement is dropping, particularly in the private sector where many people, women in particular, are in casual employment. The union movement is finding it difficult to bring them into the fold. Naturally, the union movement is concerned as, indeed, its political wing, the Australian Labor Party, which falsely purports to represent the workers of this nation, must also be concerned. And so the pressure is on, despite the fact that 83 per cent of Australians are opposed to compulsory unionism. What about the human rights element in the whole argument? There need be nothing incompatible between recognition of a fundamental right of a worker to belong to a trade union or to strike, with qualifications, and recognition of a corresponding right not to belong to a union and to be allowed to work without penalty or victimisation. Such a right, at least in the first part, is enshrined in Article 20 (2) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides: No-one may be compelled to belong to an association. Despite this covenant, the Government tried to impose on the people of Australia a Bill of Rights, which in Article II provided: Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of that person's interest. In other words, people would have had the right to join a trade union but no right not to join a trade union. The Australian people rejected the proposed Bill of Rights, one major reason being proposed Article II. Most honourable members would recognise that there are responsible trade unions that care for civil liberties and rights but I am sure that most honourable members on both sides of the House could relate instances where unions have tried to enforce compulsory unionism with little regard for civil liberties. In my own electorate just recently a large employer ran a successful business operation with only 10 per cent of his work force being unionised. Despite frequent visits from the union delegate, the work force steadfastly refused to join a union. They were happy with their employer as well as their wages and conditions. Onto the scene came another union saying that nothing would move in or out of the plant if there was not full unionisation. The employer, with no protection, bowed to the union, because he had no real support from anywhere, least of all from Government. Now, of course, the additional cost is to be borne by the consumer with an increase in inflation and will represent another attack on our nation's chance of economic survival. A few years ago I became aware of a case involving a motel. The proprietor asked whether I was a policeman. I asked, `Why do you want a policeman?'. He said, `I have just had two standover men in here trying to get my workers to join the union.' I asked, `Why do they want them to join the union?'. He said, `I am carrying out renovations and either I sack these people while the renovations are going on or they can help me to fix the home'. He also said, `I come from Europe. I have had experience with the Russians and the nazis in Germany. I have come to this country to be free and I will not be told whether my workers can be in a union or cannot be in a union'. The last time I saw that gentleman was when he was standing outside his house accompanied by two apparent thugs and a policeman. He had a piece of four by two in his hand. The piece of four by two would not have done him much good in that case, because he did not have the support of his member of parliament and he certainly did not have the support of the system. There are employers who, to obtain a cosy relationship, have a closed shop with compulsory unionism. Many of these employers can pass on the resultant increase in costs. There are also others who are protected by tariffs. But where does this leave our nation? As I have said previously, it is sinking very quickly. I am aware that until the recent by-elections, according to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), we in Australia were living in a banana republic, but, after two bad results at by-elections, the Prime Minister is now telling us that we are living in a land of milk and honey and that he will start to look after the workers and the middle income earners. If the workers of Australia believe that 180-degree turnaround, they will believe anything. I know from my experience on the industrial shop floor that people are not as naive as this Government of Bollinger socialists would hope. The only way in which this nation will survive is by a complete shake-up of the present entrenched industrial relations system, and one of the first things to go under the coalition's industrial relations policy will be compulsory unionism. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(4.36) —In no area are the fundamental differences between the Government and the Opposition more apparent than in the area of industrial relations. I want to comment on the patronising remarks of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) regarding his involvement in unions before coming into this place, in comparison with the involvement of honourable members on this side. May I say that it pains me to have to admit that before coming into this place I belonged to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) and I was involved in a dispute with this Government. That dispute involved the branch office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and related to an occupational health and safety issue. There was a three-day strike. Mr Andrew —The asbestos issue. Mr JENKINS —Yes, on the issue of asbestos. The relevant point that arises from that experience is that a number of unionists were taking industrial action and resentment and confrontation resulted because non-unionists were not taking action. If we consider our industrial relations practices, we see that there is an underlying feeling by those who choose to join industrial organisations and those who choose to become involved in action and negotiation to achieve benefits in the workplace, that those benefits go equally to non-union members. Honourable members opposite should address their minds to that aspect, because it is one that is very difficult for workers who involve themselves in appropriate action and appropriate organisations to come to grips with. I believe that that has been dismissed by honourable members opposite. It is an aspect that they should at least consider when we are talking about appropriate action. The issue before us arises because of a perceived crisis in the gallery upstairs. It involves union coverage of media workers at the Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference. We should recognise that a decision was made at a meeting of Gallery staff today and proposals will be put to the national secretariat for consideration. I think we could believe that those proposals will receive appropriate consideration by the secretariat. An article by Paul Malone in the Canberra Times of 16 April refers to the proposed meeting of today. He stated: At the request of those journalists who are opposed to the ALP decision, the Press Gallery will hold a full meeting of its members on Tuesday. There is some irony in the fact that those who insist on their right to operate individually without union coverage are insisting that the gallery as a body take up their case. There we have it. It just depends on which organisation these people want to say covers them. That is all well and good, and I suppose that many things happen in the pressure cooker atmosphere of this place. But this debate has again brought up the myth of compulsory unionism. That is a complete myth. Let us consider that. My colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) has gone over a number of these points which were simply dismissed by honourable members opposite. We do not have a system of compulsory unionism in Australia. There are no awards of the Federal commission or State industrial tribunals that provide for compulsory union membership. It is about time honourable members opposite came forward with their evidence to suggest otherwise. Neither the present Act nor any proposed Bill provides for compulsory unionism. However, we do have a system under which there can be preference provisions in awards. I do not think that there is any great problem in that. There are proper protections and proper procedures for achieving it. There has been some suggestion from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) that the recent case involving the electrician at Philip Morris Ltd was, perhaps, some evidence of compulsory unionism. I would contend that in that case the worker had the proper protection of the courts. There is no suggestion that in that action there was any stipulation of a reason for the notion of compulsory unionism. Perhaps we should look at the reports of that judgment. One such report said: It seems to us that . . . reasonableness required that, before taking the ultimate step of dismissal- and that step was taken by Philip Morris- the company should have explored with Mr Gregory the available alternatives. In that case, after being expelled under the rules of the Electrical Trades Union in October 1986, the applicant obtained a rule to show cause against the ETU which subsequently, on 24 November, determined that the expulsion was null and void. So it was not a simple case of black and white, where in some way the circumstances and the law militated against that person, nor is there any suggestion that this was a form of compulsory unionism. Perhaps this matter of public importance gives us an opportunity to look at the wider debate. The Opposition has the hide to come into this place today and talk about the freedoms of Australian workers. What a cheek! These people have singlemindedly-as singleminded as a coalition beset by a multitude of warring groups can be-set out to crush and destroy organised labour, that is, the trade unions of Australia, without compunction. Let us have a look at what happened when there was some semblance of a policy being put forward by Opposition members. The Opposition planned a deliberate course of exploitation and destruction of workers' rights. It did so by a policy which moved to cut minimum pay levels and destroy minimum conditions in areas such as annual and sick leave, lunch breaks, working hours and a whole host of other conditions. Such a policy would make an absolute mockery of the Opposition's professed concern for ordinary families. Under a Liberal government, family living standards would plummet. More importantly, the underlying premise of any industrial relations policy of the Opposition is the influence and involvement of the New Right. The New Right is believed to be involved in formulating any Opposition policy. Industrial relations chaos would envelop the nation if this policy were ever given a chance to be implemented. An article in the Business Review Weekly which was published at the time of the release of that policy document states: Howard says he is not beholden to the New Right, but the facts strongly suggest otherwise. A coterie of New Right members and fringe supporters, including Boyle, is working hand in glove with the Liberal leadership. Let us see those opposite withdraw from that allegation and prove that it is in fact incorrect. I suppose the ultimate irony of the present discussions about the journalists operating in this place, which led to this matter of public importance, is the comment of John Valder, a former Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr Valder indicated that journalists should be licensed like stockbrokers and financial advisers because-and I stress that this is his quote-of `declining standards of journalism'. In addition we have the honourable member for Riverina-Darling standing in this place today talking about this supposed deal, imputing motives and slandering the proper professional standing of a number of members of the Press Gallery of this House. That is quite inappropriate-- Mr Price —It is a jackboot approach. Mr JENKINS —Yes, it is indicative of a jackboot approach to these questions. The honour- able member for Riverina-Darling went on to quote the Australian Journalists Association code of ethics but then simply dismissed it and scoffed at the idea that members of the AJA would stick to such a code. I think that that was perhaps an inappropriate conclusion to come to. This Government has a proud record in the area of industrial relations. The cooperation it has achieved from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the industrial movement at large has been part of the underlying success of this Government. As I said in my contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, we need to remember that under the accord much has been achieved, but it has been achieved at the cost of ordinary Australian workers because they have been willing to seek cooperation in return for extensive increases in the social wage and the chance to give other Australians a chance of employment. It is a nonsense for honourable members opposite to stand up in this place and decry-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.47) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, private Member's business, for Tuesday, 19 April 1988, being called on and, following presentation of the Bill, a motion for the second reading of the Bill being moved forthwith. In speaking to this motion for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders, I stress to the House the urgency of this matter and the problems that have been created for the people of Australia in the last 48 hours since the Director of Public Prosecutions brought to the attention of the Parliament his opinion of the workings of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Section 130 (1) says in part: A person shall not, directly or indirectly . . . make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any information with respect to the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under this Act. The part of that section which I omitted says: . . . and while he is, or after he ceases to be, an officer . . . I make the point about `an officer' because the Opposition is concerned about this and that is why we believe the matter must be dealt with most urgently. Since 1973 the Australian public has lived with the apparent illusion that they have the right to be protected in relation to their confidential information, as collected by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). The people have believed that this section of the Act covers them fully. In fact, they have good reason for that because when the Bill was introduced to the Parliament on 29 November 1973, the Minister then responsible, said on page 4143 of Hansard: The Government will insist that complete confidentiality regarding individual patients and doctors is maintained by the Commission. He also told the Parliament that there would be a committee to go into the question of privacy and, in fact, I have that committee's interim report. At the beginning it states its terms of reference: As an interim step the Committee is required to investigate and report by 11 October 1973 what legislative and other measures should be adopted to protect the individual privacy of persons in respect of whom . . . medical and hospital data will be supplied to the Health Insurance Commission. In part 3 of its report the committee goes on to say: The terms of reference were amended by the deletion of the underlined words `medical and hospital' to put beyond doubt that the Committee's work might extend to cover the possible invasion of privacy of the medical practitioner. The committee also points out in the substance of its report: Nevertheless the Committee believes that its present recommendations should provide a system which will ensure a high degree of protection of privacy for those who make claims upon the proposed health insurance funds and for those who provide medical and hospital services in respect of which the claims are made. In clause 53 of its recommendations the committee says: The Committee considers that all those who have access, in the course of their duties, to information or documents furnished for the purposes of the Health Insurance Program should be bound by law to protect the confidentiality of that information and those documents. A person should be liable to prosecution if he discloses information or documents, or makes copies of documents, except in the course of his duty. That was the understanding of the committee that made recommendations to the Parliament in 1973. The understanding of members of the community has been that section 130 protected them, whether they be health provider or patient, and that the information collected under the law by the Health Insurance Commission was totally confidential. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, because of certain actions emanating from the office of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), the Opposition has been raising questions relating to whether the law has been broken by the publishing of certain facts relating to what certain categories of doctors had charged their patients and how that related to the schedule fee. Very specific items referring to the speciality and the sort of fees charged were released to the Press by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) in his capacity as chairman of the price watch organisation formed by the Caucus. As a consequence, a Federal police inquiry was held and, yesterday, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) tabled a legal opinion from the Government's own Director of Public Prosecutions that, in his view: The short answer is that prosecution action is not warranted. He went on to say: Accordingly, no prosecution could succeed. The point he makes is that nobody is guilty, although he admits that, from the information provided to him by the Federal police, there was an involvement by the Minister and by members of the Minister's staff, particularly a Mr Butt, and by members of the Health Insurance Commission and others, none of these people are guilty or should be prosecuted. He makes the point that there is a vast difference between those particular people. He tells us that, without doubt, those people employed in the Health Insurance Commission-and, I stress, on some occasions, the Minister-would be classified as `officers'. People in the Health Insurance Commission are officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions makes the equally clear distinction that, in his opinion, members of the Minister's own staff are not categorised as officers under the legislation; nor is a backbencher such as the honourable member for Canning. So, what do we have? As carefully explained in this opinion by Mr Temby, the Minister's office can request confidential information and, provided the Minister's staff fail to tell the officers of the HIC that they have some ulterior purpose for this information-there is no obligation to do so-it is legal for officers of the HIC to provide confidential information. Once that information is in the Minister's office and provided the Minister keeps his hands out of it and gives instructions similar to those he gave to Mr Butt-`You ring up the HIC, get the information that the member for Canning requires, but when you get it make sure that none of it is illegal; that is my instruction to you'-as an officer, the Minister is in the clear and, according to Mr Temby, Mr Butt is not constrained by the Act. Mr Butt can get the information, as confidential and sensitive as it might be, and he can do as he wishes with it. The Opposition believes that, if that is the case, something must be done urgently in this Parliament and it is for that purpose that I seek the suspension of standing orders. Having asked the Attorney-General at Question Time what he was going to do about it, the House received a remarkable statement from him, as follows: I think the law is quite adequate in the sense that it says that there is to be no disclosure of information of a confidential nature. He went on to say: The facts of this case are that there was no disclosure of confidential information. I do not know what is confidential but I would have thought that, particularly when closely identified with a speciality, the person who paid the bill would have a pretty clear opportunity to turn around and identify the practitioner concerned. As the opinion points out, given that the practitioner had probably done it on about 700 other occasions, I would have thought that was confidential. But the Minister is not prepared to back up Mr Temby. Mr Temby's argument is that, as long as the HIC provides information to the Minister's office and, provided that everything is handled by a staffer of the Minister, he can disseminate what he likes. The Opposition does not think that that is what the Minister meant in 1973. The Opposition does not think that that is what the committee of inquiry intended in its recommendations. It is not the understanding of the general community and the Opposition feels that the law must be changed. The Minister will not do it; so I will seek to put before the House an amendment to the legislation to ensure that such scandalous activity cannot occur again and a Minister cannot be let off on a technicality for breaching an Act that he should understand better than anyone else in the community. That is why the Opposition requested this opportunity of the House, and I am sure that my seconder will support me in this debate. This is a remarkable situation. Presuming Mr Temby is correct, this Bill has a loophole in it that one could drive the proverbial bus through. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(4.56) —I second the motion. I mean no disrespect when I refer to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) as a trout. The trout is a beautiful fish but it has a problem: it keeps trying to wriggle off the hook. The hook that I refer to is not any hook of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). It is a hook on a line of public outrage at the breach in confidence that has occurred. Let there be no doubt, despite the words of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) earlier today, that there was a breach. The provider numbers were designated on the documents provided. That number identifies individual doctors to staff, patients and employees. Besides the number appears the letters `Prov'. One does not need anything more than peanuts for brains to know that those letters next to a number in this context mean the provider number. It has been claimed that the connection was not made, but that remains to be seen. Let us look at the opinion of Mr Temby. The key to this is whether David Butt was an officer under the meaning of the law, and there are two views. The Government cannot have it both ways. If Mr Temby's opinion is upheld, clearly there is a loophole, one which allows publication of confidential information. If, on the other hand, Mr Temby's opinion is overturned and Mr Butt is an officer, there is no doubt that, by the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, the Minister for Community Services and Health should resign, even by the standards of this Government. If there is a conduit and Mr Temby's opinion is upheld, it allows publication of confidential information from a number of sources. We on this side of the House believe that this conduit must be blocked now, and blocked permanently. In this particular case, we have already seen the release of information for political purposes, that is, for doctor bashing. Nobody in the Minister's Department would pretend otherwise, and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has already agreed that that was the aim of the exercise. It was shown in yesterday's censure motion how selected confidential information can be used and was used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) as a personal vendetta. In that case it was used against a person who had the temerity to criticise the Minister. If a person criticises a Minister, the Minister could go to the confidential files, take out the information and use it in a very personal, vengeful way. It is quite clear that Big Brother is here and watching. Where do we go next? Will information be released for commercial gain? Will individual files be extracted to see whether it is possible to make a fast buck? Will it be used for attacks on political opponents? That may be just around the corner if these standards are used because, quite clearly, confidential information will not be respected. It will be able to be used for any purpose. Will there be the selective and accidental release of psychiatric records of patients who might actually oppose a Minister or the Government. Will census data be used? Although confidential at this stage, the 1,500 individual pieces of information about every man, woman and child in Australia could be used. Information about families, a person's marriage history, child bearing ability, personal relationships, income-the amount of information available from that source is mind boggling. Is this perhaps how the intended extended tax file number will be used? Are we going to have another ID card under another name? Are we going to have another source of confidential information which we will be assured, of course, will be absolutely confidential, but when it comes to the point will we find that selected leaks occur to members such as the honourable member for Canning? We had many reassurances from the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when the legislation was introduced. But we now clearly need action to protect our privacy. I very strongly support the motion. I believe that the House, in all honesty and integrity, should support a motion to protect our privacy, not just in the short term but also in the longer term. We have had examples of all sources of information that may have crept through the loophole in the legislation and I have given some minor examples of some of them. I believe that the motion is one of the most important matters that we can discuss. I strongly urge both sides of the House to support the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can deal with this motion. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(5.01) —Naturally enough, we are not going to support the suspension of Standing Orders. We have allowed the debate to proceed a heck of a lot further than I recollect happened on occasions when I attempted to do this sort of thing-marching into the House without consultation after the time when that section of the business which is normally conducted by the Opposition is concluded. On the various occasions when I did that when I was in opposition, it was moved within one minute that I be no longer heard. There are several reasons why this debate is proceeding at the moment. First, it is the intention of this side of the House that when time is available we treat the Opposition reasonably if it feels that it needs to have the forums of the House to expound its views. The second reason is, of course, more tactical. It is to expose the final stage of the humiliation of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) on this issue, his gross humiliation at having been found to have been guilty both of a rush to judgment and of extraordinary excess in the way in which he has conducted this debate from the outset. He has now been directly humiliated by the conclusions that have been drawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the report that he has made to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). What we find here is a man who is incapable of anything other than extravagance in anything that he does. People who are incapable of anything other than extravagance will, in the end, be found out when somebody who is clear eyed sits and looks at them. Remember the bravado of the honourable member when he said, `I am going to take all the houses off these people, I am going to sue them into the ground; I am going to deal with these people, these criminals-the criminal Minister for Health, the criminal member for Canning, the criminals in their offices and the criminals in the Health Insurance Commission'. We can remember all of that. It was spouted out on the steps of this Parliament; it was spouted out in this place. The cool, cold judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that the honourable member for O'Connor and the gaggle that followed him on this issue were totally incorrect and extreme and not worthy of consideration in public affairs. Mr Tuckey —And what will you say if a court finds differently? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has had his go and he will now be silent. Mr BEAZLEY —He will have his opportunity to spend the doctors' money in going to court, if he wishes to do that. That is a course of action open to him. He will have to do that as he knows himself because he virtually confessed as much last night. Having hooked himself with the ridiculous position that he adopted when this issue was first raised-the trout with his own line; great flapping mouth seized the hook-he is now going to have to haul himself out of the water. There is no other way for him to haul himself out of the water than to spend the doctors' money in their futile little court case. He will, of course, have his opportunity to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that the court will arrive at any conclusions other than the DPP has. If there were doubt in the mind of the honourable member for O'Connor that the court would arrive at any other conclusion, the honourable member would not want to move this motion. If the honourable member for O'Connor is correct in his proposition that in fact he cannot do what he wishes to do because the Act will not let him, he will, of course, find that out in court. The mere fact that he wants to move his motion is a confession of the weakness of his case before he proceeds with it. So he is now in the position of coming into this place and thrashing about. He has been thrashing up and down the Opposition corridors with the poor old Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Fife) desperately trying to control him. Undoubtedly, the sound advice that he received from the Manager of Opposition Business, who is deeply experienced in government, was along the lines that if he really intends to go to court he has really rather shot his bolt here by walking in and effectively saying that the grounds on which he would challenge the activities of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) are grounds which simply could not stand. He has been told that he had better make a bit of a change to the Act before he goes into court and blows some of his ill gotten gains, that he had better get stuck into it right now. The Manager of Opposition Business would have tried calmly to explain to the honourable member for O'Connor how the honourable member was going to compound the ridiculous position that he has managed to place himself in out there in the general public by taking this course of action. But, no, the wrong headed member for O'Connor always ignores sound advice from those experienced in government and has decided to come-- Mr Tuckey —I got advice from a lawyer on it. Mr BEAZLEY —Oh, the honourable member has had so much advice from lawyers. Perhaps this should be tabled. All of this unbiased advice from lawyers is like a flick pass-it is straight out the window. As the honourable member thrashes about he still cannot resist the attempt to injure reputations. How pathetic it was to watch the program last night on which the honourable member for O'Connor, the legal expert of the Opposition on this issue, commented on Gavan Griffith and Mr Temby. Whatever opinion one might have of them, nobody has challenged the fact that they are regarded as highly competent lawyers and highly competent people to hold those jobs. He says, `I would not hire them commercially'. No, he would not because he is a fool. That is why he would not do that and fools always ought to be given an opportunity to expose themselves. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I know that this is just a place of toing and froing, but this `fool' business is not really an ideal description that should be allowed to go on. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw the word `fool'. Mr BEAZLEY —I accept that it is not the only description. I withdraw. This person, unacquainted with a sensible course of action on just about anything that he chooses to tackle, has always to be given an opportunity to expose himself. So many of the arguments that he has made just simply have not stood up in Temby's report. They are not rejections on technicality; they are specific rejections. For example, remember all the argument about statistics, that the things that were handed out to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) were not statistics? Page 20 of the opinion has a definition of what constitutes statistics-a reasonable definition which comes from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Mr Temby made the following conclusion: I take the view that the material provided to Mr Gear was `statistics' within the meaning of the Act. We can all remember the arguments made weeks ago about statistics. It was argued that these are not statistics. Of course they are. Mr Tuckey —No, they're not. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Temby, in his recommendation (h), specifically rejects what the Minister has just said. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not abuse the forms of the House to use the microphone. I warn him. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for O'Connor persists in attempting to prove me right. It can be absolutely guaranteed that he will; therefore, I do not mind any of the interjections that he puts forward. So his position taken on statistics was a load of nonsense. The argument put forward by the honourable member then went to the question of privacy, that people's privacy had been offended. Mr Temby clearly found that it would have been extraordinarily difficult, even if one were so maliciously inclined, actually to take what were the portions of provider numbers and establish that somebody's individual rights had been exposed. Nobody's individual rights have been damaged in any of this and that has been made quite clear in Mr Temby's report. No individual has been exposed. Compare the lack of maliciousness there with the maliciousness of the honourable member for O'Connor when he got up in this place and prejudged the sort of investigation that the Australian Federal Police would have made and prejudged the Director of Public Prosecutions. He thought that he would go charging in over the top of him. He thought, `I am going to take the houses off them. I am going to make these people suffer. I am going to drag them through the dirt'. That sheer unmitigated maliciousness came from a totally malicious and incompetent person-a person who has conducted his affairs as an Opposition spokesman with a degree of inability which surprises even honourable members on this side of the House who have had long experience of his incompetence in this regard. This is a ridiculous little motion. It is a confession of failure and, therefore, amusing in its own right. As a confession of failure, we welcome it. It is almost as close as I would expect the honourable member for O'Connor to get to a proper mea culpa-a confession that his little effort in court will cost him a great deal of money to no effect; a little effort that he must proceed with because he is hooked like a trout on a line. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The time for the debate has also expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. McGauran, P. J.Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Woods, R. L.McArthur, F. S. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Ruddock, P. M. McLeay, LeoShipton, R. F. Uren, T.Cowan, D. B. Lavarch, M. H.Brown, N. A. Grace, E. L.Lloyd, B. Morris, AllanSpender, J. M. Blanchard, C. A.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 289th report-Advance to the Minister for Finance. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-Report No. 289 is a review of the Advance to the Minister for Finance facility which has arisen from concerns the Committee developed during its preparation last year of report No. 286 on the final expenditure under the Advance for the financial year 1986-87. One of the Public Accounts Committee's statutory duties is to report to the Parliament on any alteration it thinks desirable in the mode of receipt, control, issue or payment of public moneys. It is perhaps for that reason that the Committee is often called the taxpayers' best friend. It is in this regard that the Committee has examined the Advance with a view to improving its efficiency and effectiveness and it is in that context that the Committee presents this report. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is a central contingency fund in the annual Appropriation Acts. It allows the Minister for Finance to issue money for items which will not undergo the normal parliamentary review process prior to expenditure. Such items consist mainly of expenditures that were unforeseen at the time of the preparation of the Budget and other Appropriation Bills, and which are urgently required before the next appropriations. The Advance is a special area of government expenditure because it gives the Minister for Finance considerable discretion over expenditure without prior approval of the whole Parliament. For that reason, I believe this report is extremely important to the Parliament as a whole. The Parliament has long recognised the need for the Advance for the smooth running of government and a certain amount of flexibility has always been required. Parliament has, however, developed strict procedures to ensure that the Advance is administered and used correctly and that the full details are later reported to Parliament. The Committee is concerned that use of the Advance remains within the strict parameters laid down by the Parliament. This is a fundamental element in the role of the Parliament supervising the executive government. Indeed, it is what distinguishes us from totalitarian forms of government, at least to a large degree. The Minister for Finance is required by law to submit to the Parliament a statement of all amounts for urgent and unforeseen expenditures remaining as a final charge to the Advance at the end of the financial year. The Committee has routinely examined this statement and its precursors, as a part of its statutory duties, since the Committee was re-established in 1952. This report is perhaps the most important report on this area that the Committee has presented since its establishment. The Committee has also reported in the past on the general use of the Advance and has made recommendations which were adopted to improve its administration. This report focuses on the more general questions surrounding expenditures remaining as a final charge to the Advance. The three main concerns of the Committee are, firstly, whether the procedures for the use and reporting of the Advance are appropriate for this special area of government expenditure and secondly, whether the wording of the various Appropriation Acts with respect to the Advance is being interpreted correctly, particularly the terms `urgent' and `unforseen'. I remind the House that these are not matters of academic interest; they are considerations of the correct law enacted by the Commonwealth of the Parliament of Australia. The third main issue of concern is whether the Committee should maintain its present routine role in reviewing the Advance. Importantly, the Committee draws attention to the wording of a legal opinion obtained from the Attorney- General's Department which makes it clear that there are serious doubts about the legality of the present Department of Finance guidelines for the Advance to the Minister for Finance. It is of great concern to the Committee that a central coordinating authority, such as the Department of Finance, is issuing guidelines and approving expenditures in this way. The Committee has noted in its report that the Department has not itself sought a legal opinion on the wording and interpretation of the Appropriation Acts. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the guidelines be revised in certain respects to ensure conformity with the law and effective scrutiny of all expenditure. The Committee notes that other committees of the Parliament have adopted a role in scrutinising expenditure from the Advance. The Public Accounts Committee, therefore, concludes that it should not routinely examine the Advance while it is satisfied that parliamentary scrutiny is being effectively undertaken by others. At present, the terms of reference for the Senate Estimates committees include examination of the Advance. I would like to emphasise that the Committee strongly believes that the existence and use of a contingency fund, such as the Advance to the Minister for Finance, are essential to the operations of government, provided that it is used strictly in accordance with the terms set out by the Parliament and that its use is subject to prompt and effective scrutiny. The report tabled today recommends important reforms to overhaul and revitalise parliamentary scrutiny. The report is indicative of the commitment of the present Public Accounts Committee not simply to deal with issues on a case by case basis but also to make important recommendations which will improve the system of parliamentary scrutiny as a whole. The Committee's specific recommendations are, firstly, the use of a standard form for applying for funds from the Advance; secondly, monthly reporting of the application forms to the Parliament; and thirdly, revision of Department of Finance guidelines on the use of the Advance to ensure conformity with the law. I am pleased to report that I was advised only yesterday that the Department of Finance had just adopted the first of these recommendations, which was also a recommendation of this Committee in an earlier report. I look forward to the speedy adoption by the Department of the other recommendations in this report. I commend the report to the House. Debate resumed from 18 April, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) Budget estimates put Commonwealth Government outlays at over a quarter of Australia's GDP, and that this is funded by revenue collection that has made this the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; (3) national productivity is not expected to rise much more than a dismal 0.5% during the course of 1987-88; and (4) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $87 billion foreign debt strait jacket without further reductions in our standard of living'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! Before the debate is resumed on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.27) —Yesterday evening before this debate was interrupted by the adjournment debate I was arguing that Commonwealth-State financial relations in Australia need to be considered in the context of overhauling the general financial systems in Australia. I was arguing that Commonwealth-State financial relations had developed over the years in a too ad hoc and unplanned way and as a consequence of that had become decidedly incoherent. There were three consequences: first that we had an anomalous series of State taxes, not least the particularly pernicious payroll tax, which is taxation on employment in a country with far too high a level of unemployment; secondly, that there was an undue duplication of functions between the States and the Commonwealth; and thirdly, that there was a lack of accountability of the States' fiscal policies. There are various remedies which I think could be considered to solve some of these problems, but it has to be said that some of those remedies would at the very least be politically unpalatable. Nevertheless, because they are politically unpalatable is not a reason simply to dismiss them and to avoid any discussion of those remedies. It is very sad that in Australia so many important issues are simply reduced to an exchange of slogans by political parties and journalists and do not end up being put to a sufficient degree of examination. No better example could be taken than the current debate on the consumption tax. In a country where $17 billion is already raised by consumption taxes we seem to be having enormous difficulty in constructing a mature and intelligent argument about whether that tax is efficient and effective or whether it could be improved in one way or another for the benefit of all Australians. The same applies to the issue of Commonwealth-State financial relations and possible remedies to the current difficulties that exist, particularly in State government finances. One of the remedies would be to make the States accountable. We could do that by the Commonwealth continuing to collect income tax, as it currently does, but with the States designating the level of income tax they would want and the Commonwealth collecting it for them and the Commonwealth also collecting what it wants for its own purposes-excluding State grants-because, of course, State income tax would be collected by the Commonwealth in lieu of the grants. For its part the Commonwealth would be able very significantly to cut its direct tax burden because it would be covering only its own needs and not those of the States. Additionally, the States would have to set their own levels of income tax, always taking into account the relative level of income tax in other States. That, of course, would put some pressure on the States to be responsible at least in terms of the tax burden, because if the tax burden in a particular State were significantly higher than in another, that would have very dire economic and demographic consequences for the State with the higher level of tax. So there is no question that this would have a very real effect on the accountability of the States. A second proposition that should be examined is whether we should continue with the Loan Council in its present form and the Premiers Conferences which goes with it. After all, we could ask ourselves how relevant a Premiers Conference would be if the States were able to raise their own revenue rather than come to the Commonwealth to ask for handouts. At a Premiers Conference it is really the Commonwealth Treasurer who holds all the cards, not the State Premiers. As a consequence, the negotiations tend to be empty, rhetorical, often simply political and not really terribly relevant to the efficient and responsible management of the finances of Australia at the State and Federal level. When considering the Loan Council, that also raises the question of whether the States should be entirely responsible for their own borrowings and whether the Commonwealth should no longer place limits on those borrowings. I would tend to oppose that because one of the problems we would have immediately would be public debt overall, State and Federal, getting completely out of control. One could argue that it is already out of control. That perhaps is so, partly due to the Commonwealth being less responsible than it should be and partly also because some State governments, such as my own State Government in South Australia-there are others as well but the South Australian Government is particularly negligent in this respect-have found ways of circumventing the Loan Council guidelines in order to raise additional funds and therefore incur additional indebtedness to the taxpayers and the general community of the particular States. The South Australian Government has used the vehicle of the South Australian Government Financing Authority and the State Government Insurance Commission to avoid the Loan Council guidelines. That is a matter which the Treasury here in Canberra is investigating. The third issue that needs to be considered is whether the Commonwealth Grants Commission should continue. I argue that this matter is rather beyond debate. Perhaps I do so from a self-interested point of view. I come from what is sometimes disparagingly described as a minor State. I do not regard South Australia as a minor State but as a very significant State. But, in population and wealth, it is smaller than New South Wales and Victoria-and possibly one or two others as well. A State such as South Australia obviously has a smaller population. It has a very large geographical area which supports that smaller population and has a very limited tax base. The Grants Commission takes account of the disadvantages that a State such as South Australia-and Tasmania is another good example-suffers from and provides some equalisation, if we could call it that, in terms of the Commonwealth grants to the States. There will always be a role for a Grants Commission and there will always be an equalisation role for the Commonwealth in terms of State government finances. But that is a different thing from saying that States should remain unaccountable in the main for the expenditure they incur, or at least a high proportion of it. If we were, for example, to pursue a new form of Commonwealth-State financial relationship of having, firstly, State income taxes and, secondly, using the Grants Commission in order to ensure a degree of equity, we would have several consequences. First, State governments at long last would be accountable to the voters who put them into power and who at the moment effectively are unable to vote on the State government's fiscal track record because so much of its fiscal policy is dependent simply on grants from the Commonwealth. The fact is that where a State such as South Australia is a high spending State, it is able through one mechanism or another to minimise the tax burden and pass that tax burden on to the Commonwealth. If we had a fairer system the State Government of South Australia would have to go to the people of South Australia at election time-at least the Bannon Government would-and say, `We are a big-spending government; we are a big debt government. We have to raise very high levels of income tax. We are sorry'. They could face the consequences of those policies one way or another, instead of turning around and saying, `The Commonwealth Government is responsible for the rather unpopular policy of having to raise taxes'. So accountability is an important issue there. Secondly-and I alluded to this earlier-the States would start to compete with each other in terms of taxation. It would be an obvious advantage for a State which was looking both for investment in particular and a growing population to have a low rate of taxation. That would attract industry and population and generate jobs. We saw that with death duties. I think it was the Queensland coalition Government which first abolished them. Other governments around Australia then followed suit. The Commonwealth Government followed suit and finally even the Labor governments were forced to abolish death duties because they became unpopular and electoral exigencies became overwhelming. So tax competition would be a major issue. In conclusion, these proposals would bring with them many problems. They would bring a political cost to the Commonwealth of engaging in fights with some States, as Mr Fraser found with the Wran Government when he tried to change the Commonwealth-State financial relationship. But just because things are politically difficult does not and should not mean that they remain unconsidered. We do not want a debate on these issues which is reduced to simple slogans, hysterics and hyperbole in the Press. These sorts of issues deserve some mature and intelligent discussion and debate, both in this Parliament and the community at large. Until now, they have really been addressed in a very scant and, perhaps one could say, negligent way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.37) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), I regret to say leads with his chin when he refers to intelligent debate, because he invites me to make some reference to the debate currently taking place in the Opposition parties about taxation policy. I will meet that challenge in the course of my remarks. It is not only humble backbenchers such as the honourable member for Mayo who lead with their chin; the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), has moved an amendment in relation to the Bills before the House that purports to be critical of this Government's policies on public expenditure and taxation reform. I cannot help but pick up that challenge and respond to some of the comments that the honourable member for Kooyong has been responsible for in the last week. Before I do so, let me set the scene for what I have to say because this debate on the Appropriation Bills allows us the opportunity to put some items on the political agenda of this Parliament. They include: questions of living standards, quality of life of Australians; and, most important of all, the issue of political credibility. I have absolutely no hesitation in backing the taxation reforms that have been initiated by this Government. It has been a hard road. We know the enormous difficulties that this Government had to win public support for its taxation reforms. But we did it. We went to the last election committed to maintaining those reforms-and we were re-elected. It is extremely important that the Opposition remember that. Not only did we introduce the reforms, get public support and get them through the Parliament but also we were re-elected. I want to remind the House that the principal elements of those taxation reforms we initiated were the abolition of entertainment expenses as a business deduction, a requirement that taxpayers substantiate their tax deduction claims, the introduction of a capital gains tax, the introduction of a tax on non-cash fringe benefits, a foreign tax credit system, the ending of a double tax on company dividends and the delivery on 1 December 1986 and 1 July 1987 of substantial reductions in marginal tax rates. They are, as we have said as a government, the most significant tax cuts in the post-war period. They were financed by hard decisions that this Government took to put forward a policy mix that would be broadly acceptable to the Australian people. I want honourable members to contrast that with the lack of taxation policies of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have an incredibly difficult problem. They have already said that they will go to the next Federal election promising massive tax cuts. I believe that the Australian people will regard those promises, as they regarded the promises in 1987, as fools' gold. They are fools' gold because every person who budgets in a household-the men and women of Australia, the age pensioners, the single people; everyone who runs a household-knows that one has to balance one's budget. In order for the Opposition to be able to put forward a program of tax cuts that will not be regarded as fools' gold, those tax cuts have to be believable. The Opposition has to tell us where it would be able to cut back government expenditure. Of course, the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong, has had a rather successful record as shadow Treasurer. It is very easy to have a successful record as shadow Treasurer when one does not tackle the main issues of the day, when one ducks for cover on all the important political questions facing the country and when one does not challenge the Treasurer in the Parliament. In those circumstances it is extremely easy not to make mistakes. However, things have changed. I will turn to that in a moment. The other possible option the Opposition has to fund taxation reform and tax cuts is, of course, a consumption tax. The honourable member for Mayo talked about having sensible debates about taxation reform and important matters of public policy. I want to remind the Opposition of the sort of sensible debate it is having about taxation reform. When we had our debate in the Australian Labor Party it was not just an internal party debate; it was a debate that focused on interest groups. It sought broad ranges of opinion from the Australian political scene. Of course, this very chamber was the source of much of the public discussion and debate about tax. On the other hand, the Opposition has a very different style of debate. Rather than putting forward my own personal view as to how that debate is progressing, I will ask honourable members to turn their attention to the Melbourne Age article written by Michelle Grattan a couple of days after the Groom by-election because that is probably one of the most devastating pieces of political journalism written in the last five years. The commentator referred to a `sensible debate, Howard-style'. I refer the honourable member for Mayo to that article. Michelle Grattan said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard): took John Elliott to the brink last Friday because he spoke out in favour of a consumption tax. John Howard took John Stone to the precipice yesterday because he spoke out against a consumption tax. The article referred to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who attacked the consumption tax the week before and then a week later attacked the Queensland National Party for attacking a consumption tax. Michelle Grattan went on to say: A sensible debate. A sensible debate, Howard-style, has certain rules: the first is that the more senior you are (and perhaps the more you know?) the less you are allowed to say. I repeat: `. . . the less you are allowed to say'. This is the Liberal Party, the party of freedom, the party that purports to represent middle Australia. This is the party that muzzles its senior members, that stifles debate about the important question of a consumption tax. It is not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition has attempted to muzzle his front bench, to keep Senator Stone quiet, to make sure that those people who have very strong views about a consumption tax do not speak, because they have already said a lot. I ask honourable members to take as an example the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia outside the Parliament, the Party President, Mr Elliott, who said in the Australian Financial Review of 24 July last year that a consumption tax `is absolutely essential for Australia'. Of course, the shadow spokesman for finance, Senator Stone, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 December last year as saying that a broad-based consumption tax `hasn't a ghost of a chance-it is bad economics and bad politics'. He said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on the same day: I'm simply saying that to have a broad-based consumption tax would be so crazy that no sensible person would be part of it. I would have thought that that was a fairly unambiguous statement. In a moment I will turn again to Senator Stone, because he has made another contribution in the last couple of days which the media has not yet picked up, but which perhaps they ought to. I turn now to the former Leader of the Opposition-the shifting sands of the honourable member for Kooyong. In his speech in the Budget debate in the House of Representatives in 1981 he said: I support the objective of broadening the tax base by moving towards increasing reliance on indirect taxation. In November of that year he went on to say: . . . the sales tax has to be increased across the board range of consumption goods. They were his words; but, of course, times change. The now shadow Treasurer has a different view, at least for this week. On the World Today only a little more than a month ago he was asked: . . . the perception is now that there is a disagreement between the coalition parties on a consumption tax. He replied: Well I don't know the perception because I am not arguing for a consumption tax. Times change. The honourable member for Kooyong pales into insignificance compared with the Leader of the National Party of Australia who was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald only last year as saying in regard to consumption tax: I had never been convinced but I am not prepared to exclude it. Of course, in the Age a little more than a month ago, a resolute and defiant Leader of the National Party said: The National Party's position has always been opposed to a consumption tax. As I said, it is not surprising that they have all been gagged. Let me leave the last word to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) because we all know what he said at the Liberal Party Council meeting. He said: I nearly died when I saw this resolution, because I thought you might pass it. Because I can tell you what those ten lines will read tomorrow in the newspapers-Libs endorse consumption tax. So, of course, the headlines read. I want to remind the House that there has been a very disobedient member of the Opposition front bench. Those of us in the Government Party were all taking bets on which member of the Opposition front bench would crack first. I am not a betting man; in fact I do not gamble at all, but backing Senator Stone was no gamble at all. True to form, Senator Stone, when speaking only a couple of days ago, on 15 April, in Perth in an address to the Western Australian branch of the National Party, ruled out any new taxes. I commend to the media a very good story. He went on to talk about the cutting of the deficit and what had to be done. He said: Do those things, not by raising tax rates, or putting in new taxes . . . This was said by Senator Stone, giving an almighty shaft to the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, this statement has not yet been reported by the media. The problem for Opposition members is that they just cannot keep it together. They are so bitterly divided. They have in their ranks people such as Senator Stone who are not prepared to be gagged. I can understand Senator Stone's commitment. Whatever I might think of his politics, he is an extremely intelligent person. He is a person of great conviction. I disagree with him strongly, but he is a person of great conviction. He is not going to be shut up. He is not going to be gagged by the likes of the honourable member for Bennelong, who, quite frankly, Senator Stone would have for breakfast in any intellectual debate or any debate about public policy. Senator Stone will not be gagged. He has broken the rules. It is here in black and white if honourable members want to see what he has had to say. Mr Deputy Speaker, I turn now to the question of the shadow Treasurer because, as I have said to you, the shadow Treasurer has been extremely quiet and very careful not say anything that might be controversial, but might I also say that he has not been prepared really to stand up for his own personal position in relation to a whole range of policy issues. He has ducked the fight but, as I have said, things have changed. Last Sunday an important turn of events occurred. The Business Council of Australia put out a Press release and a very