Thursday, 25 August 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 34 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 13 citizens), Mr Charles (from 40 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 289 citizens), Mr Barry Jones (from 20 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 38 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 20 citizens) and Mr Peacock (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that: Reconciliation is the greatest need of 1988 in the relationship between Aboriginal and other Australians. and that We Australians cannot be reconciled until we know each other, appreciate each other, our cultures and our perspectives on life. and that Our Parliament ought to make formal acknowledgement of the nation's Aboriginal pre-history, the enduring place of our Aboriginal heritage, and the special place of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the Commonwealth of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will take necessary measures: to acknowledge that Australia was occupied by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffered dispossession and dispersal upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to May 27, 1967. And to Affirm: The importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. The entitlement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self determination subject to the Constitution and the law of the Commonwealth of Australia. And we your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 103 citizens), Mr Holding (from 11 citizens), Mr Jenkins (from 29 citizens), Mr Millar (from 143 citizens), Mr Milton (from 87 citizens), Mr Peacock (from 122 citizens) and Mr Scholes (from 24 citizens). To: The Honourable Speaker. House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. `Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.' Proverbs 14:34 Considering: 1. the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. 2. the breakdown of the family unit. 3. the increase of corruption in our society. 4. the increasing weight of our national debt. 5. the emerging divisions in our community. we petition you to: 1. encourage every Australian to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; 2. encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; 3. encourage the Members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; 4. encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; 5. support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed. by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown (from eight citizens), Mr Duffy (from 10 citizens), Mr Webster (from 20 citizens), Mr Wilson (from 17 citizens) and Mr Wright (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the House of Representatives to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew (from 49 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 36 citizens) and Mr Smith (from 230 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr (from 137 citizens), Mr Jull (from 102 citizens) and Mr Millar (from 66 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set NO penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set NO penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a crimi- nal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and END the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography peddlers are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell (from six citizens), Mr Pratt (from 45 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That there is a general dissatisfaction in the community at the levels of road funding made available by the Federal Government. While noting the commitment of the Government to maintain a high standard of roads in Australia, we are specifically concerned at the real cutbacks for road funding in the Local Government area. We especially note the roadworks are a labour intensive industry and cutbacks will create unemployment and hardship in rural areas. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, give due consideration to increasing the amount of funds available to Local Government authorities for roadworks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland (from 297 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 57 citizens) and Mr Jenkins (from 456 citizens). To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled- The humble Petition of the undersigned Electors showeth: That any proposed redistribution of funds for Nursing and Personal Care staff costs in Nursing Homes will detrimentally affect the quality of care given in Nursing Homes in South Australia and the quality of life of the residents in those Nursing Homes. The Outcome Standards for Nursing Homes, so recently established, will not be achieved and elderly people will not receive the standard of care or quality of life that they need. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will raise the funding level for Nursing and Personal Care staff hours for all States to enable at least the number of hours of care for Nursing Home residents in South Australia to be achieved by all States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett (from 11 citizens) and Mr Duncan (from 187 citizens). To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card represents a grave threat to the personal privacy and civil liberties of every Australian. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 13 citizens) and Mr Hawker (from 117 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: There is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House compel TV stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes, by fifty per cent. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 128 citizens) and Mr Hicks (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there is too much crime and violence on television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to require television stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Burr (from 529 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 16 citizens), Mr Porter (from 11 citizens), Mr Reith (from 32 citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 131 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the inadequacy of the current arrangement whereby no full-time office of the Department of Social Security exists in the Upper Hunter Region of New South Wales to serve the people of the area (the Upper Hunter Region being defined as the Local Government Areas of Murrurundi, Scone, Muswellbrook, Merriwa and Singleton). Instead the area is served by a part-time visiting service which only provides a service to the towns of Singleton and Muswellbrook on one day per week in each town. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider the establishment of a full-time office in the town of Muswellbrook to serve the Upper Hunter Region. by Mr Fitzgibbon (from 40 citizens) and Mr Hunt (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton (from 12 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 183 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; and a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effect on children and young people. by Mr Ruddock (from 210 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens in Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore request that your honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group of Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr Scott (from 1,036 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 227 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Spender (from two citizens) and Mr Webster (from five citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Woods (from 203 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House that the Government has imposed a 10% Sales Tax on locally made Soya Bean milk and a 20% Sales Tax on imported milk. Soya Bean milk is an essential health food item to thousands of Australian children who suffer from an allergy to dairy products. Your petitioners therefore request the House immediately repeal this tax. by Mr Aldred (from 102 citizens). To the honourable the speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics represent: 1. an unnecessary demand on the time of certain Australians; 2. an intrusion in to the private affairs of individuals and families; and 3. excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore request that the House take action to pass legislation making government statistical surveys voluntary and to ensure the protection of the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Andrew (from 41 citizens). To the honourable the speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: It is the petition of certain citizens of Australia that some recent surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics relating to individuals and households and families: (1) are an excessive and unnecessary intrusion into the private affairs of individuals and families; and (2) make an unnecessary and unfair demand on the time of affected Australians; and (3) provide excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House- (1) pass legislation making such personal household and family surveys voluntary; and (2) act to protect the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Rocher (from 766 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we oppose any reduction of funding levels to child care services (for example: Long Day Care, Occasional Care, Family Day Care); because: Of our concern that such reduction would impair the quality of care provided by these services; Parents would need to pay higher fees, which could impose hardships on their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House their concern at the imminent prospect of imported cement and clinker being dumped on the Australian market, as it would lead to widespread disruption and extensive loss of Australian jobs. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to take immediate action to prevent dumped cement and clinker being imported into Australia. by Mr Burr (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- That we welcome the Government's move in increasing the tax free threshold for pensions from $5914 to $6142 and also increasing the pension free area for married pensioners from $50 to $70 and for single pensioners from $30 to $40 per week; but we point out that- (1) The $250 pensioner rebate which cuts out completely if a pensioner earns more than $8142 in a year, does not provide complete tax relief to those pensioners who earn above the $6142 tax free threshold, and (2) Those pensioners in receipt of income earnings which take them above the tax threshold are therefore not enjoying the benefits of their full income. Your petitioners therefore request the House to adjust the pensioner tax free threshold by increasing the $250 ``pensioner-rebate'' as a matter of urgency. by Mrs Darling (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- The hardship that provisional tax is imposing on pensioners who are assessed by the Australian Taxation Office and must pay provisional tax. Your petitioners therefore request that the House exempt all pensioners from paying provisional tax. by Mrs Darling (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to any suggestion that the Coromandel Valley Post Office Agency be relocated from its present position to the Coromandel Valley Shopping Centre. Any change in the location of the agency will cause a great deal of inconvenience to local residents and will result in a significant decrease in the use of the service. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will call on the Australian Postal Commission to retain the Coromandel Valley Post Office Agency in its current location. by Mr Downer (from 210 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: The video industry has no right to promote anti-social behaviour Community and professional concern has been publicly expressed over video violence and anti-social content. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House ban the hire and sale of all R-rated X-rated and proposed Non-violent Erotica rated videos from all outlets patronised by the general public by Mr Tim Fischer (from 162 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, that they are opposed to any removal of advertising and sponsorship of Tobacco. The alarm and concern of many sporting and cultural and community groups from demands that sponsorship by Tobacco Companies be denied them, could easily jeopardize the traditional independence of the way such groups conduct their activities. Claims by Anti Smoking Lobby Groups, that action of this type will lead to a reduction of under age smoking is misleading. Latest surveys from overseas show that the opposite is the case. Your petitioners therefore request the Parliament that tobacco, being a legal product be permitted normal market forces by advertising and sponsorship, free from Government control. We call upon the Parliament to desist from establishing any further Health Foundations which discriminate against smokers and which are funded by smokers via increased and extra Tobacco Excise. by Mr Free (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned voters shows: that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a high rate of serious disease such as syphilis, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B and bowel diseases; that the incurable, fatal disease AIDS was first brought to Australia by homosexuals and is largely transmitted by homosexuals or bisexuals who practice sodomy; that homosexual cohabitation is in no way equivalent to a legal marriage or family relationship. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives should immediately request the Minister for immigration to forbid entry to Australia by homosexuals under the ``family reunion'' program. by Mr Steele Hall (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of a graduate tax will impose a crippling tax burden on graduates, making higher achievement less desirable and acting as a disincentive for students enrolling in tertiary courses, particularly the longer and more costly courses. 2. The introduction of any type of tertiary tuition fee will prove to be a backward step for equity and will restrict access to higher education for many students. 3. Students will be deterred from tertiary study because of the recent escalations in educational costs and charges, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. Your petitioners therefore pray that neither the graduate tax nor any type of tertiary tuition fee for higher education students be adopted. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Steele Hall (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the House to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Halverson (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the hardship that the imposition of the 20% tax on Bonsoy, a Soyfood Products, has brought to bear upon the people who suffer from Allergies and who need the Soyfood as a substitute food. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider and do take some form of action in order to relieve the hardships caused by the above. by Mr Halverson (from 700 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we regard the term ``Greek'' as being a derogatory remark. That we are offended by reference to the country called ``Greece''. That that country is officially known as the Republic of the Hellenes or as Hellas, and its citizens and descendants as Hellenes. And that we wish that the Parliament take note of the wishes of the Hellenic people to be known as Hellenes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand (from 5 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and depicted in videos and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Urge TV stations to reduce the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. 2. Introduce tighter controls on the sale and classification of videos so as to limit the access of children to inappropriate material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 420 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors in the Division of Griffith draw to the attention of the House the increase in noise pollution and the subsequent effect on the quality of life of residents in certain southern suburbs of Brisbane, caused by the opening of the new Brisbane domestic airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to minimise noise levels and alter aircraft flight paths to enable a return to the lifestyle previously enjoyed by the affected residents. by Mr Humphreys (from 658 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House of the proposed closure of the Fruitgrove Post Office Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request that Australia Post be required to retain the existing Fruitgrove Post Office where it is ideally situated at the Fruitgrove railway station to serve the local community and provide excellent access and posting for motorists and train travellers. We further draw your attention to the fact that many residents use these facilities in preference to those in large shopping centres because they do not have private transport facilities or are unable to use public transport facilities to gain access to them. We also point out that many residents are moving into this fast growing area where residential development is expanding and business development is about to be undertaken. This post office is a necessity for the area. We earnestly request you help to retain an historical important community service by Mr Jull (from 257 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia humbly suggests that the area known as Western Tasmania Stage 2, containing Australia's longest and deepest caves, sites of international archaeological significance, Australia's most glaciated landscape, and the tallest flowering plants on earth, is in urgent need of protection. Your petitioners therefore request that Western Tasmania Stage 2 be immediately nominated for World Heritage listing. by Mr Kerin (from 134 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the traditional rights and century old heritage of Tasmania's mountain cattlemen should be preserved and their custodianship of their land and their rights to maintain their grazing practices in the Mersey High Country be guaranteed. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House, in Parliament assembled, should ensure: (1) That future grazing of cattle in the Mersey High Country at places such as Lees Paddocks be guaranteed. (2) That a process of direct and personal consultation with private land owners and municipal councils should be compulsory before their lands can be nominated for listing on either the National Estate or World Heritage Registers. (3) That the traditional practices of the mountain cattlemen be acknowledged as responsible for maintaining places such as Lees Paddocks in the Mersey High Country as cultural heritage sites within the meaning of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerin (from 3,225 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to the proposed restructuring of the A.B.C. We believe that the A.B.C. is one of the most important public services in Australia and a mainstay of democracy. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the A.B.C. is permitted to continue to offer ``comprehensive'' broadcasting services under its present charter. by Mr Kerr (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the ACT, no non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the Government to allow Year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the catholic secondary school at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 344 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the House of Representatives to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 138 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 122 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Federal Government proposes to place the anti-epileptic medication sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing as of 1st August 1988. Your petitioners believe that this may well cause great problems for the people who take Epilim, for whom no effective alternative medication is available. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will rescind the decision to place sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing. by Mr Lloyd (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Indi. Draws to the attention of the House the current inadequate level of funding for road construction and maintenance and expresses concern that the House may have placed before it, as part of the government economic strategy, options to further reduce such expenditure, and in so doing placing an increased financial burden upon local government ratepayers. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon the House to ensure an increase over current road funding levels through a clear dedication of a proportion of fuel excise collected, indexed for inflation, towards roadworks and that such funding arrangements provide for a clear and reliable method of distribution to local government. by Mr Lloyd (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Murray respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 427 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infra-structure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, Oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments; and Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 182 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Corangamite, draws to the attention of the House that: The transfer of information on Australian taxpayers as a consequence of Australia becoming a signatory to an OECD international tax treaty, would place Australian taxpayers at risk by virtue of the fact that the Australian Government would have no control over access to, or the continued confidentiality of, information of the most private and confidential nature. Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to urge the Government to: Refrain from signing the Draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters, thus preventing the Government from an obligation to exchange the tax files of any Australian taxpayer at the request of any co-signatory country. by Mr McArthur (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 147 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors of the Division of Corangamite, respectfully showeth: That we are gravely concerned about the public release of confidential medical information, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients, and call upon the House to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that the House ensures that there will be no further public release of such private confidential medical information. by Mr McArthur (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Corangamite, draws to the attention of the House that: The inclusion of the Red Rock Craters and Lakes area of the Colac Shire, on the Australian Heritage Commission's Interim Listing, has caused a great deal of concern and apprehension among landholders whose properties are included in the designated 550 hectares nominated as having `unique volcanic structure'. The affected landholders dispute claims that the geological structure of the area is `unique', and fear that by being included on the Australian Heritage Commission's National Register, this Government or future governments will be able to assume control over their land, and that they will be unable to continue to farm independently. Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to: Reject totally the inclusion of the Red Rock Craters and Lakes area on the Australian Heritage Commission's National Register, thus ensuring present and future landholders total control over their privately-owned property. by Mr McArthur (from 486 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we, the undersigned electors of Ballarat respectfully showeth that: 1. Roads form a valuable part of the nation's infrastructure; 2. The road construction industry is an important employer; 3. Roads support the social fabric of country communities; 4. Roads are a vital part of a district's commerce; 5. Country roads are deteriorating; 6. Deteriorating roads threaten the lives of Australians; 7. Road surface maintenance affects the efficiency of road transport; 8. Insufficient funds are being spent on roads. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Parliament recognise the importance of roads to the economy; 2. The importance of roads to country people; 3. The Parliament increase funding to maintain the road system; and 4. Grant a greater proportion of fuel taxes to road funding; 5. The Parliament continue to grant specific federal funds for roads. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren (from 990 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the proposed re-introduction of X-rated videos under the guise of N.V.E. (Non-violent erotica) films. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will not allow the re-introduction of X-rated videos under the guise of N.V.E. by Mr Mildren (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Wide Bay respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled together with their housebound carers and families and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom which will adversely affect the ability of the elderly, sick and disabled to effectively function in modern society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their absolute opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatization, deregulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging, and we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service and should therefore remain intact and continue to provide the same comprehensive range of services; That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia; That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will oppose the dismantling of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients. Your petitioners therefore respectfully urge the House to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the referendum proposal to make the term of Senators the same as members of the House of Representatives will diminish the role of the Senate as guardian of the rights of the States and of the interests of the Australian people by subjecting it to the will of the Government of the day; That the continued independence of the Senate is a vital element in Australia's federal system in acting as a brake on the centralisation of political power; Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to press the Government not to proceed with the referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully showeth that: The petition of certain qualified electors, residing in the Commonwealth of Australia, petition you to raise the current taxation threshold to $10,000.00 to assist senior citizens to maintain an equitable living standard. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Increase the current taxation threshold in regard to Age Pensions to $10,000.00. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of these pathology laboratory staff, residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the performance of pathology tests and the reporting of the results of pathology tests clearly constitute a Scientific activity, and not a medical service; that all Sections of the Health Insurance Act which require or presuppose the ``supervision'' of Medical Scientists in the provision of pathology services by medical practitioners should be repealed; that Medicare provider numbers should be vested in public institutions or issued to Medical Scientists with appropriate qualifications and experience for the purposes of providing pathology services; that the outcome of such reform would be a considerable reduction in the outlay of public money for the provision of such services; that mechanisms should be put in place to provide the means for full consultation with the Scientific profession in all matters pertinent to the provision of pathology services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support a reform of the pathology legislation in the interest of fair, equitable and rational public administration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe (from 179 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, are appalled that the Rumanian Government plans the commencement of the destruction in September of 7000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes and homesteads, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With this barbaric action millions of people will be disadvantaged, even sent to their death with these Totalitarian actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters earnest consideration and request the Rumanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Rumanian Community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peacock (from 5 citizens). To the Honourable the Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that the depletion of the earth's ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are far more serious and urgent problems than has been generally realised. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to give very high priority to taking much stronger action in combating these grave threats to mankind. by Mr Pratt (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 885 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that:- (1) The Australian flag symbolises the contact between Australia's past, its present and the future. (2) The presence of the Union Jack on the Flag represents not a subservience to Britain but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression. (3) We nonetheless recognise the rights of Australians should they wish, as a people, to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Newnham Court Newsagency Post Office be retained to service the needs of a growing community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith (from 1,160 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Taylor (from 413 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia have in past years adopted policies which have been against the opinions of the majority of voters, for example, the Australia Card Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament pass a bill to provide for a Constitutional change so that when five per cent of the voters demands a referendum to initiate or veto legislation, the referendum shall be held within a specified time, for example, nine months, and its decision shall be binding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 898 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia in past years have adopted policies which have been against the majority opinions of the voters, and have persisted in these especially if the Opposition Parliamentarians share these undemocratic views. The present Government persisted with the Australia Card Bill, against the majority opinion of the Parliament's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' (Report, 4.55, page 148), and while public opinion was rising against the Bill continued to support it, and is now working on a substitute surveillance system, to be put into place through bills dealing with Taxation Office file numbers; national registers of births, deaths and marriages; and the Cash Transactions Reports Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament pass a bill to provide for a Constitutional change so that if five per cent of the electorate signs a petition against a Bill or Act of Parliament, the matter must be put to the electors in a referendum within nine months, and the referendum decision shall be binding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia draws to the attention of the House their conviction that the citizens in a democratic society should be able to have a direct say in the laws they are to live under. The Citizen Initiated Referendum, as introduced in Switzerland over 100 years ago and some other countries since, enables a small percentage of voters, by signing a petition, to compel the government to hold a referendum on a law just made by parliament or already in force. If the vote goes against the law, it is automatically repealed. This system has proved outstanding in all the states and countries where it has been adopted. Your petitioners therefore ask: 1. That as our elected representatives you introduce and pass the legislation necessary for putting to the people a proposed alteration to the Constitution to secure the adoption of the system of the Citizen initiated Referendum in the Commonwealth of Australia, and 2. That the house note that your petitioners will be petitioning the Legislatures of the several states in like manner. And your humble petitioners will most earnestly pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that: 1. Parliament should allow insurance for the gap between the Medicare rebate and the scheduled fee. 2. That the unfair discrimination against private patients in hospital should be withdrawn. Your petitioners therefore request the House take action to ensure that all patients receive an equal Medicare rebate for services regardless of where they are provided, on the understanding that all patients pay the same compulsory Medicare insurance levy. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal to deny Western Districts Health Fund Medicare agency rights in the Blue Mountains and to deny Springwood the availability of a Medicare agency altogether. The agency has provided an important service to a community characterised by its large number of young families and aged persons and by its public transport difficulties. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the termination of the Medicare agency rights for Western Districts Health Fund and the withdrawal of Medicare services in Springwood in particular. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 718 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the Illawarra region draws to the attention of the House any proposed fundamental changes to Federal contributions to children's services. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House: Continue a strong Federal commitment to a high quality of care in all children's services. Maintain regulations governing the quality of care delivered through children's services. Continue both Operational Assistance Grants and Fee Relief Subsidies ensuring that all child care services and individual families receive direct assistance. by Mr West (from 209 citizens). Petitions received. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.15) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology I present the Committee's report entitled Investment in Australian Manufacturing, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr BEDDALL —The Committee's first inquiry was an inquiry into the factors determining the level of investment in Australian manufacturing and policies which might improve investment performance. The decline in the 1950s and 1960s of the relative contribution of the manufacturing sector to Australia's gross domestic product is well known. At the same time, manufactured goods, along with services, have become high growth areas in world trade. Australia has not maintained its share of the world trade in these products. Partly as a result of that, our external debt has grown to a size which is a threat to our future standard of living. The overall level of investment in Australian manufacturing, at least until recently, has been insufficient to restructure and revitalise the industry. The Committee was not convinced that the increase in manufacturing investment since 1985-86 provides grounds for complacency. A considerable period of recovery is needed to overcome the effect of the decline of the manufacturing sector in previous years to achieve the structural changes necessary in a less protected, more competitive environment. The subject matter of the Committee's inquiry was very broad in scope and very complex in detail. Complexities arise in the very definition of investment and its measurement. Many witnesses and submissions emphasised the importance of examining investment in research and development and in the training of our work force, as well as the more conventional forms of investment in plant and equipment. The current shortage in skilled labour in many industries is persuasive evidence of deficiencies in training investment. The Committee supports the establishment by the Government of a task force to investigate education and skills training reform. The task force needs to determine the reasons for the low level of contribution to training by industry in Australia by comparison, particularly, with the more dynamic Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and to find means of substantially increasing such investment. The process of negotiation between industry and unions obviously is an approach to be preferred, but results need to be achieved quickly. The Committee recommends that the task force examine alternative forms of establishing industry training funds so that, if necessary, the Government may be in a position to take action without further delay. The Committee also recommends that the task force examine the apprenticeship system. Evidence presented to the Committee indicates that the apprenticeship system is often inflexible, too narrow in its focus on particular trades and does not provide adequately for adult training or retraining. As with training investment, the contribution of the business sector in Australia to research and development has been low by comparison with other OECD countries. Our contribution has grown in recent years, obviously encouraged by the introduction of the 150 per cent tax incentive scheme. There is evidence that many industry leaders do not appreciate the importance and value of research and development expenditure, quite apart from the tax benefit. Hopefully, having been encouraged to invest in research and development, those problems of attitude may be overcome. The Government announced in the May economic statement that the 150 per cent tax deduction would remain until 1 July 1991, at which time it would become a 100 per cent deduction scheme. The Committee recommends that the scheme not be further altered after July 1991 for another five years. This would ensure that business could undertake research and development investment with greater confidence, as well as allowing more time to promote the desirable change in management attitudes towards such investment. Returning to investment in the more conventional sense of expenditure on plant and equipment, the Committee found that a wide range of factors can influence investment decisions. The level of expected demand obviously is one of the main factors and the response time of new investment to increases in expected demand clearly is affected by the amount of existing surplus production capacity. As we have seen in recent years, shifts in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar can make our products more or less competitive on world markets and can make imports more or less a threat to local industries. Much of the growth in manufacturing investment since 1985-86 was stimulated by the substantial depreciation of the Australian dollar that occurred in that year. We have seen how volatile exchange rates can be and the uncertainties that confront those people making investment decisions. Obviously, another major factor influencing investment decisions is the expected rate of return. That in turn depends on expectations about all the factors which can influence costs-the availability and cost of labour and capital, which includes both wages and interest rates; the costs imposed by government regulation and taxation; the inflation rate; the amount of industrial disputation, and so on. All these factors have an impact on business confidence or uncertainty, that important background atmosphere in which decisions are made. Government policies clearly affect many of the above determinants of investment behaviour. At the broad macroeconomic level the Government must be seen to have a consistent, predictable policy direction. It is important that business has a stable framework in which to operate. I believe the importance of that has been recognised by the Government. There is wide agreement in the community and across political parties concerning the need for the inflation rate to be lowered to at least match that of our major competitors and trading partners. Similarly, there is agreement that we cannot afford a blow-out in real wages-although there will always be scope for disagreement concerning the size of acceptable increases in nominal wages and the means by which wages should be regulated. There is agreement also that the Government should remove as far as possible impediments to investment, either created by government policies or existing as distortions in the economic system. A major irritant, particularly to smaller businesses, is the complexity of government regulation. Partly this results from the existence of three tiers of government; but much could be done to simplify and coordinate the requirements imposed by government on the establishment and operation of businesses. The `one stop shop' approach has a great deal to recommend it. Concerted efforts need to be made by all levels of government to weed out unnecessary or outdated regulations which serve only to increase the costs and time delays imposed on business activity. Government taxes are another area identified by industry as an impediment to investment. It is important that the taxation burden in this country should not render our exporters internationally uncompetitive; nor should the taxation system create major biases between different kinds of investment, unless this is consciously done as a strictly temporary assistance scheme. Prior to the reforms announced in the May Statement, there did appear to be substantial differences between the effective tax burdens imposed on different kinds of investment and depending on whether the investments were financed by debt or equity. The reduction in corporate tax rates and the replacement of the accelerated depreciation scheme should decrease those distortions. For some who benefited particularly from the accelerated depreciation allowance the reduction in tax rate may not provide a complete compensation. It is to be hoped that the overall effect will be to encourage at least a more economically efficient pattern of investment. Changes in the inflation rate can significantly alter effective tax rates and create biases between those relying on debt financing or equity financing. Reform of the tax system to take account of the impact of inflation has been regarded as a very complex and difficult area. The Committee recommends, however, that such reform to remove or minimise the distorting effect of inflation be fully investigated. In addition to removing impediments to investment, it is often suggested that the Government provide investment incentives-either for industry in general or, more usually, for particular fledgling industries or industries targeted for their longer term potential. The Committee does not support the reintroduction of a general investment allowance, nor did we identify particular industries which might be targeted for investment allowances. The Committee did consider, however, that the venture capital market requires special consideration. The introduction of the capital gains tax was intended to remove an anomaly in the taxation system. It decreased, however, the attraction of investment in venture capital funds. In 1983 the Government considered that special measures were needed to aid in the establishment of a venture capital market and introduced the management and investment companies program. The creation of a capital gains tax, as part of a more general tax reform measure, may not have taken full account of the impact on the venture capital market. The Committee recommends that a strictly temporary exemption from capital gains tax be granted for venture capital investment to allow this market a better chance of becoming fully established. The Committee also recommends that the venture capital market be reviewed again before July 1991, at which date the Government has proposed to terminate the management and investment companies program. The Committee was concerned, as well, about the more general matter of the availability of finance for new or small businesses. Evidence was given of the difficulties experienced by such businesses. An economy which requires restructuring and development must have a financial system which services those needs. It would seem timely to examine whether the Australian Financial system and its institutions are adequate to the task. The Committee recommends such an examination, including the impact of financial deregulation and subsequent new entry into the banking and financial system. The threat of takeover activity was suggested as one cause of increases in divided payouts, the reduction in the availability of internal sources of investment finance and consequent pressures on the cost and availability of external finance. There is concern in the community about purely speculative takeover activity and speculative investment generally in the share and property markets, such activity diverts funds away from more productive forms of investment. There is community concern as well that such speculation using borrowed money-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in supporting the tabling of this report by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology I would like very quickly to allude to a few matters that have been partly covered by the Chairman, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), and also emphasise some of those points and raise some others. There was universal agreement that there should be increased industry training. I think all honourable members would agree that one of the major problems facing Australia today concerns the training of the work force and the increasing of skills. One of our difficulties is the method by which we can improve the situation, although we all support the broad principle. That in itself shows the level of bipartisanship that this Committee has engendered. I would like to talk a little more about financing and tax and so on, matters to which the Chairman alluded. The Committee did find that the tax system creates some considerable problems when it comes to financing new manufacturing and the replacement of plant. As the report says in its introduction, the most important thing to do to remove some of the distortions that the tax system causes is to bring down inflation. There is no doubt that that should be the overriding aim of any government. It is also interesting to note the distorting effects of the tax system on debt financing versus equity financing. Despite some of the changes made in the May mini-Budget, there is still a problem because taxpayers do to some extent subsidise debt financing. I was very interested in some of the findings-they are mentioned in the report-of the National Priorities Project 1988. They are mentioned also in a book called Spending and Taxing II: Taking Stock from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. It makes fascinating reading because it points out some of the problems of the different forms of financing and the ways they effect different forms of capital structures in ownership. I would like to quote from a paper submitted to the Committee from the Centre of Policy Studies which unfortunately arrived too late to be considered for the report. It highlights some of the difficulties the Chairman alluded to concerning the effects of inflation and the effects of tax on methods of finding capital for companies and businesses to expand their manufacturing. This group found that there is a paradox-I guess that is not exclusive to Australia; it is found in other countries-that shows that a drop in the statutory company tax rate does not imply that effective tax rates will drop. The paper states: In fact, in some cases they- that is, the effective tax rates- have risen even with a drop in the personal tax rate. A lower corporate tax rate decreases the value of tax deductions on two counts. Firstly it decreases the value of nominal debt interest deductibility and imputation credits. Secondly it decreases the amount that can be deducted from tax through depreciation allowances. This decrease is over and above that lost through a lower rate of depreciation. In the case of debt and new share finance investment, these two effects are sufficient to cancel out any advantage gained through a lower statutory rate. So this in itself shows that it is a very much more complex area than some people probably believe at first sight. Reducing the company tax rate does not automatically mean that effective tax rates on companies and on new investment will also drop. That is a point that ought to be borne in mind when looking at the conclusions of this report. I also support the concerns expressed by the Chairman and in the report in regard to the need to maintain a venture capital market. There is no doubt that this has led to the spawning of a lot of new businesses. I do not think they have had a full opportunity yet to reach fruition, and the idea of a venture capital market should be continued. Obviously the effects of the capital gains tax in this area are serious and, while I want to maintain some bipartisanship, the fact is that the Opposition has a different view on capital gains taxation. The only other point I would like to touch on relates to section 9. While there is mention of the concern about speculative investment and whether there ought to be tax deductibility in relation to share purchases, I feel that in practical terms it would be very difficult to distinguish between what is speculative investment and what is not. What may appear to be speculative investment today could in a very short time turn out to be investment for working funds for a business. I think it would be dangerous to try to distinguish between the two because in the long run it is unlikely that we will find a practical solution that will lead to a better method of funding new investment. In the short time available I would also like to thank the members of the secretariat for their support. Obviously, these committees depend very heavily on the skills of the members of the secretariat. They have certainly done a marvellous job in helping to prepare this report. I know that other members of the Committee want to grab some time, so I conclude by commending the report to the House. I hope that it leads to a more informed debate on some of the problems that are facing the manufacturing industry, particularly how to raise the level of investment and also, most importantly, how to raise the level of skill development for the manufacturing industry. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.32) —This is the first report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Investment in Australian manufacturing is certainly an appropriate topic, given the centrality and importance of increasing manufacturing investment if Australia's economic restructuring task is to be successfully accomplished. Honourable members obviously would be aware of the fact that in recent times we have experienced a long term decline in the terms of trade. This decline has improved in the last year or so, but most people expect that to be a relatively temporary phenomenon. We will have to restructure our economy significantly if the current account balance is to be corrected in the long term. The key element of that is to revive and rebuild our manufacturing sector but to do it in a way rather different from that in which it was originally formed in the post-war period, with a much greater emphasis on being internationally competitive and export-oriented than was the case before. These are the goals that need to be achieved if we are to correct our structural economic imbalances. That point is generally accepted. However, there will obviously be considerable debate about the best way of going about that task. It is also common ground between all participants in the Australian economic debate that we need, firstly, an increase in aggregate investment levels and, secondly, a switching of investment into the internationally traded goods sector. Those two objectives will have to be achieved in order to reach our economic goals. Given the importance and centrality of that objective, it is appropriate that the Committee take a look at that issue as its first reference and see what sort of recommendations it can come up with. One of the criticisms that one may have had of the House of Representatives committee system in the previous Parliament is that in some cases-not all cases-it tended to drift off into relatively peripheral areas of policy and debate. This issue is right at the core of the current economic debate. I was very pleased when the Committee decided to adopt it as its first reference. There is a lot of debate and there are all sorts of conceptual problems about what constitutes an adequate level of investment. Do we just look at some kind of historical norm? If we look at an historical norm, what account do we take of the early 1980s when we had the resources boom which, it was said, produced an artificially inflated investment level for a short period? What is our benchmark for an adequate investment performance? There is a whole series of issues which, given the five-minute time constraint, I obviously cannot address here; but these are matters that are explored at some length in the Committee report. I urge honourable members who are interested in the subject to look at it. In relation to current performance, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget pre- sentation and in the Budget Papers set out a rather optimistic outlook for total investment next year-12 per cent real growth. If that is achieved, obviously that will be an excellent start in the direction of reviving the investment performance of Australia's economy. There is a separate issue of how much of that is going into manufacturing and how much is going into the traded goods sector generally. Since the depreciation of early 1985 we have seen a significant pick-up in manufacturing investment. However, it must be borne in mind, firstly, that that pick-up was from a fairly small base and, secondly, that for an economy undergoing major structural change-such as we hope ours is-one would expect an unusually high capital to output ratio and unusually high levels of investment. So it is not necessarily valid to be satisfied or content about the performance to date. Certainly, things are moving in the right direction but that has to be sustained and we have to recognise that we are undergoing big structural changes, so unusually high investment levels are appropriate and necessary. I have some concerns about our investment performance. There is not time to go into them in detail now. In part, they relate to the impact of the deregulated foreign exchange and financial sector. As honourable members would be aware, we are currently seeing what is regarded as a temporary improvement in the terms of trade and, coupled with that, a substantial strengthening of the Australian dollar. Obviously, they will have a significant adverse impact on the export potential of some of our manufacturers. If that trend is sustained over a longer period there could be significant problems. There is a policy dilemma inherent in operating a floating exchange rate that once the depreciation starts to do its work and to turn around the trade volumes, automatically the currency starts to appreciate and we begin to lose the initial competitive advantage. Coupled with a temporary strengthening in commodity prices, we have a bit of a problem. Whether the operation of that whole system will produce the type of sustained growth in investment that we need remains an open question. I suspect that some form of non-market intervention will still be required, particularly through the operations of the financial system, if the necessary investment performance in manu- facturing and in the traded goods sector generally is to be achieved. I conclude by joining the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in thanking the Committee secretariat for the excellent work that it put into this report. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(10.38) —As a new member of parliament the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is the first parliamentary committee report with which I have had anything to do. Working on the Committee was certainly an illuminating experience. The Committee went to some lengths to try to produce a bipartisan report, which it has done. There were times when members from this side of the House felt rather outnumbered. I acknowledge that members from the other side of the House were prepared to accommodate our concerns and at no stage did we ever have to record a vote in trying to come to a final report. I would like to address two issues in the Committee report under intangible investment-skills formation and research and development. On skills formation, I would like to talk briefly on the apprenticeship system and also about business contribution to skills formation. The Committee heard quite a lot of concern about the apprenticeship scheme as it exists at the moment. Specific concerns were that people coming out of the apprenticeship system were not broadly enough trained and that there was not enough flexibility for getting into the apprenticeship system in the first place, particularly for older people who may wish to go back to retrain in an apprenticeship. Business frequently expressed the concern that there was a shortage of skilled labour and it would seem all around that there is enormous dissatisfaction with the way the system is working at the moment. I hope that the review of the apprenticeship system that is under way now will address those concerns and come up with realistic alternatives. Business contribution to skills formation was discussed at length in the Committee. It would appear on the face of it that business and private expenditure on research and training in Australia is very poor. A table in the report shows that business and private investment as a percentage of gross domestic product in Australia is 1.2 per cent, which compares unfavourably with the United States of America at 1.7 per cent, Japan at 2 per cent and West Germany at 2.1 per cent. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the Chairman of the Committee wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.40) —I do, Madam Speaker. I move: That the House take note of the report. In doing so, I place on record my thanks to the secretariat of the Committee. Madam SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.41) —I move: That This House supports the principle of one vote one value for elections to State and Federal Parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia. `Justice' is the first word of the first speech that I am privileged to make in the new and permanent Parliament House. I use the word `justice' at the beginning of my speech because I believe that as members of parliament we come to this place to implement principles of justice and to work and fight for the interests of the people. So, to that end, there could be no better way to start private members' business in this House than to debate the motion appearing before us today. That motion is: That this House supports the principle of one vote one value for elections to State and Federal Parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia. This, of course, is one of the subjects of the referendum proposal which is going to be put to the people on 3 September. My motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who is the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The purpose of the motion is unambiguous. It is to give members of the Opposition an opportunity to stand up and be counted on one of the most basic principles of parliamentary democracy-a principle that we in the Australian Labor Party hold dear. It is for that reason that we are putting the proposal to the people to vote on at a referendum. This proposal forms an essential part of the social justice strategy of the Australian Labor Party. One element of that strategy is to provide opportunities for people to participate in decisions that affect their lives, to do more than just vote once every three years at an election. The proposal for democratic reform of the Constitution grew out of a prolonged period of consultation by the Constitutional Commission and I will refer to that in the course of my speech. But it is not a new principle; it is not a new idea. Many people from all walks of life and all political persuasions have supported this principle before. As long ago as 1959 the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review was established by Sir Robert Menzies. That Committee was made up of members of all political parties. In its report in 1959 the Committee recommended that a clause be inserted into the Constitution in similar form to that which we are proposing that the people of Australia have an opportunity to put into our Constitution in 1988. I am glad that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) has entered the chamber, because his father was a member of that joint committee. His father, a man of principle, stood up for what I always thought were Liberal Party values-principles of fairness. I put the honourable member for Mayo to the test today. Does he stand by that unanimous report of 1959? During the lead-up to the election of the Whitlam Government, time and time again the then Opposition put the Liberal-Country Party Government, as it then was, to the test. The then Opposition sought to move amendments to the electoral legislation in 1961, 1965 and 1968. Time and time again-in 1964, 1968 and 1971-private member's Bills were introduced into the Parliament. On each occasion the Opposition opposed the principle of one vote one value. It was not until 1974 in that historic Joint Sitting of the Australian Parliament that the principle of one vote one value became part of the law of the Commonwealth but, of course, not a part of the Commonwealth Constitution. I urge honourable members to look at what other members said in the course of that debate because there were some fine and principled speeches. But indeed, there were also some speeches which brought no credit to the members who opposed that principle. One of the best speeches of principle was made not by a Labor member but by the then Senator Steele Hall, who is now a member of this House. He said-and he was quite right then as he is quite right now-that one of the tragedies of the non-Labor side of politics in Australia was that it almost invariably stood against the extension of the franchise to the fullest. He said. It is incredible to me that the Liberal Party, at least, can stand against the full implementation of this Bill. He made some other important points which the House should be reminded of today. He challenged the grubby assertion that somehow country people were inferior and that somehow we had to make some special condescending allocation of greater electoral voting power to country people. Senator Steele Hall said that that view had `drawn the countryside down to a position where it had been ridiculed by democrats'. I say to all those people in the towns and on the farms around Australia, `You are equal Australians and you should have the same equality of voting as all other Australians have.' I mentioned that the Government, under the leadership of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), had established the Constitutional Commission to promote constitutional reform. The Attorney-General did that because he was committed to the view that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is not the plaything of politicians; it is a document for the people. The Constitutional Commission was made up of eminent Australians from all walks of life; people who were not stooges of the Government, but people whose commitment to the principles of constitutional reform transcended party politics. They included Sir Maurice Byers, the former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, Professor Enid Campbell, Sir Rupert Hamer, the former Liberal Premier of Victoria, Sir Leslie Zines and, before his appointment to the High Court, the then Mr Justice Toohey. There was a special advisory committee on individual and democratic rights which included such diverse people as Thomas Keneally and Peter Garrett. All those people from all walks of life said that the principle of one vote one value was so fundamental to our democracy that no State government, Liberal or Labor, should ever again be allowed to trifle with that principle. Therefore there should be a special section inserted in the Constitution to assert that principle. The track record of electoral reform in the States is nothing less than shameful. I admit that we in the Australian Labor Party have an enormous cross to bear for our role in some of those shabby initiatives in years gone by. But all that has changed because in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and of course at the Federal level there have been reforms to ensure that one vote one value is inserted into the laws of those States. But in Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory the electoral systems are just so unfair. Nowhere is the principle of one vote one value guaranteed and I had hoped in the course of my remarks to explain the enormous disparities in the size of electorates, but time does not permit. I think we all understand from our knowledge just how corrupt the system is in those States. It is not just the people of Australia who are making judgments about the integrity of the Opposition on this question, it is also the major editorial writers of this country. The Sydney Morning Herald has already accused Mr Howard of blatantly appealing to the fears and sensitivities of the smaller States and condemned him for his stand. The Australian newspaper has done likewise and described the shadow Attorney-General's contribution as setting the tone for the Opposition's approach to the question, saying that its campaign is based on superficiality and misinformation. The former Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, described it as snakelike in its approach to these important questions. My time has ended. I could talk for much longer on such a fundamental principle, but let me return to the essential theme of my contribution to this debate: the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is the people's Constitution. It is not the plaything of a politician. It is time that the people of Australia took away powers from the politicians and ensured for all time the principle of one vote one value as a basic principle of Australian democracy. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Lee —I second the motion. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.51) —I certainly acknowledge the sincerity of the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I noted that he referred very cautiously to my father's involvement with the 1959 Constitutional Review Committee, which included no less a light than Gough Whitlam. The honourable member said that my father had a sense of fairness, as apparently did other members of that Committee, and I am sure they did. Of course, this is the nub of the whole debate. It is not that people on this side of the House, or people like my father or whoever they may have been, do not support the principle of fairness. Of course we support the principle of fair and democratic elections. It is a question of how one defines fair and democratic elections. The point I am going to explore this morning in this debate is that the proposal in referendum question No. 2 that is being put by the Australian Labor Party does not constitute fair and democratic elections. That is, frankly, the rich irony of this debate. The honourable member for Hughes is a sincere man, but he has been trapped by the rhetoric of his own Party to support something that does not actually create a fair and democratic electoral system, as he would apparently like. When we look at this whole issue, I suppose we have to start by trying to define what is fair. Is it fair for the Commonwealth or for the Commonwealth Constitution to tell the States how to run their electoral systems? Is it fair that some constituents can just walk down the road and see their member of parliament and some have to travel 500 or 600 kilometres? Is it fair that some minorities have special places allocated for them in parliaments, as do the Maoris in New Zealand for example? Is it fair that some special provision is made for, say, rural people in some parliaments or metropolitan people of certain kinds in some parliaments? These are open questions. I am not giving honourable members an answer to those questions, but I am saying that there is a substantial body of debate about what the meaning of fairness really is. Let me tell the House something initially about what is not fair. It is not fair to put a question to the Australian public claiming that if referendum question No. 2 is approved we will then have fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. According to the Government's own Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Act, that is not what the question is about. If honourable members actually read the Act they will see that there is no mention of the phrase `to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia'. So that is the first point. If the Government believes in fairness, why not ask a fair question that actually reflects what the referendum is about? It provides for 13 new clauses to be added to the Constitution and deletes five clauses. It ignores the so-called principle of one vote one value-with a 20 per cent tolerance, by the way, which does somewhat undermine, I would have thought, the purity of the principle-by omitting the Senate. It omits some provisions in the Federal Constitution in relation to the House of Representatives. In effect, it applies only to the States. So it is not what it appears to be. As I have said, it is fundamentally not a fair question. The question is aimed at the State of Queensland, where the Government says the electoral boundaries are not fair. I happen to think that that is basically right, but let me say that the Queensland electoral boundaries under this constitutional provision would not have to be changed for 12 months and, even if this question is carried, it will not affect those boundaries at the next Queensland election. So the raison d'etre of the legislation certainly, at least in the short term, loses its basic meaning. I will come back to the basic theme of my speech, which is the question of what is fair. Let us look at those States that the honourable member opposite referred to which have written into their Constitutions one vote one value to see whether their elections, by some definitions, are fair. They are fair if the only definition of an electoral outcome is that every electorate is of approximately the same size. Perhaps if we were to take the argument to its logical conclusion, every electorate would have to be of exactly the same size, and that is not the provision in their constitutions. But are they fair in other ways? In my State of South Australia, to win the next election the Liberal Party will need to get 52.2 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and the Labor Party 47.8 per cent. Is that fair? In Victoria the Liberal Party will need to get 51.3 per cent and the Labor Party 48.7 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Is that fair? In New South Wales at the last State election, with boundaries organised under a State Labor government, the Liberals had to get 52.5 per cent and Labor 47.5 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Is that fair? Yet the Government has the principle of one vote one value. Fairness is perhaps in the eyes of the beholder, but I do not think those electoral systems in terms of electoral outcomes are, as it happens, fair. Federally we have the principle, if you like, of one vote one value, but with a tolerance. Is that fair? Is it fair that the Liberal and National parties got more votes in the last election than did the Labor Party? More people wanted the Liberal and National parties to form a government than wanted the Labor Party, but we actually lost four seats. Is that fair? Let me tell honourable members what happened in South Australia: Labor got 41.39 per cent of the primary vote and the Liberal and National parties got 41.78 per cent-slightly more, but let us say the same. At the time of the last election-we have won one seat since in a by-election-we held five seats and Labor won eight seats. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know in your heart you agree with me that that is not fair. The Labor Party, in any case, does not really support-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I hope the honourable member would not impute motives to the Chair. Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, you nodded; that is your decision, not mine. The Labor Party does not support its own case. First of all, I have made the point that the Government, in its referendum question, proposes a 20 per cent tolerance. Why? If it thinks the fundamental principle is that every vote should be of identical value, surely it would not provide for a 20 per cent tolerance? So the Government logically does not quite support its own argument anyway. Secondly, apparently the Government supports the continuation of each State returning 12 senators to the Senate. The reason the Government supports that is that it thinks it is fair, presumably, that the smaller States have disproportionate representation in the Senate so that minorities are not ignored and so that South Australians, Western Australians, Tasmanians and Queenslanders do not have their whole lives ruled by people who come from Sydney and Melbourne. A lot of people think that the rights of minorities-I know honourable members opposite talk a lot about this matter with great sincerity-are important. They are important and that is why that provision exists in the Constitution: to protect the rights of minorities. As a matter of fact, I think that to protect the rights of minorities is fair. I see that the Deputy Speaker agrees with me. Tasmania has five seats because of the constitutional provision that every State must have a minimum of five House of Representatives seats. The Government apparently supports that. There is no attempt to change that in the Constitution. Somehow the Government does not really support what it talks about. In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) the Government at one stage introduced a Bill to set up an electoral system called the d'Hondt electoral system which was not consistent with its Act-with its so- called one vote one value referendum proposal. The Government announced yesterday that it would set up the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission whose commissioners will be elected. But guess what? The votes of some electors in some of the regions will be worth twice the value of others. That is the Labor Party's proposal. It is simply not consistent. The Government is singling out only the States with this referendum proposal and it ignores the Commonwealth, it ignores ACT elections and, as it happens, it ignores the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Honourable members opposite are saying, `We, the Federal Parliament, are going to tell the States how to run their own parliaments'. Is it fair that we, in this House which is dominated by Sydney and Melbourne, should tell South Australians how to run the election for their Parliament? If they are not able to make that sort of decision it makes a mockery of their Parliament. Is it fair? That indeed is the basic question. The one vote one value constitutional proposal that the Government has put forward is not fair. My time has run out but the final point I make is that throughout the democratic world there is a whole range of different electoral arrangements, particularly in respect of upper Houses, to protect minorities. They do not implement the principle of one vote one value. We do that in our Senate. The New Zealanders, in their lower House, do this for the Maori indigenous population. It happens in a whole range of other countries as well. It depends on how one defines fairness. I think it is fair to protect the rights of minorities as well as to ensure that we have proper democratic elections. In conclusion, if the Government supports the principles of fairness in this referendum proposal, why does it not ask a fair question? Mr LEE(Dobell)(11.02) —I point out two fundamental flaws in the arguments put forward to the House by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). Mr Barry Jones —Only two? Mr LEE —I will pick out two and leave the others for another day. First, on several occasions he said that the constitutional referendum will enshrine in the Constitution a tolerance of plus or minus 20 per cent. He simply has not bothered to read the background to the referendum. The referendum will not put in a tolerance of plus or minus 20 per cent; it will put in a tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent-the current tolerance provided for in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Mr Downer —Twenty per cent. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Mayo interjects and says that is a total of 20 per cent if one adds 10 and 10. But throughout his speech he kept referring to a tolerance of plus or minus 20 per cent, which is the tolerance that this Parliament abolished in 1974. He is at least 14 years behind the times. The second fundamental flaw in his argument is his suggestion that this referendum is aimed solely at the States, and that it is unfair of this Parliament to be attacking the States by enshrining a one vote one value system for the States only. He is wrong again. At the moment we simply have an Act of this Parliament which establishes our tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent. As I said previously, before 1974 the tolerance was greater than that. It was a disgrace that there were electorates, particularly that of Grayndler, which were discriminated against for many years. There was great divergence between the numbers of electors to the House of Representatives before 1974 yet if, at some stage in the future, some government has control of both Houses, it could pass legislation which could increase the tolerance from the current level of plus or minus 10 per cent simply by getting a Bill through both Houses of this Parliament. In this referendum which will be put to the people on Saturday week we need to enshrine in our Federal Constitution a maximum tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent so that if, by some chance of fate, the Liberal and National parties obtain a majority in both Houses in the future, it will not be possible for them to return to the dark days when they had massive rural weightings to give special advantage to the National Party rump. As for his suggestion that this referendum is aimed only at Queensland, I invite the honourable member for Mayo to look at the electoral system in Western Australia-an electoral system which remains rorted because the Liberal Party in Western Australia blocks sensible proposals in the Western Australian upper House. Today there are members elected to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly whose electorates have more than 100,000 electors; other members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly with an equal vote have electorates with less than 10,000 electors-a difference of more than 10 to one. This means that when some people voted for the Western Australian Legislative Assembly at the last election their voting power was 10 times larger than that of city voters. I would have thought that Liberals and Democrats would see this as abhorrent. Yet when one looks at what has happened in the Western Australian Parliament, one sees that the National Party and the Liberal Party, at every turn, have sought to block the Western Australian Labor Government's attempts to bring in a one vote one value system. What alternative do we have but to allow the national Government, the national Parliament, through the referendum which was provided for in our Constitution, to establish a national standard of one vote one value throughout all Federal and State parliaments. I point out that the establishment of one vote one value is the continuation of a trend which has continued in Western parliaments for many years. If one looks back to the great reform Acts in the 1800s in the British Parliament, one sees that people have been campaigning for many years to extend the right to vote to every citizen and also to ensure that redistributions are carried out regularly so that people are fairly elected and fairly represented. The test is that if a majority of the people vote for a particular party, then that party should be elected to form the government. That is not the case in some States in Australia today. It is certainly not the case in Queensland. Because there is not a one vote one value system in Western Australia it is not the case there either. I believe that Australia has had a proud history of electoral reform throughout the years, particularly in the 1800s. We introduced the secret ballot, universal suffrage and, in many ways, Australia led-- Mr Barry Jones —Votes for women. Mr LEE —We were first with votes for women, as the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business suggests. We have led the way in many of these areas. Because there are very few genuine and healthy democracies functioning in the world today, we have to make sure that at no stage in the future can some government with questionable principles seek to water down our commitment to democratic government. In 1974 this Parliament, at a joint sitting, carried an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which sets the current permissible tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent. Currently the parliaments of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria also provide for one vote one value. Tasmania also has one vote one value because the State electorates are based on the five Federal electorates. Yet in Western Australia while there has been some improvement after recent reforms there is still a difference of two to one in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. Rural voters have twice the voting power of those in the city. That simply does not allow the majority of the people to elect a government. I seek to incorporate in Hansard two tables which demonstrate the lowest and highest enrolments for the different parliaments throughout Australia. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- ELECTORAL ENROLMENTS FOR STATE AND TERRITORY LOWER HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT Parliament Date Lowest Enrolment Highest Enrolment Average Enrolment New South Wales ... Feb. 1988 30,228 35,761 32,504 Victoria ... Feb. 1988 26,685 37,987 30,933 Queensland ... Dec. 1987 8,256 25,398 19,028 South Australia ... Feb. 1988 16,909 24,604 19,859 Western Australia ... Nov. 1987 9,046 21,937 15,954 Tasmania (a) ... Feb. 1988 8,614 8,768 8,687 Northern Territory ... Mar. 1988 2,271 3,965 2,966 Note: (a) Multi-member constituencies. Figures based on enrolments in electorates per member. ELECTORAL ENROLMENTS FOR STATE UPPER HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT Parliament Date Lowest Enrolment Highest Enrolment Average Enrolment Victoria (a) ... Feb. 1988 58,833 69,843 61,867 Western Australia (a) ... Nov. 1987 11,989 39,786 26,746 Tasmania (b) ... Mar. 1988 5,671 18,919 14,440 Note: (a) Multi-member constituencies. Figures based on enrolments in electorates per member. Note: (b) Zoning is not used in Tasmania, however, redistributions are conducted at the discretion of the Legislative Council. Mr LEE —I thank the House. It is quite clearly demonstrated in these tables that in the Western Australian upper House, under its new enrolment, the smallest electorate has 11,900 voters. The largest electorate in the Western Australian upper House has 39,700 electors. While that is an improvement on the previous variation of 10 to one, it is certainly still not good enough for Australia. I simply remind the House of the comments of a famous member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, one Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who of course was strongly opposed to the malapportionment brought in by the Hanlon Labor Government-which as my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) mentioned in passing was, and remains, an embarrassment to the Australian Labor Party. A Labor government brought in that malapportionment. In a comment against the malapportionment introduced by the Hanlon Labor Government, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in 1949 described the zoning system thus: . . . a crafty and vicious piece of legislation, if ever there was one. He continued: . . . in this legislation the people are given the right of voting, admittedly, but the odds are so greatly against them that to achieve the results they desire is impossible because the pre-determined zones and the numbers set out will mean nothing but that the majority will be ruled by the minority. Mr Barry Jones —I thought Russ Hinze's comment last weekend was very apt too. Mr LEE —I was about to mention, before the Minister interjected, that the former Minister for roads, racing, police and other assorted ministries, Russ Hinze, made an interesting remark-- Mr Peter Fisher —I am sure you support all the remarks he has made over time. Mr LEE —One which I would have thought the honourable member for Mallee would have been interested in. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Dobell will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.12) —I move: That the first referendum question regarding 4-year parliamentary terms does not guarantee 4 years between elections and will weaken the independence of the Senate. This question, which will be put to the Australian people on 3 September, at first reading seems rather innocuous. It asks voters whether they approve of a law: To alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the consequences of passing this will be far-reaching indeed because it will make the Senate little more than a mirror image of the lower House. I say to the Australian people that if we do this we might as well abolish the Senate altogether. In fact, the whole referendum is misleading and deceptive in itself. I wonder whether the Australian people realise that if they vote Yes for four questions come 3 September, which is only a little more than a week away now, they will be changing 33 sections of our Constitution. They will be repealing nine sections, including 20 new ones, and modifying four others. Thirty-three sections will be changed. I remind the Australian people that they have changed only eight sections of the Constitution in the 87 years since Federation. In other words, we are being asked to make many more changes in one day than we have made in the previous 87 years. The first question in particular is nothing more than a sugar coated proposition. If the question were honestly asked, people would vote overwhelmingly No because what they are, in fact, being asked to vote on in this question is not just to increase the maximum term of the House of Representatives from three years to four years, which I guess most of us would agree with, but to do other things. They are being asked to reduce the term of the Senate from six years to four years, to abolish fixed terms in the Senate; and to abolish the system of rotation in the Senate. These are quite major and far-reaching changes. In fact, question No. 1, which is the most important of the four questions to be asked, is designed to emasculate the Senate and to make it a feeble appendage of the House of Representatives. Of course, the Labor Government has long had a hatred for the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans said, as far back as July 1978, that the Senate `ought to be abolished'. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself said soon after he was elected Prime Minister: I've had enough of this recalcitrant Senate blocking the will of the Government. I'm not going to be in a situation . . . where we are dictated to as the democratically elected Government by the mishmash of opposing forces in this country. If they think they can determine the pattern of the Government, then they have got another think coming. Previous to that, the Prime Minister also said in his Boyer Lectures in 1979: I believe the logical implication is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of Government-i.e. the States which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government. Of course, the Senate is the States House. Even the Governor-General designate, heaven help us, Mr Hayden said in August 1980: The Labor Party is committed to its- the Senate's- eventual elimination. That is the Government's track record. Here we are in 1988 with a referendum question that will be put to the Australian people in a deceptive way. A Yes vote will have the effect of emasculating or gutting the Senate. I remind the people that a weaker Senate will lead to a weaker federal system in Australia because federalism has proved to have been the best form of government for Australia with its vast areas and small population. I might add that the question the Government is putting ignores the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission that the Government itself set up and on which it spent $6m of taxpayers' money. One could well ask why the Government ignored the recommendations of its own Constitutional Commission. The Constitutional Commission wanted to maintain the system of rotation of senators in this country. But the Government has swept that away. It is trying to pretend that it is a recommendation of the Constitutional Commission. I can say quite emphatically that it is not. In this country the Senate has been a House of review. It has done that job very well. It has done that because it has a degree of independence from the House of Representatives. The founding fathers who drew up our Constitution at the turn of the century deliberately put into the Constitution this degree of independence for the Senate, which is now proposed to be taken away on 3 September. The Senate will change from playing the role of a watchdog to playing the role of a lap-dog if this proposal goes through. There are many consequences that will flow from it. Even the valuable committee work that the Senate does will cease for three or four months every time an election is called. The present federal parliamentary system would never have come into existence without the guarantee of a strong States House as part of our parliamentary system. However, if this question is passed on 3 September the Senate will become merely a rubber stamp for what the lower House passes. I remind honourable members that no legislation is introduced into the lower House without the government of the day having first considered whether it will be passed by the Senate. All legislation that is presented to the House of Representatives is conditioned and tempered by this reality. It will be a great shame indeed if that check and balance is done away with. I would like now to address the proposition that the Government is putting that a Yes vote will lead to fewer elections. There is indeed no such guarantee. All that is being proposed is that the lower House have a maximum term of four years which, as I said earlier, goes against the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission which said that the term of the lower House should at least be a minimum of three years. The Senate term which has been fixed at six years is proposed to be reduced to a maximum of four years. In other words, the term of the Senate will not now be fixed and senators could find themselves going to the people within terms of much less than four years, if it is the whim of the Government to do so. The Senate will always go out to election with the House of Representatives. In other words, every election that this country has from now on will mean a double dissolution if the proposition is passed. Let us not forget that in the past we have had some very short terms indeed. I think that one of the shortest was back in 1929 when the government of the day went to the people seven months after it first sat. It will be ridiculous indeed if we have all the Senate going to the people after a term of only seven months. That has not been allowed in the past. Even in 1963 the Government went to the people in a period of less than two years. The narrow majority of the coalition Government at that time made it difficult to govern. It does not take much imagination to see that when governments are elected with majorities of one, two or three in the lower House, or with similarly low numbers, they will want to go to the people quite early. Now governments can go and take the Senate with them. If they gain a majority in the lower House, they will most likely gain the same majority in the upper House and have the Senate merely as a mirror of the lower House. A further question that is worth asking is: Why is this referendum being rushed through in the way it is? It is costing $35m, for heaven's sake, and it could have waited until the next election. But, no, the Government has to rush it through and give the Australian people only three months to consider it. The Bill was even guillotined through and we did not have a chance to debate it. Now it will be put to the people a little more than a week after the Budget, when the referendum is not being much discussed in the media. If we had another three months to discuss the matter and the Australian people could realise for the first time what is proposed in these questions, then I think that these proposals, in common with the ID card, would be overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people. It seems that the only people who support these proposals are Labor politicians, who have a particular hatred of the Senate and of State parliaments. If the Australian people value our bicameral system of parliamentary democracy, if they value the independence of the Senate, which they have reaffirmed in previous referendums on the Constitution, and if they value the Senate as a House of review, they have no choice but to reject these proposed major changes to our parliamentary system which are being disguised in the misleading words of this question and other questions to be put on 3 September. I hope that people will vote a resounding `No' to question 1 and to the other three propositions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.23) —I second the motion. The central thrust of the argument by my colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) is that with this first referendum question, as with the other three questions, there is much more to it than meets the eye. Does this House and do the Australian people realise that these four seemingly simple questions involve 33 changes to the Constitution? One must read the fine print, as opposed to the bland and deceptive formulation of the questions on the ballot paper. For example, question 2 asks: Do you approve of fair and democratic elections in Australia? Who could say that they do not believe in such a concept? But that is not what that question is all about. What the people are actually being asked to vote on is the Act of Parliament that set up that referendum. In that Act there is no use of the words `fair and democratic elections'. Mr Cobb —It is a blatant fraud. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is a blatant fraud. That second question is all about 13 other changes to the Constitution. I challenge anybody here to tell me what those 13-plus changes are, but that is what people are being asked to vote on. The same argument applies to the question with which we are now dealing. It underlines the fact that the whole exercise is misleading. It is deceptive, and indeed fraudulent-when one considers that the Government was engaging in illegal advertising, as has been declared by the Court. The pamphlet sets out the word `Yes' in great letters, and `No' in very tiny letters. Also look at what this is all costing. The Government went through a lot of electoral pain in the May mini-Budget to cut road funding by $50m. In that context the Government has spent $6m on a Commission and is spending some $35m, over $40m all told, on these referendum questions. It has cut road funding by $50m, money which local government authorities particularly need, but is to spend $40m on this whole exercise. Mr Cobb —It demonstrates their priorities. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, and it also demonstrates that there has to be a secret agenda, or the Government would not be pursuing this exercise. There has to be a secret agenda, a hidden meaning and a hidden purpose. And indeed, there is a secret agenda, a hidden purpose, in all these questions, but particularly that which we are now debating. This question, in common with the other three questions, is all about concentrating more power in Canberra's hands-giving more power to the Hawke-Keating Labor Government. It is all about cutting back the power of the Senate. It will give to the Government power to introduce the ID card-put people's faces on ID cards-or the power to pass a raft of other measures which a strong Senate over the past five years has been able to hold at bay. Question 1 on the face of it asks whether people approve of a maximum four-year term for the Parliament, with the expectation that there will be fewer elections. I very much doubt whether it will lead to fewer elections, but I shall not enlarge on that point. That is only one question but, as with all the other referendum questions, other and even more important questions are involved. It is asking as a separate additional question: Is every election to consist of a double dissolution?-that will be the effect of it. It involves maximum concurrent-underline that-four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate. So if the Prime Minister takes out the House, he takes out the Senate as well and there is then in effect a double dissolution. This is all about reducing the term of the Senate, which the Constitution now provides should be six years, or twice the term of the House of Representatives. Are people aware they are really being asked whether they approve of reducing the term of the Senate from the six years as provided by the founding fathers, with a rotation of senators to ensure continuity and independence? Are people aware that they are being asked to reduce that term from six years to whatever the term of the House of Representatives turns out to be? Mr Cobb —They are conning the people. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is conning the people. The whole exercise is misleading and deceptive and the Australian people have to realise just what it is all about and give a firm and resounding `No' to the question we are discussing. I sincerely enjoin them to vote a firm and resounding `No' to the other three questions also. The fourth question asks: Do you approve of extending the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair compensation for property acquired? Who would oppose those? They happen to be freedoms we already have. What the people are being asked to approve-if they closely examine the small print, where again one sees the deceit and the dishonesty-is in the question regarding freedom of religion, for instance, a proposal to change the existing section 116 from `The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing a religion . . .' to `The Commonwealth shall not establish any religion . . .' It leaves out four words-`make any law for'. A whole lot of things are put at risk by the deletion of those words-such as government assistance to denominational schools, which some people might support but not the majority of Australians, and government assistance to church-run hospitals or other institutions. Because it would in effect introduce into our Constitution the sort of situation that prevails under the United States Constitution, it would put at risk the saying of prayers or any form of religious observance in state schools. Do the people of Australia want that to happen? Do they want these things to be put at risk? That is why this whole proposal is so misleading and deceptive. The people are being asked to say whether they approve of extending the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion, and fair compensation-things one might think one could not possibly disagree with, but the fine print suggests otherwise. In fact we would be restricting freedom of religion as we know it today in this country, to a significant degree. So to that question also, question 4, I urge the people to vote no. If I had further time I would be urging the Australian people to vote no to all four questions because there are hidden meanings and risks in them. There is a secret agenda, there has to be a secret agenda with the Government spending all this money. I urge the Australian people to vote no. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(11.32) —The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) got it half right. He indicated that our referendum proposition does not guarantee four-year parliamentary terms. That is absolutely correct; but we never promised that. We seek to guarantee only that there will be fewer elections, not set four-year terms. He was quite wrong on the second point, though, that the proposition will weaken the independence of the Senate. The powers of the Senate will be absolutely untouched. The alternatives the Opposition has put up are either that we have a fixed term parliament or that there be eight-year terms for senators. The problem with the notion of fixed term parliaments is that that itself would deny the Senate the power to block supply. It would absolutely neuter the power of the Senate. As for increasing the term of a senator to eight years, that is simply unacceptable. Having a senator sit in the Parliament for eight years would be like a lifelong sentence. Senators would be unaccountable. The Government's whole proposition is that we should have fewer elections. The notion is that when this proposition is passed the maximum term of the House of Representatives will be extended from three to four years, beginning with the next Parliament. In addition, the terms of all senators would finish upon the expiry of the term of the House of Representatives. So, yes, we do want to put the two Houses in unison. That does not affect the power of the Senate, but it does take both Houses out at the same time. It will provide greater stability in the system by reducing the frequency of elections and ensuring that both Houses of Parliament are accountable to the people for their actions. There can be no doubt we have had too many elections since World War II. Since 1945 we have been to the polls, on average, less than every two years. The cost of that is unacceptable. There is also no doubt that because we have such frequent elections there is uncertainty in the decision-making of the Government. It means that in a normal three-year term there is only one real Budget. The first Budget is to turn around the mistakes of the previous Government, the second is the real one, and the third is the sweetener before the election. We all understand that; we are all mature enough to know that in a three-year term there is only one opportunity to bring down a proper Budget. At least if we move to four-year terms we can get two decent Budgets out of any given government. Groups such as the business community are very keen on the notion of a four-year term, which we do not guarantee. We understand that. But if we introduced a guaranteed four-year term, there would go the power of the Senate. We can have it one way or the other, not both. The need for longer terms could not be more obvious. It is not a novel idea. The fact is that every parliament in Australia-except Queensland, of course-has four-year terms. It is hardly a shocking revelation. Four-year terms are the norm in Australian parliaments. Think of the effect if this proposition is passed. A Prime Minister would have to justify a decision to call an election ahead of schedule. In general the justification has been either that the Houses of Parliament are running out of kilter, as is currently the case, or that the Senate has blocked legislation. This referendum proposal will remove the Prime Minister's excuse for calling an early election simply because the two Houses run on different schedules. That happened in 1977 and 1984. That excuse will no longer hold because the two Houses will always come out together. Our opponents have claimed that the four-year term will somehow rob the Senate of its powers and therefore weaken the States' powers in favour of the Commonwealth. That is absolute nonsense. The Senate's present power to reject, amend or block legislation-including Supply Bills, the lifeblood of any government-will remain absolutely untouched. If a government is forced to an election through either the blocking of Supply or the rejecting of important legislation for which the government believes it has a mandate, the people will decide the issue. If the electorate supports the stand taken by the Senate on any legislation the government can be thrown out of office. Senators will become more accountable for their actions in the Parliament. It has been claimed by some that the Senate would be given even more power by our referendum proposal as it would be able to claim a mandate as a result of its being elected at the same time as the government. At the same time, the Senate will lose none of its present power to function as an efficient House of review. The suggestion that senators presently enjoy some form of fixed term ignores the experience of the last 20 years. The last senators to serve a full six-year term in the Senate were elected in 1965. The proposal in regard to the terms of senators will therefore bring the Constitution into line with the real practice of the last 20 years. It is also worth remembering that over this same 20 years, during which time not one full Senate term has been served, there has been a most dramatic increase in the Senate's powers. This makes nonsense of the claim that only a Senate serving its full, fixed term can exercise any real power. There are only two alternatives to the proposed parliamentary system instigated by this referendum. The first is to fix parliamentary terms and the other is to enable eight-year terms for senators. Does anyone really believe that the Australian people would support an eight-year term for any politician? It would mean that after one term a person could walk out with a pension for life. Politicians would be unaccountable and remote. It would be undemocratic. Believe me, there are many senators on our side who simply would not cop that. I do not understand why Opposition senators seek for themselves an eight-year untouchable term. Let us forget this whole business that the Senate is somehow a States House. Senators get into Parliament because they are placed high on a party ticket. That is the only reason they are elected to the Senate. The reality is that since the end of World War II, and perhaps even before that, the Senate has divided on party lines. The vast majority of senators are bound by party room decisions before they even walk into the Senate chamber. So why not have all senators free to face the people at the same time as members of the House of Representatives? It is an easily understandable proposition; both Houses can be accountable at the same time. The problem with the notion of a fixed term to increase parliamentary terms is that the Senate's power to block Supply would be removed. If senators had to wait until their full four-year term expired, what would be the purpose of seeking to block Supply, of placing pressure on the Government or of amending legislation? It is the Opposition's proposition that would neuter the Senate. Our proposition leaves it untouched. It has all of its powers. We do not seek to amend in any way the powers of the Senate. In framing the question on four-year parliamentary terms the Government was acutely aware that any proposal that sought to reduce the powers and independence of the Senate was unlikely to succeed. Australians are clearly fed up with having too many elections. The business community has long been after the stability and certainty that comes with four-year terms. Nobody would suggest that the community wants governments which cannot be removed if they are doing a bad job. The proposal for four-year parliamentary terms, which will be decided on 3 September, meets all the concerns of Australians and the needs of the community and does so without threatening the powers and independence of the Senate. The question does no more than offer enhanced rights to the Australian people in regard to their elected representatives. I cannot and I will not support the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Parkes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.42) —I move: That this House- (1) recognises the impact of the EEC and the US farm subsidies upon the viability of the efficient Australian wheat industry; (2) acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's export earnings by primary industry; and (3) accepts an urgency to address the alarming increase in rural poverty. This House should be aware that rural Australia, particularly those regions involved in broad acre grain production, in recent years has suffered the worst economic conditions in the history of agricultural development. This has been brought about by a combination of low commodity prices, corrupt world trading conditions and, most importantly, domestic policies that have imposed massive costs such as record interest rates and fuel prices, together with social policies, at the forefront of these being the assets test that has discriminated against people requiring the asset of land to earn income. It is in this environment, therefore, that this Parliament will be legislating in the autumn session of 1989 for the next five-year wheat marketing scheme to commence on 1 October of that year. These arrangements will follow the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry. The IAC inquiry basically recommended the extension of the current permit system for domestic stock feed wheat to all wheat and the removal of the Australian Wheat Board's sole stock feed export power as well as the sole domestic power for wheat for human consumption. It should be noted by this House that there is no free international or domestic wheat market. All the major world trading countries, with the exception of Argentina, operate some form of regulation designed to protect grower returns and ensure supply to consumers. Furthermore, lower world wheat plantings, particularly in Australia, are not a free market response. They are a response to other governments in terms of how much the United States or the European Economic Community (EEC) is helping its farmers to break into the world trade. The support received by Australian farmers is negligible in comparison with that received by wheat farmers from Europe and North America. Underwriting payments incurred by the Commonwealth for 1986-87-and I remind the House that this has been the only payment from these wheat arrangements for 15 years-will be approximately $170m. This includes $47m of interest payments that have been incurred by the Australian Wheat Board on borrowings which would have been avoided if this Government had paid its underwriting commitment earlier. Of course, such support is a once only benefit of approximately $US9 a tonne in assistance to the Australian wheat grower. I wish to mention some of the corrupt support mechanisms that operate, particularly in the United States of America. The United States Federal intervention has evolved largely in the past 25 years. These arrangements enable farm policy to be directed towards objectives in three major areas: through price support, through supply control and the loan program; through income support by deficiency payments to United States farmers; and, finally, through export promotion with the use of credit instruments and subsidies. The object of the EEC's pricing system is to support returns to producers. To do this for grain producers, intervention, target and threshold prices are set, with each being related to a particular geographic location. The intervention price is the price at which intervention agencies are obliged to buy grain. It provides a floor below which theoretically market prices should not fall. I repeat that the arrangements we have in Australia have provided a benefit of only $9 a tonne to Australian wheat growers. By comparison, EEC growers receive assistance of $US83 a tonne subsidy and US growers receive nearly $70 a tonne subsidy through their arrangements. Canadian wheat growers have received some $3 billion in price support over a short period. The stature and resilience of the Australian wheat industry, despite these corrupt world policies, indicate our industry's efficiency and indicate its capacity to respond to changing production and economic circumstances. Central to this is the history of stability of past wheat marketing arrangements and the successful operation of the Australian Wheat Board. On any criteria we wish to put on the Australian Wheat Board's operations, it comes out as being seen as highly effective. It has been extremely effective in the marketing area. This has been proved in the last few years when we have sold crops in extremely difficult trading circumstances. One recent example is the Australian Wheat Board's ability to increase sales to our near neighbour Indonesia from a base of some 439,000 tonnes in 1983 to over 700,000 tonnes last year. The Wheat Board has been successful in ensuring that Australian wheat growers are exposed to market signals. Anyone who knows of the rapid change and diversity that have taken place in Australia's broad acre farming areas in the last few years will recognise that farmers are aware of the market signals and have responded very rapidly to them. The Wheat Board's arrangements ensure that growers are rewarded for quality and that the quality of the Australian crop is maintained. This has been a vital factor, given the difficult world trading environment, in ensuring that we have been able to maintain and expand sales, because we do have consistent quality and we can ensure hygiene. More importantly, the Wheat Board has been very successful in ensuring stability and equity between growers. The Australian wheat industry has 40,000 growers, of whom 95 per cent are family farmers. The present arrangements, after adjustment for different freight and handling costs, ensure that growers receive the same guaranteed price-I emphasise the words `guaranteed price'-irrespective of any property's geographical location, so long as that grain is of the same quality and type. In saying this and expanding on the importance of the Australian Wheat Board, I point out that the industry does have a progressive outlook to marketing conditions. There is no doubt that the Board's marketing powers can be strengthened to allow greater commercial flexibility. This would apply particularly to allow the Wheat Board to offer other grain throughout the world to assist wheat sales. It is almost mandatory that the $16 per tonne fixed charge be replaced for direct grower to buyer sales with the actual cost of those transactions. This will encourage a greater percentage of wheat for human consumption to be sold by growers direct to flour mills. I believe that the industry should ensure that the Board is committed to compete more effectively in the open domestic stockfeed market by offering a cash price, so creating greater price stability in that market. Of course, we could remove the requirement for the Board to store wheat with only the State bulk handling authorities. This would allow the Board to negotiate commercial contracts with State bulk handling authorities to disaggregate costs and so allow considerable flexibility or deregulatory initiatives in domestic markets and cost allocation. I remind the House that all these changes to the Board to make it more commercially effective can take place while still retaining the AWB's sole domestic and exporting powers. Central to this is also retaining an underwriting scheme that will cushion the effects of a corrupt world market and the destabilising nature of fluctuating wheat prices and subsidies. I am convinced that if the domestic market is deregulated-as I understand a large percentage of Government members seek to do-domestic market prices will fall to, at best, average export returns initially set by the weakest seller, with no commensurate price reduction to the consumer. It is important to note that the flour component in a loaf of bread retailing at 90c to $1.20 is worth only 7c, so even a significant shift in the price of grain would not substantially affect bread prices for the consumer. In fact, domestic prices could even drop to the levels offered in markets which are affected by the United States export enhancement program (EEP). The effect of this would be for Australian wheat to suffer further the effects of subsidised grain exports, this time on the domestic market where the current arrangements have quarantined the Australian market from the harmful effects of EEP. I believe that such a change and such deregulation would almost certainly see the loss of $35m to $50m to Australian grain producers in a single season. By far the most significant and important area for debate in relation to the future of the Australian wheat industry and its growers is the report of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. The grain producers of Australia have been plundered over the years by the greed of governments through excessive freight and taxation charges and by inefficiencies in handling and storage, brought on and aggravated by restrictive work practices and industrial blackmail. The real advantages and cost savings to the wheat industry can be gained for growers and consumers by the partial implementation of the Royal Commission's proposals on transport, storage and handling. Over the last few months this Government has been very generous to the influence and power of big business and it must here resist the powerful agribusiness lobby which, while it has a legitimate right to pursue its commercial interest, does not have a legitimate right to bring about a situation in which Australian farmers who own their own wheat and who have to operate in a high cost domestic economy have their marketing and pricing policies determined by people outside the industry. The Australian Wheat Board has shown its capacity to maximise returns while maintaining equity for growers and a high standard of quality and hygiene. Opponents of the present system will need more than a theoretical or philosophical argument to convince me, and the Australian wheat industry, that the destruction of the present system is warranted. The Royal Commissioner, Mr Jim McColl, in his report has clearly indicated that the implementation of his recommendations for greater efficiency and accountability in grain handling and storage and at the waterfront will not be affected by changes to the Australian Wheat Board or private traders being allowed to control the domestic market. The wheat growers of Australia are some of the most efficient producers of any product in our country. They provide Australian consumers with high quality and cheap grain. They should not be required to accept a lower price for what they sell in Australia-in other words, below import parity-than is required of any other Australian, no matter what he produces. I remind the House that most Australians are protected by a regulated and indexed wage structure. The Royal Commission recommendations to improve the efficiency of handling, transport and port facilities will not be affected by deregulation. Actions taken by State and Federal governments are important and these proposals, together with amended domestic selling arrangements, constitute considerable change and challenge to the industry. Federal deregulation will not succeed: enough of the States will use their acquisition and price powers to thwart the move. This could actually lead in some cases to greater regulation and to the replacement of a uniform national wheat market with a confused mess. We must not allow the Australian Wheat Board to be used as a scapegoat for the tardiness of State or Federal governments effectively to move into this area and to deal with the rorts in transport, handling and storage. Time does not allow me fully to explain or canvass the extent of the third part of my motion, which deals with rural poverty. I simply say that despite increases in commodity prices, from a very low base, rural poverty continues to increase. In rural Australia at the moment we are seeing a massive movement of young people from the land to the metropolitan areas. Paradoxically, combined with this is a significant movement of retired people, homeless people and social security recipients into rural Australia in search of low cost housing and services. The implication of these demographic changes should be obvious and so indeed should be the impact on local government as it struggles in the rural areas to provide services such as health, education and particularly roads as we see a decline in State and Federal funds to these important areas. As rural Australia lifts this nation out of economic debt and attempts to halt the decline in living standards for all Australians, tragically in the Budget on Tuesday night there was a proposal to apply an assets test to Austudy and education allowances. This will ensure that almost no rural children, particularly those from farms or small business, will ever again receive any assistance to further their education. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the motion seconded? Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.58) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. As the member for Maranoa I find it a very historic occasion to be standing here making my first speech in the new Parliament House. In seconding the motion I support its mover, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). I represent in this House most of the wheat growers in Queensland. I do not support the removal of the underwriting which the Government is proposing. I also do not support the total deregulation of the domestic market. The main reason is that the boards throughout Australia, particularly in Queensland, have gone to a lot of trouble to build storage and if they lose some of their throughput they will find it very difficult to pay back interest and redemption costs, which in Queensland amount to some $80m. The facilities were established under the present legislation which allowed the boards to have the total throughput, or at least most of it, of the domestic market. They now find that the Australian Labor Party Government is going to withdraw that from them and put them in a very difficult position in continuing to finance the storage facilities. They were able to get licences to sell feed grain and I continue to support that concept. The other problem with freeing up the local market is that the price set will be the world price; it will no longer be the price set with government arrangement. We know how corrupted the world price for grain is due to the subsidisation by various governments-America and the European Community. The world price is always well below the domestic price. We also have to take into account our cost of living and cost of production. In many cases we face the problem of having to pay an exorbitant excise on fuel. We have to remember that half of the fuel used on farms is petrol, not just diesel. We must also understand that wheat is not like sorghum or barley which are used in the feed markets. Very little wheat is used for this purpose. I have much pleasure in supporting the honourable member for Mallee and in seconding this motion. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(12.01) —I rising to speak in this debate on the motion moved by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), I would first of all like to acknowledge that the first and second parts of his motion would certainly present no problems in terms of this House supporting them. I think his third proposition could certainly be open to debate. Because of time constraints, I do not believe he had a lot of time to go into this part of his motion. Therefore, I will concentrate a little on that issue. I think everybody in this House recognises that the policies of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the United States of America in regard to their farm subsidies programs are certainly having a detrimental effect on the Australian wheat industry. That point does not need further clarification in this House. I had the privilege of leading an all-party delegation from this Parliament to the US Congress and Senate to impress upon them the importance of the US and the EEC taking into account the damage that their policies were creating in countries such as Australia and Argentina, which are part of a group of nations that was formed to argue a case against the sorts of policies put forward by the EEC and the US. Those policies, which have been in place now for some 30 years, are continuing to distort the markets and the economies of the world in such a way that they are seriously affecting a lot of the agricultural producing countries in terms of their ability to improve the living standards of their people. Of course, these policies have impacted very severely on the Australian wheat industry. The honourable member for Mallee said that he is seriously concerned about this because his electorate covers a large proportion of the best wheat country in Australia as well as some of the marginal areas. These areas have been seriously impacted because of the downturn in prices created by those policies. Over the last two or three years the Americans have always put it to us that one of the chief reasons for their export enhancement program was to move surplus stocks so that the market system eventually could work. That has been their argument all along. Now, of course, the serious drought that has occurred in the US will mean that the supply of grain around the world will be seriously depleted. So whilst we have argued very strongly for many years that these policies and approaches have been impacting seriously on us, I can see light at the end of the tunnel. As US stocks are depleted, we can expect that prices will increase dramatically over time. The honourable member for Mallee argued strongly that we should keep the Australian Wheat Board's regulations. This is a subject of debate in Australia at present. It is one that I am sure that this Government will work through to the satisfaction of all in relation to the wheat industry. We need only look at the evidence of this Government's policies in respect of other industries in Australia which have been reformed and restructured in a deregulated way and are certainly well on the road to recovery. We can see that the policies in the EEC and the US that our National Party friends complain about are clearly the types of policies which they have followed in Australia, which have created a lot of problems for the rural sector over the years. Growers have been given distorted market signals. There is no argument that such policies distort decisions that are made by growers in relation to when and what they should plant. This is one of the real problems of agriculture around the world, which Australia has been putting to the US and the EEC in world forums: that when one has subsidy structures, when distorted economic indicators are given to the farming sector, one gets boom and bust approaches. Whilst I recognise the concerns of the honourable member for Mallee, I think the Party that he represents and the policies that it puts forward are certainly not the ones that would ever overcome the problems in Australia or anywhere in the world, because they are all aimed at that type of subsidy approach to the farming sector. In the second part of the motion the honourable member says we should acknowledge the contribution made to Australia's export earnings by primary industry. I do not think there is any doubt that this House would very clearly support that position. We have never at any stage argued any other case. Of course, we on this side of the Parliament have argued that the conservatives did not support the agricultural sector effectively as an economic base in Australia over the many years that they had control of the treasury bench. What they sought to do was to create a climate in which many in the rural sector based economic decisions on perhaps tax incentives and subsidies rather than seriously look at the economy of the nation. The conservatives also allowed Australia to get into a situation where we became totally reliant on the rural and primary industry sectors for our national income. Of course, that neglect by honourable members opposite when they were in government certainly led to the problems that our Government has had to face since 1983. Their very policies led to the serious situation that as soon as commodity prices collapsed, as they did around the world and as they do periodically in about a seven-year cycle, we had a loss of income from our commodity prices at the same time as our manufacturing industry was being decimated by incorrect policies. The honourable member asks the House to support the rural sector. I believe that the greatest thing that can be done for the rural sector is the establishment of a strong base in our manufacturing sector which supports the total economic base of Australia, which gives the economy the capacity in times of downturn to assist those sectors of the community which are in difficulties. We have certainly set out to do that by restructuring the Australian economy. Today the quarterly review of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics was released. I shall refer to that report in the context of the third part of the motion that was put forward by the honourable member for Mallee-that we should accept that there is an urgent need to address the alarming increase in rural poverty. Certainly that part of the motion is at least five years too late-perhaps six years too late. I think the people of Australia made the decision to address that problem when they looked at the economics of Australia back in 1979, assessed them in 1980 and changed the Government. They realised at that stage that if the economic policies that we were facing then continued, there was going to be a real problem in terms of an increase in rural poverty. So, in addressing the need for urgency, I think the honourable member for Mallee is five years too late. The people of Australia made that decision. The measures have been put in place. I think I can quite confidently quote from the report of the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. I would like to go through a few of the statements in the report, which clearly put the evidence in perspective. The report states: The recovery in world commodity prices continues to broaden, with indications that prices of many rural commodities will rise further in 1988-89. The associated strong recovery in the Australian dollar, however, will tend to dampen price increases experienced in Australia. Nonetheless, the gross value of rural production is forecast to rise by 7 per cent to $21,200 in 1988-89. Mr Peter Fisher —From what base? Mr CUNNINGHAM —This is from a base which increased last year, of course. The report continues: The improved performance of the rural sector in 1987-88 reflects substantial price increases for a number of commodities, while the outlook suggests that others that so far have experienced only small price recoveries are likely to perform better in 1988-89. This is particularly the case for grains and oilseeds, where concerns about possible droughts in the United States and Canada have already created some speculative prices rises. Whether or not these price increases are sustained, or are added to, will of course depend on weather conditions in the Northern Hemisphere over the next few months. That is a clear indication from the report that there are signs that even the grains industry, which is the only industry that has not fully recovered, is well on the road to recovery. The report continues: As these revised forecasts were being prepared a number of potentially conflicting developments occurred that create an unusual uncertainty about the outlook for Australian rural commodities. In world markets it is becoming increasingly apparent that stocks have been reduced to the point where markets are very sensitive to adverse weather conditions affecting 1988-89 crops. This is particularly so for oilseeds and to a lesser extent coarse grains, wheat, sugar and cotton. Recent dry conditions for the sowing and early development of spring crops in North America have already created strong, although tentative, price rises. Let us see what the report has to say about the production side of the rural sector in Australia: Over the past few years there has been an appreciable change in the mix of rural output . . . Farmers are making the economic decisions. They are responding to the economy; they are not responding to subsidies and the sorts of measures that were in place under the previous Government. They are responding now to real economics. The report continues: . . . there has been an appreciable change in the mix of rural output as livestock and wool prices have improved relative to grain prices. Sheep numbers have increased to 165 million and wool production is forecast to reach a record 960 kt in 1988-89. Beef and veal production is forecast to decline slightly from 1987-88 in line with a marginal herd buildup and improved pasture conditions. This is an indication, once again, that the farmers are making the correct economic decisions for the correct reasons. Favourable weather in recent months has established good sowing conditions for winter crops. After five years of decline, crop production is forecast to recover slightly in 1988-89. The area planted to wheat is forecast to be 9.5 million ha, still 25 per cent below the record area of 1983-84. Australian rural output in aggregate is forecast to increase by about 3 per cent in 1988-89, to a level similar to that of 1986-87. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(12.14) —I move: That this House- (1) expresses its disappointment at the selection of recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia on Australia Day 1988; (2) is of the opinion that the bulk of awards are issued to machinery positions, that is, to persons because they hold the positions rather than because they earned the award; and (3) notes that on the day of the 200th anniversary of white settlement, the Council has demeaned the Order and failed to give appropriate consideration to the main purpose of the Order of Australia to recognise achievements by Australians as distinct from the position, patronage basis of the imperial honours. This motion was generated by what I feel was a very great sense of disappointment on Australia Day 1988, the 200th anniversary of white settlement in Australia, when we awoke to read of the awards made under the Order of Australia on that most historic occasion in this nation's history. The awards to Companion of the Order of Australia, the highest honour that can be bestowed on an Australian, consisted almost exclusively of awards to positions, not persons. I do not in any way detract from the individuals, their integrity or their worth to our community. But the facts are that of 13 awards made on that day seven were pinned on chairs at the High Court of Australia, to be allotted to the persons who occupy those chairs. Of those seven recipients, six already held knighthoods in the imperial honours system and only one was receiving a new award. Five other persons were honoured in the general areas available to the Australian community. Two of those also were imperial knights. Their worth to the Australian community is not questioned. Was that the appropriate way for the highest honours available to Australians to be awarded by the Council of the Order on the day on which we celebrated the most historic occasion in the history of white settlement in Australia? It is my belief that on that day of all days the honours should have reflected those persons-I would like to think living and dead, but I am certain that living was the only option open-still living in this country who have made the greatest contributions and achievements towards making this country what it is today. Many Australians-some already honoured, some already in receipt of honours under the Order of Australia-could have been specifically and directly recognised to the credit of the nation and, I believe, to the pride of the Australian people in that list. The second list in the year did not reflect a great deal of change. The majority of those appointed to be Companions of the Order of Australia in the Queen's birthday honours in this our bicentenary year were already honoured previously as imperial knights. Are there no people in Australia who have not so qualified by outstanding contributions to our community that they should not have been honoured without first having to qualify through the imperial system? I believe the Council has let down this country this year by the awards it has made. I believe it has not done what was expected of it; that is, to honour people for their individual achievements. The Council has, in fact, opted to go back to the old patronage system. If a person happens to occupy a position, then irrespective of whether he does it well or badly he gets a certain level of award for the position. A High Court judge who used to become a knight now becomes a companion. A senior public servant, Commonwealth or State, will receive the level of Order of Australia which is appropriate to the position that has been held. If a person happens to be moved on by the Government in that system he will probably get a higher award than he would have earned had he retired normally. It is not really good enough. On Australia Day we should have had the most outstanding Australians, such as Don Bradman and Heather McKay. Heather McKay is the most outstanding woman athlete in Australia's history. They should have been honoured. The achievers, the people who have led this nation, the people who have created this nation, should have been there and they should have been named. I do not wish to go through a lot of names because that would be unfair to the people I do not name. But there are some people who should be named. For instance, Tom Uren has given a lifetime contribution to this Parliament. I mention one other member because he has already been honoured-Clyde Cameron. When Clyde Cameron retired, his contribution of a lifetime to Australia got the second, not the top, honour. But if he had happened to have lived in a cloistered atmosphere and had become a senior public servant or a judge of the High Court, his contribution would have been honoured by his becoming a Companion of the Order. I make those points. I do not begrudge the awards to anyone who has already been honoured, but I believe that it is appropriate that this Parliament should indicate its displeasure that on this, the occasion of our bicentenary, the awards were pinned on positions, not people, and at least one judge was not prepared to accept that. In all the awards made this year-I have excluded the Duke of Edinburgh and the military awards-some 25 of them to the senior positions, not one Australian woman, Aborigine or trade unionist has been seen as having contributed to Australia to the extent that he or she is entitled to be acknowledged by Australians. I do not believe that. Not an architect and not an artist has been honoured. No performer-- Mr Braithwaite —What about accountants? Mr SCHOLES —I am sure there are a couple of accountants. There are also a couple of politicians, two former Prime Ministers. Both were entitled to the award. Any person who has been Prime Minister of this nation has contributed, whether we agree with his politics or not. We are talking about something which was established to reflect real honour and real credit; an award which those people who wear it, can wear with pride in personal achievement. The awards, as they are now being conferred, do not enable that to be done. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Scott —I second the motion and congratulate the honourable member for Corio for raising this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you reserve your right to speak? Mr Scott —Yes. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.22) —I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion which was raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). We have before us a motion which states: (1) expresses its disappointment at the selection of recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia on Australia Day 1988; (2) is of the opinion that the bulk of awards are issued to machinery positions, that is, to persons because they hold the positions rather than because they earned the award . . . It is timely to raise these questions in the context of the specific awards that have been given in conjunction with Australia Day because appropriately, as the honourable member for Corio has said, this commemorates a unique period in Australia's history. It was a time in which one could look back over a person's lifetime of contribution to Australia and make a judgment as to who were the most outstanding Australians at that time. Whereas I suspect that in relation to awards which are granted at other times there is a certain framework against which judgments are made as to particular organisations which may have had people who have rendered outstanding service, the award could have been given at another time and in another framework, I have some other complaints about the way in which the award system appears to operate. Whilst commending the honourable member for Corio on the issues he has raised, I take the opportunity to put them in a somewhat broader context. I have heard these remarks uttered before but it does not seem to matter whether awards are being granted by governments on this side of the House or in accordance with the system that has now been established where State governments, the Commonwealth and presumably a range of other people nominated by those governments are involved in making the selections. Mr Hand —People of power. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says, `People of power'. It strikes me as strange that the complaints that have been made before do not appear to have been remedied by those who have been put into power to make these decisions. I have made a simple analysis of the information that is available to me. Not a great deal of information is published about the service given by people and therefore it is difficult to make judgments as to whether the person who has received an award is the most outstanding person to receive the award in that particular field. I certainly would not want to reflect upon any of the recipients but it is remarkable that, in New South Wales, all the people who seem to have the qualities necessary across the whole range of human endeavour appear to come from the eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney. Mr Hand —That's what I am saying. It is wrong. Mr RUDDOCK —I do not know whether it is right or wrong but it is remarkable that when this Government makes the decisions and when its people are involved whom it has nominated-- Mr Hand —It is remarkable. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, it is remarkable. I have before me the figures for the honours list for January 1987: 23 came from the eastern suburbs, 43 from the North Shore, 29 from country areas, and 16 from elsewhere in the southern and western suburbs of Sydney. In June of 1987 the figures did not seem to change so much: 22 from the eastern suburbs, 40 from the North Shore, 32 from the country and 11 from the western and southern suburbs of Sydney. Even on Australia Day when, presumably, different criteria were being used, on my analysis there were 60 from the North Shore and eastern suburbs, 41 from the country, and 35 from elsewhere. If one looks at the principal awards, those in the Order of Australia, of companions in the general division and member in the general division as distinct from those who received the medal of the Order in the general division and the other awards, in relation to the more senior awards, one finds that 35 came from the eastern suburbs and the North Shore, 13 from the country, and 12 from the western and southern suburbs of Sydney. In relation to the more junior awards granted, the eastern suburbs and the North Shore only shared in 25, the country areas got 28 and the western and southern suburbs received only 23. That is a mere observation but as one who has from time to time nominated citizens whom I believe were worthy recipients, I am surprised at the large list of people which the committee which deliberated on these matters must have had before it to consider. I think it is many years since I have seen any of those whom I have nominated in any of those lists. I happen to be one of the few members of the Liberal Party of Australia who live in the western suburbs of Sydney. I do not know whether there is anything significant in that. I notice that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) is nodding, I assume with a degree of general agreement. Mr Sciacca —Send them up to Queensland to buy a knighthood; no problems. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member for Bowman makes a reflection of that sort but I would hope that that would never be the case. In relation to any of these awards, I would not want to reflect on his Government by suggesting that the mere fact that those who seem to have earned the awards and who live principally on the North Shore and in the eastern suburbs means that they could buy his Government. But if the honourable member were suggesting that it was possible, he should stand up and say it. I would be interested to hear the nature of the contribution he would make. I do not make that charge. That is not the basis upon which decisions are made as I understand it. In my view nor should it be. There are many fine Australians who have received awards and I know many of them. However, there appears to be a lack of balance in the outcome. People ought not to be chosen on the basis of where they live. They should be chosen on the basis of their distinction; that is, the quality of the contribution they have made to Australia in the whole range of human endeavour. In other words, the same sorts of principles ought to apply to awards as those which apply to all fields of human endeavour. We should strive to pursue excellence. We should contribute to the greatest extent humanly possible and when people make that contribution they should be so recognised. I know how difficult it is, but like the honourable member for Corio who spoke in this debate I am also of the view that no award should attach to a position merely because a person has held that position. I think that is what he was saying. I do not think awards should attach to a position merely because a person has had the privilege of being able to sit in the appropriate chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Dundas will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(12.31) —In the 1988 May economic statement, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced a number of major changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS). One of these changes was a massive extension of the authorities mechanism, which requires doctors to apply to the Department of Community Services and Health for approval to prescribe certain medications under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. As from 1 August, 53 additional drugs have been placed on the `Authority Only' list. These include the latest, and in many cases the best, drugs for treating cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and circulatory diseases. The most significant cost factor targets, however, appear to be six products used in the treatment of high blood pressure, heart problems and elevated cholesterol levels. These products make up approximately 75 per cent of the total prescriptions for the 53 newly listed drugs. It is worth noting here that in Australia, almost half the deaths each year are due to cardiovascular disease, for which high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol are major risk factors. Articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian last Tuesday, 23 August gave details of a recent study undertaken by the Institute for Health Economics and Technology Assessment, commissioned in part by the Department of Community Services and Health. This study has shown that in 1987 Australians lost more than 900 million days or 25 million years of normal, healthy life because of sickness, disease and premature death. Heart attacks, strokes, hypertension and other circulatory diseases were responsible for more than a quarter of all healthy days lost. In spite of this the Government has just restricted access to some of the most effective drugs for the treatment of high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. The `Authority Only' list was originally introduced to monitor the use and possible dangerous side effects of new and/or addictive drugs. Drugs were placed on the list for legitimate medical reasons. It was in no way a means of rationing or limiting access to drugs on the basis of cost. The Hawke Government has now decided to change the rules governing the use of the authority mechanism. Cost rather than patient welfare is now the major consideration. In a press release issued on 26 June 1988 by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is responsible for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the changes to the authority list were described as `steps to avoid unnecessary prescribing of expensive drugs'. The Minister stated that the Government was: simply prompting doctors to think twice before prescribing expensive drugs where there are possible cheaper alternatives. As from 1 August this year, the Government has, in effect, bestowed second opinion status on public servants by giving them the power to approve or overrule a doctor's professional judgment as to which is the most appropriate medication for a particular patient's needs. From 1 August, a doctor seeking authority from the Department to prescribe one of the 53 hit list drugs must indicate that no cheaper alternative is available. This policy is both offensive to doctors and prejudicial to the best interests of their patients. It is a fact of life in medicine, as in most other scientific and technological fields, that research and development cost money. Older is often cheaper, but not better. These 53 drugs are not luxury or addictive items; they cost more because drug companies must recover their research and development expenses. The Government is well aware of this fact-in this instance literally a fact of life-but has chosen to ignore it, and to encourage doctors to opt for the cheaper, less than best alternatives by making it difficult for them to prescribe the newly developed, state of the art, drugs. Page 131 of 1988-89 Budget Paper No. 1 clearly states: Items available under the PBS and the rules under which they may be prescribed are determined by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. A similar assurance is contained in the previously referred to ministerial Press release of 26 June, 1988 which stated: in selecting the specific drugs the Government took full account of advice from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. These statements are somewhat misleading. In regard to most, if not all, of the newly listed authority drugs the Government's decision flies in the face of Australian and international expert medical opinion. For example, the vast majority of experts disagree with the decision to include the six cardiovascular drugs on the authority list. The High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia, the National Heart Foundation, the Cardiac Society, the Australasian Society of Nephrology, and virtually all of Australia's eminent specialists in cardiovascular medicine, have expressed enormous concern about the inappropriateness of an authority listing for these drugs and its implications for the effective treatment of cardiovascular disease. In fact, the Government has ignored the advice of its own expert committee, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which considered the possible authority listing of two of the six drugs at the end of last year, but finally recommended against such a move. Instead, it proposed a change to the listing of the drugs to encourage their more considered use. The two drugs to which I specifically refer are ACE-inhibitors. They are prescribed by doctors to treat moderate to severe hypertension and represent a significant advance in the treatment of high blood pressure. They are prescribed more often because they are more effective, have fewer side effects and enjoy improved patient compliance. These factors should be weighed against additional costs. It should be noted, however, that the forward estimates used by the government in an attempt to justify its decision to authority list the two ACE-inhibitors are based on initial growth patterns for the two drugs. These growth patterns no longer apply, and reflected only the expected early growth from a zero base for any new and improved product. The early accelerated growth rate is now progressively slowing as these drugs establish their proper place in the medical armamentarium. The Government's ill-conceived decision to authority list these 53 drugs will have many objectionable practical consequences. Amongst other obvious disadvantages, it will result in unacceptable delays for patients and a bureaucratic red tape nightmare for doctors and pharmacists who, in common with many other people, are already, and increasingly, inundated with unnecessary and unproductive government inspired and required paperwork. Mr Lamb —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it proper for the honourable member to mislead the House by saying that there is unacceptable red tape in the supply of drugs by pharmacists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! That is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Lamb —Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a new agreement between the doctors and the Pharmacy Guild that gets rid of all the objections that the honourable member has raised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Casey. Mr HALVERSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was not even a good try by the honourable member. The Minister responsible has warned patients that delays will be inevitable under the new system. He said: Patients should bear in mind that the processing will take a few days. Experience has shown that obtaining government approval for authority listed drugs can take much longer than a few days-sometimes it takes up to two weeks. With an anticipated increase of at least 1.6 million authorities in a full year, the potential for bureaucratic bottlenecks and delays is awe-inspiring. We have just seen some. In the 19 August edition of Medical Observer an example is cited where a doctor who had for sometime been prescribing Imuran for a patient with multiple sclerosis had the request for authority rejected. The reason? The doctor had written `immuno-suppression for multiple sclerosis' as the reason for requesting the drug. A clerk from the Department informed the doctor that the correct reason should have been `no cheaper drug available'. According to the same article, doctors from around Australia have been contacting the Medical Observer in regard to the difficulties the changes to the PBS are causing. What happens if a request for an authority drug is rejected? The Government has claimed it will not reject any application and is relying on the nuisance value of completing the application forms to discourage busy doctors from prescribing these drugs. If this is just a rubber stamp exercise, it is a very wasteful and potentially dangerous one. Considering the estimated 3 million prescriptions per year that will now require approval, it would be interesting to know whether the anticipated cost savings will in fact be less than the set-up and ongoing costs of processing the authorities and administering the expanded system. This Government has a responsibility to provide a fair, effective, cost efficient and affordable health care system for all Australians. This can not and should not be achieved by introducing a rationing system based on the cost of essential drugs-a system which reduces patients requiring these particular medications to the status of second class citizens who must prove their need to a bureaucrat when a doctor has already decided that the need exists. In conclusion, I remind the Treasurer, who so proudly boasted in his Budget speech that `we are now well on the way back to prosperity', of the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said: The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend. In the final analysis the nation's health is just as important-perhaps more important-than its wealth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr UREN(Reid)(12.40) —I made some comments about my experience and observations during my 30 years as a people's representative in the national Parliament on 3 June in a special adjournment debate on the last day of sitting in the old Parliament House. The time constraints prevented me from placing on record several aspects, and even in this debate my comments will be limited by the amount of time at my disposal. I am taking this opportunity, in the first week of the new and permanent Parliament House, to put these few comments on record. I want to mention an old and respected colleague, Reg Pollard. Reg Pollard may not be known to many members of this House, but he was Minister for Agriculture in the Chifley Government of 1946 to 1949. He was defeated in the landslide against the Labor Party in 1966 over Vietnam. He was then 70 years of age-but the youngest man in the Parliament in so many respects. He was always an inspiration to me with his positive and radical outlook on life, and he is one of the people who have inspired me in terms of longevity. The other person is Lloyd Rees, now in his ninety-fourth year. Pollard and Rees are givers and thinkers as to what the world could be if the human race could come together in a collective or a sisterhood and brotherhood. Their horizons were never dim, and I hope that I can emulate their vision and horizons in the years ahead. The history of the Labor Party, even the history of Australian politics, may have been different if Reg Pollard had defeated Arthur Calwell for the leadership of the Parliamentary Labor Party when Doc Evatt retired in 1960. Eddie Ward was then a member and had six votes around him. Ward was standing for the deputy leadership if Arthur Calwell was successful in the leadership ballot. Ward knew that Pollard would have been the best leader, but Ward put his own interests first and Calwell defeated Pollard by 42 votes to 30. In the next ballot for the deputy leadership it was a wide field, and the last remaining in the ballot were Ward, Haylen and Whitlam. The left supported Pollard for the leadership position, but in the ballot for the deputy it was a free vote, and personal interests were involved. Between the ballots I spoke to Reg Pollard in the corridor outside the party room. Pollard was not a `personal' man, but when I said `Reg, you've run a good race', Reg said with some emotion, `If it wasn't for that bastard Ward, I would have won'. Although I never vote out of emotion but try to be rational in my vote, I was emotionally upset over Reg's attitude to his defeat. Soon after I met Jim Harrison, then the member for Blaxland, and I knew that he had Alan Bird's proxy vote-in those days there were proxy votes, and he was then the member for Batman. So I relayed to Harrison Reg Pollard's attitude to Ward, knowing that Harrison thought the sun and moon shone right out of Reggie. In doing so, I switched Harrison's vote, I switched Alan Bird's proxy vote, and switched Tommy Uren's vote from Ward. Mr Hand —That would be the first and only time. Mr UREN —It was a change of six votes, and I might tell the honourable member that Whitlam beat Ward by four votes. The other person I want to talk about is a present member of parliament. Colleagues might have remembered that I said, on 3 June, that Menzies and Whitlam were the two who dominated the Parliament most in my time but there was another emerging. Of course, that person was Paul Keating. I have known Keating for over 20 years. In 1968 the seat of Reid was redistributed into four electorates. A good part of it went into the Blaxland seat and Keating won the preselection in 1968 and was elected to this House in 1969. At the outset I want to stress to make it quite clear that I am not one of those who is an advocate of Keating for Prime Minister; not at this stage of history, anyway. But to give credit where it is due, I have seen Keating grow as a member of parliament. This House is his forum, in a way it is his home. He feels secure; not out there with the people but here in the bullring of Parliament. He is the Jack Dempsey of Australian politics. You can put him on the canvas but then he will get off that canvas and achieve victory. That is what happened when he was defeated on the consumption tax debate within our Party; he was on the canvas but the tax package he came up with was his victory. It was a Keating victory. It was not ours, it was not mine. He knows I do not agree with his tax priorities but he is tough and he knows what we wants to do. I think Keating is one of a handful in this Parliament-and I am talking about both sides of the House-who are visionaries. There are very few visionaries but Keating is one. Keating can even be sensitive on some issues, but what worries me is that he is not a democrat and he is not a collectivist; he is an elitist and he is arrogant, but he is quite a remarkable character. He has such ability that he may even overcome those great flaws. He always talks publicly about his father. I think his mother is a pretty wonderful person and I think his wife, Anita, is pretty special also. I will never forget looking into the eyes of his first-born son. They were the most beautiful eyes I had ever seen. I thought to myself at the time there must be something of great beauty inside Keating to produce such a son. Perhaps I could give Paul just a little advice. There is much I could say about the benefits of collectivism against elitism, but he might close his ears to that, so I will give him one word of advice-patience. And I suggest that the next time he goes to Washington he should study two exhibits standing in front of the National Museum. They made a great impact on me personally. One is a petrified log of wood 200 million years old. It comes from Arizona. The second is banded iron ore, with alternating layers of red jasper and black haematite, about 2,250 million years old from Jasper, United States of America. It is something to remember, particularly about one's own importance. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(12.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in a grievance debate which is synonymous with the occasion and impact of this Parliament. It is an opportunity to talk about immigration. As with the debate on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome we on this side have dared to have the ability and courage to talk about the subject. In fact, last week I had the opportunity to work with an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Four Corners crew on an immigration feature which goes to air next Monday. Some quotes in a Sydney Morning Herald of this week testify to that. I took the ABC crew to Adelaide hotels as well as to the Vietnamese community. What disappoints me is the interpretation of a policy espoused by sections of the media but fuelled by the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke Government, remembering that it was his eminence himself, Bob Hawke, who said, `We do not want the Indo-Chinese refugees, send them back whence they came'. I do want them, my Party wants them. Immigration is still vital for Australia's future. I sent out 43,000 Adelaide reports which were letterboxed into my electorate, the Federal seat of Adelaide, quoting some people whom we have helped on immigration. I want to cite some facts as well. Migrants and their families make up 40 per cent of Australia's 16 1/2 million people. Asians make up roughly three per cent of that 16 1/2 million-- Mr Sciacca —Why are you worried about it then? Mr PRATT —Not worried, Con. More than one million people annually inquire about migrating to Australia. More than 85 per cent of those people are refused entry on a variety of grounds including age; the point system prevents them from entry. Bigotry and prejudice cannot be tolerated in the world's most varied cultural mix, commonly known as Australia. As John Howard has stated, the foundation stone of the Opposition's immigration policy will be selection on a non-discriminatory basis. With this in mind the Opposition reserves the right, I suppose, to change the immigration policy and that must be its right. We found out this week that the former immigration Minister, Mick Young, from the electorate next to my seat of Adelaide, moved to curb the flow of Asian migrants at the end of last year and that policy is still in force. I stand by my public statement that race should not play any part in our selection process; it is a cornerstone of our policy. Let me dwell on social cohesion. I am reminded of an article written by the late and great Professor Julius Sumner Miller. He was asked, `Do you think the world will find peace? Will countries and nationalities find peace with each other?' He probably said, `Why is it so?' Families and brothers and sisters have irreconcilable disputes and feuds, yet we are asking and expect the world to be at peace. Australia is a very tolerant country. Our social cohesion is not under threat, but perhaps it is under pressure. Australia is a country only 200 years old in terms of new settlement. Our indigenous inhabitants share similar views. Yet in the last 40 years we have recognised the need to populate or perish. As an emerging country, a fantastic country with a free spirit, we have inherited 150 new and different nationalities, religions and cultures, and of course we are going to be under some sort of pressure; but it is a pressure that we can live with and overcome but certainly not be threatened by. We have pseudo allegations that our Asian- Pacific rim trade is in jeopardy. The Asian traders for centuries have been free traders and will go where the price is right, including paying for and coming to this country for education. What about one Australia and multiculturalism? Multiculturalism has not failed Australia or we it, yet this word seems to be at the heart of this debate-words and isms. We have horticulture, agriculture and now we have multiculture. We love hijacking words or cataloguing people into areas. We had immigrants and then they became new Australians; then they were known as ethnics and now we have to know them as multicultures. It sounds like some new pathologist's yoghurt. My life, my family, and my country have been enriched and embellished by the impact of migrants who have come to Australia. I am grateful and proud of the contribution that they have made, firstly, to populate and the impact they have made on our arts, our theatre, cuisine, fashion and culture, language and lifestyle as has the Aboriginal population. Australia went from a country of braces worn outside its shirts, felt hats and sauce on steaks, yet we have emerged to what we are today-Australia enriched by the world that has come here. Yet if we were fair dinkum and analysed the word we would have to be honest and say that multiculturalism envelops the ethnic community. What about middle ground Australia? What title do they afford us? We do not require a title, because we have one Australia. My children go to a school that is enriched by the children of immigrants, yet it is not called a multicultural school; it is called a school in Australia. What is wrong with that? Mr Sciacca —What does it matter what you call it? Mr PRATT —It does not matter what it is called, my friend. Do not let anyone forget that it was less than 50 years ago that tens of thousands of Australian men and women offered their lives in the defence of this country and went abroad to do it. They went to Korea, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Vietnam. Why-to give Australia and Australians a free and democratic country to live in. The legacy is the veterans of Australia-`Lest we forget'. There is no greater sacrifice than to offer your life for your fellow man and your country. Australians did this, yet when we dare to talk about social cohesion, multiculturalism, immigration or 150 different races, colours, creeds and religions, we are branded as racial bigots. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to espouse part and explode part of that. What I have difficulty coming to grips with is the moral high ground that this Labor Government uses to preach on immigration and its stance on immigration. I was introduced to its seedy, sordid, despicable attitude of racial discrimination in my own political campaign during the February by-election in Adelaide. The racial attitude was endorsed by Bob Hawke, the Labor Party, the minders, the back-room boys who prevented a Labor Party candidate going public with his delightful Filipino-born wife and his child, his own flesh and blood born in Australia. Forget the lame excuses, sir, perpetuated by the Labor goons, saying Mr Farrell's wife was ill or unavailable for a photo. Do honourable members know the imposition Bob Hawke placed on his candidate? The glossy pamphlet portrayed the Labor man as the caring, sharing family man, yet in the pamphlet-remember, he was endorsed by the ALP-was the family picture of Farrell the candidate with a fill-in wife and children in the garden. The propaganda machine was portraying its man as the candidate living in the area-he was living in a safe house, and has since gone back to live in Unley-as the family man with children dedicated to serving the electorate. It was not the fault of the candidate and his wife, but the Labor Party who saw the family cohesion as a threat to its chances in that election. The deceitful, racist, discriminatory Labor Party had substituted for Mrs Farrell, the Filipino wife and their beautiful young daughter, office staffers and the children of Mr Dugan, the State member of Adelaide. They superimposed them. Why? Were the mother and daughter that ill? Were they contagious? No. The Australian Labor Party machine would stoop to such rotten tactics as racial discrimination. The Labor Party said, `We will endorse you, you are all right, but we do not want your wife and child. We will put you out on the hustings, but do not let anyone see you with your wife.' When Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Bannon went on the hustings in Adelaide they endorsed those actions. Mick Young, Mick Noonan and John and Angela Bannon were at the famous meet the candidate barbecue, but they did not include the candidate's wife. When the Prime Minister appeared at a social function at the North Adelaide Football Club, scene of the famous telephone time charge expose, there was no wife. This Government and this Party dare to stand and play the devil's advocate on multiculturalism and accuse my Leader of being racist and discriminatory. In the eyes of the people of Adelaide and Australia, they stand condemned because this has come back to haunt them just as the famous words of Bob Hawke in 1977, the message to the boat people, will come back to haunt them. What price do honourable members think the candidate for Adelaide has to pay to know that his Party wanted him, but not his Australian-born delightful daughter? When they were flushed out, there was nothing wrong with what was going on, but here again was a classic case of meddling by the Labor Party back-room boys who saw this as a threat to their chances of winning the by-election which, as we know, they subsequently lost. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(12.59) —I am very pleased in many respects to be talking today in the grievance debate on the very issue that we have just heard being spoken about by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt). The very nature of what he had to say to this Parliament today is a result of the recent intervention of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, and what he has in fact perpetrated within the Australian community. Mr Deputy Speaker, this whole immigration debate and the direction it seems to have taken are serious matters. It is a direction which seems to be tearing the nation apart and, without exaggeration, has the potential to tear apart the very fabric upon which the Australian community is based. I am very sad to say that it is causing very serious racial disharmony and even racial violence in the community. It is sad that these problems have been occasioned as a result of the deliberate intervention in the present immigration debate by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard. Either wittingly or unwittingly, Mr Howard has embarked upon a cynical political exercise with no real thought or concern for the divisiveness that it has caused and will cause within the Australian community. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, is in fact a very decent person, but he is a person who has been under a great deal of pressure from within his own party. He came back from overseas to find that the troops had been playing up, to find that Senator Chaney and of course, of late, Mr Wilson Tuckey were talking quite openly about the question of leadership of the Liberal Party. So what does Mr John Howard do, but try to reassert that leadership. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I realise that a couple of speakers before the honourable member have transgressed but I would ask him not to refer to people by their names but by the names of their electorates. Mr SCIACCA —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has started thrashing around like a dying shark, trying desperately to gain some relevance in the community. To his everlasting shame, he has sunk to the bottom of the political barrel by trying to win votes by pandering to those racists and bigots who unfortunately exist in every world community and no doubt exist in the seat of Adelaide. I will quote Max Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 August 1988: Well, let me repeat for the record: I do not think Liberal leader John Howard is a racist. If he were, his approach to the issue would actually be more defensible. Mr Howard is a politician who thinks he has found a good issue. He's not racist: he is about exploiting racism. Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the effect of this new one Australia policy? The Leader of the Opposition again either wittingly or unwittingly has given credibility and respectability to those extreme right wing elements in the community who formerly have had to rely on the likes of Senator Stone, Geoffrey Blainey, Bruce Ruxton and Ron Casey for their ideological support. This new-found respectability by these right wing elements has led not only to serious racial disharmony, but also out and out examples of racial violence. In case you think I am being a little bit alarmist when I say that, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say this: Who would have thought just several months ago that a self-proclaimed leader of the Ku Klux Klan would actually have the gall to proudly proclaim the existence of the Ku Klux Klan as a branch in this country and proudly proclaim the fact that he was the leader of it? This happened on a Jana Wendt current affairs program some three weeks ago. There he was, dressed in his full white-hooded regalia. It was disgusting to see and I never thought that in my life I would ever get to see, in a country like this, a person who was prepared actually to go before millions of viewers on television in that way. Only yesterday, an Adelaide reader wrote a letter to the editor to condemn racism. He had his tyres slashed and his garage burned down and later received a telephone call saying, `Next time it will be your house. Long live white Australia.' Honourable members may think that that is an isolated example. May I also refer to the experience of prominent journalist Max Walsh, whom I quoted earlier, a journalist who dared to adopt a non-racist approach in his features. He wrote: Howard, from his position of political leadership, is giving comfort, support and even respectability to a cause that every mainstream politician has eschewed for decades. Because I have pointed to the dubious morality, the incorrect assumptions and the inherent economic risks in Mr Howard's policy, I've had the dubious honour of being targeted by his supporters. My home and my wife's car-and, unfortunately, the home of a gentle neighbour-have been attacked by the National Action's graffiti artists armed with their aerosol cans of paint. Apart from their penchant for obscenity, this organisation has as its signature the swastika. How did the policy come about? To the credit of prominent Liberals with a proven interest in the social cohesion of this country, they have either publicly or privately strongly disagreed with their Leader. A number of senators in the other place and a number of well respected Liberals in this House have also come out very strongly publicly and privately against the policies as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition; not to mention, of course, such prominent State leaders in the Liberal Party as the Premier of New South Wales and the leaders of the Opposi- tion both in South Australia and in Victoria. Frankly, it is fairly obvious to me and to other members of the Labor Party that the Liberal Party has been hijacked by the National Party and, in particular, by Senator Stone and the Leader of the Federal National Party. They now have a policy which gives comfort to the racists, but they also try to pretend that it is non-discriminatory, in an attempt to win votes. As with other Liberal policies they are in a mess, because they try to be all things to all people. But people will not be fooled. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial of today is correct. The Liberals are sending out two messages-one to the racists and the bigots in an attempt to win votes and the other to try to convince the public that their policy is not based on discrimination. I ask the Australian public not to be fooled by this two bob each way attitude. Today it is the Asians. Who will it be tomorrow-the Greeks, the Italians, the Jews? Who is it going to be tomorrow? At the moment, frankly, we could not possibly trust the Liberals to walk the dog, let alone run the country. On the question of business migration, for instance, their policy effectively says that we like the colour of their money but not the colour of their skin or the slope or slant of their eyes. To restrict Asian immigration would virtually destroy the business migration program. Howard and Stone do not know what they are talking about when it comes to the question of immigration policy. The policies of the Opposition are wrong and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. The editorials or our nation's papers know it and so does the Opposition back bench. The Australian Financial Review, with the readership of people one would imagine would support the Liberal Party as a rule-until, of course, we showed that we could manage the economy better than them-has been staunch in its criticism of the Opposition's policy. The Americans are rubbing their hands in glee, according to one article by a prominent journalist from Washington. I think it was Gregory Heywood. That particular article said that Asian investors in Australia were now looking elsewhere. So, in effect, the policy of the Liberal Party and the coalition is threatening not only the very fabric of society that I have been talking about but also our economy. It is placing our economic recovery at risk and I think that is an absolute shame. Today's editorial in the Melbourne Age eloquently sums up the position. Referring to the Leader of the Opposition's victory in having his party support his stand, it states: For a political leader, a victory achieved at the cost of continuing bitter division within his own party, and the community, is not a victory at all. It is a tragedy. It is not multiculturalism that is divisive; it is the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed and so should the coalition for not having the collective guts to stop him in the party room. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.07) —What I want say to the people of Australia this afternoon is that while I am not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional lawyer, what I do claim very proudly is the title of being an Australian. As an Australian the Constitution is one of the things that I hold very dear. Some people will say it is a 1901 institution. It is a 1901 institution that is revised continually in sympathy with Australia's changing conditions. This is an institution which in its own way provides for many of the other institutions that we enjoy here today; for instance, this Federal system of Parliament, our Government and our Westminster system. We also, through this Constitution, bear witness to the monarchy. It is also a blueprint for the justice that is given with the High Court just down on the lake. It also sets out States' rights and their responsibilities and it has worked well. It is a living testament to the freedoms that we enjoy in Australia today. So when it comes to a matter of changing one of these institutions, bearing in mind that it is not only the Constitution, the proposed referendum will also change many of our other institutions, I think the people of Australia ought to ask themselves why. If it is to change, I want to make sure that those changes are appropriate to Australia and its Bicentennial and that they actually improve the liberties and rights of the individuals whom I am quite proud to call my fellow Australians. As to the propositions that are coming up, I have to advise my fellow Australians that as far as I can ascertain, and as far as the Opposition ascertains, these changes will not improve the rights or the liberties of any individual Australian; in actual fact they could reduce or deny them the liberties that they have had in the past. What it does is affect the very delicate balance between the States and the Commonwealth, something set out in the Constitution, by concentrating more power not with the person or the States but on this place in Canberra, this new Parliament House that we are sitting in and the Government that controls it for the time. It also takes power away from the people and puts it into the High Court that occupies the shores of our lake just down the hill. Therefore I say that the changes are not appropriate, because the four questions in themselves will propose 33 changes to sections and they will alter significantly the 1901 agreement that we proudly call our Constitution. The real danger is not in the fact that people will be asked to make a decision, but in the nature of the questions. Nobody can say that the questions are fair and reasonable or that they indicate the particular nature of the legislation that goes behind them. Four Acts are involved, 1,700 words added and 600 words deleted. Those four questions on the ballot paper do not reflect what is actually the intent of the Government in this regard. I want to quote what Gary Morgan, Managing Director of Roy Morgan Research Centre, said in the Courier-Mail on 18 May just shortly after the introduction of the legislation: Any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. I claim that in proposing these questions it is the Government itself that has lost credibility and deserves to wear that tag. What the Government proposes is not what it claims it is, a great example of people's power. In other words, $6m has been spent on a Constitutional Commission to which the Government says the people have had access. These actual proposals are not the recommendations of the Commission. Two of them have been changed and two of them must stand in this House at the moment as being Government proposals, not people's proposals. Question No. 1, which seeks to alter the Constitution to provide for a four-year maximum term, indicating that the terms of parliament would in future go four years, has not the safeguards sought by the Constitutional Commission of having a three-year minimum. I want to take the point that a Prime Minister who already should be in the last year of his second term is now half-way through his third term. Whether a change of that nature would provide fewer elections or more elections, on that record one must come to the conclusion it would most certainly mean more and not fewer. I come back to the point that it is the Prime Minister's question, the Government's question and not that of the people. The third question also has been altered from the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission to add extra words which fly in the face of any definition. Of course, that definition might have to be given an interpretation by someone somewhere else. I will deal with the four questions that people will be asked. They are simple questions. One is proposing that there be a maximum of four years. It does not give that right to the Australian people. What it does is give the opportunity for the Government, for the Prime Minister of the day, at any time that the Senate as the House of review proposes looking at or amending any legislation, to take the Parliament to the people for an election. So it does not have that safeguard of having a lesser term. The Constitution set up two Houses for very particular reasons. This House, the lower House, proposes the legislation. The Senate across the road is to look at that legislation, to send it to committees for an interpretation to make sure that the legislation is correct and then alter and amend it if necessary. That is the point. The Constitution provided different terms of sitting for the two Houses so that there was always a continuing Senate, out of the scope and out of the reach of the influence of this House. It will be a fundamental right lost to the people of Australia to have two Houses, one acting as the Government, the other one acting as a mirror without any opportunity of that review and objection to any legislation. There will be no brake on the Prime Minister of the future. The second question is also deliberately misleading: `Do you believe in fair and democratic parliamentary elections?' Mr Cleeland —We do. Mr BRAITHWAITE —We have had the interjection. May I tell honourable members what this proposes. Democracy, as far as elections are concerned, I would think is getting as near as possible to 50 per cent of the people to provide a government. Mr Cleeland —Federally. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Right, federally. I will give an example. To change this Government the conservatives have to poll over 52.5 per cent of the vote. In Queensland, whose State rights are attacked by this question, the government can be changed with just a little less-a little over 51 per cent of the vote. So, which is the more democratic-the proposition that is in the referendum or the proposition that is in Queensland? Mr Blunt —That is Trades Hall democracy. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Trades Hall democracy. We might also take the New South Wales example, and we have a New South Wales member in the chamber now. Mr Greiner, in order to take government, had to get 52.7 per cent of the vote. Where is the democratic vote in that? It is put that it stops gerrymanders. Anybody who believes that is a fool because the present boundaries on which this legislation is based are quite subject to gerrymander. In fact, I can give an example of my own seat about the number of electors there as compared to a more densely populated area. So, it may stop one gerrymander but what it will do is implement the gerrymander that this Government provides. The third question, as I have already said, has been changed by this Government to provide a vehicle for itself to take control of local government throughout Australia, because it will have to involve a definition of the High Court of what is a system of local government. We could have throughout Australia a system of regionalism that Mr Uren, the relevant Minister at that time, wanted in 1974 under Whitlam. The fourth question is a denial of rights that are not already in the Constitution. The Constitution and the law of this country already determine that a person will have the right of trial by jury irrespective of the offence. This particular referendum will curtail that right. The other question is on freedom of religion. Section 116 has already been tested before the High Court of Australia to guarantee that this Government or this Parliament can distribute funds to religious organisations for education and medicine, and everything else. This will, in fact, under the American experience, deny the freedoms that we already have. I referred earlier to people's power. I am asking the people of Australia to demonstrate that power, that power of the ballot box, by refuting and negating the whole four of these questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(1.17) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Greece's bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games and to call on all Australian States which have proposed to make bids to withdraw them. I take this position only after careful consideration. Having worked for eight years in the New South Wales Department of Tourism, I am well aware of the many benefits generated by being the host country of an Olympic Games. I realise that holding the 1996 games in Sydney not only would be a shot in the arm for Australian sport generally but also could provide the opportunity to make a significant and lasting contribution to a great city. I accept that the Olympics could provide the opportunity to generate a greater incentive for sporting excellence in Australia; a great deal of international publicity for Australia, generally; possibly economic profit; and the opportunity to transform our urban living habits. Whilst these are all valid reasons I believe in 1996, the centenary of the modern Olympics, there is a greater need to forgo self-interest for the shared benefits of upholding Olympic tradition. As all Australians can appreciate in this, our bicentennial year, a centenary is an important event, one based on history and tradition. Clearly, Greece is the country with the longest Olympic tradition. Indeed, it is the land where the Olympic ideal was born. According to Greek legend the Olympic Games were founded by Hercules. However, as the first historical mention of the Games of Olympia occurred in 776 BC, the games held that year are now considered the first official Olympia. From then on, we number the games as they were held every four years, but numbering was not how the Greeks preferred to record them. Rather, each Olympiad was given the name of the winner of the first men's race, which was a sprint of about 200 metres, the length of the stadium. The first Olympiad was therefore named for Koroebos, the winner of that race in 776 BC. In fact, for many years there was only that one race and the Games lasted only one day. It was not until the fourteenth Olympic Games in 724 BC that a second race was added. Later Olympics brought the addition of even more events until finally the Games lasted five days. In contrast, the summer Games now last for two weeks. We know quite a deal about the traditions of the ancient Olympic Games-its religious, literary, and artistic aspects. But the ancient Olympics were also fostering peace. For the month when the Games were heralded, trained for and contested, no fighting was allowed. Heralds visited the far corners of the Hellenic world to announce this truce. The region of Ilia in which Olympia is situated was then considered sacred and nobody could bear arms in this area. During the Peloponesian War in 424 BC, Sparta broke the truce and so her athletes were denied permission to the Games and her warriors condemned as a miserable disgrace. There are many stories of the ancient Games; for example, of the woman who sneaked in disguised as a trainer. As the attendants were strictly confined to men, a new rule was brought in that trainers as well as participants in the Games had to be nude. There are many other stories-of the boxing matches that lasted six hours, or of a runner who completed 24 laps of the stadium in winning time and then, without waiting to be crowned, kept on running back to his home city 90 miles away to proclaim his victory. From all our records, the overriding element of these ancient Games was the importance of fostering development of an excellent mind and a beautiful body. The relevance of this history and its traditions was not lost on Baron Pierre de Coubertin of France, who in 1892 began a public campaign to resurrect the Games. His vision of the Olympics is encapsulated in these words: I shall burnish a flabby and cramped youth, its body and its character by sport, its risks and even its excesses. I shall enlarge its vision and its hearing by showing it with wide horizons, heavenly, planetary, historical horizons of universal history which, in engendering mutual respect, will bring about a ferment of international peace. All this is to be for everyone, with no discrimination on account of birth, caste, wealth, situation or occupation. De Coubertin's main objectives are contained in that resolution. The practice of sport would help to fight physical or moral decadence, a new and broader approach to teaching would counteract the harmful effects of specialisation. The teaching of history would have to be fundamentally transformed in order to allay the threat of nationalism and for nations to be looked upon as part of one humanity. De Coubertin continued: The time will come for deciding whether history must continue to be used as a material for war, or whether it will be allowed to play the peacemaking role of which it is capable. The Olympics to de Coubertin was an opportunity for nations to come together on a universal scale, putting aside partisan self-interest. Despite his own personal motivation to use the Olympics to revitalise France, which had been recently humiliated in the Franco-Prussian War, de Coubertin recognised the historical relevance of holding the first modern Olympic Games in Greece. I believe Australia and other countries should now recognise the symbolic importance of holding the centenary of the modern Games in Greece in 1996. Symbolism has always been a central feature of the Games. The torch is lighted at Olympia as homage to those who had given birth to the idea; the pigeons carry their message of peace between all nations to the heights; and there is the raising of the national flags of the winners and of the Olympic flag. Over recent years, the fundamentals of the Olympic tradition have been shaken, with the terrorist attacks in Munich and the constant boycotts by certain countries for political reasons. I believe the Olympic tradition could do with a shot in the arm and the symbolic importance of holding the one hundredth anniversary in Athens could help to provide this, just as the holding of the unofficial Games in Athens in 1906 helped to put the Games back on the rails after two failures, in Paris and the United States. So, too, could a 1996 Athens Games help to rekindle and remind a forgetful people of the objectives of the Olympic Games. I understand that Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will soon be making their submissions to the Australian Olympic Federation and that further bids will be made to the International Olympic Federation by Athens, Toronto, Atlanta, Manchester, and perhaps cities in South America. Had this been 1978-79, when the New South Wales Government had the chance to lodge a bid for the 1988 Olympic Games, I would have been in total support. However, we let this opportunity slide. Australia had its chance to hold the Games this year, our bicentenary year, but we lacked the foresight and confidence to make a bid 10 years ago; 1996 is not the time. If Greece had failed to lodge a bid it would have been a different matter. However, Greece has lodged a bid. Indeed, the Greek Prime Minister's son, George Papandreou, has been given the task of bringing the 1996 summer Olympic Games to Greece. I have read several local newspaper reports suggesting that Athens is not behind the proposal. This is not so. As the mayor of Athens, Uiltiadis Evert, recently testified in statements, Athens indeed is ready to host the Olympic Games and it is quite able with the facilities to do so. According to the Greek Under-Secretary of Sport, they are already well towards completion of the Athens infrastructure of the Olympics. It will be finished in 1990. They are also building up a sports infrastructure throughout Greece. Recently the Greek Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou, said that it was Greece's intention of staging the 1996 Olympics within a high level framework of cultural events, similar to those of the Olympic Games in antiquity. `Our ambition', he said, `is to make the Athens Games an Olympiad of peace and culture, not only an anniversary but a milestone.' Paraphrasing from the ancient Greek poet Pindar he said, `There is no greater honour for a country today than that of hosting the Olympic Games. Greece seeks this honour and I believe it has the right to it.' I had the honour recently of visiting Greece to attend the first international congress of the World Pan-Arcadian Federation. Whilst there I had the privilege of speaking to Mr Papandreou, the Prime Minister. I advised him that I supported the bid of Athens to hold the Olympic Games in 1996. I consider that Australia and the international community should also give Greece the opportunity and honour of holding the 1996 Olympic Games in recognition of that country's contribution to the Olympic ideal and to commemorate Greece's holding of the first Games of the modern Olympiad in 1896. Mr JULL(Fadden)(1.27) —When I entered the chamber this afternoon I had no idea that the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) was going to discuss the Olympics, because one of the points I was going to raise was the Olympic Games. While I would have very little with which to dis- agree with the honourable member in terms of what Athens may want, part of my reason for rising this afternoon was to make sure that the Federal Government was fully cognisant of the bid by Brisbane to stage a future Olympic Games. While I do not want to disagree with the honourable member, may I say that I think it would probably still be a good idea if Brisbane went ahead with that particular bid that it is now working on and if it had the support of the Commonwealth Government. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of prestige to be had from any city or country which stages the Olympic Games. The fact that Brisbane made a bid last time and was quite successful with that bid, coming in in third position, put it in a sound situation to make sure that it was successful in gaining the Olympics at a future date. I also say on that point that I think my home city of Brisbane, without being terribly parochial, has an outstanding record in the staging of these major events. I would hark back to the Commonwealth Games of 1982, which undoubtedly were some of the best ever held. The position at the moment with Expo 88 is really an outstanding achievement. More than nine million people have already been through the gates of Expo 88. As only 7.8 million people were targeted for the full six months of Expo, it really is a magnificent achievement and I think all those, from Sir Llew Edwards, down who have been involved with the staging of Expo should be congratulated. Already we are seeing the magnificent benefits that are flowing on to Australia, especially in terms of the number of international visitors who have come through in the first six months of this year. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred the other night to the very real contribution that tourism is making to the Australian economy at the moment. Quite frankly, if we did not have events like Expo at the moment, we would not have been listening to some of the figures that we heard the other night. While foreign debts are considerably bad at the moment, they would be a great deal worse if we had not had the foresight over the last decade to make sure that we had some of these great events and the capacity to build up the inbound tourist industry. Once again in this place I want to raise the issue of the Brisbane International Airport and the Government's attitude towards that particular airport. Members on all sides of the House during the parliamentary recess faced a very difficult situation where the southern suburbs and indeed some of the northern suburbs of Brisbane were subjected to aircraft noise that, I think it would be true to say, none of us had an inkling would happen after what we had been told about the construction and the benefits of the construction of the new Brisbane Airport runways. It was, in a bipartisan sense, that the Federal members from Brisbane got together and tried to resolve some of the situations and some of the very real concerns that faced the people in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, especially in terms of that aircraft noise. Some adjustments have been made and not everyone is happy. It has become perfectly obvious that the only solution now is to go back to the original plans for Brisbane International Airport and urge the Federal Government to start construction of the main cross runway as soon as we possibly can. That would appear to be the only solution. I am afraid that my confidence in the Government and, indeed, in the various airport authorities that have in recent times been established by this Government, is subject to very grave fears indeed. I refer to the recent statements by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC), recently established by this Government, as to what the future may be for the Brisbane international air terminal. It would seem that the board of the FAC at the moment is hell-bent on extending the present tin shed that serves as the Brisbane international terminal. There is no other city in Australia that has had the growth in international air traffic that Brisbane has had in recent times. The fact that Queensland is presently getting 48 per cent of the total number of international tourists coming into Australia is a tribute to that. I am quite mystified as to why the members of the Federal Airports Corporation want to follow this line about a temporary extension, while in the same breath talking about going ahead with the construction of an international air terminal, maybe in four or five years time. The plain facts of the matter are these: the present terminal does not have the capacity to be able to handle air traffic at the moment. There are times, especially on Fridays and Saturdays, when that airport is stretched to the limit. In the words of one of the Qantas hierarchy from Queensland, `It is an amazing situation when you physically see jumbo jets lined up one after each other waiting for another aircraft to leave its bay so that they can move in'. There have been complaints from Japanese airlines about the high cost involved in the burning off of fuel while they are waiting. There are continuing complaints from the passengers who have to use that terminal of delays, congestion and discomfort and yet we have had no real reaction from the Federal Airports Corporation. I was delighted to read earlier this week that agreements have been reached with the United States Government for an increase in flights between the west coast of the United States and Australia and that United and Continental airlines will have the capacity to serve Cairns and Brisbane airports. I hope they are prepared to come at about 3 o'clock in the morning, because that is going to be virtually the only time when they will be able to handle the traffic at Brisbane international. It seems absolutely amazing to me that the Government sets up bodies like the Federal Airports Corporation and tells us that they are autonomous, that they are going to be run in a businesslike manner, but they are talking about spending millions of dollars on a temporary extension of a tin shed that was designed as a store shed for that airport, without having regard to any of the real options. The real options are simply: that we can go ahead now with a new terminal for Brisbane International Airport at absolutely no cost to the long-suffering Australian taxpayer, because already the plans for the terminal are there; they have been there for the last 10 years on the original plans for Brisbane international. Very little design work has to be done. Already a major corporation has approached the Government and has made a bid to build that terminal at no cost to the taxpayer. The Federal Airports Corporation apparently just will not look at this option. If the Government is fair dinkum in trying to get some of these quasi-government organisations up on a commercial basis, I really think it should be questioning some of the appointments it has made to the board of the FAC. One of the great things that is happening now is that most governments around the world and, indeed, in the Western world, have acknowledged that airport terminals in fact can be major profit centres. The British, for example, want to get rid of their terminals; they want to put them out privately. One of the most commercial airports in the world is Manchester international which makes a huge profit. The Danes have now made Copenhagen Airport a major profit centre. The Dutch have been doing it at Amsterdam for years. Yet here in Australia when we have a build-up of tourism, when we have a great increase in the number of international flights and we indeed have the opportunity to start making money out of some of these particular outfits, we have a government organisation or a semi-government organisation which is going ahead and saying, `We really cannot build this now because it is going to cost too much money'. I would think that it would be plain common sense that the Federal Airports Corporation should look very closely at the idea of allowing private enterprise to go in, maybe not only in Brisbane. There are other airports around Australia. Private enterprise could go in and take over the running and the construction of the international airport terminals around Australia. There is a lot of money to be made out of them. We can, by doing it this way, ensure that we have a most efficient facility that will incorporate everything that is required in an international airport. One of the difficulties that we have in Australia is that we see international terminals as being there purely to handle incoming and outgoing traffic when we can turn them into shopping centres, into entertainment centres. We can build major hotels and create cities within themselves that can be of benefit not only to travellers but also to the whole population of a city. It seems absolutely crazy to me that we completely disregard that attitude and say, `No, we will not build a new terminal, we will wait for a few more years and make sure that the Australian taxpayers are up for an additional $42m'. That is what the case is in Queensland. It would cost the taxpayers $42m to build that new terminal now. Why does not the Federal Airports Corporation put it out to private tender straight away? It could be constructed in about 18 months at absolutely no cost to the long-suffering taxpayers. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.36) —Perhaps at the outset I should say that there is only one State in Australia which is appropriate as the host city for the next Olympic Games, and that of course is Melbourne. It is the only city in Australia which has all the current sporting facilities required on the ground ready for use for such an activity as the Olympic Games. It is the most up to date city in terms of sporting facilities under a Labor government and it is undoubtedly the only city which is capable, in Australia at the moment, at a reasonable cost of hosting the Olympic Games. But my function is not so much to support Melbourne. Melbourne as a great city stands by itself without necessary support; Melbourne is a city under a Labor administration and is recognised throughout the world as a forward thinking, active city. My main concern is to discuss some of the dishonesty which is associated with the current debate on the referendum questions, and indeed it is dishonesty. I am pleased that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) is in this House because he, above all else, is responsible for much of the dishonesty which is being perpetrated on the Australian people. Not only is he responsible for that; his office is also not prepared to provide speakers to debate me publicly on the issues in my electorate. Mr Reith —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member has said that I have been dishonest and I ask him to withdraw that imputation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr CLEELAND —Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member finds it offensive I withdraw it. Mr Reith —No, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek an unqualified withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable member will oblige. Mr CLEELAND —At the direction of the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw unqualifiedly. It does not take away from the fact that the statements made publicly are not legally correct, are not telling the legal position in this country as it applies particularly to the question of freedom of religion, and the fact that lawyers, legally trained people, are saying that there is no need to extend section 116 of the Australian Constitution so that it applies to the States and has the same effect on State Constitutions and State powers as it has on the Commonwealth. That is a nonsense. It in fact flies in the face of the true legal position in this country and the Opposition knows it. Mr Reith —Here comes a great big distortion. Mr CLEELAND —They know it. He said `distortion'. Well, let the honourable gentleman pick up the South Australian State reports of 1985. He is well aware of the case, he knows about the case. It is called the Grace Bible case. It is a decision of the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. It is a binding precedent in South Australia. It is of strong precedent value in all other supreme courts in this country and furthermore it is good law. It is undoubtedly the law which is applicable to State governments and the Opposition knows it. The lawyers in the Opposition know it. Yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are prepared publicly to state that religion is free and cannot be attacked by State governments. The full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, in the Grace Bible case, held that the State Government of South Australia could legally abolish religion in South Australia. It had the constitutional power to pass legislation to prohibit religion and any other State in this country has that power. Mr Reith —Are they going to? Mr CLEELAND —Yet we have these inane interjections from a lawyer who has the responsibility on behalf of the Opposition to address these questions publicly. Is that not a tragedy? Is it not a tragedy that a decision of a full court of a Supreme Court of our States which has shown the Australian people the true legal position, as it applies in this country, is totally ignored? We have public comments, that somehow or other section 116 of the Federal Constitution will have power over the States to prevent them from abolishing religion or legislating for or against religion. Does any Australian really want the power of a State government to pass a law, legally, to enforce any Australian to belong to a religion? Does any Australian really want that to be the law of this country or the law of a State? Yet the honourable gentleman who is so embarrassed sitting there because he knows it to be the truth is running around the countryside telling people the opposite. This is the reality where any issue involving the Constitution ultimately ends up. The Opposition is made up of conservative parties which by instinct, inclination and thought patterns will oppose any changes whatsoever, whether good or bad; they will run out and oppose them and they will make public statements, whether they are truthful in a legal position or not, to try to confuse the Australian people. I must confess that they are doing a pretty good job. I have to admit that. They have done a very good job. They have confused the Australian people and, as they generally tend to do, they will vote no to issues they do not understand. So the chance is that they do not trust us. They do not trust themselves to give the power in the Constitution, which is their document, to say to the State governments, `You cannot have the power to prohibit religion'. As I said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Reverend Ken Cain of the Uniting Church in Montmorency, tried to get a public debate within my electorate on the issue of the whole four constitutional questions. The honourable member for Flinders, as spokesman for the Opposition on this matter, was approached to obtain a speaker. Would you believe that no speaker is available? No speaker is available. We cannot even get a public debate within my electorate to call the public to a meeting where an Opposition member is prepared to stand up and debate a humble little backbencher of the Government on these issues. They run away from publicity. They will not publicly debate one for one anywhere in Australia. All they do is use the media. Mr Reith —What about the bishops? Mr CLEELAND —They string a half story-- Mr Reith —What about the bishops? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will stop interjecting. Mr Reith —It is a lie. Mr CLEELAND —It hurts, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is bleeding. Look at him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Flinders will withdraw. Mr Reith —I withdraw. Mr CLEELAND —He can't stand it. I do not mind whether he does or does not, the truth always comes out. Whether the referendum is won or lost the honourable member will always be remembered in legal circles for what he has said about the legal position in this country. He will always be remembered among lawyers for what he has said and he knows it. If one day this country is unfortunate enough to have him as an Attorney-General, and I might say that that is looking extremely unlikely-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Labor's referendum proposal on local government has the potential seriously to undermine this vital tier of government, not enhance it as the Hawke Government would have us mistakenly believe. Sadly, some municipal councils have naively accepted the Government line and are using their ratepayers' funds in promotion of this misguided cause, yet there is nothing in this proposal to recognise local government in the Federal Constitution that in any way protects local government's own funding arrangements. In fact, during the very time that the Federal Labor Government has been pushing its referendum proposal it has cut general purpose grants to 75 out of the 210 local governing bodies in Victoria alone. Furthermore, closer examination of the local government proposal reveals Labor's hidden agenda for centralisation. The proposal requires States to maintain `a system of local government' but not necessarily in the context that we have traditionally understood local government. It is clear that this proposal allows the forced amalgamation of existing municipal councils into regional government areas, a long-held ambition of Labor in this country. What Mr Whitlam could not force through the front door the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is endeavouring to sneak through the back door. Regional governments directly controlled and funded by Canberra would not only see the end of local government as we know it, but also substantially erode the sovereignty and strength of our States. Saying no to Labor's referendum proposal is the only sure protection for local government. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I rise to express my concern at the politicisation of matters of such importance as that of multiculturalism. I believe the people of Australia deserve better than statements from public figures which reinforce and create barriers between people of different racial origin and culture rather than strive to draw them together. Statements are made of the takeover of people of a certain race which has certainly flourished for decades in Australia since we heard of the yellow peril; people who otherwise, I believe, would be drawn by the richness of the culture and would come together with that natural understanding and goodness which I believe is part of our character; instead they are being driven to fear. This is not good enough. I take as an example Expo in Queensland, at which people from countries all around the world are presenting their culture in pavilions and people from Queensland and Australia are flocking to this area. People, in fact, welcome this evidence of a true multicultural presentation. The brainwash is occurring in their being told that there is something to fear in allowing people of different races to mingle with us and become part of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —On 3 September $37m will be spent on a referendum, a referendum that has not been sought by the Australian people. With the exception of some local government bodies nobody has ever come to me and said, `We need changes to the Constitution'. The people of Australia are unaware that there will be 32 sections of the Constitution of 128 sections actually affected if there is a yes vote to four of the questions. Over 2,000 extra words will be inserted into the Constitution. It is very deceiving when you go into the ballot box to vote and you find the question before you: Do you favour democratic elections? Of course we do. We might even favour a four-year period of the House of Representatives, but it is the Senate that the Government is having a go at. It wants to reduce the power of the Senate. The referendum is designed for two things: first, to reduce the powers of the Senate and, secondly, to concentrate powers in Canberra away from the control of the States. The Government cannot doubt this because these are the issues. Local government, freedom of religion and these things are put in as extras because the Government might have been requested to do so by the organisations. But the people of Australia guard their Constitution very jealously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in today's Business Age there is a headline `May statement tax decision sends friendlies into decline'. The Association of Australian Friendly Societies President, Mr Murray Campbell, states that the increase in friendly societies' tax from 20 to 30 per cent has been to the detriment of, particularly, pensioners and other investors in their single premium investment bonds. I applaud what the Government has done in trying to even up the playing fields of investment so that one does not have a tax advantage over another. However, given that the increase may have been too severe, there may be a need to review the increase of 50 per cent of the tax by 10 per cent from 20 to 30 per cent so that, indeed, a level playing field is matched. The reason the friendly societies are disadvantaged is the way State governments have limited their investment opportunities and therefore access to dividend imputation credits. Let us have level playing fields by all means. Let us have a review of the tax to see whether, indeed, after 12 months or so that has been achieved. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I will try not to let my blood pressure get too high because they have taken my tablet off the list, but never mind. Why do you hate Tasmania over there? I cannot understand it. Take that Helsham inquiry. I was looking in the Budget Papers, gentlemen, and it cost $1.5m plus. What a lot of pensioners that could help. They are all up there in the gallery. It could help a lot of people but, regrettably, it cost $1.5m to appease the conservationists, including the great Bob Brown from Tasmania, one of these single issue politicians. I wish to God he would come into my office one day and look at some of the real problems facing the people of my electorate. It costs us $1.5m for the Helsham inquiry. Then when the recommendation was brought down that they leave Tasmania alone, what did they do? We got this sinister Senator Richardson, the manipulator within the Labor Party. He, the born again greenie, they tell me, decided to use his power. So what did they do again? They procrastinated. They could not make a decision. What about those poor people who come to see me, those poor woodcutters, those poor people who have got their trucks to make their payments on, those ordinary average Australians? That was the famous Labor Party that said it cared for the workers. What has it done? It has chopped the trees down and killed the poor workers in the process. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman) —During the grievance debate the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) spoke of the building of a new international terminal at the Brisbane Airport. I want to place on record here today that I, personally, am very concerned. I know that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has in the past been very concerned, as have the constituents in my electorate of Bowman and also in other areas. My colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) and to some degree also the honourable member for Lilley are aware of the noise pollution that is being suffered as a result of the fact that the air flight paths go over the suburbs of Brisbane. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to place on record my opposition to the building of any new international airport terminal until such time as the problem of noise pollution is completely eradicated from Brisbane suburbs. Mrs Darling —I agree with you. Mr SCIACCA —The honourable member for Lilley agrees with me, and I know that the honourable member for Griffith also agrees with me. I noticed that the honourable member for Fadden talked in terms of criticism of the Federal Airports Corporation. I take what he says and there has been a bipartisan approach to noise problems but unfortunately the noise problem is really only in a number of electorates-two or three-and they are all held by Labor members. I do appreciate the bipartisan approach. It is a problem which was started by the Fraser Government and which is still a problem now. It is not something which is political but it is something that has to be fixed up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes) —I urge the Australian people on 3 September to vote no to the fourth question, which proposes to extend the freedom of religion, so called, because this will end up meaning freedom from religion as it has been interpreted in the Supreme Court in America. Over there there is no funding for church schools and that will happen here in Australia. Prayers have been taken out of government schools over there. Even public authorities cannot display a cross at Christmas time. At a child care centre, a fire brigade cannot display a cross at Christmas time. Christmas carols have been banned from some shopping plazas, a nativity scene has been banned from Central Park in New York and even the American motto, `In God we trust', is in danger of being barred from use in public. Religious programs will be banned from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Australia. It will weaken the tax exempt status of churches and ministers will be prevented from ministering in public hospitals. It is an outrageous proposition and I urge the Australian people to vote no to this on 3 September. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Having recently travelled overseas I am most concerned at the practical effects of pollution which is evident in many overseas countries. I do not intend in this rather short statement to single out the countries I visited, because my experiences will be the subject of a detailed report. Suffice it to say that pollution is causing serious environmental problems throughout the world. We have the problems of the greenhouse effect, which the ever-thickening soup-like mixture of noxious pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and methane is causing with the sun's rays being trapped beneath the atmosphere and causing a huge rise in the temperature of the world. This is causing great harvest loss problems and it is no good for experts to say, `Oh yes, but this could be of benefit to Australia', when this is going to cause untold harm in countries all around the world. Another problem is the acid rains, and I want to commend to all honourable members and to all people listening the August issue of Habitat, which has a very good article about acid rains. Acid rains are caused by the factory pollutants which are pouring out of the chimney stacks of the industrialised countries, and I say to our Government and to all governments around the world, `We must do something now about this problem'. It is possible to prevent these pollutants. It is only a question of putting in the mechanical devices and the money must be spent now before it is too late. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Madam Speaker, I was disgusted recently at the portrayal by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) of a truly great Australian in Sir Robert Menzies in its recent series, The True Believers> The ABC portrayed Sir Robert in that series as a man who was arrogant, aloof, uncaring and not the truly great Australian which he was. I understand that the ABC may well in that series have been wishing to portray the Labor politicians of the time and that was what the story was about, but I do think that the ABC showed its bias in the way in which Sir Robert Menzies was portrayed. I could suggest only that the ABC should offer a very humble apology to Dame Pattie Menzies and to the Menzies family for the way in which it portrayed a truly great Australian as Sir Robert Menzies was. It was a disgusting example of the way in which the ABC in particular, and the media of this country, is now heading. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —I was somewhat puzzled as to why the National Party was opposing the one vote one value question in the referendum but, after listening to the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and the other speakers today, when reference was made to the length of the legislation and the number of words involved in the legislation, I came to see that really the problem is that they do not find time or the ability to read the words. It is just too difficult for them to read all the words and to come to grips with the problem. It is quite frightening to think that farmers, who are quite literate people, are being represented by people who come into the House and complain that the legislation is too long, which really means they have not got time to read it, or the words are simply too big for them and they do not understand what the words mean. Is that not a tragedy for the Australian people and the Australian farmer to have people who stand in this House with that kind of a problem? Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —Madam Speaker, I rise to make a 90-second statement, not because I intended to, but because I am provoked to do so by the statements made by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). On 3 September the people of Australia must in fact make a very serious choice on a number of questions which are made to look superficially appealing, and they must vote no, no, no and no again. The reason that we are advocating a no vote is simply that we believe absolutely that this House and the Senate ought to be regarded as two separate institutions. The comments made by the honourable member for McEwen, which merely indicate or suggest that people are doing this for superficially political reasons, are quite wrong. The members of the Opposition are committed to a no vote because they believe it is the only thing to do in the interests of the nation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. I call questions without notice. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to a statement by Senator Walsh in which he said that on a no policy change basis a surplus of $8 billion is in prospect for next year, that is, 1989-90. With no substantial cuts in Government expenditure in prospect for 1989-90, I ask the Treasurer how he will finance substantial tax cuts, equivalent to about $30 a week for middle to low income earners, without bringing about a reduction in the surplus and hence boosting domestic demand and imports. Mr KEATING —If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that is a good question, I can only ask how he would have provided a $6 billion tax cut two years earlier while the current account was worse, while it was still heavily into deficit, while we were having demand management problems, and while there was no surplus. How would he have managed a $6 billion unfunded tax cut? I know how he would have managed it: he would have destroyed fiscal policy. I have not seen any remarks made by Senator Walsh, but obviously he would be correct in saying that the surplus would be larger next year on an unchanged policy basis. Of course it would. From that surplus, of course, the tax cuts will be accommodated. Mr MILTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is the Minister aware of a media release on 5 August by Friends of the Earth alleging that due to abnormally low rainfall more than one-third of the tailings in the dam at the Ranger uranium mine have been exposed to the atmosphere? Is he also aware of further allegations that attempts by Ranger to dampen the tailings have left a dry portion in the centre of the dam as it is not within range of the water spray system? Will the Minister investigate these allegations in view of the potential hazards to workers, tourists and the nearby town of Jabiru from the release of wind-carried radioactive dust particles? Mr PUNCH —The Government is aware of claims by Friends of the Earth about the exposed tailings at Ranger. A trial operation of a semi-dry tailings management system has been under way at Ranger for almost a year. The trial, which was approved by the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy following consultation with and assessment by the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, was approved on the basis that semi-dry tailings management constituted the best practicable technology and would lead on balance to an improvement in environmental protection in the area. I am advised that, although the operating method eliminates free water above the tailings and reduces their moisture content below saturation at the surface, the material does remain very damp but coherent. Importantly, observations to date have detected no significant tendency to create dust. Such observations will continue, and plans are in place to rewet the tailings surface should any areas become sufficiently dry to potentially allow the suspension of the tailings to turn into dust. I am advised further that the Office of the Supervising Scientist and the Northern Territory supervising authority, as well as Ranger, have been closely observing and monitoring the situation to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the environment, workers and members of the public as a result of any radon emission. The honourable member can be assured that this will be continually observed. Mr PEACOCK —My question is again to the Treasurer. I remind him that, assuming bracket indexation had operated from 1986-87, and using the methodology of the firm Access Economics, which was established by two former senior Treasury officers and which produced that informative Budget monitor last week, a person on average weekly earnings will pay over $1,050 additional tax in 1988-89 and over $1,350 additional tax in 1989-90 due to bracket creep. I ask the Treasurer how the additional tax due to bracket creep, estimated at over $1,050 in 1988-89, can be reconciled with his claim that bracket creep is contributing only a `sliver' of the increase in tax revenue this year. Mr KEATING —I gave the facts as to the `sliver' yesterday. It is $1.5 billion. Mr Peacock —And they don't add up. Mr KEATING —They might not add up with an ex-Treasury official working on his own model, but they add up in the Treasury. That is curious. The whole resources of the Treasury cannot add up but a couple of ex-Treasury staffers with their own ticker board can. I made the point yesterday to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is the height of incredulity for him to be talking about fiscal drag when yesterday on a radio interview, when asked about tax cuts, he said: Well you phase your tax cuts over the three year period, based on cuts in government expenditure . . . The next question was whether he would give tax cuts, to which he replied: Yes, but I wouldn't be able to deliver on what is required in one year. I would have to phase it over the three year period because it's a very significant sum of money . . . It is a contradiction in terms for him to say he would phase it in over three years and provide automatic indexation of the tax scales. Here he is asking me about bracket creep when the loss to revenue by express decision of the Government was $1.4 billion-the same as the increase in bracket creep. We have given back the same amount of money as we got from the increase in bracket creep; as well, we have lost $1 billion of Reserve Bank profit and $675m from oil receipts as a result of the lower oil prices benefiting the community. So we have lost or given back $3 billion as against the $1 1/2 billion raised by bracket creep, and we have tax cuts 10 months away. The Deputy thinks this is a shocking position and he says he would give tax cuts phased in over three years, with all that that implies for hanging on to fiscal drag or the bracket creep for three years. Mr LAMB —Given the interest displayed here yesterday in alcohol related diseases and as a pharmacist professionally interested in preventive health programs, I ask whether the Minister for Community Services and Health will inform the House what action is being taken to improve the health status of Australians most susceptible to avoidable illnesses and injury. Dr BLEWETT —I am happy indeed to respond to the question from the honourable member for Streeton. I spoke to the House on Tuesday, in response to another question, and indicated the benefits that had already accrued from one particular preventive policy-the vaccination of children against measles. I suggested that very real benefits had already accrued out of that bicentennial program, and the national better health initiative in this Budget will stimulate further initiatives of that kind in defined areas. They make up a four-year program costing some $41m, to be cost shared with the States, which will implement some key recommendations of the Better Health Commission report. In addition to the $41m, we will also be putting in over that period of time some $10m from the Commonwealth health promotion program, which will be dovetailed into the better health program. We have already reached agreement with the States about a national program and have identified together the five major areas in which the program will operate. The first of these is high blood pressure, which affects one in six adults and, if untreated, leads to major problems and hospitalisation. There will be particular emphasis on programs for the reduction of hypertension, particularly in blue collar communities, and we will be working with food manufacturers to reduce the salt content of packaged foods. The second area is nutrition. In many ways, unbalanced nutrition leads to lower health status. The better health program will stimulate nutrition research, again very much in socially disadvantaged groups, and will improve the availability of fresh foods. Thirdly, we can expect the campaign to further advise women in relation to pap smears to prevent cervical cancer, as well as continuing the existing anti-smoking measures and sun protection campaigns. Fourthly, most injuries are preventable. Therefore, we will extend injury surveillance to develop a national database on number, type and cause of injuries. This will allow a trouble-shooting approach in cooperation with other groups concerned with occupational health and safety. Finally, there will be health initiatives for the aged, concentrating on developing a much more participatory role for older people in local health planning and aged care service development. As all honourable members know, older people make the greatest use of hospital and medical services in this society. We want to help them to prevent the kind of dependency that too often occurs in old age as a result of insufficient preventive health services being available earlier. We have pretty high standards of health in this country; they are among the best in the Western world. But we now know that there are some very well-defined health problems relating to particular groups and particular conditions. The object of these preventive health policies is to address those major disadvantaged groups and those major health inequalities which exist in our society. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to his statement in the House last night that he had `entirely valid entry documents to enter Japan'. What were those documents? Where and when were those documents issued or, where necessary, revalidated? Mr KEATING —We do not call the honourable member for Mackellar `Carlton Light' for nothing. The answer is that the visa was issued by the Government of Japan in Australia and is current for four years. That is all one needs. That is how one gets into Japan. One needs a visa, which I had. That is why there was no issue whatsoever. The passport is only the vehicle that carries the visa. Mr Howard —Ah! Mr KEATING —If little Johnnie does not know that, he does not know very much. Mr PRICE —Can the Minister for Social Security explain to the House who will benefit from the Government's new jobs, education and training scheme for sole parents? Can the Minister advise the House whether this scheme will assist to meet the Government's social justice objectives? Mr HOWE —The jobs, education and training scheme, known as JET, like the new start program, is a scheme designed by this Labor Government to harness the energies of different departments to help those with chronic labour market disabilities. It will provide sole parent pensioners with needs assessment, advice, counselling and assistance through my Department; improved income security through Austudy and formal training allowance paid by the Department of Employment, Education and Training; access to education and labour market programs; and child care tailored to their education, training or employment choices. It will deliver lasting employment to sole parents and enable them to join the mainstream of community life. The great social tragedy of Australia in the 1970s and 1980s has been the explosion in the number of sole parent families and the marginalisation of sole parents in the labour market. In 1974 there were 105,000 sole parent pensioners, constituting 57.4 per cent of all sole parents. By 1983-there was reference to our period in government-after seven years of Opposition rule, 82 per cent of sole parents were pensioners. There were 252,000 families with only one parent and dependent on a pension. This tragedy was brought about through income security policies that imprisoned people in poverty traps, the lack of child care and community attitudes that excluded sole parents from the mainstream. Over the past two years we have substantially improved the income security aspects of that particular problem by lifting the free areas and introducing earnings credit and, most recently, the separate income test on maintenance. The jobs, education and training program now addresses the other labour market dis- abilities of sole parents, including those who have been on pension for more than a year and whose youngest child is at school. These people will be in the prime of their working lives and with appropriate assistance will be prevented from long term marginalisation in the labour market. The second group will be those whose youngest child is 14 or over. Eligibility for sole parent pension finishes when the youngest child turns 16. These people will be needing to join the labour force within a couple of years; so we will provide every help for them to do that. The third group is teenage sole parents. One of the great myths of this country is that the explosion of sole parent numbers is due to teenagers having babies so that they can go on the pension. Of course, this is a myth and a lie. In 1979-- Mr Lloyd —Ha, ha! Mr HOWE —I hope that the honourable member will listen to this because in the social security portfolio there is no greater disability than ignorance in the community about the characteristics of the population of those on pensions and benefits. Day after day one has to face the kind of rubbish that is constantly talked about the sole parent population and is often spread by people in the Opposition who had responsibility in that portfolio in the past, including the honourable member opposite. In 1979, 4.2 per cent of female sole parent pensioners were teenagers. By 1986 this figure had fallen to 2.4 per cent. The typical sole parent is not a teenager. Yet again and again the barrier to the formation of constructive social policy in this area has been the perpetuation of that kind of mythology. Indeed, it is only since this Government-- Mr Blunt —You haven't any moral fibre, Brian. Mr HOWE —The honourable member talks about moral fibre. Was it moral fibre that resulted in the situation in which young kids aged 16 and 17 years were being paid $20 for educational support in the education system? Was that moral fibre compared with the $50 they are currently receiving? Was it moral fibre that produced a situation in which more than 100,000 young people were thrown on to the unemployment benefit scrapheap and given no alternative? Was it moral fibre that left the family allowance-- Mr Blunt —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister's rhetoric is obviously irrelevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a point of order? I call the Minister. Mr HOWE —Was it moral fibre that left the assistance for children in pensioner and beneficiary families $20 and $30 below the poverty line? Mr Blunt —I rise again on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether the rhetoric of the Minister is relevant to the question he was asked. Government members-Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right were not asked to rule; I was. Yes, it is relevant to the question. Mr HOWE —Was it moral fibre that in the Opposition's seven years in government, given the explosion in the number of sole parents, it failed to produce a policy anything like equivalent to the child support scheme that this Government has introduced? Was it moral fibre that produced the kinds of poverty traps that meant that when we came into government less than one-third of sole parents were effectively within the work force in the conditions of a debilitated economy? The issue that the honourable member for Chifley draws attention to is the plight of a group of people in the Australian population acknowledged by every major welfare organisation as being the poorest group. That poverty was exacerbated desperately during the Opposition's period in government. During our period in government we have slowly but surely constructed what I believe will be recognised as one of the most progressive social policies with respect to this group in any country in the world. At a recent meeting with social policy Ministers at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which I chaired, it was acknowledged that the polices being developed in this country with respect to sole parents were amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced, in the Western world. Mr CARLTON —My question is one again for the Treasurer and it follows on from the question I asked last. Was he travelling on a valid passport or had it expired? Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Mackellar last night wrote to me and then raised matters in the Parliament, the specific charge being that I had breached Japanese law. Because of the nature of this charge-- Mr Carlton —No. Mr KEATING —Yes, it was; it was in the letter. Because of the nature of this charge, embassy officials in Japan were asked to contact the Japanese foreign ministry. The head of the Japanese consular and immigration affairs bureau confirmed that this was not the case and that my visa was current. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Spender —Sit down, sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will not usurp the Chair's authority. The Treasurer will resume his seat. I am now hearing a point of order from the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, now that puffing Billy has exhausted himself-- Madam SPEAKER —Just get on with the point of order. Mr Spender —Can I return to the point of order, Madam Speaker, which is simply this: a very direct question was put to the Treasurer that admits of a simple yes or no answer. He was asked whether he was travelling on a valid passport or whether it had expired. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will answer the question himself. He does not have to answer the question as you request him. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, may I put the point of order? He then went on to talk about Japanese law. Japanese law has nothing to do with the validity of Australian passports. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Minister will answer the question in his own way. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. It goes to whether or not it is in order for the honourable member for North Sydney to raise that point of order in the manner in which he did. Mr Beale —You cannot debate a point of order. Mr Beazley —It is a further point of order. The point of order is whether or not it is in order for a person to raise a point of order in this place and at the same time go to matters of order in this House which only you, Madam Speaker, can deal with. This is a persistent pattern of behaviour from the honourable member for North Sydney-to hector you on what was clearly your role in this House, and that is to determine whether or not a person should be seated when a matter is raised. Madam SPEAKER —I did so determine and pointed that out to the honourable member for North Sydney. I trust that the honourable member for North Sydney will not usurp my authority again. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on the point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will wait until I call him. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, have you just suggested to the House that it is not proper for a member to resume his seat when you tell him and it is not proper, as has been suggested by the Leader of the House, that on a point of order the other party must resume his seat? Will you clarify that please? Madam SPEAKER —What I said to the honourable member for North Sydney was that when I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat it is my authority; it is not for the honourable member for North Sydney to stand at the dispatch box and tell the Treasurer to sit down. That is my right and I will protect my right and the House will protect my right to protect my right. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I will pick up the sentence where I left off. The head of the consular and immigration affairs bureau in Japan confirmed that this was not the case and that the visa which I had was current and that the Japanese regarded my entry as completely legitimate. Further, the Australian Embassy in Japan did not provide any assistance whatsoever to me in relation to my passport or my entry requirements to Japan which would not have been provided to any other Australian citizen. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr KEATING —This is all. I will get to that part of the question. This is all relevant to the matters raised. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will please resume his seat. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, the Treasurer has just said that he would get to the point and that these matters are relevant to the matters raised. The question, I remind you, Madam Speaker, is whether or not he was travelling on a valid passport. Madam SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for North Sydney that the Treasurer is answering the question in his way. Mr Spender —I submit, Madam Speaker, that does not come anywhere near being relevant. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer is answering the question in his own way. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —It is not for the Chair to tell the Treasurer what to say. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, it is not for the Chair to tell the Treasurer what to say, but to remind the Treasurer of the duty of relevance and to ensure that he is relevant. Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could you provide the honourable member for North Sydney with a copy of standing order 145. I am sure that with a lot of difficulty he could read. Mr KEATING —Again, I repeat the point that no assistance was provided to me that would not be provided to any Australian citizen in the circumstances. Let me deal with the specific point, now that the Opposition has shifted its ground off the Japanese visa, and make this point: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes it clear that, unless specific information on a person is held in the Customs computer which prohibits the exit from Australia of that person under the Migration Act of Australia, citizens are free to leave Australia when they choose. Nor do immigration officials have the right to insist that people have a valid passport. What immigration authorities have to do is satisfy themselves as to the citizenship of the persons leaving Australia. Mr Beale —Why do we have this explanation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —In my case, my citizenship was not in question because all MPs have to be Australian citizens. Of course, many people lose passports, leave them in airport terminals and still catch aircraft. All that has to be settled is whether they are citizens. Mr Carlton —So it does not matter? Mr KEATING —In this case it did not matter. Mr Howard —What about your-- Mr KEATING —This is little Enoch having a go here-- Mr Beale —What about your passport? Mr KEATING —They are great little mates-`Yellow Fever' and little Enoch, both in full flight. The fact of the matter is that my passport has been extended eight times in five years. The diplomatic passports issued to diplomats are valid for five years. Passports issued to MPs are valid for the period of the Parliament. We have had the practice of validating Ministers' passports for three, four and six months at a time and this is why mine was overlooked. When the entry-- Mr Beale-Oh! Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Deakin that if he continues to interrupt I will deal with him. Mr KEATING —There is no requirement. I was invited by the Department of Foreign Affairs to validate the passport, if I wished, in Tokyo, which I did. But the relevant issue is that I had a fully valid Japanese entry visa and that is all that matters. This issue ranks with Mr Carlton's inquiries about my son's broken arm when he went into hospital in 1984. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is a gross misuse of Question Time, as the Treasurer understands, and I am sure you will uphold relevance on this occasion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer would understand that his son's broken arm is not relevant to the question. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, these matters have been raised against me before. It is relevant that snide investigations were made by the honourable member for Mackellar about my son's hospitalisation, by this Uriah Heep over here. He-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, are you going to uphold the point on relevance? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will not go down that path. Mr KEATING —It is relevant, Madam Speaker. It has been raised three times by this loon over here. Madam SPEAKER —Not in this House. The Chair is asking you to resume your seat. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is quite irrelevant and also totally untrue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is dealing with it and needs no help. Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, let me deal with the point of order on the question of relevance. The honourable member for Mackellar received stolen documents in the case of correspondence between me and the Australian Taxation Office and he brought them here. He is a receiver and handler of stolen documents. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will not continue down this path. Mr Keating —He now has this information. He had snide investigations made of my son's-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The question and answer are at an end. Mr SCIACCA —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I might add that it is very important to this country, not like the last question, that rubbish that we had. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get on with his own question. Mr SCIACCA —Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that yesterday an Adelaide man had the tyres of his car slashed and his garage burnt down as a reprisal for a letter which was published in the Adelaide Advertiser condemning the so-called one Australia policy of the Leader of the Opposition? Further, has the Minister's attention been drawn to another disturbing incident where prominent and respected senior journalist Max Walsh had his home and his wife's car attacked by members of a racist group known as National Action who with aerosol cans of paint drew obscenities and left their signature, namely the swastika? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government's approach to the migration debate and its policies will not incite the kind of community divisiveness which has occurred since the Leader of the Opposition entered the debate? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for Bowman for his question. I am aware of the issues that he raised. I think I should begin to answer them by drawing the attention of the House to the statements made in the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, which has been the subject of considerable misinterpretation by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition. I refer to page 6 of that report where it says: In the Committee's consultations- and it is talking about the question of Asian immigration- . . . five out of the 587 individuals we spoke to were overtly against Asian immigrants on grounds of nothing other than race. And the written submissions from organisations representing hundreds of thousands of Australians and from many individuals did not even take this as an issue. It went on to say: Racism is by no means excised from Australia. The potential for bigotry sleeps within most individuals, and racism in many forms pervades our society. It goes on to say-and this is the important thing: Systematic discrimination also is not excised from our society. But in the immigration context it is not yet apparent that such discrimination is directed at Asian immigrants more than other immigrant groups. The report went on to say: But we have now had Asian immigration for more than a decade, and empirical evidence tells us that we have not had race riots or many of the other social problems the opponents of Asian immigration have been predicting since the beginning. I remind the House that the FitzGerald Committee was in session for over 12 months. It received over a thousand representations from the most widely based groups in Australian society. It spent more than 10 days eliciting oral information from people who had given written submissions. At the end of that time, what the Committee has told the people of Australia and what it has told this House is that there was no evidence that could be found which suggested that there was any level of overt racism directed against Asian immigrants which it would regard as of any serious kind. What has happened since then? The honourable member has drawn my attention and the House's attention to a number of serious incidents. Let us just look at it. A respected political journalist, Max Walsh, following a well considered article, which was a legitimate contribution to the whole immigration debate, was critical of the Opposition's policy proposals. What was the result? Within 24 hours his wife's car and his neighbour's car were spray painted with swastikas and obscenities. That occurred in August of this year. An Adelaide man wrote a letter to the editor condemning the Opposition policy. His garage was subsequently set alight by white supremacists who threatened in a phone call to burn down his house next time. That also occurred in August of this year. My colleague-- Mr Nehl —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I take great exception to a comment from the Government benches accusing the National Party of certain acts. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear the honourable member for Cowper. Mr Nehl —I ask that person to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not hear the point of order. Mr Nehl —It is beyond the pale, Madam Speaker. It is totally unacceptable. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not catch the inference. Mr HOLDING —My colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh was present when a citizenship ceremony was broken up by virtue of people objecting to Australian residents of Asian origin being sworn in as Australian citizens. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has had a brick put through his window on the basis of his support for a non-discriminatory policy. He has been informed that next time it will be a bomb. Let me also deal with a further aspect of this matter which I think is in the same league and raises the same issue. The Reverend Dorothy McMahon of the Pitt Street Uniting Church, by virtue of her commitment to an Australian society that will not harbour racial intolerance, found that buckets of faeces, vomit and rotting material were spread all over her front verandah and stuffed in her letterbox. Her church was raided and swastikas placed in various parts. All this has happened within the course of the last two months following a report from an independent committee that pointed out that Australia was free of this type of activity. Government member-John Howard. Mr HOLDING —I do not have any doubt that all members of this honourable House would condemn those activities. I say publicly, as I have said on many occasions-and I do not recant-- Mr Goodluck —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Somebody on the other side of the House keeps saying a particular name. I take offence to it. Why blame somebody for this? The honourable member is only stirring up this trouble. I would like him not to use that name. He is just stirring up trouble. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —You are trying to promote a racist debate. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right are not assisting the Chair. Mr HOLDING —I am told by the Leader of the National Party of Australia that I am trying to promote a racist debate. Let me quote to the Leader of the National Party not my view-because I have been very careful to be more than generous to the honourable gentlemen opposite-but the words of the Reverend Dorothy McMahon, who was not trying to promote a racist debate but was a victim of these activities. What did she say? She said that there is a rise in racist views. She continued: Anyone who has travelled round the inner-west of this city has seen a rising number of incidents where ordinary Asians on a bus are abused in the most obscene and horrible way. She goes on to say-and I think this ought to be borne in mind by all who want to partake in this debate in some sensible and rational way-that although she does not believe, as I do not believe, that the Leader of the Opposition is in any way racist, what he has done has been to open up an issue. She rightly points out that when he says that we have to lower the Asian intake, he is dealing with race issues, not immigration issues. I do not believe, as I have said publicly, that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party are racists. But I do believe that when we see this sort of evidence, which has no place in Australian society, it is time to stop and think and reflect. What is occurring is not the mounting of a racist debate. But what they have done, by the kinds of statements that have been made about Asian immigration and about Australian citizens of Asian origin, is open up an issue in such a way that some lunatic groups with xenophobic racist traditions in this society now believe that they can act with freedom and that their racist attitudes can assume a veneer of respectability. This Opposition, in seeking and chasing votes, has abandoned its own philosophies and its own traditions. Mr SINCLAIR —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications Support advise the House whether an ordinary Australian would be allowed aboard an international carrier bound for an overseas destination with an expired passport? Mr PETER MORRIS —To the best of my knowledge it is not a matter of my responsibility. The Leader of the National Party will recall that when he presents himself for departure at international airports he submits his documents to a member of the Australian Customs Service, not to a member of the Department of Transport and Communications. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of claims that the Government has been less than forthcoming about the details of his agreement with the New Zealand Agriculture Minister on free and fair trade in dairy products? Can the Minister advise the House of the truth of such claims? Mr KERIN —There has been a lot of politically inspired nonsense circulated by National Party members and candidates about what is being proposed in relation to dairy trade between Australia and New Zealand. Last night in a general omnibus Bill on primary industry matters, both the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Wannon claimed that there was no knowledge of these documents. It culminated yesterday in the House when the Deputy Leader and the honourable member for Wannon, whose local Liberal Party is under pressure from the National Party for the next Victorian election, called upon me to table an exchange of letters I had with my New Zealand counterpart, Colin Moyle, on the dairy issue. Far be it from me to say that Mr Saunders, who is President of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria and has been twice rejected for Liberal pre-selection, now has National Party pre-selection in the upper House. I do not know where the two honourable members get their advice from, but they are obviously pretty ignorant of the facts. The dairy industry has been made fully aware of the contents of the letters and, indeed, was consulted in their drafting. The Minister for Trade Negotiations and I worked through that with the dairy industry on many occasions. The fact is that, following the signing of the closer economic relations protocols by the two Prime Ministers, an information kit on all aspects of the agreement was widely circulated, and it includes the full text of the exchange of letters on the dairy industry. It is not my job to make up for the Deputy Leader's inadequacies, but I have brought three copies of the letters with me so that I can table them and give copies to the two honourable members. If they do not know about it, it is not my fault. Mr SINCLAIR —In the light of the answer given a moment ago by the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Customs-- Mr Barry Jones —I am the Minister for Customs. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. Mr Hawke —He is a very proper Minister. Mr SINCLAIR —He is a very proper Minister, as the Prime Minister says. Will the Minister advise the House whether an ordinary Australian presenting an expired passport to an international carrier when that person was travelling to an overseas destination would be permitted to board the aircraft for that destination? Mr BARRY JONES —So far as the Australian Customs Service is concerned, when Mr Keating's passport was presented to the Customs officer at barrier control, it was drawn to his attention that the passport had expired. He was then referred to an officer of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and he was allowed to proceed on the basis that his identity was not in doubt. It is quite correct that there are some internal procedures, which we are all familiar with internationally, where airlines, even more than Customs authorities, often make the determination whether or not they will take out the ticket voucher and allow people to go on. As far asCustoms is concerned, there is no doubt-- Mr Howard-Did you have a look at that? That is what your Department issued. Did he have another valid passport issued? Mr BARRY JONES —He went with a valid visa which covered the relevant period and, as far as Customs was concerned, providing it was satisfied of his identity as an Australian citizen he had a perfect right to travel. Mr BRUMBY —I direct my question to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I ask: Is the Minister aware of comments concerning higher education places made by the honourable member for Mackellar in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 August, who said that `the extra 3,500 to 4,000 places promised in the Budget did little more than make up for cuts announced in the May economic statement'? Can the Minister inform the House whether that statement is correct? Mr DAWKINS —I have been waiting for some time for a substantial contribution to the debate on higher education from the Opposition spokesman. There used to be a time when he would number his Press statements, but I now see he has given up that practice. No doubt he is embarrassed by the scant contribution he has made to this debate over the last year or so. Over the last couple of days there has been some rather uncharacteristic exertion on his part. He offered a comment on Budget night and then produced a more fulsome statement yesterday. However, in many respects he has got many of the Government's details absolutely wrong, and I will mention those in a moment. Perhaps if he had applied himself a bit more energetically to his shadow responsibilities rather than running around with a squalid little attempt to try to embarrass the Treasurer, then he might have known more about what the Government has said on this, probably the most historic statement on higher education in the country's history. On the night of the Budget he said that the 3,500 to 4,000 places would only compensate for the cuts we made in May. Point No. 1 is that we made no cuts in May. Point No. 2 is that it is not 3,500 to 4,000 places but 40,000 places over the next three years. He then went on to say in his more fulsome statement yesterday that it would cost someone who had completed a doctorate of philosophy something in the order of $14,400 as a result of the introduction of the higher education contribution scheme, quite ignoring the fact that we made it very clear that PhD students and masters students will be exempt from the consequences of the higher education contribution scheme. In fact, 15,000 free places will be made available, which will be allocated by the institutions in order to support a mere 7,000 or 8,000 students who are currently undertaking PhDs and masters by the research mode. He went on to talk about the disincentive effects of the higher education contribution scheme, quite ignoring the fact that we are removing the one up front charge that currently exists, the administration charge. Of course, there will be no compulsory requirement to pay any up front charge. The honourable member talked about our scheme being one which involves disincentives, quite ignoring his own incongruous and incomprehensible policy, which would require students to pay up to $10,000 a year if they were not fortunate enough to get one of the limited places that would be made available. Of course, the people from the more underprivileged backgrounds would be the ones confronted with this $10,000 a year charge and, therefore, quite clearly would be prevented from entering the higher education system at all. We all know that this shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mackellar, is about to re-enter the revolving door of the Leader of the Opposition and will be circulated off the front bench, of course. At least when that happens there might be some opportunity of getting a sensible debate on these important matters. Motion (by Mr Carlton) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Mackellar moving forthwith a motion of censure of the Treasurer. Motion of Censure Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(2.51) —I move: That the Treasurer be censured for his failure to produce a current passport during his recent visit to Japan and for failing to observe the rules which are followed by all other Australians. Yesterday I had information which I had considered for some little time. This information-I thought it was fairly reliable information-indicated to me that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on an official visit to Japan during July had appeared at the airport without valid travel documents. I was not certain from the information whether the Treasurer had a valid and current visa or whether he had a valid and current passport. This is a serious matter because the Treasurer, after all, has a record of not following the rules that other Australians are supposed to follow. It will be recalled that this is the same person who, some time ago, in filling in a travel allowance claim for this Parliament, put down on the form an uninhabited dwelling as his principal place of residence-certainly a place where his family did not live and by any ordinary definition was not his principal place of residence. There was not a single observer in the whole of Australia who believed that that travel claim was valid. The Government, instead of requiring that the Treasurer withdraw that claim, tried to change the rules to obfuscate, to shift on sand, and to tough it out. That, in fact, is what it did. The Treasurer was supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Cabinet colleagues. Against the wishes of most honourable members opposite he persisted with that claim which nobody believed was a fair claim. That controversy went on for some time. It was then brought to my attention that there could be a case against the Treasurer that he had failed to put in a tax return on time. A letter came into my possession which, if it were correct, would have been very damaging to the Treasurer. I did what I believed was the correct thing. I wrote to the Treasurer asking whether this document was a fake. I thought it was only fair to to ask him on a confidential basis. I wanted to ask him whether this was true before I raised it publicly. If indeed it were not true and if it had been proved not to be true, I would not have raised it at all. That is the decent way to do things. I also recall that when I was shadow Minister for health I adopted exactly the same principle when I approached the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) on a matter which was potentially embarrassing for him to assure myself that the facts were correct before I raised it in the House. I might say, given the attack on me by the Treasurer last night and again today relating to a medical incident within his own family, that of course when I was Minister for Health I had dozens of allegations that Ministers in the Government were adopting double standards by recommending Medicare free hospital beds to everybody else, putting them into the queue. I had many such allegations made to me and stories brought to my attention but in no case did I use any of those without reference to the person concerned. In this case, as the Treasurer well knows, this matter was not raised by me and there were many such allegations brought to my attention. Mr Keating —It was. Mr CARLTON —Show me the public record. Mr Keating —I know you were ringing the hospitals. Mr CARLTON —The Minister should show me the records of my ringing the hospitals. In all cases I have acted honourably in these matters. Therefore when I had the information yesterday which I believed was most likely to be true I wrote to the Treasurer at lunch time and asked whether he could by 6 o'clock show me evidence that this was clearly not true and, if so, the matter would not be raised publicly. Throughout the afternoon yesterday, when I tried to contact the Treasurer's senior private secretary he was not available. At a quarter to six I made an attempt to get through to the senior private secretary and the Treasurer. I was told that they did not want to respond or know about it. I therefore believed that I had a duty to raise the matter. The results of what has happened here clearly justify entirely my inquiries and certainly justify my raising this matter in the House. Last night there was an attempt by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) and the Treasurer to obscure this whole matter by turning it into a direct attack on me and to skate over the facts of the matter so as to leave the House in some doubt as to what had actually occurred. Last night the Leader of the House said: I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter briefly with the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He has pointed out to me that he entered Japan on a perfectly valid basis. He had a visa that was current for Japan. The Treasurer uttered but one sentence relating to the actual matter before indulging in his typical abuse. He said: . . . I did have entirely valid entry documents to enter Japan. The question is: Did he have entirely valid entry documents to enter Japan when, as he has admitted, his passport was out of date? Is a visa valid if it is not attached to a valid passport? When the Treasurer turned up at the airport did he, like everybody else, go to the Qantas desk? Qantas staff members usually ask, `Where are you going? Let us have a look at your ticket'. They want to know whether one has a passport and a valid document for entry into that country. The airlines have to worry about that first before the passenger gets to the customs and immigration desk. If an ordinary Joe Blow gets to a country and is not admitted, he is shuffled back on the same airline and the airline has to meet the cost. In the case of some countries there is also a fine on the airline for depositing people who do not have valid entry documents. It has been suggested by the Treasurer and other Ministers that Australians can leave Australia without an up to date passport. Indeed, on a radio program in Sydney this morning the interviewer said that it had happened to him. But the question with regard to passports really is: Is it satisfactory for everybody-ordinary citizens-to turn up at the airport wanting to go overseas without a currently valid passport? Is that satisfactory? This is very much like the situation of putting in one's tax returns. We remember the notorious answer that the Prime Minister gave to this House when it was found that the Treasurer, for two successive years, had not put his tax return in on time. The Prime Minister said, `It is not an important matter'. Yet taxpayers in Australia know that if one does not put in one's tax return on time one is likely to be subjected to a fine and extra tax. That is what happens. However, in the case of the Treasurer, it did not seem to matter. The Prime Minister said that it was not a very important matter. We therefore come to this point: Is it suggested that it does not really matter much if Australian citizens, wanting to go overseas, turn up at the airport without a current passport? What will happen if this is encouraged? Should the people in our overseas Foreign Affairs and Trade posts, whose job it is to look after our interests abroad, be spending time dealing with expired passports and revalidating them overseas, as happened in this case? All I can say is that we have to ask exactly what happened at the airport, because it is not absolutely clear. What did Qantas say about this? Did Qantas question whether the passport was up to date? Did Qantas pick up the fact that the visa had expired? Was there in fact a current visa? The Treasurer said that there was, although one questions the exact detail of what he said because he was very careful with his wording last night. Last night he said very carefully: . . . I did have entirely valid entry documents to enter Japan. Did Qantas pick up the fact that the Treasurer did not have a current passport? Did Qantas pick up the fact that the visa might have been invalid without a vehicle on which to be attached? Surely, with Qantas, the policy for ordinary Australians is that the passport has to be valid at the time of check-in. That is the question. Will Qantas let any ordinary Australian go overseas without a valid passport? I ask honourable members what would happen if they fronted up to the Qantas barrier with a passport that was out of date. Would they get on the plane? That is the real question. Mr Keating —Qantas runs us now, do they? Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer has asked whether Qantas runs us now. The Treasurer must be suggesting that it is perfectly all right for Qantas and also Customs and immigration control at Sydney Airport to let people through willy-nilly without a passport. Is that what the Treasurer is suggesting? Is that what the Government is suggesting? Dr Klugman —What are you suggesting? Mr CARLTON —I am suggesting to the honourable member for Prospect that there are certain rules that Australians, by and large, are expected to observe. They include being totally honest about one's travel claims. They include putting in one's tax returns on time. They include having an up to date passport when one travels overseas. All I can say about this is that if these rules do not apply to all Australians equally, if it is a question of some people being able to ignore them because they are so busy or so high and mighty, democracy in Australia is at a very low point. There is one thing about this country that is very important: the rule of law applies to everybody. The rule of law is interpreted in various ways and there are certain aspects of conduct with regard to the law which mean that if the laws are not universally observed by everybody, and people agree to do that, society becomes totally unmanageable. I think it is incumbent on those who aspire to leadership of this country to set an example in these matters. In this case obviously the passport should have been in order. If this had been the first time that something of this kind had come to people's attention, of course, it would be considered a relatively trivial matter. Anybody can make a mistake. The trouble is that the Treasurer does not give a damn. That is what is at the heart of this matter. The Treasurer treats ordinary people and the way they have to do things with absolute contempt. He treats the members of this Parliament with contempt. He treats with contempt the rules that they have to follow in regard to their travel allowances. He treats with contempt a member of parliament who asks, in private, a legitimate question in the public interest. The Treasurer treats with contempt a member of parliament who says that he will not raise the matter publicly if he gets a satisfactory answer and that he will not go to the press behind the Treasurer's back or anything like that. That person is attacked in this House for doing the decent thing because what he brings up is uncomfortable for the Treasurer. When I was the Treasurer's opposite number in this House, he refused time and time again to do his duty in this chamber on Bills. He brought in 800 pages of tax legislation but he hardly ever came in at the end of the debate to sum up and answer queries. He treated the Parliament with contempt when he brought in the explanatory memorandum when the debate on the capital gains tax was concluding. If any honourable member dares to question him, even in private, he will come in here and try to destroy the reputation of that person and attack him personally. In the debate on this matter last night the Treasurer raised something about his own family which I, five years ago, determinately did not raise. Mr Keating —No, you did it underhand, that is why. Mr CARLTON —I did not do it in an underhand fashion. There is no way that I could have raised that matter without going to the Treasurer. There were other suggestions that Labor Party members were adopting double standards when they said that getting in the Medicare queue was good enough for everybody else, but when they ensured that they were ahead of the queue by having private insurance. Of course, there were dozens of such allegations. No doubt there were dozens of such cases. But I would not raise, and have not raised, any of those matters publicly before going to the person concerned. In those cases and in this case I did the right thing. I am simply not prepared as a representative of an electorate of the Australian people and a member of the House of Representatives in this new Parliament House to bow to the arrogance of somebody who believes he is beyond question. I say again: if this matter had been the first such case and; if the Treasurer over a period had behaved in a way that indicated he had respect for the way in which ordinary Australians had to operate and the various rules they had to follow the matter would not have been pursued or, if it had been pursued, it would not have mattered. The Treasurer quite rightly could have come into the House and said `This is a trivial matter. Don't bother me with it. I was extremely busy and my staff made a mistake'. As I said before, anybody can make a mistake but, fundamentally, the Treasurer does not give a damn. It is time that we called a halt to this kind of behaviour. It is time that the House demanded of the Treasurer exactly the same courtesies as it gets from most other Ministers. These are the kinds of courtesies that members of the backbench of the Australian Labor Party would like to see from the Treasurer in their own Caucus room. Certainly, when we look to the future and to whether there is any possibility whatsoever of the current Treasurer succeeding the Prime Minister, the kinds of questions that we raise are critical to that kind of decision. The standards that people must have in order to retain public confidence are the sorts of standards that this Treasurer has consistently broken. Therefore, we move a motion of censure of the Treasurer for his failure to travel without a current passport; for his failure to do what every ordinary Australian ought to do. We do this not because it represents a single incident but because it forms part of a pattern. It is a pattern which is not acceptable to the vast bulk of the Australian people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.10) —It is unbelievable that upon the presentation of a national Budget, particularly one with such dimensions and aggregates, and important as it is to remove from the landscape of Australia this massive Budget imbalance, to produce a strong surplus, to see strong investment, to see a continuing massive structural change in the Australian economy, the only thing that can be raised by the Opposition is whether my passport was valid to the date when I left on a trip abroad. That is the weighty question here. Mr Carlton —Was it valid? Mr KEATING —I have already said what the position was. Mr Tuckey —Are you telling the truth? Mr KEATING —The Opposition was heard in relative silence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! A censure motion is one of the most important motions to be moved in the House. The Treasurer has the right to defend himself and should be heard in silence. Mr KEATING —This is the best that the Opposition can do. Why are Opposition members taking this course today? It is because they are embarrassed by their seamy race policy, which they know is to be debated. They want to blur the next day's newspaper reports because while I was going to Japan to try to promote this country, to improve relations between our countries and to give the Japanese a better understanding of our economy-and us a better understanding of theirs-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was saying to those people, `We might like your business, but we don't like you because of the colour of your skin and the way your face is'. That is what this fuss is all about. While I was in Japan to try to improve Australia's position, those opposite were saying, `We will have your money and your business, but we don't like you-we don't like your genetic makeup, and we will restrict the number of people like you who come to this country'. Note that distinction between the attitude of this Government and the play on race which is going on within the Opposition. That is why those opposite are worried about this debate. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) interjects in this debate. He came into this country as a yellow fever risk and got off prosecution because of a technicality in the law which would have disqualified him as a member of parliament. He was wandering around Brisbane as a yellow fever risk against the wishes of the Commonwealth health authorities, and he has the hide to interject about my passport date. What an unbelievably terrible government those in the Opposition would make. One can imagine people's rights being swept away one after the other as the Opposition's mad, manic, fascist views extended right through the Australian economy. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has been running around with his papers, but he is a nobody in Australian public life. He was supposed to be one of the comers in the Liberal Party. He was a failure as Minister for Health. When he was shadow Treasurer, it was like taking candy off kids. He did not understand even the structure of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition correctly put him to the back bench at the time. The honourable member for Mackellar is back on the front bench now. As the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) said, the honourable member is not even involved in the education debate. He has always put himself up as one of the coming people in the coalition. Not only does he not have a future; he does not even have a past. His past is in Ash Street in the former Liberal Party headquarters in Sydney, where he was president, where all this seamy race politics and cynicism began, and where they were taught in the old Askin school of Australian politics. He stands up here making a pretentious, unctuous stand: `I raise this matter about the Treasurer's passport in the public interest'. It is unbelievable. `I did the decent thing', he said. The unctuous pontificating behaviour of the man! This is the person who, as the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) said, was running around with private details of his daughter's hospital treatment-this fellow, the member for Mackellar. The reason he did not raise my son's hospitalisation was that basically the information he got did not suit him. But he rang the hospital; I was told about it. He is a snide, underhand little man. He gets around the corridors; he says, `Hello, Paul, how are you?', smiling in corridors and at the airport. He is a Uriah Heep. He is one of these sanctimonious, obsequious people like Uriah Heep. He tugs his forelock, but comes in here with his horns out. He is a nasty, dirty little character, and that is the fact. The honourable member for Mackellar sends me a threatening letter and I am supposed to say, `Oh, Jim Carlton has sent me a letter. Get a reply back'. My staff said, `He's ringing again'. I said, `The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on. Ignore him. Don't worry about him'. He had to raise this matter in the public interest; we know that. He is honourable, but if one gets caught with someone else's letter one gets a fine which carries a criminal penal sanction which disqualifies one as a member of parliament. He handled the stolen material addressed to me from the Australian Taxation Office. That will go against him and the Leader of the Opposition all their lives. They handled stolen material and were happy to handle it. Yet the honourable member for Mackellar stands up in this place and says how honourable and decent he is. He would not know what decency was. This is a matter that a decent person would regard basically as a minor clerical issue, but not the honourable member for Mackellar. He can see none of the big picture, none of the stuff about the economy, none of the change, none of the history, none of the magnitude, none of the prospects-no, he is on about whether, of all things, I had a valid passport when I left Australia. There is no requirement in law to have such a thing. This is a free country. He keeps saying that, but does not understand what it is. He thinks that there is a wall or a barrier around this country and that people are only given the right to leave. That happens behind the Iron Curtain, but not in this country. People have the right to leave this country. The passport is merely an identification of the person concerned and that is all. The mere presence of a visa is to say that the Japanese authorities or the authorities in any other country have identified the person and permitted entry. There is no question about the passport needing to be valid. It is that the visa is valid because the consular officer has identified the person and said that the person is free to travel to that country. That is the issue. The only interest Qantas Airways Ltd has is that the people who board its aircraft are not imprisoned on it and can deplane in the country of destination. That is all. In this case Qantas looked only for my Japanese visa, which was totally valid and intact. When I said that my passport date had expired, the officer at Sydney said, `That is no problem. You can have it revalidated in Japan. The only thing you need is a visa, which you have'. Mr Beale —Did you say that, or did they state that? Mr KEATING —They said that. Mr Beale —I asked whether you said it? Mr KEATING —Here is old `Yellow Fever', wandering around with a bad dose of yellow fever or potentially so. He has a rush of yellow fever to the brain or something. Here is the Opposition-talk about a bunch of indecent, incompetent, mediocrities! We have the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) continually raising points of order. He is always talking about fairness, but he will not let people make their arguments without his getting up on a point of order. He knows that these are all personal matters, but if anyone raises a personal matter about him he goes berserk. Opposition members should understand that, if they want to make this par for the course, we will always join them on these things. We will join issue, sir. I cannot get the right tone; but the honourable member will know what I mean. The fact is that I have done nothing wrong whatsoever. The problem is-and I say this advisedly-that there is a practice in the Department of Foreign Affairs whereby members of the Diplomatic Service have a five-year diplomatic passport, staff of Ministers have a passport to the end of the parliamentary period, but Ministers get three and four months validation, which is a foolish way to behave in terms of their passports. I have had eight validations of this passport in five years. The fact that this was some weeks out of date but to be validated a day or two later in Tokyo is of no significance as to its validity because it merely is to identify me as who I am. That should not be a problem with the officers in Sydney, and it was not. That is why they so advised me. There is no problem here; no problem whatsoever. Mr Tim Fischer —Double standards. Mr KEATING —There are no double standards. It has been implied that some favour was done for me. The honourable member for Mackellar said that Qantas did me some favour. It did not, it just looked at my Japanese entry visa. The fact is that no favours were done for me by Qantas, the Australian immigration authorities in Australia, our authorities in Tokyo or the Japanese authorities in Tokyo. It was a visit entirely free of any intervention by any of these people. I had no special treatment. How many people in this chamber, as members of parliament, have had people ringing up saying they have lost their passport or it is invalid and they have to travel abroad the next day because someone is ill or has died? How many times over 20 years would that have happened? Dozens. What happens if somebody loses a passport in a hotel room in Singapore? Can he not come back to Australia? Would the authorities say to the Leader of the Opposition, `Sorry, Mr Howard, you have lost your passport in Singapore so you will have to stay there'. Little John thinks he is on to an issue. The Leader of the Opposition has become the most diminutive figure in Australian public life. He has stuck to no principle; he has no political character and no personal character. He is into the unseemly business of race. While I was running around in Japan-and, I might say, all day every day and every evening-trying to promote this country and to learn about the situation, he was saying, `We don't think we will have people from Asia in our country because they have yellow skin and we do not like the shape of their eyes. We will cut our intake of those people. It is all right, you can build your hotels here, we will still see those of you who have a bit of money, but you cannot come here because you have the wrong genetic makeup'. This debate has been brought on today because the Opposition is all about checking on people, having a look at people to see what their makeup is. The Opposition wants to see what their antecedents are and whether they are fit and proper persons. All this is happening while the Government is trying to integrate Australia and the Australian economy into Asia. While representatives of the Government are in Tokyo trying to further integrate the Australian economy and the Australian people with those of the Asian region, members of the Opposition are down here doing the most disastrous, damaging thing that can be done to us as a European nation in Asia. They are putting the bar on us in the eyes of these people because they think we are going to have a racist policy under this Opposition. That is why the honourable member for Mackellar and all the rest of those opposite have raised the matter under debate. They have no policies; they have no structure. The worst thing is that they do not even have any common decency. That is why they remain on the Opposition benches. They keep laughing, but they keep coming back in opposition. The honourable member for Mackellar may wonder why he has been relegated to such an ordinary place in public life. The answer is that he is just a very ordinary little bloke. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, we have just heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) describe himself. How did he approach this motion of censure? He approached it by saying it was unbelievable. He said it was unbelievable that he should be censured. Why? Because he has just brought down a Budget, and if one brings down a Budget in this House, if one is the Treasurer of this country, one should not be censured. It does not matter, he would tell us, what he does; as long as he is here to bring down the Budget we should be talking about the Budget and not his conduct. What was his conduct like today? What was his conduct like last night? Did we see the characteristics we would expect of a Treasurer or anybody of responsibility in a government? Did we see frankness? Did we see directness? Did we see a candid treatment of the issues? He was like a greased rat in a trap. Look at the words he used last night when he came into the chamber. They are just quintessential Keating. He said, after the honourable member for Mackeller (Mr Carlton) had raised this matter, perfectly properly and in neutral terms: . . . I did have entirely valid entry documents to enter Japan. One should take note of those words. He did not say, as he has been forced to say today, that his passport had expired. No, he did not say that. Honourable members will remember that when he was asked questions about this today he tried to slide through without being forced to make the admission. Why, we even heard him discourse on Japanese law. It is interesting that he should seek to do that in answer to a question that had nothing to do with Japanese law. What happened after the debate last night? He had people from his office brief the media. How did they do that? Again, with that frankness, with that directness, with that sincerity, and with that common decency for which he is the byword in this country. Michelle Grattan had this to say: But a spokesman for Mr Keating said that no Australian or Japanese rule or regulation had been breached, and Mr Keating had not been treated differently from any other citizen. In the Sun, Charles Happell said that a spokesman said on behalf of Mr Keating: He broke no rule of law in either Japan or Australia and he received no preferential treatment either. There are a lot of ordinary Australians here today, not members of parliament, and I guess a few of them have travelled outside this country, as most members here have. Does anybody in this House believe, does anybody in the gallery believe, does anybody outside the Parliament believe that if an ordinary Australian comes along and presents himself or herself to Qantas and says, `Look, my passport has expired but I have got a visa', Qantas will let that person on the plane? Everybody knows that that would not happen. Mr Cleeland —Yes. Mr SPENDER —Do I hear a few yeses? We heard the Treasurer say that, as well. How did the Treasurer deal with it today? He said he had done no wrong, and of course he engaged in his usual campaign of abuse. I will come back to that. He said, `Look, I was treated like any other Australian. I am just an ordinary fellow. I have a good understanding of common decency'. Why, the man is of course known for his common decency. He is known for his lack of arrogance, for his direct, open and easy relationship with the Australian people and his colleagues. He is known by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a person who is just sitting in the background waiting to help out, not trying to elbow him to one side. Let us now see what the airlines do in the case of an ordinary citizen. It is very easy to find out. The airlines will tell us, because the airlines have laid down a set of procedures and these are applied rigidly to people who seek to leave the country. I suppose the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) may have looked at the travel information manual. If he has not, he might do so before he speaks. But he will not because it will not help him. The travel information manual is a joint publication put out by 14 International Air Transport Association airlines, including Qantas Airways Ltd. This is what the instructions say must be done. I refer first of all to what is said about passports. Mr Allan Morris —Tell us the law. Mr SPENDER —I hear the intervention, `That is not law'. The honourable member is right. I am not saying it is the law. What I said, if the honourable member had listened to me, was that the Treasurer claimed he was treated like anybody else, but the truth of the matter is that we all know he got special and privileged treatment. He has repeated again and again in this House the statement that he was treated just like anybody else. We know he was not telling the truth. Does anybody believe that that was the truth? The instructions read: Passports: Check any passport as to expiry date. The next item states: Visas: Check any visa as to expiry date. Validity . . . Note: All visas in an expired passport are generally for that reason invalid. Honourable members opposite cannot tell me that if John Citizen had turned up and said, `Look, I am going to Tokyo and I want to get on this flight' and Qantas had said, `Well, look, sir, your passport has expired', Qantas would have let him on board. Of course not. Do they think that Qantas would have had embassy officials waiting at the other end? Of course not. Let me go on with this because it gets even better. Everybody knows that these directions are followed by the airlines, because we have all travelled on airlines and had these things checked. It says: Additional information: An unexpired visa in an expired passport may be used provided the passenger also carries a second valid passport which must be officially bound with the expired one. Was the Treasurer carrying a second valid passport? He was not. Therefore, when he comes into this House and says that he was not treated differently from anybody else, that is not the truth. He knows it is not the truth. The Leader of the House knows it is not the truth and every honourable member on the Government side knows it is not the truth. Every person in the public gallery and anyone in this country who has travelled knows that it is not the truth. The Treasurer says, `True it is I have come in here but why can't I come in here and deliberately misrepresent the position? Why couldn't I come in here last night and say that I was travelling on perfectly valid travel documents? Why can't I come in here today and seek to evade the issue?'. It was a perfectly simple question for an honest man to answer. What would an honest man have said? He would have said, `Yes, I went down there. I was a government official. I was travelling on highly important business and I asked to be given preferential treatment and I expected that I would get it. Yes, I had an expired passport'. That is what a lot of people would do. That is what an honest Minister would do. He would say, `Yes, that is what happened'. But did this man say that? No. Why? Because it fits in with the pattern of conduct of arrogance and deception. Do honourable members remember what happened when the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) raised the taxation issue some time ago. Perhaps that is the reason why the Treasurer feels so strongly about the honourable member. The Treasurer came into this House and told us that in respect of the late lodgment of his taxation return he had been treated no differently from any other Australian. Do honourable members remember that? Did we believe it at the time? Did anybody in this country believe it? No. And what do we get? We get the same old record. The Treasurer knows that out in the electorate the Australian people believe him to be arrogant, removed, vain and pretentious. He loves the Australian people so much that he travels around behind tinted windows. If the Treasurer is the open, honest and decent Aussie that he says he is, why does he do that? His name is now a by-word for arrogance and parliamentary deceit. His remarks were not casual; they were not a slip of the tongue, but deliberate. The man was revealed at his best today. He was revealed with all those characteristics that he has sought to submerge because he wants to become respectable. He wants the people of Australia to forget that he gave a new notion, a new feeling, a new intensity to gutter politics. It is as though he inverted gutter politics himself as it has come back to us today. Let me pick up some of the choicest things the Treasurer said, leaving aside his colossal arrogance. He engaged in a series of racist smears against the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we are engaging in racism and that the Leader of the Opposition is a racist. This is something, by the way, which the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), when answering a dorothy dix question, specifically disavowed. Mr Keating —I did not say that. Mr SPENDER —The Treasurer intervenes by saying that he did not say that. This is what the Treasurer said and this is what the Hansard record shows that he said of the Leader of the Opposition, `We like your money but we do not like your genetic makeup'. If that is not a racist smear, what is it? Did the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs say that? No, he did not. What did the Treasurer then do? He went on to talk about the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). Why? Because that is consistent with the man. Does he address an issue like this honestly and directly and say, `Sure that is what I did. I used the special privileges of my office because I was going on a very important mission. I wanted to get on that plane and they could fix it up at the other end'. That is what the Leader of the House would be doing. That is what the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) would be doing. He could say, `Okay, I will not get on the plane'. But he says, `No, I was treated just like anybody else. I am just an ordinary little digger trying to do my best around here. I just got on the plane and Qantas treated me nicely and decently'. Sure, and pigs have wings! I wish to come back to a couple of other things which sum up beautifully this man. In his attack on the honourable member for Deakin he said that he had got off on a technicality. This was a gross and outrageous misrepresentation of the truth but, be that as it may, that is all part and parcel of the man. Of the honourable member for Mackellar he said, `You are a nasty, dirty little character'. Did anyone so unconsciously describe himself as the way in which he addressed the honourable member? The Treasurer got it in one. He has got himself squarely. At these times the Treasurer becomes a shade emotional when his integrity is challenged-as it should be because everybody in this House knows what his integrity is like-and he goes straight back to the gutter, straight back to type. Gutter politics, hell. Sewer politics, yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have moved for censure of the Treasurer for his failure to produce a current passport on his recent visit to Japan and his failure to observe the rules which are followed by all other Australians and, I might add, his deliberate deceit of this House today. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.37) —This motion is just about the pits for an opposition. This is the sort of issue which a party in normal circumstances-and the Opposition is not-having come across it would probably not choose to raise, but if it did it would give it to a back bencher, have it run on the adjournment and it would appear in Column 8 or the like of the Sydney Morning Herald, and that would be the end of the matter because it is a silly little piece of nonsense from the Opposition. The Opposition has gained one thing from it, something which I very much regret. Because we treat members of the Opposition reasonably well on censure motions, the Opposition has gained approximately one extra hour in which to place pressure on its back benchers who are now in a state of revolt on the issue of the motion that we will move on racism. It is a clear-cut motion. This motion has provided the Opposition with an extra hour to deal with its back bench in that regard. That, it must be said, is a substantial political gain. That is all it has gained from it. What the Opposition has not gained is a tarnishing of the reputation of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). If honourable members had sat and listened-as I had to-to the two speeches which were put forward in the moving of this motion, they would have found that it was not really an attack on the Treasurer; it was a litany of personal grievances: `I have been terribly treated by this man in our debates'. There was the question of whether there had been use of the national health system in an improper fashion and the fact that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) was found out on that. There was the fact that members of the Opposition did not like the way they were responded to on the question of the Treasurer's taxation return. That grievance has come out. There has been muling and puling from the other side of the House, which says more about its own sense of self-confidence and personal self-worth than it says about the sorts of issues it has chosen to raise in this place. Let me put one or two things on the record on this because the Treasurer does not need a defence but in these circumstances he deserves one. The first concerns this piece of nonsense that nobody leaving this country ever, until the Treasurer came along, travelled with an out-of-date passport. Nobody ever does that! The suggestion that the Treasurer was specially treated is nonsense. A reasonable checking with the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, as we have done, reveals that as a matter of convenience regularly people travel overseas without up to date passports. But there is a difference between the Treasurer's situation and that of all other citizens. The difference applies not only to the Treasurer but to all Cabinet Ministers. A non-Cabinet Minister citizen of this country has a passport valid for five years. Dr Klugman —Ten years now. Mr BEAZLEY —The passport is valid for 10 years, is it? If one is a member of the Treasurer's staff one has a passport valid for the life of the Parliament. If one is a Cabinet Minister one will not. That is the difference. The Treasurer is not in the same position, nor is any other Cabinet Minister, as other people in the Australian community. Mr Connolly —Well, fix it. You have had five years to fix it. How long do you need? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his advice. We will look at that. The Opposition could have dropped us a letter on the matter and said, `This is obviously a problem, Mr Treasurer. Perhaps you ought to get the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to look at the situation to ensure that Ministers get diplomatic passports for the life of the Parliament'. That would be a helpful suggestion but that is not why the Opposition chose to raise it in this place. It tried to suggest that the Treasurer had been treated differently from any other Australian. On the matter of his passport, he is treated differently: he has a passport different from that of other Australians. He has a passport which has had to be revalidated eight times in the last five years. No other person in this country is in this situation. The suggestion was made again here today that somehow the Treasurer entered Japan illegally. I would have thought that that was a matter for the Japanese to determine, and of course it is. They determined that there was no problem with that. It is fine as far as they are concerned. He had a valid visa for entry to Japan. It was a matter of the least concern for the Japanese that his passport happened to be a few weeks out of date on issue. A note has just been passed to me from the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs so I return to an earlier point: about 400 people a year travel overseas with expired passports. So the Treasurer in this instance is in pretty good company. He has 400 of his fellow Australians in the same position and I bet those 400 Australians are not the Australians that `Clarence Darrow' thinks of as average Australians. There is not a house in his electorate worth less than $500,000. And he comes in here accusing the Treasurer of wandering around behind tinted windows! As he goes through the leafy glades of Sydney's North Shore he is intimately in contact with the average Australian! There was no illegality; it was simply a question of oversight. The censure motion process has been deeply degraded by the Opposition over the years and this instance has probably brought it to its lowest ebb. An attack on a personal matter such as this would normally be in a situation in which it could be reasonably said that a personal benefit was involved. What personal benefit was involved here? What personal gain or loss would the Treasurer have sustained if a Customs official had decided that he would not extend to the Treasurer what is extended to 400 Australians each year? If the Customs official had decided to treat him discriminately and to say, `No, I have dealt with it in a certain way for 400 Australians but I would not deal with it for you in that way', what would the Treasurer have stood to lose? He would have lost the opportunity to defend Australia's national interest in Japan. He would have gained the opportunity to spend another three or four days with his children while his passport was being fixed up. I have no doubt in my mind what people around this place would consider to be the gain and benefit in that situation. The Treasurer was on an important national task and this bunch of clowns opposite, this-as Arthur Calwell described them-gibbering array of pathological exhibits-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw. I suggest he does not do it again or we will both play the game. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor, when taking a point of order, may state his point of order but the only game we will play if he continues that behaviour will be a game outside the chamber. The honourable member has taken offence at what the Minister has said. I do not necessarily think the words were unparliamentary but it may help the debate if the Minister would withdraw them. Mr BEAZLEY —I withdraw `pack of clowns' and leave in place `gibbering array of pathological exhibits'. Mr Tuckey —Smart Alec. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for O'Connor is good on gibbering. I have had occasion to mention that in the past in the Parliament. He gibbers away on the front bench and we all get to know what monkey business means in the Western Australian Liberal Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might come back to the matter before the Chair. Mr BEAZLEY —The Treasurer was treated like any other Australian. He was engaged on an important national task. What sort of Opposition is it that in the middle of important national debates, particularly on the Budget, would choose to attempt to detract from the process of debate by drawing attention to a totally irrelevant occurrence which in any circumstances any reasonable person looking at it would describe as a totally irrelevant, trivial occurrence? That Opposition members cannot see that whereas every other person in this country can says a great deal about them and the state which they have reached. It is understandable that when the Morgan poll was produced yesterday, after the change of line on immigration had been sold in the Party as an election winner, and it was revealed that the public had seen the Liberal Party as increasingly extremist and therefore untrustworthy, the desire, albeit misplaced, to seek a distraction became overwhelming. The ridiculous, trivial pieces of pomposity which have been inflicted on this Parliament now in two debates are the way in which that agony has been expressed in this place. Fortunately, we do not have to tolerate that at any great length in this Parliament and I will not inflict this debate any more on honourable members. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Moore, J. C.Brown, N. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Burr, M. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Donald Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Taylor, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 80 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, LBrown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act, I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1987-88, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 1 September 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Monday, 29 August 1988. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 1 September 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee and delegation reports Statements upon presentation Parliamentary delegation to the Middle East Report [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.] Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Report on variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted Notice *1 MR WEBSTER: To move-That this House- (1) declares that this nation enjoys basic human rights and freedoms unequalled anywhere in the world, and that these rights and freedoms are not under threat; (2) acknowledges the inherent dangers in inserting ``rights'' clauses in a written Constitution; and (3) expresses its concerns that the changes to the Constitution proposed by referendum question number 4 would allow Commonwealth Governments to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms. (Notice given 24 August 1988.) 30 mins Notice *2 MR SIMMONS: To move-That this House- (1) notes that there are 3 tiers of Government in Australia; (2) recognises the contribution of dedicated men and women who are prepared to serve their local communities in public office; and (3) calls upon the Australian people to endorse strongly the Government's proposal for Constitutional recognition of local government. (Notice given 24 August 1988.) 30 mins Order of the day *3 SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 (Mr Prosser): Second reading (from 28 April 1988). 20 mins Notice *4 MR SCOTT: To move-That this House congratulates the people of Palau in their struggle for the retention of their nuclear-free status, by rejecting on numerous occasions since February 1983, attempts to modify their constitution that would then allow the presence of nuclear weapons on and in their territory. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) any remaining private Members business time. * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australian Customs Service-Annual Report 1987-88-sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985. Ringing in the Changes-Revised Proposals for Implementation of the Government Response to the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure Inquiry into Telecom's Zonal and Charging Policies for Capital and Large Provincial Cities. Poles Apart-The Government Response to the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure Inquiry into Telecom's Zonal and Charging Policies in Rural and Remote Areas. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Third Report 1988 on financing the Australian Capital Territory-Part One-Summary of Findings-sub-section 25 (1) of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 34 of the Service Trust Funds Act 1947. Sentencing-Law Reform Commission Report No. 44-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWE —No. I wish to add to an answer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWE —On Tuesday, 23 August, during Question Time the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) asked me a question concerning indexation of the United Kingdom pensions paid to former United Kingdom residents now living in Australia. As part of my answer I indicated the steps which this Government has taken during recent years to raise this serious matter with the British Government. I also referred to recent correspondence with the Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher which I thought had been sent. This is not the case. However, it is now my understanding that the letter is being signed and duly processed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CARLTON —In Question Time today the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) quoted my Budget night press release as follows: The extra 3,500 to 4,000 extra places promised in the Budget do little more than make up for cuts announced in the May economic statement. He said that these figures were incorrect. They indeed are. He was quoting from my Budget night press release of last year. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, Government Business, being called on forthwith. Motion Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(4.12) —I move: That this House- (1) acknowledges the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy; (2) recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National Party Governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia; and (3) gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them. One of the great and rare distinctions of Australian political leadership in the last generation has been its bipartisan rejection of race as a factor in immigration policy. This has been a triumph of compassion over prejudice, of reason over fear, and of statesmanship over politics. Twenty-two years ago my Party, the Australian Labor Party, disowned its own historic white Australia policy, and the Government led by Harold Holt, to its everlasting credit and honour, abolished the white Australia policy and began to dismantle the administrative machinery of discrimination. This motion is before this House today because that great and rare distinction has been put in jeopardy by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-the inheritor of the role, but not the mantle, of Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Malcolm Fraser. I say this most sincerely to the Leader of the Opposition: this motion has not been brought forward in any attempt to drive him into the ground. It is not, because if he would retract his position then, as far as this side of the House is concerned, what has happened would be regarded as an aberration and would be forgotten. We would be pleased and proud to re-embrace once again an unqualified bipartisanship on this important issue. Let us look at the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. On 1 August, in regard to Asian immigration, he said: I do believe that if in the eyes of some in the community it- Asian immigration- is too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater. On 12 August the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) said that the figures showed that there were too many Asians coming into the country. On 9 August Senator Stone said: Asian immigration has to be slowed. It is no use dancing around the bushes. On 15 August, he also said that it will require a reduction in the excessively high proportion of immigrants from Asia. Those statements remain unretracted. The position of the Leader of the Opposition on 17 August was as follows: I do not intend to alter one inch the stand that I have taken . . . I do not intend to alter my position on this issue. The paragraph shuffling in the Party meeting last Monday has not changed anything. If, according to the Leader of the Opposition, in the eyes of some in the community Asian immigration is too great, he believes it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little. The Leader of the Opposition maintains that position and, as I say, the paragraph shuffling of last Monday enables him to maintain that position. That has broken the tradition. It has broken the practice of the past and the Leader of the Opposition knows it, his colleagues know it, every commentator in the community knows it and, significantly, every Asian leader knows it. He has not only broken the traditions of his predecessors but also unfortunately he has broken his own strongly asserted position in this House. Almost four years ago to this very day, on 23 August 1984, the Leader of the Opposition spoke on this issue and he pleaded eloquently for bipartisanship. On 23 August 1984 he advised that just two weeks previously he had successfully moved, with an overwhelming majority of the New South Wales convention of the Liberal Party, a motion on this issue. The Hansard shows that, speaking of that motion, he said: It recalled amongst other things, that past coalition government policies were built upon a non-discriminatory approach to immigration and a level of intake and a pace of change. During that debate, which was reported fairly extensively by the media, I expressly rejected the proposition that the Liberal Party should take a stand against Asian immigration. I supported the policies of the former coalition Government which were humanitarian and liberal in the true sense of the word. We were prepared to take, with the Labor Party's generous support, people from war-torn parts of South East Asia. Importantly he said: We were prepared to persuade people around Australia to accept that policy. In the course of his contribution-an eloquent contribution-he referred properly to the need to avoid any suggestion of racism. Those were eloquent words of the Leader of the Opposition in his then capacity in this House nearly four years ago to this day. He said that he and those around him were prepared to persuade the people of Australia. Implicitly in his statement he recognised the unfortunate truth; that is, that there is prejudice in this country on this issue. No sensible person can deny that. But he said then that the task of leadership was to persuade the people of Australia. But now, rather than leading, rather than-in his own words-persuading people around Australia to accept the principled and the unqualified position of his predecessors against any suggestion or possibility of discrimination, and instead of accepting that responsibility of leadership, he has unfortunately become the follower of the lowest common denominator. Let me make it clear-and I want the Leader of the Opposition to know this-I do not accuse him of racism or of being a racist. In a sense, sadly, I make the more serious charge, I make the more damning indictment, of cynical opportunism, in a cynical grab for votes. His polling shows that there is this prejudice in the community and he has unleashed within his coalition and within the wider community the most malevolent, the most hurtful, the most damaging and the most uncohesive forces. Far from `one Australia' he has guaranteed a divided Australia. Far from guaranteeing one Australia, he has guaranteed a divided Australia; a hurtfully divided Australia. One of the most disquieting aspects of the Liberals' new confected policy on immigration is their slipshod and deceptive use of the English language. When the Liberals initiated the breach of bipartisanship, their language, for all its ugliness, was clear cut. No-one could doubt that the Leader of the Opposition meant what he said when he explicitly called for a slowdown in Asian immigration. Nobody could doubt the meaning of the Leader of the National Party of Australia when he said that there were too many Asians coming into Australia. Senator Stone was clearly understood when he said that the excessively high proportion of immigrants from Asia should be reduced. But now the Opposition is operating under what I referred to as the policy by code word. Now the Opposition refers to changes in the composition of the immigration flow `to protect social cohesion'. Let me make it crystal clear that we in the Government repudiate the Opposition's position. We repudiate it on moral grounds and we repudiate it on grounds of this nation's economic self-interest. This is one of those occasions when moral and economic interest coincide. Let me deal briefly with the moral issue. I can do it in terms of some of the recent language that has come from the Leader of the Opposition and others. Honourable members will recall that honourable members opposite in talking recently about a great Australian referred to the fact that he was an atheist. Presumably, they were implying for themselves, as they are properly and legitimately entitled to do, that they embraced the virtues of the Christian position. If there is one fundamental aspect of the Christian position, it is the belief and faith in the fatherhood of God. There is one thing which follows as a matter of logic and faith from that position; that is the belief in the brotherhood of man. Any suggestion of antagonism or discrimination on the grounds of race repudiates and is repugnant to that fundamental position. Let me say, for those who do not in any formal sense embrace the Christian position but who are driven by the compulsion of compassionate humanism, that belief in the brotherhood of man is just as fundamental. To make the point of the morality of the issue, let me ask every member of this House to think of those 350,000 Asian born Australians together with their Australian born sons and daughters. I just ask honourable members to think of them. I have been in close contact in the last three weeks with representatives of community organisations. I am saddened beyond measure by the acute anguish and fear that has been engendered in the community following the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. Today we heard my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) give further evidence, eloquently, of that. If the Leader of the Opposition doubts that his remarks have had any adverse impact on these people I say to him: talk to these kids in their schools; talk to those who have received hate letters in the mail over the last three weeks; talk to the people whose homes and cars have been attacked; talk to those who have been forced to read disgusting graffiti about themselves; and talk to those proud Asian Australians who have been here for many generations and who now feel they are seen as some sort of threat to the social cohesion of the country of which they are proud. Like all members of this House, today I received a communication from the Uniting Church in Australia. I will read it. I knew nothing about its preparation. The letter stated: The national Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia is strongly opposed to the use of race or country of origin as a criterion in the selection of migrants to Australia. We believe it is ethically unacceptable to use such criteria. The offence and pain caused to Australians of Asian origin by the debate of the past month is very serious. On behalf of the Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia, I urge you to take a strongly moral and principled stand on the issue and to support the motion to be introduced today by Mr Hawke in support of an absolutely non-racial policy. That letter is signed by John P. Brown, Acting General Secretary of the Uniting Church in Australia. I turn quickly to the economic implications of what has happened. Honourable members will know that, following the period when we were in economic recession at the beginning of the 1980s, we have turned increasingly to seek enmeshment of the Australian economy in that of the world's most dynamic and economically fastest growing region. It is clear that to do anything to turn our backs on or to prejudice our relations with that region would be against the economic interests of this country. It is critical that we keep in mind the extent of Australia's economic ties with Asia. Five out of the top ten export markets of this country are in Asia. Half of our national annual exports are now sold to Asian countries. Some $17 billion per year-the national income equivalent of $1,000 for every Australian man, woman and child-goes in exports to Asia. India, China and Hong Kong have been the three fastest growing of our major export markets over the last five years. Japan is our largest export market. Our exports to China and Hong Kong have leaped by over 300 per cent in the last years. In the area of foreign investment, which we know is critical to this country, Asian investment in the Australian economy is worth around $35 billion. It is now similar to that from the United Kingdom and twice that from the rest of the European Economic Community. Asia is critical to the future of our fastest growing industry, tourism. One in four of our international tourists now comes from Asia. Let me refer to some of the early signs that already make apparent the damage that has been done by what has been initiated by the Leader of the Opposition. Professor Helen Hughes, a regional economic specialist and a member of the Fitzgerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, has suggested that Australia could already have lost billions of dollars in contracts in South East Asia. We are aware of the comments of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This is confirmed by a cable received only yesterday from our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur which suggests that the money we could lose as a result of the debate could run into billions of dollars. Our important business migration program is being put at risk because three out of four business migrants in 1987-88 came from Asia, bringing three-quarters of a billion dollars into this country with them. The cable from Kuala Lumpur emphasised that if it is believed that racism is resurgent in Australia, intending migrants will take themselves and their money elsewhere. I will quote from the cable. It stated: They don't read the fine print in political statements but act on the basis of an impression of the overall situation. Those are the clear signs of the damage that has already been wreaked upon this country by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and Senator Stone. The Leader of the Opposition and those supporting him have underrated, indeed insulted, the decency and intelligence of the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition has repudiated one of the proud traditions of the Australian Liberal Party. In the process, I believe that he is rending the fabric of the Liberal Party. That is a matter for the Liberal Party, but the Leader of the Opposition is not going to rend the fabric of this great Australian society. That is a matter for me and for the Australian Parliament. The remarks by the Leader of the Opposition and of his colleagues remain unretracted and publicly unrepudiated. This motion provides the opportunity for repudiation and retraction. The motion asserts that this Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, speaking on behalf of the people of Australia, repudiates explicitly, and by any implicit process of paragraph shuffling, the concept or suggestion that discrimination against any race has or will have any place in the immigration policies or the domestic policies of this great Australian nation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.32) —I very much welcome the opportunity which the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gives me to speak about this issue, to put into proper concept remarks I have made, to repeat the policy adopted by the coalition earlier this week and also to take issue with some of the cant and hypocrisy that has emanated from the Australian Labor Party (ALP) on this issue. I begin by stating a number of facts which have in no way been qualified by what I have said or my Party or the National Party have endorsed as policy. We remain unalterably committed to an immigration policy that will bring immigrants from all around the world. We remain unalterably opposed to any return to a white Australia policy. We are unequivocally committed to total equality of treatment of all Australians, irrespective of their background, nationality, origin, race, ethnicity, religion or political beliefs. That remains central to the policy we have adopted. What we are asserting, and what I will assert during this debate in proposing an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion, is that no self-respecting nation can settle for less than our declaration-and I use the words of the editorial in the Australian today which says, when quoting from our policy: ` . . . it must be the role of the elected govt . . . to make the final and absolute decisions on who will or will not be granted entry to Australia on a temporary or permanent basis. I say to members of the Labor Party: Do any of you challenge that proposition? Do any of those members challenge the proposition that it is the elected government of this country that ultimately makes a decision on who will enter this country? Mr Hawke —Red herring. Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister says that it is a red herring, but on 23 September last year, when the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Young, launched the inquiry under Dr Stephen FitzGerald at the Australian National University, he said: The review is to be undertaken within the context of this Government's commitment to the principle of non-discrimination in respect of national or ethnic origin, race, sex and religion. But importantly he went on in the same paragraph to say: However, the Australian Government retains the right to determine who shall enter and remain in Australia and that right will not be up for reassessment. They were the words of Mick Young. Was that just a piece of empty sophistry, or was he doing the unpardonable and entering a caveat on the ultimate right of any sovereign nation-a right which the Prime Minister asserted in 1977 when he was being less than statesmanlike in relation to the boat people who were arriving in Australia, a problem that was being grappled with by the Government at that time, a Liberal-National Party government? The Prime Minister was not running around in his then capacity preaching acceptance of our policy; rather, he was running around Australia taking political advantage of a difficult situation in the middle of an election campaign. The Prime Minister does not come to this debate with quite the high standing morality that he presented during his address. The Prime Minister does not do that any more than do many of his colleagues. I wonder whether everything he said in this debate is shared by his colleagues. I want to go through the words I have used over the past couple of weeks and I want to read them to the House because it is important that they be put down and understood. This matter first arose in the context of an interview on the Channel 10 program Face to Face. This is what I said on 31 July, and I would like the House to listen to this very carefully: I do not see Asian immigration as such is a problem. I mean I would never go back to a white Australia policy, that would be crazy. I do however think that the pace of change brought about by the migrant intake is an issue that any government has got to keep in mind and from time to time we've got to take account of the community's capacity to absorb it . . . I don't primarily see it as a vote winning exercise. I primarily see it as something that is important to the national unity of Australia and to our sense of identity as Australians. Then on 1 August I said: I would never want to see Asian immigration stopped because I think that would be politically and socially and emotionally stupid. We have moved on from the days of the white Australian policy, but I do think it is legitimate for any government to worry about the capacity of the community to absorb change and there is some concern about the pace of change involved in the present level of Asian migration. I think any government is entitled to take that into account and it ought not to be accused of being racist. The Prime Minister did not bother to read out those words. The words that he read out I did say, and I do not deny that I said them because they are on the record. I shall not pretend that I did not say them. But what I was saying then, and I repeat it in this House now, is that any government has a right to take into account the pressures on society brought about by migration and the changes involved in that. I have said that before and will not retreat from saying it. I find it astonishing that anybody can seriously claim that that is anything other than a reflection of the view held by many people in the Australian community who cannot by any sense of the imagination or any sense of the word be accused of being racist. I know that there are ugly racists in this country, and I deplore as much as anybody else examples of that used by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) during Question Time. But I do not think that it contributes greatly to the debate for him to arrange dorothy dixers on this subject. I will defend my right to contribute to an objective debate on this issue, irrespective of the tactics that are being used by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on this issue. Nothing I have said in this debate has been anti-Asian. I was a member of the government which proudly brought to this country an enormous number of Indo-Chinese refugees. We had a moral obligation to bring those people to this country-a moral obligation that was not felt by a former Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, or by a former Labor Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Clyde Cameron, or by many other people in the Australian Labor Party. They did not feel under any moral obligation to bring those people to Australia, but we did. We were prepared to display that moral leadership at that time. Mr Hand —And we supported you. Dr Klugman —Of course we did. Mr HOWARD —We did not get much support from the present Prime Minister, at that time the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) was an outstanding exception to many of the contributions made at that time from his side of politics. He interjects rightly. I have read the Hansard record of the debate and he displayed a farsightedness and willingness to help that was not exhibited by a lot of other people on his side of the Parliament at that time. Let me come to the motion moved by the Prime Minister. It is essentially in three parts. The first part of the motion recalls the abandonment of the white Australia policy on the initiative of the Holt Government and with the support of the Australian Labor Party. We totally endorse that and have no problems with it. The second part of the motion invites this House to pronounce a general benediction on the conduct of immigration policy over the last five years. We are not prepared to do that because we think immigration policy over the last five years has been hopelessly bungled by a succession of Labor immigration Ministers. The third part of the motion-this is the crucial part-invites us to disavow our policy. It invites us to say that a government does not have a sovereign right to determine who should enter this country. Mr Hawke —It does not say that. Mr HOWARD —It does. The Prime Minister may choose to say it does not, but I refer to the words of Mick Young, who was one of the Labor Party's own Ministers. Can people in the Labor Party explain to me how it is that, although they say they are in favour of a non-discriminatory policy, Mr Young said: However, the Australian Government retains the right to determine who shall enter and remain in Australia and that right will not be up for re-assessment. What our policy says is that we will administer the immigration program according to a number of principles. One of those principles is the non-discriminatory selection of people irrespective of considerations of nationality, religion, ethnic background or political belief. But it then also provides-I make no bones about this and no apology for it-that it must be the role of the elected Government to make the final and absolute decision on who will or will not be granted entry to Australia on a temporary basis. I borrow again the words of the editorial in the Australian today: There can be no reasonable objection to the proposition that `any government must reserve the right from time to time to vary and alter policy, including adjustments to the size and composition of the immigration program in response to changing requirements, be they social, economic, political or humanitarian. The Prime Minister attempts to exaggerate deliberately the claimed damage to our reputation in South East Asia caused by the debate that has gone on over the past two or three weeks. I say particularly to members of the Labor Party from Queensland that the anti-Japanese foreign investment policy of Wayne Goss in Queensland has done more to damage our reputation in Japan than anything I have said over the past two or three weeks. We have a completely open and liberal foreign investment policy and we will not be adopting any foreign investment policy which is clothed as a non-discriminatory prohibition but is nakedly directed towards the prejudice that has developed in Queensland to Japanese investment. The editorial goes on to say: Australia should not allow itself to be bluffed into surrendering its national sovereignty by reports that some of our neighbours to the north, few of whom are models of racial tolerance, will take economic reprisals against us if we follow an immigration policy designed to preserve our cultural and political traditions and our social cohesion. I do not believe there is anything racist, anything neanderthal, in those statements, anything that is against Australia's interests. We cannot support the motion moved by the Prime Minister, for the reasons I have given. We have proposed an amendment, and that amendment will acknowledge the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support, to end the white Australia policy. It will confirm a total commitment to equal treatment and equal opportunity for all Australians, regardless of race, colour, creed or country of origin, within the framework of a just and tolerant society. It will condemn the Hawke Government's maladministration of immigration policy over the last five years, and it will confirm the fundamental principles of our immigration policy. The Prime Minister's moving of this motion today has been a totally political exercise. Our credentials on immigration cannot seriously be challenged. Nothing I have said over the past two or three weeks has been designed in any way to foster hostility towards any section of the Australian community, but I will never ever abandon the sovereign right of this country to decide who will be a permanent citizen of this nation. I move: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House: (1) acknowledges the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia policy; (2) confirms a total commitment to equal treatment and equal opportunity for all Australians regardless of race, colour, creed or country of origin within the framework of a just and tolerant society; (3) condemns the Hawke's Government's maladministration of immigration policy over the past five years which has lead to public disquiet as evidenced by the findings of the FitzGerald Committee; (4) confirms that it is the very essence of national sovereignty that only the democratically elected government has the right to determine both the overall and the specific composition of our migrant intake; (5) confirms, without qualification, that it must be the role of the elected government, acting on behalf of and with the support of the whole community, to make the final and absolute decisions on who will or will not be granted entry to Australia on a temporary or permanent basis; (6) confirms that this means that any government must reserve the right from time to time to vary and alter policy, including adjustments to the size and composition of the immigration program in response to changing requirements, be they social, economic, political or humanitarian; (7) confirms that established principles of any immigration policy will always be subject to this overriding right; (8) confirms that migrants accepted for permanent settlement in Australia must share the Australian people's basic values and commitments and be able to make a positive contribution to national well-being and advancement; (9) expresses its support for One Australia and welcomes all those who share that vision and are ready to contribute to it; and (10) confirms that: (a) no person other than an Australian citizen, or a permanent resident of the Australian community, has a basic right to enter Australia; (b) migrant entry criteria should be developed on the basis of the economic and social benefit to the Australian community for people other than those admitted for family reunion or as refugees. As a general principle, Australia should not admit for settlement people who would represent an economic burden to Australia through inordinate claims on welfare, health or other resources, or who would endanger the community by criminal or other anti-social activities, or whose entry would be to their own detriment; (c) the capacity of the Australian people to accept and absorb change must always be a major factor in immigration policy. The size and composition of our immigration policy should not jeopardise social cohesiveness and harmony within the Australian community; (d) in selecting between one individual and another immigration policy will not discriminate against applicants on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender or religion; (e) applicants should be considered for immigration as individuals or individual family units, not as community groups. An exception will be refugees in designated refugee situations, although even in such circumstances, the criteria for selection will be related to the characteristics of individual applicants; (f) the standard for eligibility and suitability of migrants should reflect Australia social mores and Australian law. Poly-gamous unions will not be accepted, nor the entry of child finance/es. The concept of ``immediate family'' for eligibility purpose will be derived from the Australian norm, that is, the unit consisting of husband, wife, dependent children and aged parents; (g) migrants will be expected to respect the institutions and principles which are basic to Australian society, including parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and equality before the law, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equality for women, universal education. Reciprocally, Australia will be committed to facilitating equal opportunity for participation of migrants in society; (h) immigration to Australia should be for permanent settlement, although there should be no barrier preventing the departure of people wishing to leave. The guest-worker immigration flow, until recently popular in the industrialised countries of Western Europe, will not be adopted for Australia; (i) citizenship is the ultimate expression of an individual's commitment to Australia and its future and requires respect for Australia's institutions and values. Migration to Australia should lead to Australian citizenship; (j) while migrants will have the same rights as other Australian residents to choose their place of residence individually or collectively, enclave settlement will not be encouraged; and (k) policies governing entry and settlement should be based on the premise that migrants want to integrate into the Australian society. Migrants will be given every opportunity, consistent with this premise, to preserve and disseminate their culture heritage.''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(4.47) —At no stage has the central issue in this debate been the right of a sovereign nation to determine the composition of and the numbers contained in its immigration policy. That is not in issue, and in the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) there is a specific reference to the sovereign right to determine the composition of our immigration intake. The central issue of this debate is whether or not, in making that determination, we adopt racist standards and say, `Well, yes, we want to have a non-discriminatory policy, and you can go through the tests and pass those tests'. But at the end of the day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) reserves the right to say that because we are concerned about our interpretation of social cohesion and the need to maintain some balance within the Australian economy, we will discriminate against one group of people on the basis of their race and origin. That is the issue. That is the heart of the matter. Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: like the Prime Minister, I feel a profound sense of sadness that on one further occasion in this Parliament the Leader of the Opposition has been given the opportunity to repudiate the track down which he has taken his Party and the reversal of policy that has been involved in that, and yet again for the narrowest of political ambitions he prefers to appeal to the historic xenophobic attitudes that have always existed in Australian society. If we look at the verbiage of the Opposition's policy, there is no argument about the sovereign rights of the nation and the terminology used is politically neutral. But the problem in the Opposition parties, the problem in Australia, and the problem that thousands of decent Australians of Asian origin are worried about is the fact that there has been no lack of clarity in the position taken by those two leading members of the coalition, Senator Stone and, of course, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). Senator Stone was quite explicit: Australian immigration has to be slowed; it is no use beating around the bush. What sort of response did that get from the Leader of the National Party? It got full support. Was it some invention by the Prime Minister when Senator Baden Teague, the chairman of the committee which deals with these issues in the Party, called upon the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate that statement? On ABC radio on 12 August he said that he could only conclude that there was not enough strength in the coalition leadership to discipline Senator Stone. Was it some sort of invention by the Prime Minister or members on this side of the House when that distinguished former Minister, Senator Peter Baume, said-he was perfectly candid about it-that John Stone was supposed to have said in the Melbourne Herald that Asian immigration had to be slowed. What did he go on to say? He said, `That is a racist immigration policy. Let us slow it, if we want to, on the basis of merit or some test you apply to all migrants, but let us not look at the colour of people's skin and determine whether or not we admit them to this country. John Stone made that statement. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to say, ``That is not the way we are going to go. We are not going to apply racist tests. We are not going to have a racial policy''. After all, if the basis is someone's race today, it could be their religion tomorrow'. That is the view that comes out of a senior and distinguished member of the Liberal Party and former Ministers for Immigration. They know the problem. When we talk about social cohesion and the question of balancing numbers, what are we looking at in terms of percentages? In 1976 the number of Asian immigrants represented 1.1 per cent of the total population. In 1981 it was 1.8 per cent. In 1986 it was 2.6 per cent. If the present intake continues, by the year 2025 it will be 7 per cent. Is that a matter of concern? Is that the basis upon which the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to cast a shadow in which some of the lunatic racist groups in this community can operate? Asian immigrants will represent 7 per cent in the year 2025. What are we talking about? I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who believes that immigration policy can be driven by polls and that it is about social cohesion: It never has been and the honourable member himself, when he was in a more principled mode, rejected that concept entirely, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House. There are two constants in the history of Australian immigration. The first is that the last group to arrive is always the subject of considerable abuse and admonition. This has always been the case. We now talk about our Anglo-Celtic heritage. Honourable members should read what was said about the Irish by the colonial legislators of this country. They were referred to as drunkards, as being of the wrong religion, as having too many children, as being anti-British and as making very poor servants. That is what was said. The Opposition would not have needed to conduct a gallup poll amongst the WASP establishment. The elements of that policy lived on in parts of Australia. It was not until the 1950s that Archbishop Guilford Young said that enough was enough. He told the banks that operated in Tasmania, `If you want our money, you had better employ our people'. It took the intervention of a distinguished Catholic archbishop to end that level of discrimination that still ran through Australia until the 1950s. Now we talk about our Anglo-Celtic heritage. We should look at the history of the period after the war. In order to avoid the terms of derogation used against those who were coming out of Europe, Arthur Calwell had to coin the term `new Australian'. It lasted only so long, until it became a term of abuse. Let us look at the polls at that time. We should never forget that never once was a poll conducted in Australia in which people of Italian or Greek origin could manage a 50 per cent approval rating. That is the history of the polls. In 1948 only 26 per cent of the population favoured immigration from Greece. We should look at this building and consider what it owes to the traditions of Italian architecture. Italian immigration has never managed to get more than 21 per cent approval. Social cohesion! After the war the Jewish people were coming out of Dachau and Belsen, victims of the holocaust. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition speak eloquently about that issue. When there was a poll-- Mr Howard —Are you suggesting that I do not believe it? Mr HOLDING —The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition does believe it. I do not have any doubt about the fact that he believes it. I am saying that he is talking about social cohesion and I am asking him: if he had been the Minister for Immigration in 1947, what would he have done with the poll finding which said that only 37 per cent approval-- Mr Howard —You know damn well. Don't you imply otherwise. Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the Opposition says that I know. He is the man who, with historic insight, now says that if he had been there in 1947-the advice given to the Minister at the time was that nine out of 10 Australians did not want Jews in Australia-it would have been different then; it would have been different for the Italians and the Greeks, if only he had been Prime Minister then. Now we are looking at the latest category; we are looking at the last group. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? He talks about social cohesion. He looks at the polls that have come out of the right wing think-tanks. That is what motivates him, and everybody knows it. The people in his Party know it. Distinguished ex-Ministers for Immigration know it. The real problem is that deep in his heart he knows it. The tragedy of this debate is that we are not talking about perceptions of Asian immigration. The real issue is that we are talking about our perceptions of Australian society. We are talking about a policy which was nurtured carefully and was brought to fruition by a once great Liberal Party. It was developed and expanded by the Labor Party. Therefore, on the basis of the narrowest and meanest political assessment that has ever been made in the history of the Commonwealth, this Leader of the Opposition wants to reserve to himself, under pressure of an immigration policy driven by John Stone and the Leader of the National Party, the right to say that whatever is the latest poll that comes out will be the determinant of our immigration composition. It is a tragedy for Australia that a resolution in these terms cannot now carry the uniform approval of this House. I say with all sincerity that I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would use this opportunity to endorse a principle and a philosophy which is as much the property of his Party as it is of ours. But, if he cannot do that, then the best thing he can do for his Party, the most honourable thing he can do for his Party, is to resign. I say to the honourable member for Kooyong: if you want to do something for your Party and for the future of Australia and if you want to do something for those thousands of decent young Australians of Asian origin who, when they get on trams and buses have to face the racist muck that is now being pasted on billboards and tram stops, for God's sake, take him out. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.01) —I find the tone of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) appalling. They are not interested in trying to bring unanimity into this country. They are not interested in trying to generate the mood of one Australia. They are interested in trying to promote difference. They are trying to generate the emotive overtones which any thinking Australian has once the very tenor of `racist' is introduced into the debate. In the absolutely appalling contribution by the Immigration Minister a moment ago we began to see the genesis for his sacking last Monday. If the Prime Minister and his Minister were sincere this debate could easily have been held on Tuesday: if they wished, it could have been held on Monday. Why is it introduced today? Because they think it will be a bit of smart political gimmickry. It is not introduced in some genuine presentation of what they believe is a good opportunity to talk about the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. The report was handed down on a commission provided by the Hawke Government. The report, properly, needs to be examined and considered by the Parliament and by the Government. It was not peculiarly because of that report but certainly it was in association with the consideration of the recommendations of that report and in association with the preparation of our total re-examination of our policies that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been making his comments on immigration in the last few weeks. His amendment to the motion by the Prime Minister this afternoon ensures that instead of concentrating attention on the narrow confines of the racial bigotry that the Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister are trying to promote, it is broadened to the whole embrace of what an immigration policy should be all about. The content of the motion shows that we are seeking to ensure not only that there is no racial bigotry but also that there is an equality of treatment of all people of whatever race, whatever their origins, whatever their language, in Australia throughout whatever period they might want to live in this country. Let no-one mistake the fact that the Prime Minister, when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said some appalling things when we were in government and he sought to facilitate the Vietnamese boat people coming to Australia. Those views were certainly endorsed by members such as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Immigration is not a narrow, racial debate. Immigration should be discussed in the breadth of sympathy and understanding, of recognising the need for growth and development in this country and generating opportunities for newcomers to be totally at one with all other Australians. It is on that basis that we have tried to make sure that the people of Australia understand that we are concerned about the directions in which the Australian Labor Party's present immigration policy has taken Australia. We are concerned not just on the basis of the recommendations of Dr FitzGerald. Concern was expressed in submissions that came from a range of people: some were presented to the FitzGerald Commission and others were made separately. I want to talk a little about them in a moment. Our amendment asks members of the Labor Party to ensure that they accept that in selecting between one individual and another immigration policy will not discriminate against applicants on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender or religion. So much for all this poppycock from the Minister, who a few moments ago suggested that we were going to move towards discriminating against race or religion. The policy that we have endorsed, which is reflected in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and which I second, has specifically stated in it that there will be no discrimination against applicants-- Mr Milton —That is not what you said on television. Mr SINCLAIR —I will come to that in a moment. I said exactly the same as the honourable member's colleague, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), said a few weeks before. We need to look at the balance of people coming into Australia to ensure that people come here who the Government says in our national interest should be given priority, and that they are capable of being given priority. I want to pick up the very statement that was issued by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, now the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), back in 1983. What he said has very many similarities to the expression of view I have just mentioned which is contained in our amendment to the motion which we are considering this afternoon. Hansard of 18 May 1983 on page 662 shows that the then Immigration Minister in his ministerial statement said: The Government has reaffirmed the nine principles underlying migration policy . . . The Australian Government alone decides who can enter Australia. That is our point: we must ensure that the Australian Government has the ultimate responsibility to say who should come into Australia. That is not contained in the third part of the Government's motion. The genesis of the change to bipartisan immigration policy was that statement of the then Minister. Let me continue with another quote because it is very material in considering where immigration has got to. The then Immigration Minister continued: The Government intends to restructure the points system to eliminate its more discriminatory features. The reality of that was the consequence that has been examined by the FitzGerald Committee. The restructuring of the points system was a simple way to say that the Government was going to change the immigration mix, it was going to change the proportions of people who came to Australia, and so it has done. So there has been the FitzGerald criticism and there has been the proper concern in the Australian community. On page 664 the Minister continued: I will look for alternatives to the recruitment of skilled workers overseas, based on manpower planning. The Government has established an immigration policy based on manpower planning. The overriding factor is that the Australian Government alone decides who can enter Australia. We have a far more sympathetic approach to immigration than that. We have said that in selecting between one individual and another, immigration policy will not discriminate against applicants on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender or religion. We have also gone on to confirm a total commitment to equal treatment and equal opportunity to all Australians regardless of race, colour, creed or country of origin, but in the framework of a just and tolerant society. All this nonsense about our introducing some draconian measures to stop people from trying to teach their children their familial language, from trying to practise the religion of which their forebears were members, is absolute nonsense. The structure of our amendments sets down proper qualifications on the exercise of a government's sovereignty. It sets down in sympathetic and understanding manner principles of immigration policy which are designed to ensure the sovereignty of a coalition government and a concern to try to develop one Australia. The whole of the nonsense about the emphasis that the Government seeks to place on racism flows from what it believes is a politically opportunistic way to try to embarrass members of the coalition. The former Immigration Minister, Mick Young, at the launch of the review of Australia's immigration policy, the launch of the FitzGerald Committee, in Melbourne on 23 September 1987 said: The review is to be undertaken within the context of this Government's commitment to the principles of non-discrimination . . . However, the Australian Government retains the right to determine who shall enter and remain in Australia and that right will not be up for reassessment. In response to such a policy the honourable member for Calwell, quite properly, in his assessment of what was happening in immigration policy, in an AM interview on 18 January 1988, said: There is a problem in the balance of the immigration program, that is in practical terms as distinct from in theory, the program is not working out in terms of its balance . . . What I'm saying is that in the last few years there are insufficient numbers of people coming from some other areas. The honourable member for Calwell was endorsing exactly the concerns that Dr FitzGerald has expressed. He expressed exactly the same concerns that we have expressed. We want to try to ensure that there is one Australia. We all know that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, who is sitting at the table, was sacked following the release of the immigration report, which is very critical of the way in which migration has been administered under the Hawke Government. The Government has had five Ministers in five years in this extraordinarily sensitive area. It has had junior Ministers. It has had Ministers like the one at the table, who was an absolute failure as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and who was then put into Immigration. What sensitivity that shows! On page 99 of his report, Dr FitzGerald described the administration of immigration in the following way: A labyrinth of rules and requirements that confuse and bewilder. A creator of uncertainty, dependence, frustration and anger. A mass of ill-fitting, unintegrated parts that resent change, that react rather than anticipate, that sink inexorably into inertia. I wonder what the Committee said in the unexpurgated version. We all need to remember that there was an earlier FitzGerald report, the report that was subject to the scrutiny of the Prime Minister-a scrutiny that we are told led to some changes. We do not know what the changes were. But we certainly know that the Prime Minister did not think very much of the original language. We need to remember that when looking at the whole question of selection, Dr FitzGerald said: Neither quotas nor queuing are the answers for Australia. However, he said: . . . the Committee concluded that a numerical system for rating applicants was the most appropriate system for Australia. If such a test is an effective method of selection, and we are already using one, then why change it? The answer is- this is the FitzGerald conclusion- that the current test has not proved to be effective either in rationing or in selection. The system has broken down and its continuation is untenable. The reality is that there is a concern on both sides of the House about the consequences of the administration of the Labor Party's immigration policy. Indeed, as the FitzGerald report says on page 66 with respect to race: The real test is the test of social acceptance. Ten years of substantial immigration from Asia suggest very strongly that it is working. It needs to be remembered that most of those 10 years were under the direction and control of the Liberal and National parties. We all know that the imbalance between skilled migrants and family reunions was commented on adversely in the FitzGerald report. We know something of the submission which was made by Graeme Hugo, a reader in geography at Flinders University of South Australia, who talked about the deskilling of the occupational profile. We also know that in this debate this afternoon we have prepared and presented an amendment which is comprehensive, which deals sympathetically with areas of race, which deals sympathetically with all discrimination and which provides for equality of treatment. But what we need to understand is that this Government is seeking to promote not harmony but disunity. Even in its analysis of what is happening in trade with Asia, this Government is seeking to suggest that because we on this side of the House have picked up the comments and criticisms in the community and in the FitzGerald report, we are in some way prejudicing our trade with countries whose own immigration policies are far more racially selective than any that have ever been adopted by coalition governments. We need to remember that the Japan-Australian trade agreement was negotiated by a government from this side of the House. We need to remember that this side of the House did not generate the antagonisms with Indonesia which have led to a deterioration in relations with that country over the last five years. We need to remember that members on this side of the House do not want to restore the white Australia policy which a coalition government ended. What we seek to do is to make sure that within Australia there is a development of unity, a maintenance of one Australia within which all Australians regard their pride in their country and their nation as the most important aspect of their citizenship and their whole belief. It is worth quoting the following editorial in this morning's Australian: The immigration policy adopted . . . by the Federal Coalition embodies a commitment to Australia's national integrity and traditions. It contains no suggestion of racial prejudice and declares its dedication to `equal treatment and equal opportunity for all Australians, regardless of race, colour, creed or country of origin within the framework of a just, tolerant society'. The motion that was submitted today is a purely political device. It needs to be opposed because it gives away Australia's sovereignty. The second part of the motion seeks to pretend that the FitzGerald comments on the Government's immigration policy are nonsense. It seeks to endorse the policy of the man sitting at the table who was sacked a week ago because of his immigration policy. I urge honourable members to support the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COHEN(Robertson)(5.16) —I have participated in many debates in this House since I became a member in 1969. However, I have participated in none with more regret than this one. In March 1970 I asked my maiden question in this House. It was about racism. The following day I made my maiden speech. It was about racism. If I were asked what single issue motivated me to become involved in politics, I would say that it was my hatred of prejudice, be it racial, religious or national. One does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to work out why I feel like that. As a young boy, not quite 10 years of age, on my first day at boarding school I found out what blind irrational hatred can be like. I was attacked not once, but three times, with the phrase, `You dirty bloody Jew!'. I have never forgotten that feeling and I never will. I have never forgotten what it feels like to be hated for no other reason than that I had been born different from most of my fellow Australians. There are many people in this House who think they know what it is like to be taunted in such a way. They do not. They have no idea; and with all the best will in the world, they can never know. They may be able to intellectualise about it, but they can never know deep down the hurt and the humiliation. I discovered very early in life that those who can hurl such epithets around about one group of people can do it about any other group. Today it is Jews, tomorrow it is Catholics, and then it is the Italians, the Lebanese, the Indians and the Asians. It is their way of feeling superior. It establishes their place in the pecking order. It is a scapegoat for their own failures and inadequacies. I do not suggest that the majority, or even the minority, will necessarily do anything violent about it. They do not have to. Probably the overwhelming majority can see nothing wrong or hurtful in what they are doing. But it is there. They are humiliating every single person whom they discriminate against because of his religion, nationality, race, colour of skin or origins. There is nothing one can do about the way one is born, and that is what makes racism so cruel and so stupid. I had thought naively that, in the near 20 years that I had been in this House, as a nation we had become a more tolerant society. I was wrong. We are as bigoted, as racially intolerant, as we ever were. I apologise to the members of the Asian community for the appalling behaviour of some of my fellow Australians during the past few weeks. Frankly, I am ashamed. We are facing a crisis in this country over the present debate about immigration, and for that I am afraid we can thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). That may seem a harsh judgment, but make no mistake about it-he is the man most responsible. And that is depressing, because only a short while ago he made one of the best speeches ever made in this House against racism. But now, a short 18 months or so later, the community is divided because he has chosen to make race an issue in the immigration debate. He may twist, turn and dissemble as much as he likes, but he knows, or he ought to know, that people perceive that he is the person advocating introducing race as an issue in determining our immigration policy. All the good work that has been done before is worth nothing. We are now back to the 1890s. I have no doubt that the polls taken recently on the question of Asian immigration fairly accurately reflect the community's views. Seventy-seven per cent or 82 per cent is probably pretty close to the community's view about Asian immigration; but that does not make those members of the community right. It is simply a sad reflection on people's deep seated prejudices. It shows that we, the politicians on both sides, have failed to build a more tolerant society. One great redeeming feature about this Parliament is that over the years, particularly since World War II, governments of both political persuasions have recognised that a harmonious society with an enormous immigration program could be developed only if the people from the over 100 different nations who immigrated to Australia could be welcomed to this country without the racial and religious tensions that have occurred in other societies. Any politician with half a brain was aware that the opportunities were available to score political points by exploiting the deep seated resentments present in our community against the newcomers. How many times have each of us sat in our offices and listened to people complain that the reason they were not getting a fair go was because the migrants were getting it all? How often have we heard a person denied a pension, a housing loan or a job complain bitterly that the Government should look after decent Aussies-Australian Australians, as Professor Blainey so quaintly puts it-before it gives everything to the wogs, the dagos, the Jews, the slopes, or whatever derogatory word was in vogue at the time to describe the latest wave of immigrants. It just goes to show how close to the surface is the resentment, the jealousy, the prejudice against anyone who is different. Nothing has changed. Throughout the ages the unscrupulous politicians have always been aware of people's deep seated fears and hatreds of those who are different and they have set out to exploit those fears for their own political advantage. It is not difficult to do; it just requires a total lack of conscience. The worst example is still fresh in our memories: six million people lie dead as a testimony to just how hatreds can be whipped up into a frenzy in a very short time. Once we go down the path of allowing one group of people to be the scapegoats for our troubles, the way we are now allowing the Asians to be the scapegoats, some unscrupulous politicians or someone seeking to grab a headline will realise how easy it is to exploit people's fears and will choose another target. It cannot happen? That is what the Jews of Europe believed in the 1930s. The Leader of the Opposition has been quite incensed by some politicians' reactions to his new policy of one Australia. I find it extraordinary that he can appear to be genuinely amazed that people continue to state that his policy is racist. He says on the one hand that there will be no discrimination and on the other that there will be a cutback in Asian immigration. He says that there will be a cutback because of community concern about the level of Asian immigration. I have listened to him on half a dozen occasions and, no matter how generous I try to be, that policy can be interpreted in no other way than that it is racially discriminatory. He is not saying, as I thought he might be, that the requirements for entry might be altered so that, although the policy would not be discriminatory, the net result might be to decrease the number of Asian migrants. Not at all. That is not what he is saying. He says, quite clearly, that the Asian intake will be cut back because members of the community want it to be cut back. They do not like Asians, or they do not like that many Asians. Whichever way one looks at it, that can be described only as discriminatory. Let us assume for a moment that we, the politicians, believe him when he says that his policy is non-discriminatory. We can be sure of one thing: members of the community do not believe him. They believe without a doubt that John Howard is against Asian immigration. And the evidence is that they support him overwhelmingly. To my great disappointment, I suspect that is precisely what he intended. If he has his way within his own Party, that is precisely what the next election will be fought about. His argument is that there is community concern about Asian immigration and, therefore, it must be reduced. His guide for that is the public opinion polls. Does that mean that from now on we will have government by public opinion poll? Anyone examining the polls in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s would have discovered that the country was fairly evenly divided on any immigration and quite strongly opposed to Greeks, Italians and Jews. Only four years ago all the major polls were showing that 60 per cent of Australians wanted a reduction of all immigration. Although public opinion polls were not taken in Australia before World War II, I wonder, when the conservative Government under Joe Lyons agreed, at the Evian conference, to accept 12,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, just what the result of an opinion poll would have been at the time? If governments in the past had been solely guided by public opinion, it is unlikely that we would have had a fraction of the immigrants we have had during the post-war period. We certainly would have been restricted to British, Irish and northern European immigrants. It is only because all the political parties represented in this Parliament have recognised that the only way an immigration policy can be implemented is through a bipartisan approach that we have been able to bring millions of people to Australia from over 100 countries without any significant tensions. What would have happened if in the immediate post-war period the Liberal-Country Party Opposition had opposed the Labor Government's initiative? The immigration program would have collapsed. What would have happened in the 23 years between 1949 and 1972 if the Labor Opposition had chosen to exploit immigration as an issue, particularly in 1966 when Harold Holt finally made the breakthrough and brought an end to the White Australia policy? At the time the Labor Party, under Arthur Calwell, was in a very unpopular position over its stance on the Vietnam War. It would have been easy to have taken the popular route and whip up anti-Asian sentiment to win votes. The Labor Party quite rightly chose not to do so. What about in more recent times when the Fraser Government courageously decided to take refugees from Vietnam? It was only the other day when the boat people were landing in Darwin and opposition was at fever pitch. Sure, there were mutterings in the trade union movement and the Labor Party could easily have exploited the racist feelings that were widespread at the time. It chose not to do so. It is interesting that members of the Liberal Party and its coalition partners, who have a proud record of tolerance on the question of non-European immigration, should be in such desperate political trouble that they now seek to exploit the latent racism prevalent in our society. It is fairly obvious that a large number of Liberals, to their credit, are appalled at what is happening. I compliment those who have spoken out against this new policy. The Leader of the Opposition appears injured that people have, as he puts it, misinterpreted his policy. What other interpretation can be placed on it? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, `I don't think John Howard is a racist. What he is is an opportunist. He is a person who is prepared to exploit racism to advance his political fortunes. He is saying, ``Look, don't blame me, I'm not a racist, but unfortunately a lot of my fellow Australians are. I'm not only not going to attack them, I'm going to go along with their prejudices and, in so doing, pick up their votes''.' The old saying, `All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing', was never more applicable than at this stage in Australia's history. It is not good enough for John Howard to imply that he cannot help it if his fellow Australians are racist. What he ought to be saying is, `Look, you are wrong, and whether 80 per cent of you believe it or 99 per cent of you are opposed to Asian immigration, I will show you where you are wrong'. We should all be stumping the country, not advocating more or less Asian immigration but non-discrimination in our immigration policy. By not taking that position, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition have aligned themselves with the racists and they have made racism respectable. Look at the people they have got lined up beside them-the despicable Ron Casey and Bruce Ruxton. These are people who are now setting the agenda in the immigration debate. The Leader of the Opposition said that because of community concern there should be a cutback in Asian immigration. What does that mean? What size cut is he proposing? What will satisfy the anti-Asians? Will 5,000 less satisfy them, or 10,000 less, or maybe 20,000 less? What percentage of migrants will pacify those who do not want any-25 per cent, 20 per cent, 15 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? Why does the Leader of the Opposition not realise the sort of mindless debate we are embarking upon once we start getting into the numbers and statistics game? Does he really think that if we allow 20,000 Asians per year to come to Australia instead of 40,000 it will satisfy the people who do not like Asians? Certainly any Australian has a right to question how many immigrants we should take into this country. But once that question has been settled to further analyse the figures in terms of race or nationality will involve the nation in a never ending brawl that will only increase tensions in this country. Unfortunately, I am running out of time. Finally, in a sense we have all failed because we have failed completely to understand what creates prejudice. We have failed to educate people. We ought to have started in the schools to make people understand why they fear something that is different. I mentioned in my question to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-this is something that I want to take up in this Party and the Parliament in the future-that we will not legislate against it; we will not even reason with people. We can only start on a long program of education to abolish prejudice in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(5.30) —I start by saying that I find this debate distasteful. The fact is that I feel that I am a reluctant participant. This is not because I am unable to support my Party's policy; I certainly can. I have listened to speakers so I am talking from the heart more than from the mind. Regrettably in my view, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sought to place a mortgage on tolerance, understanding, humanitarianism and compassion-as if they were all attached to that side of the House. That is not the case. I know that behind the motion that has been introduced into this Parliament, there is not the feeling that we should evoke a spirit of comradeship to all in this nation but to play politics. That is the root of it. I am not even sure what I will say today because I feel rather deeply about this issue. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) suffered the sorts of hatred and indignity that I have never had to suffer. I commenced my political career 27 years ago by getting myself censured by the endorsing body of the State executive of the Liberal Party of Australia for being critical of my Party's then immigration policy. I ought to say that I was more critical of my political opponent's immigration policy because when I first stood for Parliament I had supporting me students with faces painted black, to make a point. My political opponent was Dr J. F. Cairns. He was standing on a platform that contained within it the maintenance of the white Australia policy. It is very interesting to reflect upon-I do so very warmly because of the contest of the time-the fact that the current Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) was Dr Cairns's campaign manager. The nature of the campaign that was conducted, other than on that issue, was one that we have reflected on with warmth from time to time. Thirteen years ago, accompanied interestingly enough by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), I visited Indo-China in the last days of the war in Cambodia. Indeed, in Phnom Penh we had to be air lifted out to Saigon and I saw the slaughter, the pillage and the destruction being wrought on a scale that I had never experienced. I will not dwell on that, for the relevance of it is solely that, at that time, I came back and privately sought to persuade the government of the day-which dare I remind honourable members was a Labor government-to be humane and understanding and to take in people who were seeking to get out over the border through Thailand. The then Prime Minister wanted nothing of it. I saw the ignomitny of embassy officials receiving cables to go out and grab little Vietnamese waifs and put them most reluctantly, on a plane but with a fanfare of publicity to show that the Government was going to make a token gesture. Where was the warmth, compassion, tolerance and understanding at that time? I participated in the Cabinet discussions to take in Indo-Chinese refugees. I cannot help but say that I did not receive well the remarks of the Prime Minister when he stood here today and commenced with the statement that the feature of political leadership on immigration in this country has been a triumph of, among other things, compassion. When I, with the then immigration Minister, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), was traversing this nation in 1977 trying to tell the populace that we did not just have a duty but that we were abundantly bound to take these people who were coming to our shores, I heard the words of the present Prime Minister on compassion when he said, `Of course we should have compassion but people who are coming in this way are not the only people in the world who have rights to our compassion. Any sovereign country has the right to determine how it will exercise its compassion'. That was a nice bit of manipulative compassion-how it will exercise its compassion and how it will increase its population. I feel a touch of distaste listening to some who wish to claim the mortgage in this arena. The Prime Minister then said that this side of politics had broken with the tradition of bipartisanship. I do not know where his notions of bipartisanship were in 1977 when he said, `Obviously, there are people all around the world who have a strong case for entry into this country'. Successive governments have said we have an obligation, but we also have an obligation to people who are already here. In the past a number of people have questioned immigration programs in this country. At the time they were not branded as racist because they questioned these things. The honourable member for Robertson made some very moving remarks in his speech. I do not agree with his criticism. But again, one cannot rewrite history in this place. It is all on the record. Honourable members opposite should not tell me that when we changed the white Australia policy in 1966-67 the Labor Party could have played on that issue but chose not to because it would divide the nation. They should get their facts right. The platform of the party was changed around 1963 or 1964. They would not have been able to embark on that criticism. Oh, they had their spokesmen. On this question of selectivity, when I came into this Parliament a few years after the last campaign-better organised by the Minister who was campaign manager for Jim Cairns-the Labor Party had a spokesman. He is the current clown of Australian political commentary. He provides comments for 30 pieces of silver at any time at the drop of a hat. If one rings him to get him on radio to make a political comment one goes through his agent. His name is Frederick Michael Daly and 99.9 per cent of the time he denigrates my side of politics. He was the Labor Party's immigration spokesperson after I came into the Parliament. He is a believer in the white Australia policy. Honourable members should not tell me that they are the only ones who can propagate a view founded, in the words of the Prime Minister, on the brotherhood of mankind. I have just seen honourable members opposite at work. I have experienced their operations. I know that within the document that was produced by the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies it is suggested that the current migration policy is a shambles. I wish we had more time today but we are too far down the line to discuss the elements of that report. Honourable members opposite know that they have got the wrong immigration program. They know that, regrettably, they have been bringing in too many unskilled and old people. Mr Holding —Nonsense. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister says `nonsense' but two days before the FitzGerald report came out in June this year his Government changed the points system to allocate more points for skill. The aim of an immigration policy was to give some economic development to this nation. However, by bringing in the unskilled, the Government did not do that. By bringing in the old instead of the young, the Government has in no way contributed to slowing down that element of the ageing of the Australian population. I could quote Dr Theophanous; I could quote a whole host of people. Frankly, I will end as I began-I do not care about the clock-by saying that I find this debate distasteful. I have said publicly that I will not belong to a party that engages in racism. I do not want my Party or my country to be branded as international pariahs and those people who would seek to do it are wrong. I find much to criticise in the Government's immigration program. I find it extraordinary that as the Government propagates itself as the best administrator of immigration, it is doing it in the week in which its own Immigration Minister has been sacked. So whether it is the high ground or the low ground the Government chooses, it too has a lot to answer for in regard to what is transpiring here today. Debate (on motion by Mr Duffy) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The fallacy of a Budget strategy which relies heavily on the continued high level of mineral and commodity prices yet makes it increasingly difficult to produce them. 