substantial report urging this Government to cut Government expenditure. The statement was put out by Mr Will Bailey, the Chairman of the economic committee of the Business Council of Australia. He is also the group managing director of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. To give Mr Bailey credit, he was fair to this Government in a number of respects. He acknowledged, and I quote him again, that the Government has made considerable progress in reining in the growth of Commonwealth spending. In the course of this document he went on to propose some massive and draconian cuts in Government expenditure which have been the subject of some mention in the House in the course of the last 48 hours. But much more needs to be said. Let me now say some of it. He went on to talk about options that included a cut of $1 billion in welfare and other programs, $1 billion in general revenue and specific purpose grants, and $1 billion off economic defence and other programs. I am glad the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), is at the table, because I am going to talk about defence if time permits and just see whether the honourable member supports those massive cuts in defence. The shadow Treasurer does. The Business Council of Australia went on to talk about $250m cuts in a number of other programs, including public service cuts and so on. But the really important development occurred, I am sure, quite by a matter of absolute coincidence. At exactly the same time as the Business Council of Australia launched its proposals to the world, it was the coming out of the colt from Kooyong, because for the first time he made public statements supporting specific reductions in Government expenditure and by doing so he has exposed to all the world the fundamental flaws in the Opposition's taxation and public expenditure policy. He went on to say that, while the Business Council's call to reduce Government expenditure is welcome, it does not go far enough, and I know that colleagues on my side of the House are going to be saying those words a great deal. The people of Australia will hear those words from this day forward until the next Federal election. The honourable member for Kooyong said, `The cuts do not go far enough'. I will tell honourable members opposite just what that means in cold hard facts for the people of Australia. There has been a lot of, I believe, politically fraudulent talk about living standards and some crocodile tears have been shed by the members of the Opposition about living standards. What they do not tell the people is that living standards are not just about how much money people have in their pay packets. It is not terribly satisfactory if one is able to afford a new Volvo, but the potholes in the road are so big and the roads are so poor that one cannot drive one's Volvo down the road. It is not much good having lots of money in one's pay packets if one's children go to schools that are overcrowded and in poor condition. It is not much good having lots of money in one's pay packet if one leaves this country undefended, as I would hope the honourable member for McPherson would agree. It is not much good having lots of money in pay packets if we do not, as a nation, provide for the poor, the dispossessed and the underprivileged. I do not want to live in a country in which I have a healthy pay packet but in which there are homeless people in the street and in which abject poverty surrounds so many people throughout the land. That is not my idea of living standards. Let me take you now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a number of policy areas where the Business Council of Australia has called for cuts and the honourable member for Kooyong says, `Not enough'. I begin with defence cuts-cuts in defence on new capital facilities and projects and ships. The Business Council said and the honourable member for Kooyong says, `No increases in expenditure on defence equipment'. The Business Council went on to say, `Cut expenditure on defence housing authority, funds for new housing should be made up from rents or borrowings', and the honourable member for Kooyong says, `Not enough, not enough, cut more'. On education the Business Council said-and the honourable member for Kooyong backed it up-that we should have the introduction of tertiary fees, that we should increase the administration fee and that we should have a scaling down of capital spending. That translates into building less schools. The Business Council said that recurrent grants should not be increased. So it goes on-real cuts, real cuts. The honourable member for Kooyong says, `Cut more; not enough'. I move now to health policy. In the course of Question Time today the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) detailed some of the cuts in this area and I do not propose to continue, except to say that the honourable member for Kooyong said, `Not enough; cut more'. So we move to every single area. On veterans affairs, what does the honourable member for Kooyong say? The Business Council said, `Abolish the Department', but he says more; he says, `Cut even more; more reduction in living standards'. I could talk on this issue for another hour detailing these cuts, and still I would have a lot more to talk about. The important message is that this is a taste of what will come from the Opposition. It is a taste of things to come. I believe it is politically unacceptable and it will be rejected by the Australian people. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(5.57) —Before turning to the Appropriation Bills and the Opposition's amendment presently before the House I would just like to take a moment to address myself to the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). He did, as always, speak extraordinarily well. He puts a persuasive argument. But there is one point I would like to address in particular. He quite correctly stated that there had been a rise in living standards under his Government, but really this is in continuation of the sociological phenomenon which took its rise in the Whitlam era. That standard of living unfortunately did not necessarily reconcile with entitlement by any actuarial measure, but it reconciled with expectation. So, if we believe that we can perpetuate the accommodation of expectation, we are only deluding ourselves when we talk now of perhaps signs of recovery. Talking of signs of recovery, I must make reference to the comment of Mr Noakes, I think it was, of the Confederation of Australian Industry, who in rather colourful language referred to a Lazarus-like rising from the dead or, putting it another way, that we are on the road back from banana land. It is true that it is helpful to have an optimistic word here or there. We can compound our difficulties by lurking for ever in stygian gloom. But if Mr Noakes really believes we are on the way up, he has more optimism than good sense, I suggest. I was impressed with the comments of the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) today when he alluded to the fortuitous circumstance where Australia is better off than it would otherwise have been or, put another way, is not as badly off as it could be because of the fortuitous improvement in export commodity prices. That is a fact of life. There is no political disputation about that. The Minister very wisely said that we should use that opportunity as a breathing space, by inference, wherein we could urgently address our difficult circumstances. Because they remain difficult. For heaven's sake, can we reverse the tide with such abrupt suddenness that we find ourselves safe and secure on dry land when we are actually up to our arm- pits, even our eyebrows in the bad days, in economic misfortune. Let us consider the matter. Again by way of interjection in the House during proceedings the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) responded in the affirmative to my suggestion that even if he had double the defence vote, he still would not be able confidently to assure Australia of its security. He acknowledged that. Prodigious sums of money are required in the defence area. Given that the chief of the Australian defence forces acknowledges that we could maintain only one division in the field for six weeks, one realises how far off independent national security is. With double the Budget allocation he still could not assure us of Australia's security. That is just one example. The issue of nursing homes was raised in the House this week. Australia has a greying population. The demands on budget resources will become greater and greater, notwithstanding various measures that this Government, or any government, in desperation, may adopt to mitigate the financial impact. It will become worse. Yet we are encouraged to adopt a stance and an attitude whereby we believe that the trouble is over, that we are on the road back. We are lucky if we are standing still before being swept headlong towards the Treasurer's famed banana republic. We must be realistic and address our circumstances in a real and meaningful way. The honourable member for Hughes referred to roads with a different connotation altogether. But who, 10 years ago, would have believed that in Australia, with our vast road network, we would today be stripping the bitumen off the roads that were previously gravel because they are beyond the point of effective maintenance and that we are going back to gravel roads? What sum does one imagine would be necessary to arrest that insidious process let alone continue with the development of roads and communications, which we must do in our own interests? There is the health issue, the perpetual Medicare problem, whereby ordinary Australians have fallen victim to the perhaps unwitting compulsion to overuse a facility. It is a noble idea that we could accommodate everyone's expectations in health and in all other areas. But there is an escalating cost, notwithstanding the remarks of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) who today offered comfort to the House that, for the first time, the rate of escalation in health costs is slowing down. That is small comfort. It is the same as when we stop beating our head against the wall, rejoicing in how much better it feels; but we delude ourselves if we believe that that is not a brief pause before we resume bumping our head against the wall. So it is a breathing space to take stock and to decide what we will do. If I recall correctly, the welfare area takes about 27 per cent of Budget outlays. That is an enormous cost. Without canvassing the merits and demerits of what we do, motivated by compassion or philosophy, to relieve the discomfort and distress of the needy, I believe we are faced with the harsh reality that the more money we pour into achieving that laudable objective, the more needy the needy become and the more numerous they become. We are faced with a challenge, and it is daunting. I have not spoken to anyone of any political persuasion who would demur on the proposition that by the early 1990s, certainly by the mid-1990s, we simply will not be able to meet the cost of welfare programs, given present trends. Without dealing with all those other ancillary objectives, I refer to the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that by 1990 no child in Australia will live in poverty. That commitment was qualified a little-and I accept the qualification-by his saying that there is a limit to what governments can do in putting money into the hands of those who might logically apply it to alleviate child poverty. That is one thing; but governments cannot override the role of the parent to ensure that that money is used for the purpose for which it was granted. That aspect, in addition to the trend of welfare thus far, indicates that we will continue to face massive budgetary problems. That will fully test and extend not only the physical resources of this country but also the very souls of its people, Australians in common, who must accept, recognise and support the proposition that we are all in this together. We must marshal our resources. We must educate, and that is a jarring word to many; we must inculcate Australians in common with the belief that we are in trouble and that no government will get us out of trouble if the people of Australia are not behind it. Having said that, I must admit that there have been occasions when I have been virtually convinced that the only solution to the predicament with which we are confronted in this war for economic survival is perhaps to put our political differences aside and form a wartime coalition government so that we can get on with the job. But that is a personal indulgence which would probably not sit very comfortably in this place. At times I despair to the extent that I can see no alternative. Education has been a sacred cow. That is rather paradoxical, and I feel this keenly, having been a child of the Depression, starting work literally on my thirteenth birthday. Anyone who went on from primary school to high school was bunging on the swank and to go on to tertiary education was something for those people way up there. Because we had to forgo that opportunity, we resolved that our young would not be denied it, so we have concentrated substantial sums in tertiary education. It is a sad commentary-and I mean no offence, being totally supportive of tertiary education-that in certain areas, in my judgment, there are more educated fools to the acre in this country than ever before, simply because knowledge is confused with wisdom. The two are not synonymous: indeed, knowledge without wisdom is an exceedingly dangerous tool. It is that dangerous tool that has taken us away from reality so often we embark on erstwhile laudable programs that are totally inconsistent with our capacity as it stands. To achieve those objectives we must increase our capacity, and that means everyone measuring up to what is required. There are further complications, such as technology, modernisation, miniaturisation and computers that boggle the mind. The rate of development is so rapid that we can find, as I saw at the Telecom exchange at Deakin, a piece of miniaturised equipment one-tenth the size of its neighbour-and its neighbour is still on the market for sale. That prompted my flippant comment that, at the present rate of progress, we will eventually be able to carry the whole Telecom exchange around in our pocket. That is no more nonsensical than someone in 1946 suggesting that man would walk on the moon. The incidental effect of that, of course, is to reduce the requirement for labour in its traditional form. We must make massive adjustments to our society as well as to industry as it is generally recognised. What do we see? I plead with Australians to come together. Yet there was the extraordinary situation where the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his inately modest way, stood at the dispatch box a day or two ago and threatened the strikers or the industrial disruptionists on the submarine project in South Australia and said-I am paraphrasing his words, but this is what he meant-`If you don't stop this nonsense, if you don't measure up, we will take that project away and find another site'. What an extraordinary perversity. I was born in Adelaide more years ago than I care to remember; I am now an adopted Queenslander, having lived there since 1950. What a tragedy! South Australia is not overly blessed with opportunities for industrial expansion, but here the industrial expansion of all time, which would benefit not only those directly employed but also the whole social infrastructure, was being threatened. There are some people there who have sufficient influence and sufficient insanity to prejudice the whole project. There is no prospect of our moving towards those objectives implied if not stated in my comments if there are Australians who are so divorced from the harsh, if you like, reality that the best job conditions on earth are not worth a crumpet if they put the employer out of business. There is a mutuality of benefit, and Australians must see that as our prime objective. The rest of the world will care only in passing. The United States congressman or senator urged by his wheatgrowers to do something about surplus wheat will do it because of the very nature of the profession. We have a preoccupation with the next election and we tend to let the next generation go down the drain while we address that matter. That sort of madness must stop. It is a shame. I am just getting warmed up, but I realise that because of the limited time available I must maximise the opportunities for other honourable members to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.10) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). Those who listened to his contribution would understand that he is one honourable member in this place who speaks with a great degree of wisdom and principle, both of which underpin his remarks. I guess that he and I would have an enemy in common and that enemy is dogma and the dogmatist. As an illustration one has only to listen to those who are causing the industrial trouble in South Australia or to those who contribute to the economic debate and speak dogmatically about the way the world should be rather than the way the world is. I am reminded of the remark of Jacob Bronowski who said of Hitler and Stalin: They shouted; they shouted so loudly as to silence the voice of reason, even inside their own heads. I think that that is the great dilemma we have in our job-to try to counter that dogma. The honourable member for Wide Bay would be aware of it in terms of his own role and in his own political Party. There are some who would want to take over reasoned economic debate with dogma without telling us the way the world ought to be. I share the spirit in which the honourable member for Wide Bay spoke and I also share the notion that we have a joint responsibility in this place to conduct ourselves and the debate in such a way that people in Australia can understand that we have an immense problem externally and that it is one that will not be overcome overnight-certainly not in the time between elections. One of the unfortunate aspects of economic activity is that one cannot always tie it in to three-year terms. Hence we have a referendum proposition which might well look at that question. It is true that in this debate honourable members on both sides have a joint responsibility. We should tell those who are listening to this debate that in terms of our present policy making we have not completely overcome the problem of the external account. That lies further down the track in the face of increasing commodity prices. It is our responsibility, as a government and a community, to do something on the export front. It certainly lies within our ability to remain competitive and we have done something about developing that level of competitiveness. We are aware of that. There are some optimistic signs to which I should point because it might indicate to us as a community that, while the job is only partly done, some of the work that has been undertaken in the past few years has been productive in outcome. We could talk about interest rates, and clearly the signs on those are very good. I could go through a large list of interest rates and indicate to the House and the community what has been achieved. Of course, I am particularly interested in housing interest rates. For the purposes of this debate let me quote some of the most recent figures in the housing sector, which make good news. For example, the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia has an interest rate of 13.5 per cent for owner-occupied dwellings and 14.5 per cent for investment. For overdrafts the Rural and Industries Bank interest rate is 13.5 per cent, ranging to 17.25 per cent. However, let me stay with housing interest rates for the moment. Westpac's housing interest rate is 13.5 per cent for owner-occupied dwellings and 15 per cent for investment in housing. The Commonwealth Bank's rate is 13.5 per cent for owner-occupied dwellings and 14.5 per cent for investment. The National Australia Bank's rate is 13.5 per cent for owner-occupied dwellings and between 14 per cent and 15 per cent for investment, while the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd rate is 13.5 per cent. The Challenge Bank in Western Australia has a housing rate of 13.5 per cent for owner-occupiers, 14.75 per cent for land loans and 15 per cent for investment in housing. The current housing rate of the Town and Country Western Australia Building Society is 12.95 per cent for owner-occupied houses and 13.9 per cent for investment. The Home Building Society housing rate is 12.75 per cent for owner-occupied houses and 13.5 per cent for those people who have less equity in their properties. I could go on, but I think those rates are indicative of the fact that interest rates in the housing sector look very competitive and relatively attractive. I would also add that I think our strategy is to try to reduce the rates even further. Clearly the remarks of the honourable member for Wide Bay about the external account were timely because if we could remedy those problems we would find interest rates becoming more attractive. The honourable member will be aware that the value of the dollar today-US75c-is also very satisfying. That suggests that there is an underlying strength in our currency which is pleasing in terms of our economic strategy. On the jobs front I noted the remarks of the honourable member for Wide Bay about the Depression. Too often we can be unaware of the tragedy of large scale unemployment. Certainly it affected my family, as it affected many families. I do not think that my father ever recovered from the experience of the Depression in the sense that in our household the feeling of the need to hold a job was fundamental. In this place we must recognise that the need to hold jobs is fundamental-I say `we' meaning the community as a whole, not just one side of this chamber-because unemployment is a damaging experience for so many people. Let me interpolate here some data which gives an optimistic picture. Let us take the level of employed persons as at February 1988. At that time there were 7,219,000 people in the work force. That was an increase on the February 1984 figure of 6,366,000. Thus in four years there has been an increase of about one million employed persons in the work force. In February 1984 there were 738,000 unemployed persons, while in February 1988 this figure had decreased to 642,000. Thus there has been a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed persons. In February 1984 the unemployment rate was 10.4 per cent; by February 1988 it had come down and we are now looking at a figure closer to 7.4 per cent. In February 1984 the labour force totalled 7,104,000 while in February 1988 it was 7,861,000. A very important figure that I believe should be emphasised to the Australian community is that in February 1984 the labour force participation rate was 60.7 per cent; in February 1988 the figure was 62.3 per cent. So there has been, in effect, a 2 per cent increase in the participation rate. A significant factor for many people is that the participation rate amongst women has been substantial. We have seen a substantial increase in the labour force participation rate among women. I could talk further about that but I guess the way to round off this part of my comment is by saying that we have seen about one million new jobs created in five years. That is a substantial contribution to the welfare and conduct of the Australian community. I could go on to talk about other economic indicators but, as a way of focusing this, let us consider what is happening on the demand side. New motor vehicle registrations rose by 4 per cent in the three months to January 1988 following a 4.5 per cent increase in the three months to October 1987. Thus, we are getting some lift in new motor vehicle sales. Retail sales rose by 1.4 per cent in value in the three months to January 1988 compared with a growth of 2.6 per cent in the three months to October 1987. Therefore, there has been some further move in retail sales. In private sector residential building, an area which we regard as fundamental, approvals rose by 16.4 per cent in the three months to January 1988. While I am on the building question I should say that we regard housing as fundamental to the welfare of people. We should bear in mind that we had a very low level of starts in 1983, which we inherited, yet the Federal Labor Government's housing assistance programs, such as the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the first home owners scheme, have meant that 1.4 million Australians have been helped into housing since we came into government. That is the equivalent of a city the size of my home city of Perth. It is also equivalent to the whole population of South Australia. That is the dimension of the housing achievement of this government. We have taken 1.4 million people and put them into housing. I can also address this issue in another way by saying that we have put 270,000 households into housing. In fact, since October 1983 we have put $1 billion into housing through the first home owners scheme. In a debate like this, we should look at the nuts and bolts, although we have heard the remarks of honourable members opposite about the state of affairs. I have spoken about interest rates and jobs and I am concluding my remarks by talking about housing. As I said, 1.4 million Australians have been assisted into housing since 1983. That is the size of the population of South Australia or of the city of Perth. When people such as the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) come in here and talk about the level of economic activity, I remind them that the people who have been placed into housing are not complaining. They are saying, `I have a roof over my head. I have a job. I have lower interest rates and I am in a position where I can afford to live in my own house and support my family'. They are the people about whom the Government is concerned. I say to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) that we are very confident about what is going on and I thank him and his staff for the research work that they carry out for members of parliament. It is important to state that we regard the first home owners scheme as fundamental for the continuing level of activity in housing. I know that there has been some speculation about it, but I reiterate that the Government regards the scheme as fundamental. Mr Staples —It is very well targeted. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is a well targeted program. I say to all people who are listening to this debate that there is confusion opposite in terms of tax policy-whether it will be the John Stone option of no consumption tax, the John Elliott option of a consumption tax, or the John Howard option of two bob each way. There is a lot of debate and concern about that at the moment. However, Government members are clear in their role. The Government has made tax cuts and the big changes in terms of base broadening and that is gaining revenue that was previously avoided. As a result, Australia is looking at a surplus in its domestic account. I have spoken about the economic indicators of interest rates, the level of economic activity as measured by employment, jobs and labour participation, and housing activity. I say to the 1.4 million people who have been placed in housing that, when they hear the shrieking and shouting that goes on in here and when they look at what the shadow Treasurer has suggested about cutting the first home owners scheme or doing away with it, they should remember that the Government is aware of the fundamentals and it will continue to deliver in the way that it has in the past five years. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.22) —It is amusing to note the number of speakers opposite, including my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who seem to be preoccupied with the taxation policies of the Opposition parties. Mr White —Obsessed. Mr ROCHER —That is probably a more accurate description. Surely to goodness, our tax policies, which have been in place since the last election, are clear enough. Our development of tax policy will be dictated by considerations of the party. Given that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) decides to go to a full term-for the first time ever-it will be two or more years before our tax policies will have any hope of applying. I see this as a rather nonsensical obsession with our tax policies as my friend the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) described it. One thing is as plain as the nose on your face, Mr Deputy Speaker: the tax policy and the tax rates that the Opposition proposed to the people at the 1987 general election will be adopted by the Labor Party in the life of this Parliament and before the next election. You can bet London to a brick that the tax rates that the Opposition proposed and which the Labor Party, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all said could not be delivered in the life of this Parliament will be adopted by the Government. The planning is plain, so it is unfortunate that we have to put up with the hypocrisy from honourable members opposite about what the Opposition proposed to do at the last election with respect to taxation and spending. The Opposition has warned repeatedly of the folly of deficits which this Government ran in its early years to pay for new programs and profligate spending. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) included in his amendment an item 4, which states: without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $87 billion foreign debt straitjacket without further reductions in our standard of living. The interesting thing about the net foreign debt of $87 billion and all other indebtedness figures that are available is that they are probably understated by about $6 billion. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ) pointed out in a recent publication that current account deficits must equal current account surpluses, although in practice this is not always the case because of measurement difficulties. The publication went on further to suggest that, recently, Australia's current account deficit has been substantially larger than its capital account surplus. The positive balancing item has cumulated to nearly $A6 billion in the last 18 months. The implications are that, since the current account is measured on a more tangible basis, it is reasonable to suspect the accuracy of the capital account. In turn, that implies that large amounts of capital inflow are not being caught in the official statistics. Although it is not a term that I prefer to use, the ANZ's bottom line is that we must watch out for large upward revisions in Australia's stock of foreign debt. The bank is talking about $6 billion and that fact, prospect or possibility is hidden from us by the Treasurer when he gets up in this place and tells honourable members that the worst is over, that all is rosy and Australia is coming back from the Argentinean road. The charade of generating false expectations has been used repeatedly by the Treasurer. He seeks to hide rather than cope with real economic facts. I have discussed this cynical tactic in the House on other occasions. That Government information from euphemistically named `sources close to Ministers' has been uncritically accepted brings no credit on those commentators who have fallen for a new, well practised trick time and time again. A twist to the game of charades played with the Budget process by the Hawke-Keating Government is its rhetoric which presents words that are often not matched by the actions necessary to give effect to the simple meaning of the words it first chose to use. The so-called mini-Budgets suffer the same defects. The next May mini-Budget promises to be little more than a statement on economic matters. More importantly, it is far too late to address matters that emerged late last year. The measures that were announced, which we can expect to be dictated by political rather than economic considerations, will not have any effect until the next fiscal year, that is, 1988-89. Following the Government's irresponsible inaction after the October stock market changes, many months have passed with the Government refusing to take necessary action to get its own house in order. That is because the Government was preoccupied with the New South Wales election. It was also preoccupied with the difficulties, which now seem virtually insurmountable, of convincing the trade unions, Labor Party members and others who hang on to the coat tails of the Government that Australian business needs to be free of regulatory burden and governmental interference. Having left its decisions so late, we must question the real benefits of a belated May economic statement. All that it will do is take pressure off the Government at Budget time. It leaves the Parliament with less formal opportunity to consider the important economic decisions that the Government may make or may fail to make. Detailed scrutiny of the Budget is already difficult. This process adds little to improving the task of scrutinising the Budget. With the available time and resources, little more than broad generalisations and general trends can be examined on the floor of this House. Unfortunately, the trends with respect to government expenditure are not very favourable. The Government has not eliminated ineffective programs. Indeed, its penchant for futility, typified by the Priority One program, goes on unabated. The only trend that has consistently been favourable for the Government, but not for the general public, has been the rapid rise in revenue from taxation. That has come from many new taxes such as the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and the bracket creep effect on income tax scales. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ROCHER —Madam Speaker, I have only a few minutes left in which to speak because the Government cannot allow time for us to discuss these Bills in full. By arrangement, our speaking time has been thereby curtailed. I will not have time to try to refute some of the arguments that were made by previous speakers, and that is a matter of regret. I will continue the remarks that I was making before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Draconian interpretation and enforcement of existing legislation by some elements in the Australian Taxation Office have presumably brought in some additional revenue to this Government, but at the cost of the goodwill and respect of the tax paying public. This bonanza in taxation revenue has allowed the Government to produce a Budget deficit without significant restraint or much needed efforts to reduce the interference of the Hawke-Keating Government in far too many aspects of every day existence. Intrusive and self-serving advertising by Government departments and agencies is one of the most offensive examples of this lack of real restraint by the Government. With none of the necessary changes in policies, a Budget surplus in the order of $2.5 billion to $3 billion is still very much a possibility. In fact, on present figures available to anyone who is interested, it is a shoe-in. However, the evidence that this prospective surplus would be the result of increased tax revenue rather than spending cuts is very clear. There was a significant and interesting underestimate of income tax collections again in last year's Budget. That says something for the ability of this Parliament, and the Opposition in particular, to consider figures at the time Budgets are brought down. In addition to that, on present and pretty firm indications, real increases in taxation revenue will be of the order of 2 per cent in 1988-89. So it is that the steady growth in the proportion of individual Australian's private wealth which is devoted to government spending will continue under this Government. Despite so-called tax cuts, real increases of pay as you earn collections of as much as 4 per cent have been predicted. These are real increases beyond the ruinous effects of the comparatively high inflation rate which has been the foundation of this Government's economic policy over the past five years. Over the ensuing 12 months, the Government will also be able to trot out some pretty illusory expenditure cuts. This will be possible because the drain of building costs for the new Parliament House will come to an end and the often extraordinary expenditure on bicentennial projects will at last be over. Also, the cost of the Constitutional Commission will, thankfully, no longer be a burden on the taxpayer. The overdue sale of assets like the Williamstown dockyard will remove the burden of losses as well as, I am pleased to say, provide some income, albeit income of a one-off kind. Appropriations for implementing a national identification system-the infamous Australia Card-will not now be needed because of the joint action of the Opposition parties. There are many similar savings in the nature of enduring spending which will do absolutely nothing to reduce the size or role of government in Australia. Yet, ultimately, that is the solution to many of Australia's economic problems. I conclude at this point and simply repeat that I regret that I do not have the time to flesh out some of the remarks that have been made in the debate. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(8.05) —Like the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), my time is confined and this limits my ability to address some of the more outrageous comments that have been made by members of the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) whose convoluted economics amused us all in this place last evening. I wish to address the grant-in-aid of $230,000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service from Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88. The Commonwealth has arrangements with the States to cost share on a fixed formula basis whereby it contributes up to 45 per cent of the agreed operating costs of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Service itself finding 10 per cent. Capital funding for the Service is shared on a dollar for dollar basis with the States and the Northern Territory. This year the Royal Flying Doctor Service celebrates its sixtieth birthday. The story of the Royal Flying Doctor Service is a story of how aviation, medicine and radio have been combined to serve people who live, work and travel in the remote inland regions of Australia. It is also a uniquely Australian story. As Australians, we should be proud of this service, which was the first of its kind in the world. The Service provides medical and dental services in remote areas of Australia including Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia and also my own electorate of the Northern Territory. Each State or Territory has an administrative section which operates autonomously. The Victorian section, based in Melbourne, also looks after the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Operational bases are located at Cairns, Mount Isa and Charleville in Queensland; at Broken Hill in New South Wales; and in Hobart and Launceston in Tasmania. The South Australian section operates bases at Port Augusta and Alice Springs. Bases in Western Australia are located at Kalgoorlie, Jandakot, Geraldton, Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Port Hedland, Derby and Wyndham. The Royal Flying Doctor Service is a unique service. It operates 24 hours of the day every day of the year. Outposts have contact with a doctor over the Service's radio network. Control stations are linked with Telecom facilities and can send and receive telegrams on an outpost's behalf during regular daily sessions. The radio network is also used for School of the Air, which supplements correspondence courses for children having their schooling at home. This is an important part of the Service's activities in the Northern Territory. An outpost may be a homestead, a prospector's camp, an Aboriginal mission or community or a small hospital. There are three kinds of flights within the scope of the Service-emergency, mercy and clinic flights. A radio message will bring a doctor to a patient within a matter of hours, or may result in evacuation to a hospital. Diagnosis can be done by a doctor over radio and treatment can be arranged. The Royal Flying Doctor Service concentrates on preventive measures and holds clinics in pre- and post-natal care. These routine clinics, which are usually held fortnightly, are made to isolated communities, some of which have small hospitals but no resident doctor. Surgery hours are similar to those provided in doctors' surgeries in the cities. The Royal Flying Doctor Service handles some 100,000 consultations annually and aerial evacuations number in the vicinity of 8,000 per annum. The work is very demanding. Doctors are never off duty. Like the flight and engineering crews, they are always on call to respond to an emergency at any time, day or night. There is no place in Australia where the flying doctor cannot reach a patient within two hours. In 1987 the aircraft fleet numbered 33, flew 3.5 million miles, treated 90,000 patients and attended some 6,000 emergencies. The Royal Flying Doctor Service in Alice Springs is made up of the following key personnel: Mr Steve Burns, the Manager of the Northern Territory operations; Mr Les Bushell, the senior communications officer; Captain Rod McRedmond, the senior pilot; and Mr Dennis Caddies, the senior engineer. At this time, the Royal Flying Doctor Service operating out of Alice Springs does not have a doctor on the staff. The previous doctor, Dr Rosie Brennan, has taken up a position with the Northern Territory Department of Health. The new doctor to be employed shortly is Dr Elizabeth Christie. The nursing staff are provided by the Northern Territory Department of Health. The Alice Springs base-Alice Springs being the place of my residence-extends the service over approximately 1.5 million square kilometres, from Tennant Creek in the north to Pollock Hills in Western Australia, south to Marla Bore in South Australia and east to the Queensland border, flying 2,400 hours per year. The patient service calls total approximately 2,500 per annum. The Royal Flying Doctor Service's central section connects approximately 20,000 radio telephone (RT) calls per year. The Top End is handled by the Northern Territory Department of Health. The Royal Flying Doctor Service Alice Springs base has two Piper Chieftain aircraft and one Piper Navaho. The Royal Flying Doctor Service in Alice Springs is in the process of purchasing a replacement Beechcraft King Air B200C which will increase capacity for medical evacuations-that is, it will have pressure variations for comfort of patients and crew; an increased speed-from 170 knots, the existing maximum, to some 280 knots-and greater travel heights-from 10,000 feet existing to 30,000 feet-to escape thermals. The value of the new Beechcraft, with refurbishments, is estimated at $1.8m, funded on a fifty-fifty basis-Royal Flying Doctor Service fundraising and the Federal Government. The Royal Flying Doctor Service Alice Springs base handles all radio telephone calls to approximately 250 fixed units at homesteads, mines and communities. It also has approximately 1,000 mobile units listed as users for tradesmen, bushies and tour operators. The importance of the Royal Flying Doctor Service cannot be overestimated. The Alice Springs base is capitalising on tourism to enhance its fundraising capacity. The women's auxiliary has raised $200,000 to build a hangar at the Alice Springs airport and, in the last financial year, raised funds to build an audit- orium for tourists. The Federal Government was not asked for that $200,000 because it may have jeopardised allocations for capital equipment and medical services. There are no charges for Royal Flying Doctor services except in relation to RT services which the Service provides as a contractor to Telecom Australia. There is one full time publicity officer for the central section based in Adelaide. The fundraising target for the central section for this year is $1m. Operating costs for the Alice Springs base are estimated at $1.75m this financial year. This includes a proportion of head office administrative costs in Adelaide. The facilities are adequate for the foreseeable future. I wish to address myself now to fundraising. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is undertaking a magnificent enterprise to raise a target figure of $1.5m for a new aircraft for the Service. A joint Services fun run, consisting of two teams-one from the RAAF base in Darwin and the other from Edinburgh in South Australia-will race from Darwin to Adelaide, a distance of 3,051 kilometres, in nine days. There will be 20 runners and 15 ground support people. Included in the support team will be world famous long distance runner, Tony Rafferty, who will advise the runners on long distance running procedures and techniques. Tony Rafferty is the current holder of the international 1,000-mile record-British and Australian-and was the first man to run from Sydney to Melbourne and across the Nullarbor Plain. He was also the first man to run across the Australian continent-from Fremantle to Surfers Paradise-a distance of 5,931 kilometres. The runners will leave K Mart, Casuarina-Casuarina is a suburb of Darwin-on 11 May 1988. The half-way point will be Alice Springs, where I hope to put on my running shoes to support the teams on Sunday, 15 May. They hope to arrive in Adelaide on 20 May. I understand that the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, will join the run in Adelaide. The program is being coordinated by Squadron Leader Owen Hammond from the RAAF base in Darwin, Squadron Leader George Lilley from Edinburgh, South Australia, and Robert Ryan of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The operation is being sponsored by K Mart (Australia) Ltd. If people listening to this debate feel that they would like to contribute to the cause of this fun run and help raise money for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, they need only contact my office here in Parliament House, in Alice Springs or in Darwin. I now wish to address the appropriations for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). The appropriations consist of some $915,000, comprising $900,000 to enable the Northern Territory Government to purchase a package of satellite services, including Aboriginal education services, from Imparja Television Pty Ltd, and $15,000 to the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services to implement recommendations of the Groote Eylandt task force which is headed by my Labor colleague in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Wesley Lanhupuy. The story of Imparja is a most interesting one. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that when the licence was issued to Imparja there was a great hue and cry from some Opposition members and certainly the Northern Territory Government. I will quote from the Times on Sunday dated 18 October 1987: But when the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal awarded the licence last year to Imparja-a company owned wholly by Aborigines with no experience in television-hell broke loose. An editorial in Darwin's Sunday Territorian was typical of the emotive debate that ensued. It called ``this appalling decision'' a ``cynical exercise in social engineering'' and said that it was of such simple minded imbecility that it almost defies description or understanding. Thankfully, the Commonwealth Government took no notice of such rot and, to its credit, provided the funds to allow Imparja to operate. To his credit, the then Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), wrote to the Australian Financial Review on 19 January 1985 outlining the funding undertakings given by the Northern Territory Government which indicated prior to the licence being awarded, that it would purchase some $2m worth of services from the successful applicant. But when the successful applicant turned out to be Imparja Television, the Northern Territory Government reneged on its undertaking. Through the licence, Imparja is responsible for providing a commercial television service as well as some radio broadcasting to an area extending from Gove Peninsula to Kangaroo Island, off South Australia-about 30 per cent of Australia's total land expanse. About 27 per cent of the population being served is Aboriginal. The licence is valid for seven years. It was granted to Imparja by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with a condition relating to educational programming. It sets a minimum of 80 hours educational programming a year during its first and second years of operation; a minimum of 280 hours per year during its third and fourth years of operation; and a minimum of 560 hours a year during its fifth year of operation. The Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association, (CAAMA), is the major shareholder. CAAMA operates a radio broadcasting facility out of Alice Springs. It provides a very important counterbalance to the commercial stations and the cultural threat that Aboriginal people feel is imposed on them by the media. It aims at trying to limit the cultural impact of outside media services. Indeed, that is what will be provided by Imparja. It will provide a counterbalanced conventional television program as well as a full range of commercial programs to remote areas. As I said earlier, the Northern Territory Government reneged on its undertaking to Imparja when Imparja got the licence. Unfortunately, that has been typical of the Northern Territory Government's response in the past to initiatives from Aboriginal Australians. It reversed its earlier commitment to purchase a $2m annual package of educational and other satellite services from the successful licence applicant. The Northern Territory Government's previously stated plan was taken into account by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its decision to award the licence to Imparja. People in central Australia, white and black, have waited long enough for commercial television, as well as the other services which the satellite is capable of providing. That is now being made possible through the funding that the Commonwealth Government has provided to Imparja. Cabinet has agreed that the payment of $0.9m this financial year and $2m in subsequent years be made through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Northern Territory Government for the purchase of a range of services from Imparja Television. This will be a significant contribution to the funds needed by Imparja to lease a 30-watt transponder on an Aussat satellite for satellite transmission to all parts of the central zone service area. Today is a very important day for Imparja as today it launches its first current affairs program called Urrpeye, which means `messenger' in Aranda. This half-hour current affairs program was to have been broadcast at 7.30 this evening. Mr Hollis — Are you on it? Mr SNOWDON —Unfortunately, no. They have a cultural program called Nganampa-Anwerekenhe, which will include information on community events, music, stories, traditional dancing and a weekly community news summary. It will be broadcast in four languages: Aranda, Walpiri, Luritja and Pitjantjatjara. Imparja provides community service announcements in the languages and will shortly commence weather reports and television news broadcasts. It is also currently producing advertisements for anything from the video shops to the local hardware store. It employs four Aboriginal cadets who will be doing the television news and current affairs programs. This magnificent project would not have happened had it not been for the grand efforts of two people in particular-Mrs Freda Glynn and Mr Phillip Batty. Their commendable work is highlighted by the success of Imparja. As I said, it broadcasts to 30 per cent of the Australian land mass. It provides a full range of commercial television services from sport to the soapies and it is doing a magnificent job. It would not have got off the ground had it not been for the funding provided by this Government. The other matter I wish to address is the $15,000 funding for community infrastructure for the Groote Eylandt community. Its purpose is to improve, in conjunction with the responsible Northern Territory government, the living environment of Aboriginal people and to ensure that Aboriginal women are consulted about the proposals and that their needs are taken into account in, and that they have equitable access to, programs. The additional estimate reflects an increased contribution to the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services in the implementation of the recommendations of the Groote Eylandt task force I mentioned. It will provide funds to employ a coordinator to maintain close liaison with Northern Territory Government departments, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the communities at Angurugu and Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt, to develop programs to alleviate problems, to assess the impact of task force recommendations implemented to date, to advise on the nature and pace of other unactioned recommendations, to assist communities to identify the underlying causes of community social dysfunction, and in consultation with, and with the full involvement of, communities to undertake remedial action using locally devised strategies. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.23) —My contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) is specifically to talk on the defence component of these appropriations. I do so for two reasons: firstly, because I have a sincere and genuine interest in this nation's defence; and secondly, because as a responsible local member I wish to represent the interests of my constituents in the Nowra region at HMAS Albatross, which is the home of the Royal Australian Navy's air wing. For some time now I have been very concerned about the rundown in our defence forces. Australians are becoming increasingly aware of the record high rate of resignations within our defence forces. These resignation levels are leading to what many people believe is a situation where our defence forces are being manned by inexperienced personnel and insufficient personnel. If we look through the current statistics we find that the Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Army are considerably understaffed. If we needed those defence forces to come to our assistance we would find that they were not as effective as they should be because they do not have sufficient personnel, and those who are there do not have the experience. If we take a few moments to study the evidence given just on a week ago, to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, we will be further alarmed at the evidence given by the Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Hudson, and the Chief of the General Staff of the Army, General O'Donnell. Both of those gentlemen, who are senior officers within our defence forces, painted a picture that one could only describe as alarming. For example, Admiral Hudson informed the Committee that there is a low level of proficiency in ships, including declining standards in weapons practice. He said that this trend is accelerating and that there are insufficient ships in which to train officers. He said that there is low morale due to poor pay, poor conditions of service, low job satisfaction and a lack of Government interest. I think the last point, the lack of Government interest, is one about which everybody in this place should be concerned. I notice that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was in the chamber only a few moments ago. I believe that the criticism of lack of Government interest should be levelled straight at him. I believe it is necessary for him to be prepared to admit that this Government has to lift its game in terms of our defence forces. If it does not we will find that our defence forces will be completely and utterly incapable of doing the job they are there to do. Those were the criticisms of the Chief of Naval Staff, the senior sailor in Australia, the man who is most qualified to know what is needed within our Navy and the most qualified to know where its deficiencies lie. To add to that, General O'Donnell, the Chief of the General Staff, informed the Committee that in two years the Army has lost 10,000 soldiers and 1,200 officers from a base force of 32,000. In two years the Army has lost more than one-third of its total personnel. In those two years we have seen the administration, or lack of it, of this Government exacting a fairly hefty price. It is those statistics, those facts, which cause concern amongst Australians today and which cause me to speak tonight. I also wish to raise as a matter of importance the situation at HMAS Albatross based at Nowra in my electorate of Gilmore. For some time now I have been concerned about the likelihood of the Navy's air wing losing its fixed wing skills. For those honourable members who can recall, the Australian Navy over a long period has had a number of aircraft carriers, and in more recent times we were down to one aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne. Since the Australian Labor Party came into power HMAS Melbourne has been decommissioned and along with it the fixed wing component of the Navy's air wing. As a result, those fixed wing flying skills are now starting to deteriorate within our Navy, and it is that issue that I want to address tonight. At present there are aircraft types which are perfect for Navy use and that have plenty of life left in them but are about to be phased out. The Navy requires fixed wing services and they are provided from two sources: firstly, the RAAF, and secondly, private contractors, Lloyds Aviation, at great cost to the taxpayer. The Air Force has a number of Mirage aircraft which it is pensioning off. Some 30 have already been pensioned off and are being stored in the middle of the desert at Woomera. Those Mirages based at Woomera, the Mirages based at Butterworth in Malaysia and the Mirages based in Darwin all have plenty of useful life left in them. That life is available to our defence forces with no major maintenance costs for several years. The Mirages have over a period proven themselves to be suitable for Navy purposes. One of the features of the Mirage is that despite its relatively large fuselage size it has, unlike the FA18, a small frontal radar echoing area and is fast, hence it provides very good practice for ships' weapons systems and for their teams. These aircraft in the main have flown only about half their airframe life and there is no shortage of spare parts available to the Air Force. We have stacks of these aircraft and stacks of spare parts to keep them in the air. There are no great maintenance requirements necessary to keep them in the air for several years. I believe that this Government should be addressing this issue for the purpose of seeing whether the Mirages can be stationed at HMAS Albatross and flown by Navy pilots to fill the requirements that the Navy will have for its fleet in the years ahead. The engine overhaul facility at Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Ltd has been closed down but that can very quickly be reopened. We have all the necessary equipment and expertise within our existing ranks to reactivate it. So from all angles these Mirages can be kept in the air for those very useful purposes for the Navy. They have proven themselves to be most suitable aircraft for retraining purposes. As I mentioned earlier, there are 30 of them in storage at Woomera, about 10 at Butterworth and about 20 at Darwin. I understand that the Darwin based Mirages are due to be cut out at the end of this year. Some other Mirages are scattered about the countryside, including several two-seater trainers. Of the 20 Mirages at Darwin about 15 could be kept operational for another two years without any major maintenance requirements. If these aircraft were dedicated to the Navy, considerable savings could be made in operating them. For example, it could be possible to remove the weapons system. It would not be needed for the Navy's purposes. It is interesting to note that the weapons system is the most highly manpower intensive element of maintaining the Mirage aircraft. So by taking the weapons system out it would be possible to keep the costs of keeping the Mirage aircraft in the air right down. We could replace the Mirages' gyro units, which are notoriously cost ineffective, with a more modern unit. That would be done without much difficulty and would add further to the reduced ongoing costs of keeping those aircraft flying and being used by the Navy. Some people say that the Mirage was not designed for high speed work at sea level. Whilst that is a fair comment, it could be overcome by a marginal reduction in the maximum permissible speed below a certain height. This would have an added benefit in that it would help to reduce fuel consumption and would keep the costs of maintenance down. The Australian fleet requires about 1,000 hours of fixed wing air support per year. To operate these Mirage aircraft at Nowra would require about 66 people to be stationed there to facilitate their maintenance at HMAS Albatross. With further efficiencies, that number could be reduced from 66 to something lower, to keep the costs down further of keeping those aircraft going. There would need to be about eight to 10 aircraft based at Nowra to keep five or six of them in the air at any one time. In 1983, when the fixed wing component of the Navy was axed by this Government the RAAF agreed to take over all the fleet's fixed wing support requirements. It made that promise and it is up to this Government to ensure that the RAAF lives up to that commitment. It needs to live up to that commitment if it is to have any credibility with the defence forces and if the Navy is to be able to plan properly for the future. It cannot be chopping and changing. The Air Force should be made to live up to the commitment it made in 1983. Yet at this very moment it is planning to axe the aircraft that could well facilitate the commitment it made so many years ago. The arguments for maintaining them are convincing and the RAAF should be reconsidering its decision to pay off the Mirages and not use them for the future. I am sure that the RAAF staff currently stationed at Butterworth and Darwin would be very happy to be moved to Nowra and be based there. As I know other honourable members in this place would testify, Nowra happens to be a very attractive part of Australia to live in. It has lovely scenery and a beaut climate. The staff and personnel of HMAS Albatross are good people to mix with as a community. Mr Cobb —It has a great member, too. Mr SHARP —I thank the honourable member. It does. The Navy has pilots who are capable of flying these aircraft. These pilots could be quickly and easily trained to fly Mirages. Several of the pilots based at HMAS Albatross have already flown Mirages in a stint with the Air Force in years gone by. The RAAF could certainly assist the Navy in training those Navy pilots and training them to fly the Mirages. Having done that it could step aside to let the Navy fly them into the future. This would assist the RAAF because, as we all know, it has a chronic shortage of pilots at the present time and those that remain are being hopelessly overworked, which is adding to the Air Force's problems and the increased resignation rates. There are many compelling arguments for the maintenance of the Mirage aircraft. They should not be pensioned off at Woomera; they should be kept to fulfil the Air Force's commitment made in 1983. If that commitment were fulfilled, if the Air Force could provide the aircraft to the Navy, that would ensure that the Navy could maintain its fixed wing skills within its ranks. Those fixed wing skills could be there for any future need the Navy may have. That future need may come if ever some sort of seagoing air platform is provided for the Navy. We would quickly and efficiently be able to adapt that seagoing air platform because we would have the fixed wing skills within the Navy's ranks. Overall, the arguments are compelling. The aircraft would save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money because they would do away with the need for private contractors who are currently fulfilling the Navy's air needs. At the same time such an arrangement would help to provide useful employment in the Nowra region and add further to the morale at HMAS Albatross. Also, it would add tremendously to the strength and abilities of our Australian defence forces which, under this Government are being seriously depleted. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(8.35) —In supporting the Appropriation Bills and opposing the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), I make the observation that the Appropriation Bills provide an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate. As have other members, I will take advantage of this. Before moving into the main area of concern I should like to comment briefly on the speech made yesterday in this chamber by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in which he raised, as he said, fundamental issues concerning the privacy generally of all Australians. How times change. The honourable member for Mayo had little respect for my privacy when, in 1983, he used his position as a member of the staff of the former Prime Minister to telephone a colleague of his in administration at the London School of Economics to obtain confidential details, held by that College, of my academic records. So much for his statements yesterday such as, `We are serious about privacy; we are serious about protecting the privacy of the individual. The issue of privacy is one of the most important in this country and needs to be addressed at all times'. If only the honourable member's action matched his words my privacy would not have been invaded by him. I never cease to be amazed by speeches in this House by certain members of the Opposition who take such delight in constantly attacking the trade union movement. So savage, vitriolic and irrational are their attacks that I am left with the very clear impression that whether or not other members of the House may subscribe to the idea, these honourable members believe most vehemently in the theory of a class war. There can be no other explanation for their rather extraordinary behaviour. It is also a characteristic of these speeches that they are based on poor and outdated information which very often emanates from a most dubious and highly biased source. Such information, of course, is never questioned because it accords with the bias and sectional interests of the honourable members. Late last year, for example, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) decided to take to task the maritime unions, especially the Seamen's Union of Australia. It was of no concern to him that his information was 10 years out of date and that the work practices he so vehemently denounced had long since been addressed. Representatives of the Seamen's Union who met with me and other members of the Illawarra area were able to give us factual information concerning the present situation of the industry. They told us that the maritime unions recognised the need to reduce crew levels on Australian shipping to make the industry more competitive, and had long since set up procedures to meet this challenge. Shipping unions then recognised the need to amalgamate so they could eliminate the causes of demarcation disputes on board our ships. Today the amalgamation process is almost complete. The unions also recognise the importance of multiskill training for ships' crews so that one crew member can perform effectively a number of functions previously carried out by two or more crew members belonging to different shipboard unions. To give crew members the necessary multiskill background, rather than holding back progress by sticking to outmoded work practices, a training school was set up in Launceston in 1975, some 13 years ago. The honourable member for Deakin would not be aware of these facts nor, I suspect, would he be interested in learning about them for they do not fit comfortably with his prejudices. He is a relic of a bygone age. The world has moved on but he has not. The maritime unions, on the other hand, have sought to move with the times and have done a pretty good job of it. Today, they rightly take pride in their being in the vanguard of industrial change to meet the challenges of today's very competitive marketplace. The same can be said of some sections of Australian industry. If only it could be said of all sections of our industry. Quite recently I listened to an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's excellent radio program, the Science Show, with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). On it the Minister expressed his intense dissatisfaction with the overall failure of Australian industry to meet the challenges of the 1980s by expending some of its resources on research and development. Despite the active encouragement and the many initiatives of this Labor Government, the Australian manufacturing industry has resolutely refused to see that this is the way ahead. Only yesterday we had yet another striking example of the failure of Australian industry to meet the challenge of the marketplace of the 1980s. I refer to the December 1987 quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority. I would here ask those honourable members of the Opposition who are so keen to attack Australian trade unions to pay special attention to this report, which stated: The December quarter 1987 was a disaster for the Australian steel industry. Significant production losses were incurred by BHP due to continuing plant commissioning difficulties, equipment failures, and the reline of the No. 4 blast furnace at Port Kembla . . . As a result of the production difficulties BHP has experienced throughout 1987, it has not participated in the world-wide improvement in steel demand but rather has sought to import significant quantities of steel to partially cover production losses. The local industry's share of the domestic market averaged 85 per cent over the quarter but declined to 74 per cent in December. Honourable members may recall that last year I drew to the attention of the House the need of two Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd subsidiaries at Port Kembla, namely its Coated Products Division and Tubemakers of Australia Ltd, to import stainless steel and ordinary steel because BHP could not even satisfy its own internal demands, let alone meet the demands of other Australian steel fabricators. The tragedy of the present situation is that BHP, which was once a major exporter of steel, is now an importer. Not only is it unable to satisfy our domestic market, it is also unable to cash in on the export market-and this at the very time when everyone is saying how much Australia needs to develop its export trade! Not only is BHP itself unable to exploit the export trade but it is making it difficult for other Australian companies to do so as well. To quote again from the Steel Industry Authority's report: The steel shortage that has been evident in the domestic market throughout 1987 has impacted heavily on steel users with a number of companies advising the Authority that export orders worth millions of dollars were cancelled due to a lack of steel feed to their plants . . . As one steel user has noted to the Authority: `At the end of the day it matters little how many million dollars have been spent- by BHP on new plant and equipment- if the steel supply situation to end users is such that they are being forced to take severe business losses due to poor servicing by the steelmaking industry. It is not my intention to let the union bashers in the Opposition remain blissful and biased, ignorant of the facts surrounding the failure of BHP as an efficient manager. They most certainly cannot blame the unions. I will quote yet again from the Steel Industry Authority report: The production losses during the December quarter cannot be attributed to industrial disputes . . . the man hours lost due to industrial disputes in the second-half of 1987 were the best half-year result recorded under the plan. Finally the report stated: The Steel Industry Authority recognises that the installation of new plant and equipment will be accompanied by commissioning difficulties but would have thought that a company of BHP's standing and technological capabilities would have by now solved its production problems. This is the company-the self-proclaimed Great Australian that claims to have the interests of Australia and its people at heart-that plans to shed 2,600 jobs in the Illawarra region by the end of this year. With the multiplier effect, this will mean a total loss of jobs in the Illawarra of between 5,000 and 7,000. Commenting on this last year, I suggested then-and I repeat now-that good management would see BHP not only fulfilling its domestic orders and regaining valuable export trade but also retaining the 2,600 threatened jobs. Should this happen, then we in the Illawarra will see many more people forced to rely on the welfare system for survival. But no doubt certain members of the Opposition, not content with union bashing, will then follow the lead of the honourable member for Kooyong by endorsing the recommendations of the Business Council of Australia for further cuts to welfare spending. This, after all, is their time-honoured principle: if you are going to stick the knife in, you might as well stick it in all the way! It is quite noticeable, and not at all surprising, that the union bashers sitting opposite are the self-same people who are so eager to defend the indefensible apartheid system in South Africa. Only yesterday, we heard the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) launch forth into yet another diatribe which was nothing but a thinly veiled defence of that evil regime. I find it most significant that at this very moment that regime is poised to launch yet another attack on workers' rights in South Africa. I am sure that there are honourable members sitting opposite who are quite envious of the powers of that regime-powers they would surely like to have to crush the union movement in Australia. New legislation in South Africa will soon place further curbs on the rights of black workers to strike. Many forms of strike will be simply banned and hard-won collective bargaining procedures will be undermined. The legislation will also curtail the powers of the industrial court, a body that has become increasingly important in reinstating unfairly dismissed workers. This new industrial legislation represents an attempt by the South African regime to curb the effectiveness of the black-dominated trade unions in their political activities aimed at overthrowing the apartheid system. For blacks who have no vote, the trade unions have become an increasingly important means of expressing their political aspirations and flexing their growing economic muscles. In 1984, the unions spearheaded a massive worker stay away in Transvaal Province to protest against the military occupation of the townships. In 1985, the country's largest labour federation, the 800,000 strong Congress of South African Trade Unions, or COSATU, was founded. It immediately sought to become politically active, seeking first of all to have repealed the hateful pass laws. In South Africa, black trade unions simply cannot abstain from political issues and concentrate their efforts on seeking wage justice. They know they have no hope of getting wage justice until apartheid is destroyed. To quote from Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, a leading member of COSATU and of the National Union of Mineworkers: The labour area is not an enclave uncontaminated by the ills of apartheid. While hard-won rights have been secured in this area, the attendant political and social rights of a democratic and just order have not been extended to the majority of people . . . the new law can only exacerbate tension and heighten conflict. Black unions in South Africa work in extreme difficulty. Many workers are unwilling to strike and risk their jobs because of the grinding poverty, mass unemployment and the absence of a social security net. The honourable member for Kooyong and the Business Council of Australia are no doubt envious of this. Last August, so-called liberal mine owners sacked 50,000 workers-the largest dismissal in world labour history. In February this year, that regime effectively banned 17 leading anti-apartheid organisations from taking part in any political activities. When leading church people in South Africa took to the streets in protest they were arrested and gaoled. Is this the regime that the honourable member for Parkes seeks to justify and defend? Black unionists have suffered in many other ways. They are detained without trial, their meetings are banned and their offices are bombed or attacked. One union leader to be arrested is Moses Mayekiso. He is in gaol facing treason charges and his trial is set for September. He is important because he is General Secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and also Chairman of the Action Committee for the Township of Alexandria. He is the first major South African union leader to be charged with treason. Why is he charged with treason? Because he had the temerity to slip out of South Africa to travel to Britain where he sought support from British workers for the striking workers back home in South Africa. For this, he is charged with seeking to overthrow, usurp or endanger the authority of the state and, if found guilty, is liable to be executed for high treason. He is a key figure in the black trade union movement, which is increasingly becoming apartheid's biggest problem. By persecuting him and threatening him with death, that regime is obviously hoping to intimidate other trade unionists and curtail the power of the black trade union movement. Obviously, the regime will be unsuccessful. No matter how hard it tries, no matter how many innocent blacks it persecutes and kills, no matter how much its supporters here in Australia may fulminate, the black majority will triumph. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.49) —I note from the previous speeches on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 and cognate Bills that this is a wide-ranging debate. Certainly, the last speech, by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), indicated that this was so. I want to comment first of all on one or two points the honourable member for Throsby has just made, namely in regard to the trade union movement. He gave all the indications that it was the Australian Labor Party that really looked after the trade union members. I want to say to the people who are listening to this debate tonight that there are many people within the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia who are trade union members and who support trade unions very strongly. My electorate of Braddon, in the north-west of Tasmania, has one of the highest proportions of trade union membership in Australia and those people are very supportive of me. If any group in the community supports me, it is the trade union members. So what the honourable member for Throsby was saying is not the case in many parts of Australia. In speaking tonight about the Appropriation Bills I want to emphasise that general economic conditions have the greatest effect on disadvantaged members of the community. First, I want to address myself to the general economic conditions. Australia has certainly not turned the corner, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would lead us to believe. It is not out of the valley. It is not changing course from going down the Argentinean road. It has not turned the corner from going down the road to becoming a banana republic. During the last five years our overseas debt has trebled, up to a total of $111 billion. It continues to increase rapidly by about $1 billion a month. There is no way in which a government with that sort of record and an overseas debt that is climbing at that rate can justifiably say that we have turned the corner. It is ludicrous for the Government to make statements of that sort when the overseas debt has gone up far more in the last five years than it did in the first 81 years of federation. In that time it has gone up twice as much as in the first 81 years of federation. That is the record that this Labor Government is putting to the Australian people, when every man, woman and child is in debt to the tune of $6,700. The comparable figure in 1982-83 was $2,000. The average indebtedness of every man, woman and child in the nation is more than the median income of $6,200 for the Aboriginal people of Australia, in whom I have a particular interest. That really means that today people who are involved in earning export dollars for this country have to work until morning tea time on Thursday each week before Australia starts to get any benefit from their work. They have to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until the morning tea break before they are working for Australia. That is because of this Government's ineptitude in running the economy. The overall effect of having a government that is sending us into debt at that rate is that people who are in genuine need do not get the dollars that ought to be flowing to them. Let me just illustrate. The public debt interest that we now have to pay is $7.8 billion a year; double what it was two years ago. As many people know, our Aboriginal people have a serious housing crisis. This is the Government which said in 1983 that within six years it would adequately house all Aboriginal people. The requirement to do that today is $1.3 billion. If this Government had not run up the nation's overseas debt to the point where it has to pay $7.8 billion in interest annually, we would have been able to achieve that. The interest on the overseas debt is three times more than what is required adequately to house all Aboriginal people in Australia. I turn to unemployment. Many people have the impression, and certainly government members in this Parliament give the Australian people the impression, that the Government's record in dealing with unemployment is beyond reproach. Of course, it is not. When one goes to the facts one finds that the record of the Fraser-Howard Government was 35 per cent better than the record of this Government, under which the unemployment rate is about 8 per cent. In the years of the Howard-Fraser Government unemployment averaged about 6 per cent. The rate of unemployment continues to be high under this Government, so that many families are not earning an income to sustain themselves and that is because of the economic policies of this Government. At the last election the Government made the ludicrous promise that by 1990 no child in Australia would be living in poverty. Mr Andrew —That is cruel. Mr MILES —It is absolutely cruel. There is no doubt about that, as the honourable member said. There is no way in which that goal can be achieved. No matter how much the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) squirms, he cannot get out of the fact that that is what he intended to say on the night of his election policy speech. It simply cannot be achieved. Only a cruel government would raise the expectations of the people to that sort of level. I turn now to a few issues relating to Aboriginal affairs. As shadow Minister, I want in this bicentennial year to put a few things on the record. Public attention has been focused during this year on the past, the present and the future in regard to this very important matter of Aboriginal affairs. The dialogue that has occurred already this year has polarised the views of many people in the community. That is to be expected, for there are prejudices and emotions, which often override knowledge or factual information. It is probably inevitable that this sort of divisiveness, prejudice and polarisation of views will occur, because this is a very complex matter. It involves motivations of Aboriginal culture. There is a vast difference between their culture and ours. There religious concepts are different from ours. The forces that operate within Aboriginal communities are quite different from those which operate in ours. There is no single question in this issue and as a result there is no single solution to the problem. This is a country of great diversity in climate and geography. Differences in contact with Aboriginal people are so diverse that a solution that would cover all people and all Aboriginal groups in Australia and bring them together as equals is highly unlikely. Of course there have been discussions about the way in which Australia was settled. It is often suggested that Australia was invaded and the land was taken over. That is not a unique happening. It has happened in hundreds of countries. Many of us would have preferred some of the things that happened not to have occurred, but we cannot turn back the clock. We are here as a group of people, both European and Aboriginal, living in one nation, living together in this land. We have to address the future in a positive way. There is a great need for better understanding and knowledge of the Aboriginal people, the indigenous people who have a special status in this country. Their religion needs to be studied more thoroughly so that we can understand their beliefs and the thought patterns that are essential to their way of life. There is much we could learn from their family relationships, from the degree of caring and sharing that occurs within Aboriginal families. Also we can obviously learn much from the way in which they handled the environment. We need to learn much more about their culture, their art, their ceremonies and corroborees. If we are to go into the future in a positive way with our indigenous people and acting as a common nation, we must come to a far better understanding and appreciation of their culture and their ways of life. The coming of European people to this nation changed the way of life for the Aboriginal people forever. Many things changed for them. We have been reminded about the difficulties that arose from the coming of European diseases to this land. Then there was the loss of the indigenous people's foraging areas. The European culture brought with it a different diet and the Aboriginal people were attracted to an easier way of obtaining food. The change of their diet has changed their way of life and their lifestyle and has adversely affected their health. We have brought to bear three major thrusts of influence on the Aboriginal culture and the Aboriginal people that have had even far greater consequences. The first was our desire in 1966 to provide equal employment opportunities and payment. The issue was really about a cash economy, which the Aboriginal people had not had. In a cash economy we believed that they should be treated on exactly the same basis. That is a laudable principle to abide by in this community, but in terms of interaction between two vastly different cultures in 1966, when 80 per cent of Aboriginal people were employed in the pastoral industry, that decision resulted in a rapidly increasing level of unemployment. The employment rate dropped to 20 per cent. The second consequence of the introduction of the cash economy-a European concept-was the payment of unemployment benefits. When we pay unemployment benefits to a community such as the Aboriginal community where people have not experienced that sort of thing before, there are many unintended consequences. Many honourable members would agree that we should treat everyone equally in that regard yet, because the Aboriginal community had cash coming in, people did not go out to work, and thus the third real problem resulted-that is, the availability of alcohol. When we allowed alcohol to be freely available, there was absolute devastation right around the country. It is rather tragic that our genuine desire to provide equality, to treat everyone in the same way, resulted in an absolutely horrendous situation in many communities. But it is great to see that many Aboriginal communities are getting on top of this problem, trying to work through it by the development of what they call dry areas. Mr Barry Jones —I do not think all the contact with alcohol was well intentioned from our point of view. Mr MILES —That is true. Once the white man arrived, the traditional ways of the Aboriginal people were irrevocably changed forever. The social security system had a massive impact on Aboriginal culture. In the past 20 years a self-sufficient people have now become a government-dependent people, and that is a great tragedy. A great tragedy resulting from the introduction of the cash economy for the Abor- iginal people is that they have focused on material benefits, and that has led to what I regard as a ritual vacuum. At one time they believed that all the benefits they gained from either foraging or their work were achieved through the use of certain rituals, but that has now been destroyed because they are able to sustain themselves with unemployment benefits. That has resulted in a loss of dignity and self-esteem among the Aboriginal people. I return now to one or two economic matters. Under this Appropriation Bill $21,000 was spent on the visit of Professor Erica Daes from the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. That was a private visit and thus the Senate Estimates committee was told that only $21,000 was provided as it was not an official visit. She said that Australia would be blacklisted if it failed to legislate to introduce human rights of an international standard for Australia's Aborigines. I point out to the Australian people and to this House that it seems to me to be absolutely ludicrous that a government would spend $21,000 to pay for the visit of a person who comes here and makes such comments when Australia has a far better record in human rights than the country from which Professor Daes comes; Australia has a 93 per cent rating whereas Greece has a rating of 80 per cent. If one looks at other records and surveys comparing Greece with Australia, one sees that it is ridiculous for us to listen to or finance the visit of a person from a country that has not yet cleaned up its own backyard. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.06) —I welcome the opportunity in this debate to follow the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This debate concerns Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, and I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Appropriation Bill (No. 3) concerns the expenditure of $507,000 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides an expenditure of $3,282,000. In the brief time available to me, I want to reinforce the remarks made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in this House yesterday, when he highlighted the disaster currently facing the Australian road network, in particular country roads, because of the real impact of the state of that road network on the electors in an electorate as vast as Wakefield. I draw the attention of the House and the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) to what is one of the most disastrous roads in South Australia, that is, the road from the town of Burra, in the heart of the electorate of Wakefield, to the town of Spalding. In fact, that road has already received attention in the South Australian newspaper, the Advertiser, and it should be in much better condition. One might say that plenty of country roads should be in much better condition, and I have no doubt that the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) could cite a number of roads in his district that similarly require attention. The Burra road, incredibly, is the only stretch of highway from eastern Australia to western Australia that is unsealed, and that is the road that transport operators take as it is the shortest route from Sydney to Perth, the route that is most likely to be attractive to someone whose whole business is tied up in the transport of goods. When we come to the town of Morgan, where the Murray River turns south, if we wish to take the most direct route to Port Augusta we head towards Burra and Spalding, across this unsealed stretch of road, which passes through some of the finest wool country in Australia. Burra is the merino capital of the world. We travel past such notable studs as the Collinsville stud. In fact, it was at the Collinsville merino field day two weeks ago that the principal of Collinsville, Mr Neil Garnett, telephoned my office to say that he had received a torrent of complaints from people who had travelled to the Collinsville merino field day across a road that was almost impassable. I reiterate the point made by the honourable member for Deakin, and I hope to bring to the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications Support just what is happening to rural roads in Australia. The Government should be concerned about this disaster in road terms when it decides what to do with the moneys at its disposal, and that is what these Appropriation Bills are all about. The disaster is that road funding has been static at $1.245 billion for the past four years. Static funding means that in real terms funding has been falling-some have calculated at an effective total rate of 40 per cent. One could imagine honourable members saying, `That is what we would expect to hear from Opposition backbenchers'. Let me remind the House that the concern I echo tonight is not a concern which originates solely from the Opposition. In this House last week the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), addressing the question of road funding, said that the Government had taken `a disconcerting direction' over the past couple of years. If that were not indictment enough, let me turn to a non-political statement from the Deputy Chief Executive of the Royal Automobile Association in South Australia, Mr Fotheringham, and the Secretary-General of the Local Government Association in South Australia, Mr Hullick. One week ago today in an article in the South Australian daily newspaper, the Advertiser, these two men referred to the Federal Government's commitment to rural road funding, road funding generally and the consequent deterioration in the state of Australia's roads. Quoting Mr Fotheringham, the article said: `The Federal Government gets some $6,500m a year in petrol tax and allocates $1,250m to roads. It's one huge rip-off', he said. Mr Fotheringham said the Federal Government took about 20c a litre in petrol tax and allocated 5c to the roads. He suggested a 7c a litre allocation for road maintenance and reconstruction. Reconstruction of sealed roads now costs $100,000 a kilometre. That figure, incredible as it is, has to be met by every taxpayer around Australia and cannot simply be placed as a burden on individual ratepayers in local government areas. For example, those people who live in Burra and its surrounds in the electorate of Wakefield are the people who are currently giving the nation its only opportunity of economic recovery as a result of the wool they export. That same wool gets to the export outlets only by travelling over roads which should be maintained by the taxpayers but are currently being cut up by the trucks taking the exports to the ports. Local people, unable of course from their rate revenue base to seal these roads, are stuck with a constant run of road graders making some effort at reconstructing the roads, or at least making them look passably tidy. What happens, particularly on the stretch of road that now runs from Morgan to Spalding via Burra, is that once the grader has been over it-and heaven knows, in dry conditions it is bad enough even after it has been graded-every truck operator travelling from east to west uses his CB and says, `I will now take the short cut via Burra'. Thus the road is chopped up very quickly. So the people of the electorate of Wakefield and the town council of Burra who have maintained the road have done so not only to allow exports to reach the ports but also to allow Australian traffic travelling from east to west to chop up the road that they have endeavoured temporarily to reinstate. Heaven knows, I have enough reasons to stand here and complain, but as if that were not bad enough, we should look at the article by Julian Cribb in the Australian a week ago where he looks at poverty in Australia. He points out that real poverty in Australia is currently found in rural electorates and, I am sad to say, not only are the 15 poorest electorates in Australia all rural electorates but one of them happens to be the electorate I represent. I quote from that article-- Mr Hollis —They ought to get a new member. Mr ANDREW —Quite frankly, this article is not a reflection on the Opposition, but a reflection on the Government. The honourable member for Throsby would be well advised to be cautious about the sorts of interjections he makes when this is such an indictment of his Party in power. That article states: The highest proportion of families on incomes below $12,000 are also in rural areas . . . One quarter of country Australians lived in poverty, in contrast to one-sixth of city people . . . Of the 37 poorest electorates in Australia (that is, the bottom 25 per cent)- note that figure of 37- 33 are rural seats and only four are in the cities . . . Among Australia's most affluent 25 per cent of electorates, only one, the Northern Territory, qualifies vaguely as a rural seal. Like Canberra, Northern Territory draws its riches largely from the public purse. If the state of the roads in rural Australia were not bad enough, we have here a classic illustration that the Government's failure to maintain road funding is in fact directly hitting the poorest sector of the Australian community. I have said that the product coming out of these rural electorates is the very product the Government needs to address its balance of payment deficit. I therefore draw attention to one more quote from the article by Julian Cribb. Mr Cribb writes: With mining and agriculture, between them the poorest electorates of Australia collectively furnish more than 75 per cent of the nation's export income. So out of Australia's poorest electorates comes its best opportunity for some sort of turnaround in the balance of payments deficit. Who is being attacked by the present attitude to road funding? The poorest people in Australia are being let down by the money allocation coming from this Treasury and this Government. Although my time is running out, I cannot resume my seat this evening without taking the House one step further in what is in fact an incredible indictment of this Government and its attitude to those who are the least fortunate people in the Australian community. Not only is the road funding of electorates such as Wakefield under attack but, in addition, essential medical facilities in those electorates are currently being denied to them. The medical facilities of the people who live in the poorest sections of Australia are being run down. Take a look at one other quote from the Julian Cribb article. Mr Cribb quotes Mr Bruce MacKenzie, senior lecturer at Warrnambool Institute of Technology: `In the city you have access to services, cheap transport, facilities and many things that make the cost of living less, direct wages tend to be higher also.' He points out that a country person with a chronic medical condition might have to travel 300km or more on many occasions to receive specialist treatment. On a low income such an expense is crushing. `Rural poverty tends to be pretty invisible unless you really look for it' says Dr Jim Lees of the Rural Development Centre. In my electorate and in the electorate of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), country hospitals are currently being closed by the South Australian Minister for Health, Dr Cornwall. The very hospitals servicing the poorest people in Australia are currently under attack. Those hospitals are in the electorate of Barker, in the township of Tailem Bend and, in my electorate of Wakefield, in the townships of Blyth and Laura. How callous can this Government be when it chooses to save money by denying these people road access and, in addition, denying what is discernibly the poorest sector of the Australian community the basic health rights that every other Australian would take for granted. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.19) —It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), whom I have always looked upon as a member with a very compassionate heart for his constituents. They are very fortunate in having him to represent them. I can say the same for the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who spoke before him. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall-I do not know whether your staff members attended but one of mine did-a parliamentary seminar on the Budget process. During the seminar a senior Department of Finance bureaucrat put the view that it was inappropriate for members and senators to debate Budget Appropriations for programs which had been considered and debated in previous sessions. It was the Department's view that honourable members were simply wasting everybody's time resurrecting policy matters during the parliamentary examination of supplementary Appropriations, which is what the House is doing now in considering these Bills. It was also the view that honourable members debating Appropriation Bills and honourable senators in Estimates committees would serve their constitutents best by resisting the temptation to debate policy and by sticking to an examination of operational matters. At the risk of disappointing the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance, I do not wish to talk about operational peripherals that are involved in these particular Appropriations, as they were advocating. Instead, I will raise the appropriateness of Parliament continuing to supplement funding for large scale programs that are at odds with the social and economic expectations of the majority of Australians. At the very least, the parliamentary process is a system that provides for ongoing assessment, evaluation and control of government by the representatives of the people. It has become clear from recent electoral results that the people, if not the Department of Finance, have serious doubts about this Government's policies, programs and directions. That is extremely obvious to anyone watching the results of recent elections. However, according to the bureaucrat from the Department of Finance who briefed our staff last week, if the people develop doubts about a government's policies, they should only express those doubts or provide policy redirection to that government during the Budget session, not at this time. I reject that view outright. The constituents in my electorate of Macquarie also reject that view outright. I am on firm ground in saying that most honourable members who have spoken in this debate obviously reject that view. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) would have us believe that we are witnessing an economic miracle in Australia at the moment. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would also have us believe that. I agree that a miracle has occurred. It is a miracle that the real wealth producers in this country continually shrug off the burden of this Government's mismanagement and interference. It is a miracle that Australian families continue to put up with declining living standards that have been so central to the Treasurer's economic policies. It is a miracle that increasing commodity prices-an act of god, as it were-have given a debt-ridden nation a reprieve from its debtors. The Government wants the Parliament to provide smooth passage to these Appropriation Bills. It hopes that honourable members will swallow the media hype about economic miracles. It also hopes that we will not notice the inconsistency of appropriating funds for programs that, in all probability, will face cuts one month later in the mini-Budget. The Government hopes that we will not raise the basic question of whether the programs were right in the first place. I must say that I find these Appropriations disconcerting precisely because they reflect the determination of the Government to continue with ill-considered programs and distorted priorities. It is laughable that a process of appropriating supplementary funds for programs, which may have been on a list of 200 which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) wanted to cut last year, could be on his list for cuts in May this year. However, this Government has never been able to do more than tinker in an ad hoc way with our economic problems, many of which it has caused and others of which are structural. At this stage I will refer briefly to four examples. I cannot rubber stamp appropriations for the Attorney-General's Department when I know that it has put the family breakdown cart before the marriage education and counselling horse. As I have said many times in this place, while the public cost of divorce, as an estimate of the tax levy per family in this country, is approximately $500 per family per year and the allocation for prevention in marriage education and counselling amounts to just over $1 per year, that is a very clear case of where Government priorities lie. In effect, the allocations are one five-hundredth in preventive work as compared with the $500 per family after the horse has bolted from the stable. Dr Harry Edwards —Totally disproportionate. Mr WEBSTER —Absolutely, as the honourable member for Berowra rightly says. It is a very disconcerting problem for this country. I cannot rubber stamp appropriations for the Defence Department which treat the current personnel crisis as a problem that can be deferred regularly, for how many service men and service women must resign and how many senior officers need to express publicly doubts about our operational capacity before the Government gets serious in its resource allocations for the armed forces? I cannot rubber stamp appropriations for a social security system which, in some cases, provides inadequate support for those in difficulty whilst, in other cases, it reinforces anti-social behaviour and dependence. There has been a lot of criticism about the cost to the taxpayer of the new Parliament House. Part of the problem is that the building itself reminds the taxpayer in a concrete manner-if I can be forgiven the pun-of the outlay. The interesting thing is that, when we take the cost to the taxpayer of payments to families that have broken down as a result of marriage failure alone, we are looking at an annual bill of $1.8 billion; so almost every year relentlessly the Government allocates money for welfare that can be equated to two Parliament Houses. That is a lot of money. I cannot rubber stamp appropriations for the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories when the primary focus of the Department in regard to the environment is interest group pacification. I do not deny that the preservation of certain forests is an important issue on the Australian environmental agenda, but I resent the imbalance in terms of allocations that Labor electoral pacts with city based environmental groups produce in departmental time and energy. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts has decided to give the problem of soil degradation in this country the kind of public attention that it needs. I could happily approve departmental appropriations if I thought the catastrophic problem of soil degradation that this country faces would receive as much departmental and media attention as certain sections of Tasmania's forests. I am not minimising the need to look at our forests, but the Government's priorities are out of order. I could not go back to my constituents and tell them that I gave the okay for funds for a health system that they distrust, an industrial relations system that they consider a joke and an education system that they fear is selling short their children's future. I could talk for half an hour on that one. The Government and the bureaucrats consider this legislation a machinery and operations matter. This debate affords me yet another opportunity to point out to the Government that its machinery is archaic and consumes too much of our resources, that many of its operations are counterproductive and its strategic plan, which the machinery and operations serve, lacks the vision that is necessary to make this country economically secure once again. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.30) —Unfortunately, the Australian nation today is delicately situated with an economy which is structurally inappropriate to the direction and pressures of the world economy. This is quite simply because the policies of the Hawke Government in the first three years of its office were totally unsuitable to our real circumstances and our real needs. When the Hawke Government finally recognised that it was driving this country headlong into economic oblivion, we witnessed the theatrical about-face by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in May 1986 with his-and we all remember it-dramatic public acknowledgment that Australia was heading for a banana republic status. We were then implored to tighten the belt and to be understanding of a government which was being forced to lower our standard of living and cut back many of our welfare and social programs because of the circumstances which, of course, the Treasurer claimed had been beyond the control and anticipation of the Government. That, quite simply, was nonsense because there is ample public evidence to show that the Hawke Government was well aware of Australia's serious structural problems well before 1986. But it continued with its extravagant and inappropriate expenditure programs almost to the point of no return. Having finally acknowledged that Australia certainly did have serious problems, it was right for the Government to want to tell the Australian people the honesty of our circumstances. But the banana republic analogy was a crude and unhelpful response to a situation which required skilful and persuasive management. The superficiality of that response has been highlighted in recent days by yet another exaggerated about-face from the Treasurer with his sudden discovery of an imminent economic miracle for this country. It is quite extraordinary that, from a set of economic circumstances in May 1986, which were so potentially serious that the Treasurer must warn us of an impending banana republic status, he sees another set of circumstances just two years later which place us on the crest of an economic miracle. Such dishonesty is so unnecessary, so unkind to the Australian people and so disloyal to a government which, despite my own disagreement with much of its philosophy and management style, has at times shown a willingness to make some un- popular decisions. The Hawke Government, to its credit, has made a start in tackling Australia's current account imbalance and an even stronger start against the Budget deficit excesses of its earlier years. It needed to do so, of course, because we were in pretty desperate trouble at that stage. However-and I would like to underline this point-it is only a start and the situation will require both conviction and continuing political courage to maintain that momentum. One of the sadnesses of the Treasurer's handling of this process is the realisation that the Government has failed dismally to persuade the people overall of the nature and severity of our economic problems and what is required of them in working towards solutions. In the face of such an obvious failure, the Australian Labor Party now wonders why it is being abandoned by so much of its traditional support. It is quite extraordinary that we should see a political volatility around the nation at present which is quite unprecedented, certainly in my experience of politics over the last 20 years. I think this comes about very directly from what I have just said-an inability to explain and to convince the Australian population of the need for the belt tightening that was brought upon us and an understanding of the necessity for a continuation of policies which will be pretty unpopular with a whole lot of people in the immediate years ahead. I really have a sincerely felt concern that the Treasurer will use the coming May statement to attempt to recapture lost electoral support rather than to continue with the very difficult and, let us face it, unpopular policies which are so essential for the restructuring of the Australian economy. It will be a very bad thing if the Treasurer adopts the view, which I think he will, that he must somehow look to regather that electoral support rather than honestly facing the problems that the economy of this country still presents the government of the day with. How else, but with that concern, can we regard the front page article in the Australian of 15 April which quotes the Treasurer as saying, `Australia is no longer travelling down the Argentinean road'. He said that when he was responding to a surprisingly optimistic economic report by the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI). In doing so, he has stretched informed credibility to its limit by agreeing with that report that `Australia was on the verge of an economic miracle' and that `the worst is over'. Obviously, it is very understandable that the Treasurer might want to be a national cheerleader. I must say that in appearance he does not strike me as being a national cheerleader. Nevertheless, he may wish to be one. But he seems to be lacking in judgment if he genuinely believes that enthusiastic razzamatazz is any substitute for real captaincy. Australians want leadership and teamwork-if I may use a sporting analogy-to get the ball across the line, not the glitzy cheersquad which does much to entertain the spectators but has little real influence on the course of the game. It is nice to look at members of the squad dancing up and down, but they have no part to play when we get to the actuality of the game. What we really need to do is make sure that the participants understand the reality of the situation, forget about the cheering and get on with the reality of governing the country. If the Treasurer intends to use the CAI's perceived imminent economic miracle to justify a lack of economic resolution in his May statement in maintaining the pace of economic adjustment, the Labor Party will have abandoned responsible government in favour of political opportunism. I suspect that that is a very real danger. Let us face it, the Australian Labor Party has been clobbered electorally over recent months and that clobbering shows no sign of abating. Naturally enough, when the nervous Nellies in the marginal seats start to realise that, they will be wandering along to the Treasurer and saying to him, `Mr Treasurer'-or whatever they call him at the time-`things are looking a bit grim for us in an electoral sense. It is about time we did something to restore the electoral fortunes'. That will be a very real temptation for the Government. If the Government succumbs to that very real temptation, it may make some short term gains but it will not be serving the economic requirements of this nation in the way that it should. It would be a tragedy if the Treasurer does that. History has shown that Australians really are thinking people who will respond sensibly and patriotically to adverse times just as long as they have confidence in their leadership. Having said that, what then is needed in the May statement? Even if the Government should achieve a large Budget surplus for 1987-88-and this is, let us face it, very likely-that single achievement does not mean that the worst is over and that we can afford to relax the processes of adjustment. The world economy really is precariously placed in these uncertain months following the October 1987 financial crash. Australia is even more susceptible today to future external shocks than it was at that time last year. Australia's external debt is still rising and it is simply not possible to accept the Economic Planning Advisory Council's suggestion that Australia can afford to slow down its rate of adjustment, with the aim of achieving a stable external debt to gross domestic product ratio of about 35 per cent in four years time. Such a level of debt would leave Australia significantly vulnerable. We have only just begun the long haul along the adjustment path and the momentum must be continued in the May economic statement and through subsequent Budgets. The closest attention must be given to continuing cutbacks in government expenditure and borrowings, both Federal and State, because both sectors have to play their parts in this adjustment process. We have to have a commitment to selected taxation reform and to continued targeting of Budget surpluses. We must see policies introduced which lift domestic savings and encourage their redirection into major new investments in growth industries. I hope that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, will support at least that proposition. I am glad to see him nodding his head in acknowledgment. The present unemployment levels are simply unacceptable because of both their economic and personal costs. Very careful attention needs to be given to future wages policies, productivity and work practices in order to eliminate, or at least cut down, those personal and economic wastes. The single most vital objective in this area is for all parties to appreciate that negotiation rather than confrontation will build a better Australia and, as a result, better-off Australians. If we fail to move along that path, we almost certainly face even greater disruption and hardship as Australia's standard of living continues to decline and finally we are forced by our creditor nations to accept humiliating and painful adjustment on their terms. That is not something that anyone who represents the Australian people in this chamber would accept lightly. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.41) —I congratulate my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) on a very sensible speech and some very sensible suggestions. I hope that the Government will take notice of that advice, coming from someone who has had such a long and illustrious career in this chamber. Tonight I will speak briefly on something that I see is of great concern to all Australians. It is a matter about which we should be alert and doing something. I refer to a very insidious disease that I see growing in Australia as we celebrate our Bicentenary. I am sure that all honourable members have many reasons to be very proud of what they have seen in their electorates. I know that I have seen some fantastic achievements displayed by people who are, justifiably, very proud of this nation and of what they have achieved in their own locality. We should take pride in those achievements, particularly the agricultural achievements. I represent an agricultural electorate. It is an amazing achievement that, even after 200 years, Australian agriculture can still boast that it is the nation's No. 1 export earner-that is, in terms of wool. As all honourable members would know, wool has been the foundation stone, the building block, of our economy and the strength that it has today. Yet, despite this enormous progress and achievement, we see a decline in our country infrastructure, particularly in country and smaller towns. As my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) has already mentioned tonight, there has been a serious decline in the state of country roads. Worse still, those who have made such a positive contribution to Australia find themselves and their efforts belittled and denigrated by many people in this community. They are being attacked by the very people who ought to be grateful for what they have done. They seem to show no gratitude and pride in their achievements. The people to whom I refer in terms of this insidious disease are the ones who would prefer us to feel a sense of guilt about the last 200 years. They want to peddle guilt about our achievements, history and the fine record of service of Australian men and women in overseas wars, which is a record that almost no nation in the world can match. Yet, instead of feeling pride and a certain sense of gratitude for what those people have done for our generation, they believe that we should feel guilty. Some would suggest that we should feel guilty about the treatment of Aborigines. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) mentioned earlier tonight that some things have occurred in the past that we are not proud of. But the fact is that we are now living in 1988 and are setting about correcting some of those mistakes. I see no reason to feel guilty about those things. Our most successful farmers are being made to feel guilty about their form of animal husbandry. All farmers have a vested interest in ensuring that their animals are the fittest, the best and the most cared for; otherwise they would not be in the business. It is said that we should feel guilty about mining. Yet the mining industry has been a great industry in terms of building up Australia to what it is today. We are supposed to feel guilty about our environment. Yet many are doing a lot to correct some of the imbalances that have occurred. As my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) mentioned earlier, we seem to be far more concerned about what is happening in some forests than about what is happening to some of the less fortunate in our society. We ought to be having a long hard look at ourselves. Why has this country started to lose its direction? Why are we starting to lose confidence in what we have achieved and done? A noted historian-he is noted worldwide-Mr Paul Johnson, pointed out in an interesting article that he wrote recently: Until well after World War II Australians had a very distinctive culture . . . enterprising and industrious. Then, as he pointed out so succinctly, in 1972, came the disastrous Whitlam government. Whitlam's regime ended three years later when the Governor-General decided he had to take action. Of course, the Australian people passed judgment at a full election. They showed what they thought of the Whitlam Government. Mr Johnson pointed out: But in the meantime he had brought intellectuals right into the heart of the governing process. Worse, he infected Australians with a deadly disease from which they had never before suffered: guilt. Since then the guilt has spread rapidly. Australians have learned to feel guilty about their riches, their history, about the Aboriginals, about their handling of the environment . . . The list goes on. The carriers of this guilt exploit the worst of every situation and ignore achievement. Anzac Day is debased; that fellow Mansell goes to Libya and behaves like a traitor; animal liberationists go overseas and, in many cases, peddle downright lies; our mining industry is now so bound up in regulation that Roxby Downs, one of the potentially largest mines in Australia, was forced to deal with over 50 separate government agencies before the deposit could even be proven; 30 per cent of Tasmania is locked up-for the pleasure of what I would describe as a new elite; and 35 per cent of the Northern Territory has been set aside. One of the Whitlam Government's legacies was to put those carriers of guilt onto the public payroll. In other words, the very people who work to pay taxes and support those parasites are being attacked by them. We do have problems, including environmental problems. I endorse fully the words of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) when he opened the National Agricultural Outlook Conference: Land degradation is the biggest environmental issue in Australia. Where are the greenies on that issue? Where is all the support for the real conservationists, those who are trying to do something about it, those who put their money where their mouths are, instead of using taxpayers' money to attack others and blow their own trumpet, trying to undermine the very basis of our society? Those so-called concerned environmentalists ought to be out there doing something to help correct a very real problem. The fact is that most decent Australians are sick and tired of this promotion of guilt. They are sick and tired of the devious, mischievous and often downright dishonesty displayed by those who want to peddle it. We should be proud of our natural heritage, as I think everyone is. We should maintain parts of that natural heritage. But that does not mean that every tree cannot be replaced, that every mineral outcrop is a sacred site, or that every farmer does not care about the welfare of his animals. As I said earlier, commodities have made our country what it is today. Yet already about 20 per cent of Australian land has been removed from potential economic evaluation, let alone any sensible exploitation. Every year fresh restraints are imposed on industrial activity, which has given Australia one of the highest living standards in the world. And so the story continues. I suggest to all honourable members that the time has come to throw away these sanctimonious sentiments of guilt. It is time for us to feel proud of what we have achieved in the last 200 years and of what we can continue to achieve. While I acknowledge that we do have and will continue to have some problems and should continue to address those problems positively and actively, we should not allow the situation to become so moribund and hidebound with arguments about who should be feeling guilty about the past treatment of Aborigines and who is guilty of some past exploitation by mining. We should set about achieving a balance on all these matters-on environmental issues and agricultural issues, and in general what we can do with land use. In concluding, I come back to what Paul Johnson, the eminent historian, said in concluding his article. He gave a very grim warning to all Australians. He said that while we may be celebrating the first 200 years, amid all the jollity the question that ought to be asked is: Will Australia survive to celebrate the next 200 years-or even the next 50? He went on: There are thus spectres at Australia's bicentenary feast. These spectres will grow larger, year by year, until the country recovers its old pioneering spirit of ruthless energy, patriotism and self-esteem. There are plenty of he-men in the bush-plenty of tough ladies too. For Australia to have a certain, long-term future, it is these kind of people who must make their voice heard in Canberra, the guilt-ridden capital where the eggheads and the fainthearted rule. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.51) —The debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 gives me an opportunity to highlight the phoney talk coming from the Government side of an `economic miracle' to which my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) referred earlier. `Australia is achieving an economic miracle', the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said. There is no more banana republic talk, no more talk of `a situation akin to war', as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) put it in his broadcast to the nation barely 20 months ago. There is no more an emphasis on the long hard haul. We are told that the Hawke Government has us on the crest of an economic miracle. The Treasurer says that we have come back as `a modern industrial state'. That is what he has been saying. Mr Reith —Things are looking good. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Things are supposed to be looking good. That is what we have heard from honourable members on the other side in this debate. What absolute garbage! How phoney can they get? What is the Australian public to make of it, with the falling living standards so many are now enduring and the lengthening hospital and public housing queues? There is the evidence that 2 1/2 million Australians are living in poverty, and nearly 600,000 Australians are unemployed, and the period of unemployment is inexorably lengthening compared to the situation when the Hawke Government came to power. What we do have at the moment is some measure of relief-it is very welcome-in respect of our vast, overriding balance of payments problems stemming from higher commodity prices. Wool and nickel prices are at near record levels. Indeed, prices have been strong for virtually all our commodity exports, apart from coal. That is indeed something of a miracle, coming from outside, as it were, and owing nothing at all to the policies of this Hawke Labor Government. Commodity prices have continued firm, somewhat unexpectedly, since the stock exchange crash in October; but, that lift in prices apart, there is no economic miracle. Imports, which are supposed to be being replaced, are roaring along, so the balance of payments gap-the excess of spending abroad over what we earn-continues to be very large. The country's overseas debt-with the gross figure in excess of $110 billion-continues to mount up, at almost $25m extra `into hock' every day, and last year it took all of 64 per cent of our export earnings to service the interest and repayments. The country is very dependent, very vulnerable, and the situation is unsustainable. There ain't any miracle. I ask honourable members to look at the settings of the various aspects of the economy such as inflation. Looking at the statistical tables from the latest edition of the Economist, we see that inflation continues at a level generally three times that of our major trading partners-whereas we should be doing better than them to become more competitive. Again, earlier this evening the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was praising the Government for the lower interest rates now prevailing. He failed to point out that, according to the table in this latest Economist, Australia has the highest interest rates in the Western world apart from-in respect of some rates-Spain. In fact, our interest rates are significantly higher than those of our major trading partners. Productivity growth is dismal at an expected rate of 0.5 per cent this year. That is related to the very low levels of new investment in plant and equipment in recent years under the Hawke Government and to the continuing widespread incidence of restrictive work practices. The whole thing is quite tragic, confronted as we are with the absolute imperative of producing more. Real wages and living standards in this country are to be maintained while we step up the process of stabilising the debt. For that we must export much more relative to what we import, in that way stabilising the debt, in effect repaying the foreigner for what we brought in under the profligate spending of earlier years. Mr Cadman —But the debt is out of control. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It will be virtually out of control unless this process can be facilitated. Further, wages are gathering momentum, with all the traditional rigidity and inflexibility and union bloody mindedness that we know about. Finally, the tax system is way out of kilter-both the personal tax structure and the company tax structure. The shape and level of taxation has been a major focus of this debate. As the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who led for the Opposition, affirmed, this Hawke Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia. There can be no question about that, yet the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), in reply to the shadow Treasurer, sought to dispute it. In particular he pointed to the Budget projection that total taxes in 1987-88 would fall as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) from last year's highest-ever level of 24.8 per cent. In fact, total tax revenue so far this financial year is up by 14.5 per cent instead of the 8.5 per cent projected in the Budget. So Federal tax revenue will exceed last year's record percentage of GDP, breaching yet again the Hawke commitment of former times to the so-called trilogy obligation not to increase the tax percentage. So even on this restrictive criterion, it is correct to affirm that this Government is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. I note another point made by the honourable member for Fraser. He claimed that Australia is one of the lowest tax countries in the Western world. He cited a percentage of tax to total GDP-and GDP means the nation's total income-in Sweden of 55 per cent. He said: This is more than twice the level in Australia. That is a totally wrong-I hesitate to say, mischievous-comparison. Sweden is a unitary state and the figure of 55 per cent should properly be compared with the total of public sector revenues in this country, not only of the Commonwealth but also of the States, and even-an exact comparison is always difficult-some public sector instrumentalities as well. Recognising that, the figure for Australia more nearly comparable to the Swedish figure is the aggregate of all public sector revenues, which as the table on page 406 of Budget Paper No. 1 indicates is of the order of 42 per cent. Thus 42 per cent, not the previously mentioned figures in the region of 25 per cent, is the measure of the weight of government taxes and charges in Australia. What the honourable member ought to have a much closer look at in this area of international comparison is the balance of direct versus indirect taxes in the aggregate of government revenue raising. In this debate, Government members have engaged in a good deal of criticism, not to say bucketing, of this Opposition on the grounds that it is giving consideration to the introduction of something new by way of consumption tax. I cannot stress too strongly two points: first, what the Opposition is about is a review of the whole system of taxation with a view to real reform, not the inadequate, phoney, stealthy-I cite in parenthesis the `tax cuts' which are financed from the harvest of bracket creep-incentive-tapping changes that have gone under the name of tax reform by this Government. The second point I make in this connection is: How is this Government in a position to bucket this side about consumption taxes and increasing them? There is a very substantial set of consumption taxes in place right now. Under this Hawke Government they have boomed. The biggest of them, sales tax-honourable members will know all about sales tax, surely-has been the fastest growing tax in Australia. It has grown 110 per cent under this Government. That is three times the inflation rate over the period. It is more than double the 50 per cent increase in wages and benefits, and almost double the 60 per cent increase in private consumption spending. We have witnessed a 110 per cent increase in sales tax under this Government. So far this year, this consumption tax-sales tax-is up 18 per cent, half as much again as the Budget forecast of 12 per cent. But-and this is the point-this version of the consumption tax is illogical, full of anomalies and grossly unfair. Mr Webster —That is nothing new. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —No, but it is a point that needs to be stressed because it is not widely taken on board. This tax is imposed on foods such as ice cream, orange juice, flavoured milk and snack foods and, at the same time, luxury items such as the notorious in recent times $1,000 ball gown, pornographic magazines and other items are left untaxed. We have a tax in urgent need of reform-a tax of great incidence. That is what we propose to look at and do something about. I note that the time allocated to us has passed. So I will conclude by saying that I was led to these observations and to comments on the tax system generally by looking at the present settings of key factors in the Australian economy that bear on our capacity to overcome this country's vast balance of payments and overseas debt problem. They are not in good shape. There is certainly no pending or realised economic miracle! Referring back to the tax system, the key requirement for an appropriate tax system is that it should further this overriding imperative of overcoming the country's vast balance of payments and overseas debt problem. What the Hawke Government has wound up with, after all its so-called tax reform, falls far short on that criterion. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(10.04) —I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. As usual on Bills of this nature, the debate-if we can dignify it with that word-has been wide-ranging in nature. The focus has generally been on the economy and the economic performance to date of the Government. As indicated in the speeches at this second reading stage on the Appropriation Bills, the additional appropriations being sought are required to meet the commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget as well as requirements of an ongoing nature. The principal factors underlying these additional requirements include unavoidable cost increases and other parameter changes, including the impact of the $6 per week national wage case decision and the Australian Public Service office-based second tier agreement. The provision of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is for these two increases of approximately $65m. The feature of the 1987-88 Additional Estimates is the small net increase of $88.6m in annual appropriations being sought after allowance is made for prospective savings. This represents 0.1 per cent of the total estimated outlays for 1987-88. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), moved an amendment to the second reading motion for the Bill. I do not know that there has exactly been a very closely argued case in support of it. Essentially, he discussed the Australian economy and the level of public debt. He attacked the optimistic projections of the Confederation of Australian Industry. He said the outlook was precarious and criticised the level of borrowings by public enterprises. In his second reading amendment there are four propositions stated. But they would have to be described as just rather vague criticisms. There is nothing really very specific in them and nothing in the contribution of the Opposition that suggests any hint of an alternative view of where Australian society is going. I do not doubt that some of the contributions of Opposition members were sincere and well intentioned. Of the ones I heard, that by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) on the Aboriginal situation clearly was very well intentioned, as were the contributions of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). But I found a depressing lack of intellectual vitality. There is no sense of energy or of conveying an alternative view of Australian society. What we get is simply a persistent nibbling at the edges on absolutely marginal issues. I was quite struck by the criticism read by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) about a man he described as a very eminent historian, Paul Johnson. Paul Johnson, as I found out later, was writing in that journal of record News Weekly, well known as an historical journal of high repute. But Paul Johnson, in a sense, suffers from the Paddy McGuinness syndrome. They are both reformed sinners saying, `Once we were interventionists. Once we were involved in it. Now we see it is evil'. It is extraordinary that anyone like Paul Johnson would be talking about a guilt complex because if anyone exhibits a guilt complex of a large size it is Paul Johnson, former Editor of the New Statesman and now a publicly self-confessed sinner who goes around excoriating all the horrors of the modern world. But we inherited, it has to be said, a very difficult economic situation back in 1983. Although there have been great difficulties such as, for example, the stock market collapse in October last year, it would have to be conceded that we have come out of it pretty well. I want to endorse the point that my colleague, John Button, was making the other day. In a sense it is very nice to hear the flattering things said by the Confederation of Australian Industry. What would worry me a bit would be if we took it all absolutely at face value and said, `At last we have solved the problems. It is all right. It is wonderful'. I have often felt that it was not altogether a coincidence that Mr Micawber emigrated to Australia-to New South Wales, as it turned out-and has had a lot of descendants. In some ways Australians are inclined to say, `Oh, the situation is not too bad. She'll be right. It will all work out'. Often we could imagine that if there were an increase in the price of coal or if the price of wool went up people would say, `Really, those figures are not too bad. We have really turned the corner. The prospects for the balance of trade are going to be better. Therefore, we don't need to be anything new. We don't need to address new issues. We don't need to think things through. She'll be right. It will all work out automatically'. I think it is very important that we point out that there still are very significant structural weaknesses in the Australian economy which have to be addressed. It also has to be said that, if we look at the record of 5 years and 2 months of the Hawke Government and compare it with that of the 7 years and 4 months of the Fraser Government, we see that in the Fraser period there was lost opportunity after lost opportunity. I do not think there are too many people, including in this chamber some survivors of the Fraser Government period, who would deny that. The honourable member for Berowra called for what he described as real reform in tax. I suppose that we are still looking for the perfect tax formula. However, if the Keating changes of 1983, bitterly opposed as they were at the time, were not the most massive tax reforms in the post-war period, I challenge anyone to suggest an alternative. There is no doubt that we should look at the hostility to the fringe benefits tax (FBT) and the capital gains tax that was generated. In fact, the first time I had seen them referred to for a while was in the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who obviously feels so strongly about the amendment that he is not even gracing us with his presence at the moment. There was tremendous opposition to those taxes at the time. In fact, people have come to accept them. Of course, as honourable members would realise, particularly in the case of the FBT, the contribution to revenue has been far greater than was anticipated at the time. Dr Harry Edwards —And you think that is a good thing? Mr BARRY JONES —I think that that was a major reform. It was a reform in the direction of equity. That lack of equity could not be maintained because a disproportionate burden was being placed on pay as you earn taxpayers who did not have the opportunity to work the system, to rort the system or to operate the system as it was. I think that the tax reforms of 1983 were very significant. I just want to conclude by commenting on something that the honourable member for Wannon said when he was talking earlier about Paul Johnson. In some ways I think it is not quite recognised just how fragile much of the Australian economy was, due partly to its excessive specialisation in regard to the traditional rural base. It is often forgotten, except when I keep reminding honourable members in the House, that in Australia there was a long economic dip between 1913 and 1938-a 25-year period-and only after that was per capital gross national product returned to what it had been before the First World War. The impact of the First World War on Australia was appalling. Mr MacKellar —Not only on Australia. Mr BARRY JONES —I am saying that, for a country that was physically very remote from the centre of the war, it had a particularly bad effect on Australia. Of course, there was devastation in Belgium and other countries, such as some of the Balkan countries, which were very directly affected and fought over. Australia really had not only a tremendous loss of personnel but also a psychological loss. I think that a tremendous loss of confidence followed in the period after the First World War. The 1920s, which had been a period of great confidence for a number of countries such as the United States and Canada, was not one of the same degree here. When the Depression came in the 1930s, Australia proportionately had a higher degree of unemployment than in any other country in the Western world except Germany. The tragedy was that after the Second World War, when there was a period of reconstruction and so on, the protectionist path was adopted. There was a development of the philosophy that had been created under Chifley and continued under successive Menzies governments. Now, as the Australian economy becomes really much more international we are trying to reconstruct it. I think that in our five years and two months of government we have done that with a fair degree of success. It will not be too much of a surprise for honourable members to appreciate that the Government suggests that the House reject the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and asks that the Bills be carried. I thank honourable members for their contributions. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.20) —It is indeed a sad reflection on the progress of civilisation in our modern world that in the final quarter of the twentieth century this Parliament finds itself addressing legislation to give effect to a United Nations convention to proscribe torture. The democratic processes of our nation have long since banished torture from our shores and this fact is acknowledged in the Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988 before the House. However, it does remain a fact that torture is part and parcel of everyday life in many countries throughout the world. A 1974 report by Amnesty International lists proven cases of torture in no less than 68 different countries, ranging through Africa, South and Central America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and including our near neighbour East Timor. Another report entitled Torture and Trauma, published as recently as 1987 by the Cumberland College of Health Sciences in Sydney, suggests that torture is known to be practised or suspected in at least 98 countries, notwithstanding declarations condemning or forbidding its use. The definition of torture in that report is: Torture can take many forms. Among the most widely used are sensory and sleep deprivation; isolation; the use of psychotropic drugs; making people watch their children or other loved ones being raped, killed or brutalised; beatings; electric shocks; rape and sexual molestation; burning; starvation; mutilation; sham executions; debilitating psychological abuse; near-fatal immersion or suffocation; forcing victims to maintain crippling positions for long periods; and many other forms of violent abuse used variably and unpredictably. The aim of torture is to foster dependency, debility and dread, which will together destabilise and dehumanise the victims. The report goes on to say: Its primary purpose is not to obtain information but to instil terror in individuals and societies to eliminate any spark of political dissent. Last week in the Parliament we had a speaker who came to Australia with the support of Amnesty International Australia and the Australian parliamentary group and she-Carmen Gloria Quintana-gave a graphic description in very personal terms of an incident of torture when she was the victim. She was a young student. She was doused with petrol and set alight by a military patrol in Chile in July 1986. I recount that very briefly and that definition of torture because it is very easy, I think, for Australians to talk about these subjects in an objective way or in a sense without any real understanding of the sort of physical and psychological terrors that are encompassed by torture. Foremost in the fight against torture is Amnesty International. Its main weapon is to bring to world attention all allegations of torture wherever they may occur. Its priority is to target those countries where torture is systemic. It does so by focusing the international media spotlight on particular cases, in the hope of embarrassing the Government concerned and thereby bringing pressure to bear. To this end Amnesty undertakes a thorough investigation of cases of alleged torture, paying close attention to the verification of testimonies and other corroborating evidence. This is, of course, no easy task, given that torture is often carried out in government institutions by government officials who have the power to conceal the evidence. Also, gaining access to the relevant country is not always possible and in other cases can be an extremely risky experience for the investigators. Wherever possible Amnesty endeavours to provide legal representation in any court proceedings, or at least ensure the attendance of one of its members as an observer. Despite all these hurdles in its way, Amnesty International has not been dissuaded. The activities of Amnesty are to be lauded and are properly and widely acclaimed. I was very pleased last week to have the opportunity to talk to representatives from Amnesty, in particular Mr Harris van Beek, who I am sure is listening to the debate tonight, and I pay tribute to him and to his colleagues for the work that they do in Amnesty. In this Australian Parliament there is a parliamentary Amnesty group and, as I understand it, that is unique. It was established in 1973 and is well supported across party political lines, as one would expect and as it should be, with party leaders playing important roles as patrons. I think we will have a number of speakers in this debate tonight who are very active members of Amnesty and I am sure that they will comment further upon the work of the Amnesty group. No other parliament in the world has an Amnesty group formally organised within the parliament. That, of course, gives the Australian parliamentary group a particular status which I understand and believe to have been most useful. The role of the United Nations in promoting the torture convention is also to be applauded, but it is a matter of grave concern that several of the signatories to the convention are countries in which there have been allegations of systematic torture. I would hope that their signature and support for the convention might mark a change of direction on their part. Before turning to the specifics of the Bill I also want to refer again to the report of the Cumberland College of Health Sciences. It points to the fact that since 1951 Australia has accepted over 430,000 refugees or special humanitarian program migrants from countries besieged by war or political upheaval. Quite a large proportion of these refugees have been settled in New South Wales. Of these it is estimated that possibly 2,000 have experienced torture of one kind or another. The report proposes that a treatment and rehabilitation service for refugee victims be established in New South Wales. I think the report has much to commend it and I note that the report was accepted by the New South Wales Government, which is providing some fairly substantial funding for it. I turn to the Bill. The Bill will enable the Government to ratify the United Nations convention-to which Australia is already a signatory-against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture and will thereby signal to the international community Australia's abhorrence of torture. This is to be achieved by denying a safe haven in Australia to any person who, while acting officially or at the instigation or behest of a person so acting, is involved in the torture of a person in another country. It is important to note that the Bill will apply only to acts of torture committed overseas. It does not apply to acts of torture committed by officials in Australia because the Government has rightly realised that existing State and Territory laws are adequate to fulfil the requirements of the torture convention. Given its limited scope, the Bill appears to be an appropriate use of the Commonwealth's external affairs power. Indeed, the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has advised that there is general agreement, to quote his words, within the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with the decision to ratify the convention. Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, or by way of punishment or for the purpose of intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination. The Bill provides that an offence is committed if an act of torture as defined, done outside Australia by a public official, would also constitute an offence if done in a part of Australia and the punishment is that prescribed for the relevant Australian offence. This formula avoids references to specific offences-for example, assault, rape or murder-and it could be argued that this lack of particularity could lead to confusion. However, I would be very surprised if any torturer who intended to travel to Australia would have any doubt that he or she would be at risk under the provisions of this Bill. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.30) —Tonight I draw to the attention of the House the forthcoming events of next Monday, when Australia will once again commemorate Anzac Day. I refer particularly to a situation that has emerged in Tasmania, where it appears that the right of the war widows to lay a wreath on Anzac Day as part of the commemoration ceremony, which Her Majesty the Queen will attend, has been placed in jeopardy. I understand that negotiations and discussions are continuing on this issue. Let me make a very strong and clear cut declaration here and now: I believe that the war widows group, perhaps more than many others, have a very special right to participate in Anzac Day commemoration ceremonies around Australia. I believe that honourable members on both sides of the House would regret any action which might in any way limit the war widows' activity in commemorating Anzac Day or participating in the wreath laying ceremony in Hobart or in any other part of Australia. Not so much in my capacity as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs but more as a Federal member of parliament who is a returned serviceman with particular concern for war widows, I believe that they have carried a very special obligation on behalf of this nation, given their sacrifice, their loss and their situation. They deserve reasonable and proper recognition as people who have played a fulfilling and appropriate role in Anzac Day commemorations. I appeal to all the authorities who may be involved that if, as I speak, this matter is not yet resolved, they please resolve it before the weekend so that there will be no problem regarding the Anzac Day commemoration in Hobart. I am confident that a resolution to the dilemma can be found. I am fortified in the knowledge that his Excellency the Governor of Tasmania is a former commanding officer of the First Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, a person who has given distinguished service to Australia in the Australian defence forces and one who would be conscious of the issues in this matter. I am sure that the Tasmanian Government, for its part, and Tasmanian senators as well as the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and other honourable members would be equally conscious of all the ramifications. I put to the House that the war widows should have this special recognition, as always, in regard to Anzac Day commemorations. On a broader note, I believe that in this bicentennial year we should acknowledge that we are in a position to celebrate our Bicentenary, to demonstrate our freedom and our democracy in such a wonderful way, and the very real contributions of many thousands of veterans who served their country in times of war-in the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, and in Malaya, Vietnam, and other conflicts and actions overseas in which Australians have been involved, including peace-keeping forces and the like in the Middle East and elsewhere. Only a few months ago an Australian Army officer was killed in Lebanon. These issues tend to be pushed aside in the media as other events take over, but since last Anzac Day yet another Australian soldier has been killed in the service of his country as part of a committed force overseas according to the Australian Government's policies. I believe that as we commemorate Anzac Day 1988, in our bicentennial year, we should spare a thought in particular for the fact that so much of that which is great about our nation and so much of the cohesion and spirit of this nation was established by those who landed at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 and by those who maintained the spirit of Anzac in the many other conflicts in which Australia has been involved. Therefore I salute the veterans, the war widows, the ex-service personnel and the serving personnel for the role they have played for this country. I hope that Anzac Day 1988 will run smoothly in all the thousands of country towns and provincial and capital cities around Australia. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.35) —On Anzac Day I will have the privilege of representing the Commonwealth Government at a wreath laying ceremony in Darwin. It is a privilege, because it will enable me to pay respect to the many thousands of young men and women who have in various theatres, in differing eras and in a relatively short space of time, fought and died for this country. Countless stories of valour and courage, never recognised, have been buried in our history, and tonight I would like to mention briefly the courage, dedication and fortitude of a particular group of men and women who fought for Australia during the Second World War. They are the men who belonged to the now famous 2/2 Independent Company, later renamed the 2/2 Commando Squadron. The deeds of this unit are legend. They are renowned for the remarkable job they accomplished in occupying the island of Timor between December 1941 and December 1942 and later in New Guinea and New Britain. On Timor the men of the 2/2 Commando Squadron were invaluably assisted in their struggle by the Timorese people, thousands of whom died in an epic struggle against the occupying, invading force of the Imperial Japanese Army. The cooperation, assistance and sacrifice of the Timorese were integral to the success of the 2/2 Commando Squadron on Timor. Sadly, it is, in my view, a matter of national shame that perhaps 100,000 Timorese have died and many more thousands have been forced from their homeland by a subsequent invading force. Many of these people now live in my electorate. This evening I would like to mention a particular member of the 2/2 Squadron who died prematurely on 21 October last and whose death has been attributed to the effects of his war service. His passing has been a sad loss to all who knew him. This man was to my mother, Bonnie, my brother, Brian, my sister, Maureen, and our families a very special person: he was my father, Tom Snowdon. To me he epitomised the spirit of his unit and the tradition of Anzac. Like the vast majority of those who have worn and wear a uniform for this country, he was not a glory seeker or a misdirected adventurer. In epitomising the best Anzac tradition, he and the unit in which he fought demonstrated their willingness to pay the ultimate price. Unhappily many members of the 2/2 Squadron did not come back. Their comrades today, as members of the 2/2 Commando Association, ensure that they are remembered and maintain in Kings Park, Perth, a stretch of parkland where trees have been planted to commemorate those who fell. As well, the members of the Association meet regularly as a mechanism to maintain the bonds of friendship and camaraderie born of war and to ensure the security of their comrades, and their families. Tom Snowdon was a kind and loving man, a worker, who gave his all not only to his country but also to his family. He was a loving and devoted husband and father. In this regard he was not unique, but in many ways he reflected the Anzac tradition of those who served and returned home. He committed himself to raising a family imbued with the same values that are at the heart of the Anzac tradition, and he always maintained the bonds of camaraderie that tied the 2/2 Commando Squadron together during the deprivations of war time. I have had the good fortune to meet many of the diggers of the 2/2 Squadron. They not only embody the spirit that made the digger such an outstanding soldier but share the values of outstanding citizens who were prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice without seeking accolades or special recognition and who in peace time have demonstrated the same dedication to their families and their country. Anzac Day is a time to commemorate, to remember, to honour and to reflect. It allows us to demonstrate our veneration of and respect for those who have died for their country. Perhaps most importantly, it provides us with the stimulus to seek peaceful solutions to conflict, to ensure for the sake of those who have paid the ultimate price that we spread the message of peace and take all possible steps to prevent war and seek an end to violence. Tom Snowdon embodied all the values to which I have referred. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(10.40) —The Government of former Labor Premier Brian Burke has mismanaged taxpayers' funds and jeopardised millions of dollars in potential export earnings in a bungled attempt to establish a silicon smelter in Western Australia. The smelter project proposed by Barrack Mines, a member of the Barrack House group of companies, is a sorry saga of political juggling, poor planning, pig-headedness and pork-barrelling. For more than a year now what should have been seen as an important development project for the State and Australia has suffered indignities at the hands of Burke's circus. Three times the smelter site has been changed, the most recent attempt to win approval for a site at Picton in the south-west of the State failing amidst a huge show of opposition by nearby residents. As the most public of the Government's failures on the smelter issue, the long-running Picton dispute has also been the most damaging for the company and the project. Announced at the launch of the Australian Labor Party's campaign for a State by-election in October last year, it was obvious from the start that the Picton site was ill-conceived. The Government had been planning for some time to develop a new industrial estate at Picton, on the doorstep of the Bunbury port. The decision was backed up by a major regional plan which, incidentally, was also announced during the by-election campaign. With access to the Bunbury port and other infrastructure requirements, the concept of a general industry sector at Picton was sound. But Picton is also on the outskirts of the State's biggest regional centre and, incredibly, the Government chose the silicon smelter, a category 2 heavy industry, to launch both its campaign and its new industrial estate. It is well known that the Western Australian Government lost out on both counts. Its handling of the project in the past six months deserves condemnation. The Government pushed ahead with the Picton site in spite of calls to relocate the smelter to a more appropriate site less than 15 kilometres away at Kemerton, where Australia's next aluminium smelter is expected to be built. It refused to admit it had made a mistake in time to prevent irreparable damage to a valuable and worthwhile project. Residents of the suburb of Eaton, only 1 1/2 kilometres from the proposed smelter site, fearful of the health and social impact of the smelter, were rising up against the project. The Government treated their fears with contempt. It constructed an access road to the smelter site even before the State Environmental Protection Authority had assessed the project. In desperation and in an amazing display of opposition, the local primary school closed for a day, when parents kept their children home in protest against the project. In the end, the residents won. The Government finally agreed to shift the plant to Kemerton, but the cost has been great. While the battle raged at Picton, the company was working hard to secure advance contracts on overseas markets. It is likely that these contracts will now have to be renegotiated. The State's taxpayers will foot the bill for the Government orchestrated setback to the company's plans. The Cabinet of the new Premier, Peter Dowding, has agreed to pay the company an amount estimated to be as high as $9.6m in compensation. The final indictment of the Western Australian Government is its outright refusal to accept that its politically motivated bungling has done considerable harm to Western Australia's reputation as an expanding industrial centre. In fact, it has the audacity to praise itself for a landmark decision to shift the smelter to Kemerton. While the Western Australian Government wallows in self-congratulations, we see emerging in Western Australia, as in the rest of the nation, a growing awareness of Labor's inability to harness the potential of our industrial and manufacturing sectors. The Western Australian Government is on a road like the access road it built at Picton, to nowhere. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.45) —I want to raise the case of a constituent of mine who, for the purposes of privacy, I wish to call Mrs A. Mrs A, who is an employee of the Australian Postal Commission, unfortunately suffered an accident at work. She was off on compensation for an extended period and has undergone a number of operations as a result of that accident. If any honourable member opposite wishes to suggest that she is somehow a compensation malingerer, I want to dispose of that very rapidly. This is a very genuine case. Mrs A came to see me on the Monday before this sitting period. Her problem was this: because of her incapacity to work, the Australian Postal Commission had decided to terminate her services. It had done so some four months prior to her seeing me. Notwithstanding phone calls to Australia Post in her previous district of employment, Mrs A had not been paid one penny by Australia Post. She had been thrown out and had not received one penny for four months. We ought not to dwell overly on that situation. There can be aberrations, there can be muck-ups, there can be mistakes. So, confidently, I rang the State manager, who was not available. In fact, I must say I have never had the privilege of speaking to the State manager of Australia Post about any problem I might have had in the electorate of Chifley. I was referred to his executive officer. I was happy to explain the circumstances of the situation and confident that he would be able to rectify something that was clearly amiss. I had the effrontery to suggest that I would like a phone call that afternoon to be advised of progress. He said that he was not confident that he could get back to me on Monday afternoon but would ring me on Tuesday in Canberra. On Wednesday that officer rang my office and said that he wanted to speak to me. He asked whether it would be all right if he rang me in Canberra. On Friday morning, when I had not received one word from Australia Post about this problem, I rang the officer again. I was astounded to find that absolutely no progress had been made and that he was not confident when progress could be made. It would be fair to say that I got fairly irate, I think a trifle abusive, and just a little threatening and demanding. I suggested that if I did not receive a call by the time I left for my electorate I would undertake certain action. It is true that Australia Post rang me after I had left the House at 2.15 that Friday afternoon, but what my investigations determined about the sad case of Mrs A was that the head of the personnel section had not been informed of the problem until 1.30 on Friday afternoon. Certainly, when he was informed of the matter, Mrs A's problems soon became unravelled. I am pleased to say that, while Mrs A has yet to receive a compensation payment, we have at least been able to organise $6,000 in lieu of long service leave to which she should have been entitled four months ago. I suppose it is the plight of back bench members to expect some departments and authorities to treat them with utter contempt, as Australia Post has treated my legitimate concerns about my constituent in this case; but it is absolutely outrageous that it should treat former employees in this cavalier way. It is not good enough. And it is not good enough when it is alleged that there are similar cases and that some people have had to wait up to eight months. I ask the relevant Minister to instigate a complete and thorough investigation of compensation cases and payments in New South Wales, because that is where the problem is, although there may be problems elsewhere. These postal workers should not be treated so contemptuously. The Australian Postal Commission should treat them with compassion and concern and at least have the decency to give them what they are entitled to. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.50) —Tonight I bring to the attention of the Government and the decision makers a problem in my electorate which is reflected in other electorates around Australia. I see that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is in the chamber. I must mention him because he has been very vocal on this subject, as has the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). The problem concerns road funding. Mr Hawker —I have, too. Mr REITH —The honourable member for Wannon is here, too. I am prompted to speak because I have received a lot of correspondence, particularly from municipalities in my electorate, and I want to bring to the Government's attention the contents of a letter that I received in the past few days from the Shire of Flinders. It graphically outlines the magnitude of the problem facing a municipality in my electorate. The letter states: The decisions which the Federal Government are contemplating, if made, will inevitably mean a substantial fall in road funding for most Councils. Many would suffer such falls that their capacity to maintain their existing road network at all, let alone to develop it to a satisfactory standard, would be placed in jeopardy. The dramatic reduction in this Municipality's total road funding from Commonwealth and State Government sources over the past five years has been devastating in terms of the maintenance of road communications standards. Without taking into account a five year inflationary effect of some 37%, annual road grants to this Municipality have been reduced as follows:- 1983-84-$1,236,200 1984-85-$1,159,000 1985-86-$968,290 1986-87-$906,900 1987-88-$844,200 Those figures do not take inflation into account. They really are significant. There is a fall of 32 per cent in annual road grants, plus inflation of 37 per cent, which gives a total fall of 69 per cent. The letter continues: Withdrawal of road funding has also been a significant contributor to this municipality's 18% unemployment problem, with a loss of some 50 manual jobs in the road making and maintenance industry. In a municipality that is entirely dependent on the motor vehicle for all transportation, these continuing reductions of funding for road communication and services, if continued, will be devastating for the economic and social well being, not only for the future of this Municipality, but for Australia's future also. Please consider carefully the political and social implications of further road funding reductions. The Shire of Flinders is held in high regard in municipal circles in Victoria. The council is not prone to exaggerate, as the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) knows. This letter represents a sensible appreciation of the council's circumstances and when it speaks of the devastating impact of Government decisions in recent years with regard to road funding it is about time that the Government took some notice. That cry is echoed throughout my electorate. The Shire of Bass, which has an agricultural economic base, has the same problems. A drive through the Shire of Korumburra, which also has a primary industry base, will reveal the same problem. The same problems will be seen in the borough of Wonthaggi and on Phillip Island, where the tourist industry is an important component of the economic base. The cry is the same. Areas such as Hastings and Cranbourne to the south-east of Melbourne have similar problems and big population increases. A lot of young families have moved into the area and, quite frankly, the councils are starved of funds and need recognition and understanding from this Government. So far they have not received that. It is about time the Government realised that the populations of our major capital cities do not stop at the end of the tram tracks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.55) —By any standard, Charles Darwin would be one of the world's great scientists, a man of infinite intellect and a very keen observer of human life. He was also a man of perception and humour. It is rumoured that on one occasion when his grandchildren caught a fly they glued to it the wings of a butterfly and an extra pair of legs that they removed from an ant. I am sure that it was all done under anaesthetic. They presented it to their grandfather and said, `Look, grandfather, what's this?'. He looked and said, `I do believe that it is a humbug'. There is no doubt that Charles Darwin would have recognised Humbugus sanctimonious Vallentinus. Senator Vallentine takes the cake in this area. If one reads the Hansard record for the Senate, although I know that most people do not go to that trouble, one will see that the honourable senator gave notice that she would move a motion. She spoke about the Palm Sunday march, in particular in Sydney. It was led by a large contingent of Aboriginals from the Northern Territory. The good senator made a lot of this march as a march for peace. Of course, she equates peace with the uranium cycle. She implores the Government not to be contradictory and she says that it was contradictory for the Government, although it had done a great job in working to get a comprehensive test ban on chemical weapons, to have an alliance with a country that was blocking a comprehensive test ban. This is the height of hypocrisy because those Aboriginal activists are among the people most strongly calling for the opening of new uranium mines. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) would attest, they want to get on with the uranium industry because they recognise its value to themselves and Australia. Senator Vallentine is quite prepared to use these people and to exploit them and she will never take issue with them on this subject because she hopes, at the margins, to attract some of their votes. In her speech, the honourable senator went on to list further contradictions and suggested that the Government is not really committed to peace. I find this particularly galling from a woman who, at the height of the Vietnam war, joined the National Party for peace. Can honourable members imagine that? Never was there a group of people more committed to destruction. Never was there a group of people who believed more in the philosophy that a nation should be obliterated for its own good, razed for its own survival. That was the philosophy of the National Party, and Senator Vallentine, in her earnest pursuit of peace, joined that Party. When pressed about this, she says, `Well, I lived in the country and there was nothing else to do'. It is not a mark of high integrity to join such a war-like group simply because one has nothing else to do. One thing that the good senator did learn from the National Party is the humbug that these people are so famous for. It used to be said that it was the one political party in Australia, probably the world, that made a virtue of ignorance. Sadly, other people are now tending to do this but there is no doubt that Humbugus sanctimonious Vallentinus is an insect that the good Charles Darwin would recognise. Listening to the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) this evening, it appears that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie is getting very close to transgressing, and may have transgressed, the Standing Orders in the terminology that he used to refer to Senator Vallentine. I ask him to withdraw. Mr CAMPBELL —What would you like me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The reference made in mock Latin. The honourable member knows what I am talking about. Mr CAMPBELL —It is a little confusing. I do not understand what you want me to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr CAMPBELL —All right, but I would say-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr CAMPBELL —What are you asking me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will ask the honourable member to resume his seat if he will not withdraw. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.58) —In the time available, I will comment on the statement of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) about the condition of roads in the Shire of Flinders. I was down there recently and there are signs all over the shire saying that the roads are in such a bad state because of the lack of Federal Government funding. If the money that was spent on those signs was put into roads, they would be in better condition. The Shire of Flinders has been a very conservative local authority for many years. There are only a couple of good councillors on it. The shire has been a supporter of the honourable member for Flinders for a long time. However, some of the roads that these signs are on have not been made in the past 25 years; yet the shire blames the Federal Government. Those roads were in that condition from when the conservatives were in power. The Shire of Flinders should look at the roads and determine when they were built, because it was a long time ago. They were not fixed up in the 27 years of conservative government, but they are in better condition now than they were five years ago. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Navigation Act 1912 and various other Acts relating to transport, and for related purposes. Mr Staples to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to community services and health. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 April 1988. Horticultural Policy Council Act-Horticultural Policy Council Regulations-Orders-1988-Nos. 1, 2. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 6a (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 23 March 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 591) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Was the mosquito monitoring program established in response to the encephalitis outbreak in 1974. (2) Has the program successfully provided early warning of unusual build up of the vector and allowed control work to be undertaken, thus avoiding further major outbreaks. (3) What sum does the Commonwealth provide for the program each year. (4) Has the Government decided to halt funding the program following the 1987-88 trapping season; if so, could the lack of early information result in another outbreak of encephalitis on the Murray River. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes-the program was then called the Australian Encephalitis Control Program. It was later expanded to encompass other mosquito-borne diseases, and renamed the National Diseases Control Program (NDCO). (2) No. (3) Commonwealth allocation for Australian Encephalitis Control Program and National Diseases Control Program 1974-75 $150,811* 1975-76 $ 58,485* 1976-77 $100,000 1977-78 $136,000 1978-79 $150,000 1979-80 $180,000 1980-81 $185,000 1981-82 $185,000 1982-83 $194,000 1983-84 $489,000 1984-85 $550,000 1985-86 $739,000 1986-87 $649,200 1987-88 $479,000 * Expenditure. (4) Yes-1987-88 will be the last year of funding by the Commonwealth. To facilitate the transfer of responsibility, the Commonwealth has decided to assist with a final year of funding in 1987-88. After this time it will be the States' responsibility to decide the future of the Program. The Commonwealth has provided funding to the States since 1974-75 which has enabled them to establish the resources necessary to monitor and control the potential for mosquito vectors. Outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases correlate with excessive summer rainfall and flooding in the Murray Valley and the presence or absence of monitoring programs will not affect these climatic prerequisites. (Question No. 631) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the campaign by W. D. &H. O. Wills to promote a new cigarette called Freeport by associating it with rock concerts in Sydney. (2) Does he share the concern of health experts about the attempts by W. D. &H. O. Wills to encourage younger smokers. (3) Has his attention been drawn to similar campaigns by other companies; if so, which campaigns. (4) Is he able to say whether the Freeport concerts also involve the (a) use of young models to promote the product, (b) use of flashy youth-orientated motor vehicles, (c) encouragement of young persons to do impromptu cigarette commercials to win prizes, (d) free distribution of cigarettes and (e) use of other gimmicks to encourage young potential smokers to believe that smoking is both glamorous and healthy. (5) Is he concerned at the attempts by tobacco companies to target young persons for tobacco advertising and what action will he take on this public health issue. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) I am aware of the Benson &Hedges' sponsored musical `Starlight Express'. (4) The Managing Director of Amatil, Mr Alister Drysdale, has written to me about this matter stating that the promotion uses models, vehicles, prizes etc aimed at the 20-30 year old age group and only takes place in venues where under 18 year olds are not permitted. (5) I am most concerned at promotions by companies which target young people. However, since the Federal Government has banned the advertising of cigarettes on the electronic media, these activities come under State jurisdiction. The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy consisting of State and Federal Ministers for Health and legal matters have also publicly expressed their concern and a delegation of Ministers has met with industry to discuss these concerns. The Council also agreed at its 6 November 1987 meeting that jurisdictions should implement controls on promotional activities involving the distribution of cigarettes, games etc, to persons under 16. Finally, I have nominated a representative to the Tobacco Code Council of the Media Council of Australia which is reviewing the voluntary code on cigarette advertising. I will be paying close attention to the outcome of this review. (Question No. 811) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: What were the average prices received by farmers in each year since 1900 in (a) Nominal prices and (b) prices adjusted for inflation for the following commodities (i) wool (ii) wheat (iii) beef and (iv) sugar. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The table below provides price information where available, but as records from the early part of this century are limited the table is incomplete. What the table does not show is productivity growth. AVERAGE PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS Year Wool (a) (b) Nominal c/kg Real c/kg Wheat (c) Nominal $/t Real $/t Sugar (d) Nominal $/t Real $/t Beef (e) Nominal c/kg Real c/kg CPI 1980-81 =100 1900-01... 11 200 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.3 1901-02... 12 220 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.5 1902-03... 13 244 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.4 1903-04... 13 256 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.1 1904-05... 14 266 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.4 1905-06... 15 275 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.4 1906-07... 15 279 n.a. . . n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.4 1907-08... 13 228 15 269 n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.7 1908-09... 15 261 16 282 n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.7 1909-10... 15 264 15 254 n.a. . . n.a. . . 5.8 1910-11... 14 237 13 214 n.a. . . n.a. . . 6.0 1911-12... 15 223 14 208 n.a. . . n.a. . . 6.6 1912-13... 15 229 13 203 n.a. . . n.a. . . 6.6 1913-14... 15 225 13 196 n.a. . . n.a. . . 6.8 1914-15... 18 228 23 291 n.a. . . n.a. . . 7.8 1915-16... 27 343 14 180 35 451 n.a. . . 7.9 1916-17... 37 443 17 200 35 422 n.a. . . 8.4 1917-18... 38 422 19 207 41 462 n.a. . . 8.9 1918-19... 54 528 20 195 41 407 n.a. . . 10.2 1919-20... 61 529 32 278 41 359 n.a. . . 11.5 1920-21... 24 237 31 313 60 596 n.a. . . 10.0 1921-22... 31 316 20 206 60 617 n.a. . . 9.7 1922-23... 35 354 19 193 60 603 n.a. . . 9.9 1923-24... 43 442 18 180 51 524 n.a. . . 9.8 1924-25... 32 325 24 243 38 391 n.a. . . 9.8 1925-26... 30 302 23 228 48 482 n.a. . . 10.0 1926-27... 31 313 19 196 43 438 n.a. . . 9.9 1927-28... 36 359 20 199 41 413 n.a. . . 10.0 1928-29... 30 297 18 173 40 394 n.a. . . 10.2 1929-30... 19 195 16 163 39 400 n.a. . . 9.7 1930-31... 16 183 9 100 36 413 n.a. . . 8.7 1931-32... 16 188 13 158 37 451 n.a. . . 8.2 1932-33... 16 202 11 145 32 405 n.a. . . 7.9 1933-34... 29 359 12 142 31 380 n.a. . . 8.1 1934-35... 18 217 14 165 32 389 n.a. . . 8.2 1935-36... 26 306 15 180 30 360 n.a. . . 8.4 1936-37... 30 350 20 226 30 350 n.a. . . 8.7 1937-38... 23 259 15 164 30 337 n.a. . . 8.9 1938-39... 19 209 10 114 31 342 n.a. . . 9.1 1939-40... 25 264 14 143 34 356 n.a. . . 9.5 1940-41... 25 250 15 154 34 339 n.a. . . 10.0 1941-42... 25 232 14 133 35 327 n.a. . . 10.8 1942-43... 28 248 16 147 37 332 n.a. . . 11.2 1943-44... 29 259 19 170 41 369 n.a. . . 11.1 1944-45... 29 259 24 217 39 350 n.a. . . 11.1 1945-46... 29 254 26 228 40 355 6 53 11.3 1946-47... 45 381 33 277 43 364 11 93 11.8 1947-48... 73 576 48 381 49 388 12 95 12.6 1948-49... 88 632 38 274 49 349 14 99 14.0 1949-50... 116 778 50 334 52 347 17 116 15.0 1950-51... 265 1,547 50 290 55 323 22 127 17.1 1951-52... 133 635 55 264 68 322 31 149 21.0 1952-53... 150 655 58 253 84 367 28 120 22.9 1953-54... 150 640 51 218 86 366 30 127 23.4 1954-55... 130 553 47 200 84 356 34 145 23.6 1955-56... 113 461 47 192 84 344 31 127 24.5 1956-57... 146 564 51 197 93 359 30 116 25.9 1957-58... 115 438 50 191 98 376 37 141 26.2 1958-59... 89 335 49 184 93 350 38 143 26.6 1959-60... 106 389 51 187 94 343 50 183 27.3 1960-61... 96 337 53 187 100 351 50 178 28.4 1961-62... 100 349 55 193 99 347 38 132 28.5 1962-63... 108 379 54 189 104 366 40 140 28.5 1963-64... 128 444 52 180 121 418 40 137 28.8 1964-65... 106 353 52 174 97 323 46 153 29.9 1965-66... 111 356 54 174 86 277 57 183 31.0 1966-67... 105 328 54 170 76 239 57 179 31.8 1967-68... 92 280 58 176 83 253 58 176 32.9 1968-69... 99 292 49 145 88 261 59 175 33.7 1969-70... 83 238 50 144 100 288 58 166 34.8 1970-71... 65 177 51 140 103 282 60 165 36.5 1971-72... 75 193 54 139 112 287 61 157 39.0 1972-73... 184 445 54 131 119 288 69 167 41.3 1973-74... 181 388 109 233 130 278 79 169 46.7 1974-75... 127 233 111 204 252 462 34 62 54.5 1975-76... 143 233 104 169 231 376 35 57 61.5 1976-77... 183 261 89 127 214 305 45 64 70.1 1977-78... 187 244 100 130 196 256 49 64 76.7 1978-79... 205 247 127 153 213 257 108 130 83.0 1979-80... 244 267 153 167 282 308 145 159 91.4 1980-81... 256 256 155 155 372 372 134 134 100.0 1981-82... 265 240 159 144 279 253 116 105 110.4 1982-83... 270 219 178 145 224 182 130 106 123.1 1983-84... 294 223 164 125 263 200 159 121 131.6 1984-85... 319 232 172 125 235 171 171 125 137.2 1985-86... 342 230 168 113 223 150 168 113 148.7 1986-87... 396 243 159 98 282 174 186 114 162.6 1987-88(f)... 605 (g)...348 168 97 295 170 200 115 174.0 1988-89(f)... 605 (g)...328 174 94 400 217 240 130 184.4 (a) Wool prices for the period 1900-01 to 1924-25 refer to calendar years, e.g. 1900-01 refers to 1901. (b) Average greasy auction price. (c) Average unit gross value. (d) Average returns to millers. (e) Average saleyard price (dressed weight). (f) Forecast by ABARE. (g) Based on forecast movement in the clean market indicator. (na) Not available. Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. (Question No. 816) Mr Hawker asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What was the cost of the rural women's survey. (2) Have any similar surveys been carried out in the past; if so, at what cost. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $42,174.23. (2) No.