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Sitting suspended from 5.43 to 7.30 p.m. Immigration Policy (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(7.31) —This Budget has been framed against the background of a world economy which has performed dramatically better than most people expected at the time of the October share market crash last year. Therein lies one of the great strengths of this year's Budget, but also, ironically, its great and looming weakness. This Budget's success is almost utterly dependent on strong world economic growth and maintenance of the recent rise in Australia's commodity prices. If these turn sour, the Budget strategy and the optimism of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will both be in tatters. Tonight I do not propose to indulge in criticism of the Budget for its own sake. The reality is that the economic debate in Australia has changed enormously in recent years. There is now much wider acceptance right across the political spectrum of the simple fact that Australia is directly affected by the world economy and that our economic policies must respond to the judgments of others about our economic performance. Some economic policy differences between the Government and the Opposition have narrowed. In many respects we no longer argue about the direction of change but, rather, the pace, the methodology and, importantly, who should be the beneficiaries of that change. Today's debate is concerned less and less with annual budgets and more about the nature and extent of structural change. We all want a more prosperous nation and rising living standards. We differ about how this can best be achieved. This changed debate is partly a direct product of the world-wide loss of faith by governments of all political persuasions in government intervention, government controls and state enterprise as solutions to economic problems. We are witnessing at the moment throughout the world greater acceptance of market-driven free enterprise solutions than at any time since World War II. There are features of this Budget that I welcome. I welcome the additional rent assistance for low income families, although the initial increase will not be available for 10 months. Skyrocketing rents, particularly in major cities, are a huge problem for Australia's poor. The increased financial support for employment development amongst Aborigines is a sensible, practical way of reducing Aboriginal disadvantage. The Liberal and National parties have repeatedly said that the way to help Aborigines is not through divisive concepts such as treaties, which are the opposite of our `One Australia' message, but by directly addressing the cause of Aboriginal disadvantage. The Treasurer's optimistic growth, inflation and current account deficit forecasts are all in themselves welcome. I hope that his optimism is vindicated. The Treasurer's commitment to bringing our inflation rate into line with that of our trading partners is long overdue, but nonetheless welcome. Policy differences between the Government and the Opposition on some economic issues may have narrowed. However, one great fundamental difference does, and always will, remain. This Government believes that the future wealth and prosperity of Australia can only be the product of bargains struck between the Government and powerful interest groups in our community. By contrast, we on this side of the House believe that greater national prosperity can only result from the efforts and achievements of individual men and women given the right incentives to work harder, excel and achieve. Three valid and objective criticisms can be made of the Budget. First, the surplus is much more the product of high taxation than of reduced spending. Secondly, as I have already said, the Budget's success is almost utterly dependent on strong world growth and a maintenance of the recent recovery in Australia's commodity prices. Thirdly, the Budget is virtually silent on structural economic reform. Whatever happened to the bold declaration by the Treasurer in May that the next big item on the reform agenda was transformation of our labour markets? This week the Treasurer has truly retained his crown as the highest taxing Treasurer in our peacetime history. He will collect $47.6 billion in tax from individuals over the coming 12 months, which is $5.7 billion more than last year. The average income earner will need $56 a week by way of tax cut on 1 July next year just to restore his real income to the level it was when Labor came to power in March 1983. Labor's tax system has forced more and more ordinary taxpayers into the top marginal tax bracket. That rate now applies at only 1.4 times average weekly earnings. The Treasurer predicts that our inflation rate will be 4.5 per cent next year. He does not boast that in the same year all of us will pay 14 per cent more in taxation or three times his predicted inflation rate. The Treasurer has promised some relief from his high taxes on 1 July next year, but I say now to the Australian people that there is no way that the tax cut that the Treasurer will inevitably want to give for political reasons, on the eve of the next election, can possibly make up for the disastrous slump in living standards we have experienced over the last five years. The timing of the tax cuts has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. Tax cuts now financed by cuts in government spending would ease the pressure for wage rises, allowing a lower wage outcome, producing lower inflation and interest rates and greater international competitiveness. Labor's call for more sacrifices now is a smokescreen to delay the tax cuts until closer to the next election. While the Budget has some positive features, some of which I have acknowledged, it betrays once again the Olympian detachment of the Government, particularly the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), from the aspirations and concerns of ordinary Australian families. This Government is out of touch with the growing economic and social malaise in Australia. Outside Canberra it is very plain to see what is happening to our society. People are becoming more insecure as they feel less and less in control of their lives. The pace of change in our society is accelerating. Traditional values and family unity are under attack. Families are coming under great stress. Personal bankruptcies are spiralling, poverty is on the rise and income inequalities are sharpening. Family allowances are now worth 41 per cent less and the dependent spouse rebate 32 per cent less than was the case five years ago. Home loan repayments now average $666 a month, which is about 27 per cent of the median family income, compared with just over 19 per cent in March 1983. About 700,000 households are below the poverty line, including about 40,000 families with children. It is estimated that 40,000 Australians are permanently homeless, with another 60,000 on the verge of being homeless. The stress on families trying to cope is showing up in the divorce statistics, homelessness, the proliferation of drugs and the rise in related criminal activities. These trends are worsened in the case of young people who are locked out of the labour market. Australians today want greater capacity to control their own lives and how they earn and spend their incomes. They want more accountable governments which interfere less with individual privacy and family rights. They want greater security in the streets and more support for the family unit. They want greater equality of opportunity, irrespective of background. Our approach to economic and social policy rests on the twin pillars of individual freedom and a strong family unit. In every policy area, be it taxation, industrial relations or indeed anywhere else, our goal is that people rather than governments or institutions are best able to make decisions about their own future. Lower taxation is a fundamental prerequisite of a more productive, incentive-driven economy. The Treasurer is way out of touch with his claim that Australians do not want tax relief now. He should tell that to the great mass of taxpayers in the $19,500 to $35,000 tax bracket. Labor's smash and grab raid on superannuation in the May statement was the ultimate exercise in cynicism. It will do nothing to boost national savings at a time when we continue to rely on foreign savings to the tune of at least 3 per cent of our gross domestic product. The employer tax on superannuation contributions will divert private savings from investment to fund public consumption. So much for Labor's desire to promote savings and investment. For more than two years we have advocated a lower, two-rate personal tax scale. At the 1987 election we advocated scales of 25 per cent and 38 per cent. The Government said it could not be done. I predict now that this approach will be virtually adopted by the Government in 12 months time. Our approach would emphasise assistance to families, particularly those on middle and lower incomes. Australia's tax system must take account of the fact that it costs more to raise children. A tax policy which does not recognise this central fact is a tax policy without a social vision. A family-based taxation system will ease financial pressures on families and keep more of those families together. We will also reform taxes which stifle business enterprise and initiative. Our policy is to keep the corporate tax rate in line with the top personal tax rate. We will abolish Labor's capital gains tax. This tax discourages longer term savings and investment, which are so desperately needed if Australia is to reduce its dependence on foreign capital. Shorter term gains will, however, be taxable on a sliding scale over five years. After five years there will be no tax on capital gains. We will also abolish Labor's fringe benefits tax, but where a non-cash benefit is clearly and deliberately provided as a substitute for cash remuneration, that benefit will be taxed as income in the hands of the recipient, as it should be. Last Tuesday the Treasurer once again failed to acknowledge the overwhelming importance of Australia more efficiently using its physical, human and financial resources. In other words, he will not face the need to lift Australia's productivity. It is indisputable that an increase in Australia's rate of productivity growth will hasten the stabilisation and, in time, the reduction of our foreign debt. Labor is turning its back on a wide variety of measures which could raise productivity on a sustainable long term basis by removing restrictive work practices, increasing competition, raising investment, improving utilisation of the existing capital stock and facilitating structural change. Labor is preventing an objective and bipartisan debate on the merits of privatisation of public business enterprises. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister were converted to privatisation after the last election. Now they have been forced by their Party's left wing to dismiss privatisation as not part of the `main game'. But is not improved enterprise efficiency and accountability part of the main game? Is not giving enterprise employees a real stake in their workplace and its future part of the main game? Surely it is. Using the proceeds of asset sales to reduce debt is also part of the main game. We have a clear and comprehensive program of privatisation that will give benefits to consumers, taxpayers and enterprise employees. Our proposals will give public enterprise employees the opportunity and incentive to buy shares in their own enterprises. Employees will be offered shares in their own enterprises at a discount. Efficient and competitive transport and communications are vital to industry competitiveness, particularly for export growth. Labor has squibbed every major test on this front. If shipping costs alone were reduced by 50 per cent, the gains to the economy as a whole would be in excess of $700m a year. Our policy, released recently, directly addresses this issue. We will monitor progress by local shipping companies and the relevant unions in reducing manning levels on Australian ships to levels comparable to those of our trading partners. If we do not receive employer and union cooperation, we will introduce foreign competition on coastal shipping routes, but only as a last resort. In telecommunications, we see many opportunities for potential competition to spur Telecom Australia to lift its game. Under a coalition government, Telecom will be responsible for the basic telecommunications network but will be required to compete on normal commercial terms in the provision of the first home telephone, small business systems, data transmission, information systems and maintenance functions. Deregulation of these services will open up existing possibilities for new and existing small businesses and independent contractors. The labour market must be reformed if Australia is to become a genuinely competitive, outward looking economy. Our inflation rate remains nearly double that of our major trading partners, labour productivity is woeful and youth unemployment is still far too high. Labor's recent experiment with the second tier wage approach was a recognition that wage increases which are not based on productivity are unsustainable and provide no incentive to better workplace performance. The new wages system is a retrograde step. Wages could grow by more than 7 per cent in 1988-89, with little productivity offset. Our new industrial relations policy provides a more flexible framework for industrial relations at the enterprise level. Our policy promotes voluntary enterprise level agreements between workers and their employers. These agreements will be available to enterprises of any size and could cover work practices, introduction of new technology and management methods and other ways to improve enterprise productivity and profitability. We will also act to protect the rights of the individual in the workplace; we will outlaw closed shops and abolish the power to grant preference to trade union members. We will enact compulsory secret ballots before strike action to ensure that workers are not intimidated by union bosses into unnecessary strikes. We will legislate to ensure that there are effective sanctions for those who fail to comply with the decisions and orders of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Labor's proposed graduate tax is a classic Labor mixture of higher taxes and further centralisation of power in Canberra. We are committed to providing young people with greater choice in higher education. The Liberal and National parties will open up universities and colleges of advanced education to the 20,000 or more students who are currently locked out by Labor's policy. The coalition policy is to provide free places by awarding scholarships to the nation's best applicants and also to allow institutions to accept additional applicants on a mutually acceptable basis. In this context a Liberal Government will provide greater autonomy to higher education institutions, reduce government regulation, and encourage universities and colleges to develop new sources of revenue to supplement government funds. Institutions will be encouraged to become more flexible and creative. Labor's nationalised health system should be renamed Medimess. Health costs are rising, quality of service is declining and hospital waiting lists are lengthening. Throwing further money at the symptoms will not cure the problem. The Liberal and National parties will restore choice in the health area and cut costs in the delivery of health services. There will be a much greater role for private health insurance funds within a climate of greater competition. In addition, there will be restoration of a proper balance between private and public hospitals. We will end the Labor Party's ideologically motivated neglect of private hospitals, which provide real competition in price and service for our ailing public hospitals. The Liberal and National parties will provide Australians with the choice of home ownership. Home ownership is becoming a privilege limited to the well-off in our community. There are over 79,000 applicants waiting for assistance under Federal and State home purchase assistance programs. Our priority is to help people to get into their own homes rather than make them forever dependent on the state, and that is the centrepoint of our new housing policy. Our goal is to eliminate the twin barriers to home ownership for low income families, namely, the need for a deposit to secure a home loan and the inability to afford mortgage repayments because of high interest rates. The first home owners scheme has assisted many first home buyers. The scheme will be improved and better targeted. As a first step the coalition will eliminate the deposit gap for low income first home buyers. We will encourage home lenders to provide a loan of 100 per cent of the fair valuation of an eligible purchaser's first home by having the Commonwealth meet the cost of mortgage insurance. The assistance will be means tested and subject to maximum borrowing limits. While the Government indulges in an orgy of self-congratulation over the size of the Budget surplus, Australians will see nothing in this Budget which will make one bit of difference to their real take home pay. Just as Australia remains firmly in the hands of overseas financial markets, so ordinary Australians will continue to feel alienated and powerless in their personal lives. The taxation and industrial relations policies I have briefly outlined tonight will provide greater incentives for individual productivity and investment. We will give all employees the opportunity to acquire a real financial stake in their enterprise and thereby promote greater identification with the fortunes of their work place. Our policies of active income support will promote a greater unity by ensuring that welfare dependants are not excluded from meaningful work opportunities. The Labor Party is increasingly being constrained by its ideological blinkers and vested union interests from implementing policies which are in the interests of the entire Australian community. The Liberal and National parties have frequently dictated the economic agenda for the past few years. The Labor Party has reluctantly adopted, as it well knows, many of our economic policies under the pressure of external economic shocks. Members of the Labor Party know that as well as we do. Time and time again policies that they once derided have been adopted under the pressure of external economic circumstances. Time and time again the Labor Party has said to us, `It can't be done', but twelve months later it has turned around and done it, claiming such initiatives as its own. I would say to the Labor Party that we are only too happy to go on providing the intellectual lead in the economic debate, and we will go on providing it in the labour market area as we have provided it in so many other areas. The reality is that the Labor Party has reached the limits of its policy flexibility now. We have already released policies for industrial relations, housing, transport, aviation, communications and privatisation. Other policies will be released shortly. Our policies are pitched squarely at decent hardworking Australians who want to believe in their government again and who want the government to believe in them as well. We believe in our fellow Australians, in their wish to work hard, to save more and to make this a better country for all. That is why our policies seek to return power and decision making to people, and that is the essence of what one Australia is all about. Debate (on motion by Mr Hollis) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DAWKINS —Earlier today the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) accused me of quoting from his response to last year's Budget. Apparently I did, but I am in pretty good company because so did the Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald of 24 August this year quoted from a Press statement of the honourable member for Mackellar from 12 months ago. One can only conclude that either the honourable member for Mackellar gave that newspaper his last year's Press statement or else there have been so few of his Press statements that the media have been forced to recycle them. Debate resumed. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(7.57) —When the debate was adjourned at about 5.45 this evening we had just had a contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). He said when he started that he was not too sure of what he was going to say. At various stages during his contribution he attacked the policy, which he obviously found abhorrent and which he referred to as the white Australia policy, and he attacked some people in the Australian Labor Party. One can only conclude that in that obviously genuine contribution by the honourable member for Kooyong he was supporting, at least in his heart, the motion and not the amendment. After 5 1/2 years the Liberal-National Party coalition still cannot come up with policies to match those of this Government and win the confidence of the Australian people. In what can only be described as a desperate, mistaken belief based on some sort of polling, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has thrown out decades of bipartisanship on migration. His failure to evolve economic policies has led him down a path on migration that is certain to lead to the economic destruction of this country. I do not consider that that is an overstatement. Our Asian neighbours will well remember the disgraceful white Australia policy referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition earlier tonight-a policy that was based on ignorance and prejudice. That policy of European racial superiority soiled our international image for decades and it held back Australia's trade within our region. Personal Explanation The future of this country-it seems the majority of those opposite do not understand this-lies in our ability to trade, and it is the Asia-Pacific region which is the biggest growth area for trade in the world. With our geographic location we must have firm but friendly relations with all our neighbours. Honourable members opposite have to understand that we cannot just tow this country away and put it somewhere else. We are where we are. As Australia is looking more to its regional neighbours for trade, economic, defence and other ties, Asian migrants will be a huge asset in this country. The Opposition's policy is putting at risk billions of dollars worth of trade and the economic future and well-being of generations of Australians to come. It has taken years to convince our neighbours that we are not prejudiced against them. The motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calls upon this House to recognise that the racially non-discriminatory immigration policy pursued by successive governments has been to the overwhelming national and international benefit of Australia-a policy now thrown away in a desperate attempt to gain votes. Appealing to the prejudices of some people to gain votes is an indication of the desperate position that has been reached in the Opposition. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are very fortunate to be located in the world's fastest growing economic region-the Asian-Pacific region. All of the information shows that trans-Pacific trade now exceeds the historic focus of international trade on the Atlantic. According to a report of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade issued on 3 August, Asia has been the most dynamic exporting region in the world since 1980. Therefore, our economic future is closely linked to that of our Asian neighbours. Our ability to expand and broaden our economic linkages with our neighbours will be a significant factor in determining our country's economic and social prosperity. The western Pacific region is already of major significance to Australia's trade. I think it is well worth some of those opposite thinking about the significance of that. In 1987, putting aside New Zealand, 49.4 per cent of the total exports of this country were directed to the western Pacific region and 36.9 per cent of our imports were from that region. In the agricultural sector Japan and Taiwan accounted for more than $70m of our lamb exports. Our sixth largest market for milk and cream dairy products was all the Asian countries. Japan and China accounted for $900m worth of our wool exports. Maybe it is worth the National Party having a think about the fact that Australian farmers appreciate the importance of this market, even if the Opposition does not. I turn to the area of vital mineral exports. Japan, China and the Republic of Korea were our three major markets for iron ore. Japan and the Republic of Korea were our major markets for zinc ore. Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan accounted for more than $3 billion of our coal exports. Again, I am sure that the mining industry does not have to have explained to it the crucial importance of the Asian markets for its products. The Asian-Pacific region is also important in the growing export market for services, accounting for 33 per cent of our total exports in 1987. Tourism, education and health services all offer considerable export growth potential in the region. The region contains countries at varied stages of economic development and industrial sophistication. One of the challenges, as well as one of the opportunities, that this creates for Australia is through the investment flows both in and out of this country. An important element of the Government's strategy in the development of our links with the region has been to promote that two-way investment. The exchange of investment missions to Japan, for example, is a most important way for Australian industry, firstly, to secure access to the Japanese market and, secondly, to secure access to technologies and skills for use within Australian operations, allowing it to increase its international competitiveness. Australia's role in this area must be to have a non-racially discriminatory approach to migration. It is all very well for those opposite to come in here this afternoon and move amendments, attempt to change a paragraph here and there and come in with all the weasel words. But there is no doubt as to the perception Asia has of the proposition being put forward by the other side. It is not a figment of our imagination to suggest that this current debate on immigration policy, begun by the Leader of the Opposition-that is where it started-will harm Australia's standing and image in the region and internationally. This afternoon we had contributions from this side of the House by the Prime Minister and other speakers which were based more on the moral aspects of this debate. I have attempted to outline some of the more hard-nosed aspects of it because I think the other areas were so well covered today. I would particularly like to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who was able to spell out to the House this afternoon something which we can talk about but which not many of us have suffered. Leaving aside the hard economic facts that have been put forward tonight-and it is about time the Opposition started to think about them-the Opposition ought to go away and think about what the honourable member for Robertson said. I come back to the point that, no matter how honourable members opposite move amendments or change paragraphs, the perception of what they are on about exists now in Asia. They should not make any mistake about that. The Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has already said that Australia is being damaged by this debate. The debate has been widely reported in the region's media. Headlines have been featured. Examples of those headlines are as follows: in the Times of India, `Australians hostile to Asian Influx'; in the Indian Express, `Aliens row revived in Australia'; in the Far Eastern Economic Review, `A wolf in white clothing'; and in the Kuala Lumpur Star, `Racist thinking will only make it hard for Aussies'. Just as Asian immigrants in Australia know what it is all about, so do those people in the region. The debate has set back the image of a multicultural tolerant society which both parties have striven to develop in this country. The white Australia bogy has been revived by the Opposition. When we look at the reaction in the region in which we are living, we should also look at the Times of India, which began a lead story on this issue in this way: White Australia's drive to build a more multi-racial society still faces strong opposition from a large section of the community. That strong opposition, unfortunately, is coming from within this Parliament as a result of this debate which was started by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us make no mistake about the question of business migration. If it is believed, as a result of what is being said on the other side and out in the community by many people now, that Australia is a racist society, those people are not going to come here. They will not come here, for the sorts of reasons that were put forward this afternoon by the honourable member for Robertson. They will not come to this country if they perceive this country as being prejudiced and as returning to what the honourable member for Kooyong talked about, namely, a policy based on ignorance and prejudice. We do not want it again and they do not want it again. We should not delude ourselves that Australia is the only place that business migrants will be looking to. Other countries such as Canada are actively wooing these people, conscious of the benefits that such immigration can bring to the country. They are not being divided by the debate which is going on in this country at the moment. It was unnecessary. It should never have started. Those opposite will regret it for a long while. In summary, the reservations and misgivings that the Opposition's statements on immigration have created seriously threaten our ability to participate in the massive economic growth of the western Pacific region. Not only is the Opposition seen to be reverting to an offensive white Australia policy but in so doing our vital trade investment and other economic interests will be seriously threatened-and so they should be if people see that this country is going back to previous policies. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition became very emotional about the white Australia policy, and justifiably so. That seems to be the direction in which the parties opposite are heading again. As I said, it is no good coming in here today and trying to move amendments, change paragraphs and shift words because that perception of what they are on about has gone too far in the region that we are part of, in the region that is absolutely significant to us. Remember the two quotes I made earlier `A wolf in white clothing' from the Far Eastern Economic Review and `Racist thinking will make it hard for Aussies' in the Kuala Lumpur Star. The Opposition parties have made the situation pretty tough. It is not too late to back off from their position but it is about time some people opposite had a very long, hard think about this issue. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.12) —As far as the Opposition is concerned-and for many years it has been the case-the white Australia policy is dead and buried. To have repetition of it and constant referral to it from the Government side does nothing to bring about the effects that the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) claimed he was seeking to achieve. The Minister and other Government speakers in this debate have sought deliberately to create divisions. They have constantly spoken about the re-emergence of the white Australia policy. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, knows that. Migrants coming to Australia, under our policy, will be chosen as individuals and they will not be chosen in any way on the grounds of race, religion or ethnic origin. That is a fact and that is in our policy. We have said that as a government we will reserve the right from time to time to vary and alter the policy, including adjustments to the size and composition of the immigration program, in response to changing requirements, be they social, economic, political or humanitarian. Our comments are made responsibly for the future direction of migration and population growth of this nation. None of our comments as presented by the Australian Labor Party relates to people living in Australia. Our policy says clearly that we are proud of the individuals that have come to Australia whether they have been here for five years, for 40 years or were born here-they are equal Australians. The Australian Labor Party in some of its programs seeks to perpetuate differences. We will not tolerate that. People will all be first class Australians; there will be no second class Australians. The direction of our policy will be to focus more fully on generating public confidence in a program that has lost public confidence due to the poor administration and explanations offered by the Australian Labor Party. After five years of confusion the Government has the community in confusion. There have been five Immigration Ministers in five years, a confused Government, a confused Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a series of confused Ministers-three in the last eight months. Does that inspire confidence and the sense of continuity, application and sensitivity that have been displayed by people such as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who worked constantly year after year at the job. Millions of Australians have on their citizenship certificates the signatures of Liberal and National Party Ministers. They know the compassion and thought that goes into the development of immigration programs delivered by our governments. Let us deal with some of the confusion the Government has created. Firstly, it erected an inquiry into the future of immigration. The Prime Minister did not like the results and tried to fiddle with them. The most significant document in this area was brought into this Parliament in the last stages in the old Parliament House and dumped on the table. The Opposition was given 10 minutes to respond at that time. No wonder people are confused. The Government is not prepared to let the Australian people talk about immigration except in the Government's terms. We believe that the national interest is involved and that the Australian people ought to have a say. They should participate in a sensible debate, not the sort of debate that is going on here raised by the Government tonight, not the sort of debate in which constant divisions are being perpetuated by speeches by Government Ministers. What do we find now? Further confusion from the Labor Party: a whole series of more inquiries going on by Caucus committees and subcommittees of this and that all over the countryside. At some time the Australian people will find out what the Labor Party has in mind for an immigration program that has flagged and been confused for five years. Our proposition is that there shall be no racial characteristics in the selection of individuals. There will be no religious characteristics in the selection of individuals, and ethnic origin will not be looked at either. What has the Australian Labor Party been doing in the last five years apart from having five Immigration Ministers, three of them in the last eight months. The FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies makes it very clear. I will not quote from the FitzGerald report but that Committee of distinguished Australians, who were each chosen to sit on that Committee by the Government's Minister, was acceptable to the Government: it was hardly a Liberal Party group. I do not reflect on the political attitudes of its members-I do not know them-but the Committee was not selected by a Liberal government. It was the Labor Party's own committee. Paragraph after paragraph of its report condemns the administration, application and relevance of the immigration programs of this Government, and to some extent those of previous governments. Our policy is to have a five-year program so that there is continuity in the system so local and State governments and private enterprise know where they are going, so that they understand what immigration policies mean to the future of this nation. We want an intelligent and measured debate, not the sort of debate that has been brought on by the Prime Minister to get the Treasurer (Mr Keating) off the box tonight. It was brought on by the Prime Minister in a way that I believe is not in the best interests of Australia, because the divisive attitudes and comments from the Government continue. What has the Government done? No wonder people are confused. There are now 750,000 illegal immigrants in Australia. The enforcement group within the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs will take a year to find illegal immigrants. There have been overruns of massive proportions in the immigration programs. The Government's programs and points score system have not been able to control the applicants in the style that is best suited to the needs of Australia. The unskilled proportion of the program has jumped from 17 per cent to 50 per cent. The Minister has been asked 24 times to go on the program A Current Affair to explain the Government's immigration policy. He has refused on all of those occasions. Why? Mr Connolly —Which Minister? Mr CADMAN —The temporary Minister. The fourth Minister is going and the fifth Minister is coming in. It is not the role of government to create that sort of confusion. Let me quote just briefly from a summary from FitzGerald, which I think summarises the situation. FitzGerald says this: So what people seem to be saying is that they will continue to go along with immigration if it can be `their kind' of immigration. Their kind is often in conflict with someone else's. But it is their kind, and the common ground of their kind, which is important at this time to government. The Government has a role to find the way ahead in an immigration program that is in the best interests of the whole of Australia. This concerns all citizens-those who have been here for five years or 40 years and those who were born here. Government should be concerned with gathering together citizens in the best interests of the whole nation. What has the Government done? It has appointed more committees. How can there be confidence in what the Government is about? FitzGerald has mentioned the need for confidence in the Government's program. Let me refer to the way in which the Government operates its program. The Government has in fact listed nine principles in the current immigration handbook in regard to the way in which the program will be administered. In the second chapter, principle No. 1 states: It is fundamental to national sovereignty that the Australian Government alone should determine who will be admitted to Australia. Is the motion that is before us tonight seeking to take away the basic principle of national sovereignty? I believe that it is. If the Government says that it is committed to absolutely no discrimination, it should run its programs in that way and be judged by the community. Do not put up motions in the House. It should live by that principle-or is it going to remove it now? The Opposition's policy makes it perfectly clear that we accept that responsibility. We are happy to be judged by the Australian community and international community in terms of the programs that we will run in selecting people on their individual merits, for their skills, knowledge and the contribution that they can make to Australia. The continuation of family reunions, the refugee program-the whole gamut of our program-is designed to give greater emphasis to job creating migrants who can benefit this nation in terms of their own future and the future of Australia. Mr Hand —Cut the Asian family reunion. Mr CADMAN —The Minister is raving about family reunions. I say to the Minister that the traditional family reunion of spouse, children and aged parents stands unviolated in our policy and it will continue. Mr Hand —You will cut the Asian family reunion, that is what you will do. Mr CADMAN —I do not know what the occupant of the chair is doing, but he seems to be allowing the Minister to rave his head off any time he wants to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister will remain silent. Mr CADMAN —I would like to tell the Minister that family reunions as a proportion of the program will decline. But in an enlarged program of additional migrants, who will be skilled, knowledgeable, educated and employment creating, the number of family reunion migrants will fall. Where does the Government see its responsibility to the Australian people? It has chosen not to exercise its responsibility. On the other hand, we will make sure that individuals are chosen on the basis of the suitability of the contribution they can make to Australia. We will increase Australia's immigration program with the sort of individuals that I have described, and they will not be selected on race. However, government must have the prerogative to act in the national interest. It should be able to reserve its right to say that immigration must be under the control of an Australian government. That proposition covers all the principles and aspects of our program. Now the Government is saying that it is drawing back from exercising its sovereign right. The Australian people believe that the Government has not been exercising that right for a long time. The Government has not explained, it has not educated, and it has not tried to take people along in its thinking. Let me explain one of the ramifications of ad hoc decisions that have been taken by the Government. The decision by Minister West suddenly to change the composition of the refugee program has left stranded in Indo-China thousands of close relatives of people who are now Australian citizens. The Government is not concerned about that; nor has it explained. Instead, it is going to put an additional tax on those refugee families to re-sponsor their relatives. That is adhockery and selectivity if ever I have seen it. In the Australian Labor Party's 1983 policy, Mick Young talks about slowing down trans-Tasman immigration. In Thailand, Mick Young also talked about the quota for that country. Talk about selectivity and a hidden agenda! Put it up front and take responsibility for your actions. The Government stands to be judged by the Australian people. It should have no secret agendas. The Government should have a program for which it takes control and is seen to be responsible to the whole Australian community. It is time that the Government did so. It is time that it was honest, as our policy is honest, on the role of government in the immigration programs of the Australian nation. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(8.27) —That would have been an impressive speech if it had not been backed up by such appalling nonsense in terms of policy. If the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is the Opposition spokesman on immigration, believed what he said, he would have no problem in supporting the Government's motion. The third part of the motion states: gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them. What the motion says is this: if we think that too many people are coming in under the family migration program, we should say so. It is perfectly legitimate under the framework of this motion to have that view. If we think that there are not enough people coming in under the proposal to admit business migrants, we should say so. It is perfectly permissible within the framework of this item to do so and to be consistent about it. This item does not invite one jot, tittle or element of agreement with Government immigration policy except in one area alone, and that is: whatever one decides, whether one takes the view that migrants should be more oriented to business, whether one thinks that we need more families of migrants in this country, whatever view one has on that, the one thing that one must not do-and this ought to be common ground between us-is to make the issue of race or ethnic origin a criterion. That is all. We are not asking the Opposition to agree to anything but that. This is a very, very simple proposition. We acknowledge that there is ample area for legitimate debate. However, sometimes we feel that the Opposition, given other lines that it is running, may not be aware of some of the consequences of the positions that it adopts. But it is to be expected that there will be disagreement between us on those sorts of issues. But there ought to be no disagreement between us on the issue of race. I had a curious sense of deja vu when I read the Opposition's amendment to the motion. I tried to recollect when I last saw three-page amendments with confusing wording on difficult issues put before the House of Representatives. I am afraid that I was taken back into my own history to occasions when the Australian Labor Party could not agree on anything. Our common tactic when we were in a state of total confusion-and I must confess that although this was a long time ago, there have been occasions on which we have been in a state of total confusion-was to produce a three-page document, at least half of which was totally meaningless. I am very glad to see that the noble tradition of confused and divided oppositions is carried on by our predecessors in that role. Let me warn them that, whilst they remain in that condition, that is exactly where they will be. Over the last decade or so we have been far more clear cut, but for those of us who are history minded there are some pleasant features of this document, taking us back to our childhood. The confusion comes when we actually get down to where the document refers to the issue of race. Every effort is made to establish euphemisms, but we get the guts of the policy when the document states: . . . confirms that this means that any government must reserve the right from time to time to vary and alter policy, including adjustments to the size and composition of the immigration program- no problems there- in response to changing requirements- that is fine; no problems with anyone who holds that view in supporting our motion- be they social, economic, political or humanitarian. There are no problems with `economic, political or humanitarian'. But what does `social' mean? Quite clearly, what we mean by `social' in this particular framework is race. That is what we mean by `social'. That is the word that makes these two motions effectively incompatible because it is covering the Liberal Party's position. Occasionally we have the privilege in this place to sit and listen to genuinely great speeches. They happen once every few years-not very often. When they occur they are likely to occur on either side of the House. We cannot guarantee which side of the House they are going to come from. When they occur they are not likely to be attacks by one individual on the opposite party or a policy of the opposite party but words or speeches used to change the opinion inside the ranks of one's own party. Dissent on individual policy items is natural in politics. That is pretty easy. We have disagreements in the Labour Party, we vote on them at conferences, and there are winners and losers. We have fights in Caucus. That is part of the warp and woof of politics. We live with it, and the public must be expected to live with that too. That is not the problem. There will be plenty of dissidents and many who would like to take their position on the floor of this House. But every now then a leader of a party or a person in a leading position or a member of a party on the back bench will recognise that there is something going seriously wrong inside the party. It may have nothing to do with the words or with specific policies, but it has something to do with the heart and soul of the party. That is the point at which leadership is exercised. That is the point when somebody stands up and blows the whistle, turns to the back bench, or if he is on the back bench turns to the front bench, and says, `Listen, take hold of yourselves. What you are doing has serious implications.' There was one speech in my memory, and it is possibly the best of the speeches I have heard in this place, where that was done. It was made by John Howard in this place and I think he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition at that time. The words he said ought to ring like bells through this debate. In fact, they are Banquo's ghost at the feast, basically. He accurately stated: During that debate- that is the Liberal Party conference- which was reported extensively by the media, I expressly rejected the proposition that the Liberal Party should take a stand against Asian immigration. I supported the policies of the former coalition Government which were humanitarian and liberal in the true sense of the word. We were prepared to take, with the Labor Party's generous support, people from war-torn parts of South East Asia. We were prepared to persuade people around Australia to accept that policy. We were prepared to preach tolerance and liberalism. That has been quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this chamber, but there are other parts of that speech that are worthy of quoting. The Leader of the Opposition reveals that he understands that code words and the like can enter into a political debate and that, when they do, then stands must be taken. He quotes with authority a letter written to him by a Jewish friend of his who he says has high connections in the Labor Party. The letter states: It is very important that all of us on both sides of the political fence do everything we possibly can over the next few months to make sure that racism does not in any way intrude into the election campaign. I will do my best within the Labor Party, and many of my friends are going to do the same within the Labor Party, to bring that about, and I ask you to try to do the same within your Party. That letter was quoted with approval. That was what the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition believed he was doing. He was not messing about with code words or euphemisms; he was saying: `I know what is wrong and I know how to deal with it and I promise on a stack of bibles, or whatever, that I will'. That is what he said when that proposition was presented. There were no ifs, buts, by your leaves or anything else. He knew, when people in his Party were running code words, that that immigration debate had got out of hand at that point. He knew exactly what it meant and he promised in this Parliament, turning to speak to his Party as much as he turned to us, that he would be seen in the ranks of the people who would not permit this to develop. What a sorry state we are in now where we see absolutely every political tactic, every tendency, every policy orientation repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition in his sophistry here today. It is a depressing sight, because there are not often opportunities when people on both sides of this House can render serious damage to the national interest, and most members of parliament, particularly leaders, evade doing that. On this occasion a Leader of the Opposition has openly gone out and touted for business. When the debate took place in 1984 the dogs were baying and they were off and running. It was out in the open, and what was attempting to be done was to calm them. This particular initiative of the Leader of the Opposition-however he may back and fill on it now-came out of the cold, clear blue sky. He walked back into political debate in this country touting that sinister element of our politics that he had so correctly identified four years before, seeking to exploit it politically. I believe he will find politics in this country far more complex than he would believe. It is simply not enough to go by the odd opinion poll. Opinion is much more complex. People are capable of holding seemingly contradictory views in their minds at the same time. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House found that out about the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Members of the Labour Party agreed in the end with Dr Evatt that that was an absolutely execrable offence against the civil liberties of our population; but after Doc Evatt took that stand on civil liberties the people never trusted him again in this country to deal with the issue of communism. They never trusted him again-unjustifiably, but that was nevertheless the case. It may well be that there is concern amongst some elements of the community about issues related to Asian migration to this country, but those elements in the community are just as capable of at the same time standing up and, when they see their views put into starkest context by their political leadership, believing their political leadership extremist. It is no accident that those who run these issues in other countries, however well they might be regarded as individuals, are seen as being on the extreme of politics and eccentric, and Enoch Powell has to be the classic case. Enoch Powell is not the Leader of the British Conservative Party, Enoch Powell does not speak for the British Conservative Party. Enoch Powell speaks for himself and he gets a degree of support, but those who support him do not necessarily vote Conservative in the final analysis, nor would they necessarily vote for him if he was leader of the Conservative Party. We on this side of the House see the Leader of the Opposition as opportunist. I am sure not that that is how the public sees him on this issue. That is the analysis of the political cognoscenti. That is what we do in this hothouse here when we analyse each others policy stances: `You are a man of principle; you are an opportunist'. These things do not necessarily pay the same way in Pereoa. Members of the public are more likely to see a Leader of the Opposition who is a political extremist. When they see political extremists leading the Opposition it gets 25 per cent approval ratings and those people become unelectable. The Liberal Party of Australia has created, through this debate, a leader who is now unelectable and who cannot ever be trusted by the population, whether or not it agrees with his emphasis, with the sacred trust of prime ministership of this country. Politically, he is finished. The Liberal Party will have to work out how to get rid of him. Part of the process of this will be to come back to his old personality, where the leader of the Liberal Party, like the leader of the Labor Party, must ensure that the sort of spirit and sentiment that can occasionally go abroad within the community is contained. There is a national interest and there is a moral principle to be served in ensuring that that spirit is contained. The good people of this country, no matter whether they like it or not, will allow themselves to be contained on this issue when properly led and will reject those who do not seek to provide them with that sort of leadership which in this area and in this period this country so desperately needs. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.41) —We are, in a very real sense, a nation of immigrants. It is therefore right that immigration should be high on our list of priorities for public debate. Tonight we have had a motion brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We have had speeches with great sincerity on that motion. I instance two from the other side: that given by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and that given by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding). I reject the criticisms but I accept the sincerity and passion that they felt for the subject. In extraordinary contrast stands the Prime Minister. His hallmark in politics is hypocrisy, but tonight was a shining, luminous and incandescent exercise in political insincerity. What did he do? He came into this chamber and moved a motion. He said, `This is not an attempt to drive the Leader of the Opposition into the ground.' He said that everything would be forgotten if we agreed to the motion. He then went on to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was not a racist but something worse. He said that he was a person who would use racism for political purposes. The Prime Minister, of course, is a man who is so far devoid of political principle that he cannot see when he is saying two things at the one time, each of which is in direct conflict with the other. He was talking about reconciliation but what was the real message? It was that this is a political exercise of the first water and the purpose of that political exercise was to use the immigration debate for partisan political purposes. Nothing else. There was no other motive behind this motion. It does not matter that honourable members have made speeches of great sincerity. It does not matter that honourable members on the Labor side and on our side have feelings of deep sincerity and strong emotion about the subject and that we are wedded to the notion of freedom, of dignity, and of a fair go for all. This was a shabby, dirty political exercise. I am sorry to say that the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) was an accomplice. I listened with some astonishment to him say that what had happened was certain to lead to the economic destruction of this country. The Minister for Trade Negotiations has come in here and said that. Political hyperbole is one thing insincerity is another, and hypocrisy is a third. What do honourable members say about that kind of statement? Nobody believes it and we all know why it was made. He was playing the ventriloquist's doll to the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) in the course of a disingenuous speech gave unctuous advice to the Opposition about how we should conduct ourselves. We are the people who have stood for equality, freedom, decency and non-discrimination in this country. It was a Liberal-National government that swept away the white Australia policy. We all know the Prime Minister's suspect record when it comes to the boat people. What did the Minister for Defence, the Leader of the House, say? He said that we were presented with opportunities for serious damage to the national interest. Who has sought to damage the national interest tonight? It is this Government with its extraordinary, inflammatory, dangerous, inaccurate and misleading statements, as made not by the honourable member for Robertson. I have said what I have said about the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I will now move on and ask these questions: Are there questions that cannot be asked in this society? Are there issues that cannot be addressed? Are there words that we must not speak? Is there not something which is distinctive about the Australian character, the Australian values and the Australian traditions? Do we not want to talk about them? Do we not want to ask ourselves how to shape the future? What is the best way for us all, for those who come here, and for those who are here? Are these not questions that we, as a people and as a parliament, must ask ourselves? Of course they are. Consider Australian humour. We all know we are Australian. This is an Australian House. Debate here has a particularly Australian characteristic and everybody knows it. We will not find it anywhere else in the world. We will not find the kind of rough and tumble, sometimes gutter type debate that we get here. It is direct, robust, amusing, cynical; it is particularly Australian. It is like that time during the war-I recall reading about it. Many years ago an Australian officer, during the Second World War, was in Crete. His British counterpart came to him and said, `I suppose, my good man, you've got men in those mountains'. The officer replied, `Yes, but there are more mountains than men'. That was a laconic Australian gallows humour type approach to life and death. It is something which is marked in this country, which has a tradition and a history of great value and great wealth. These are the things that we should ask ourselves. What about our values, our traditions and our future? If we are to be a great nation we must ask ourselves these questions. I am not talking about any group, but I put this to honourable members: should we, as a nation, represent people who, however admirable they may be, in many ways reject our institutions and laws? I am not talking about a group; I am putting the question, which means very simply this: there are questions that must be asked. I have said to the Minister and to all honourable members that I am not talking about any group. I am simply saying: just as we ask ourselves what our values are, we should ask ourselves whether there are people that we would always welcome here. If people who did not respect our laws wanted to come to this country would we not ask ourselves the questions: Is this right? Is this good? Is this for the purposes of building Australia? I go back to the proposition that was put in this debate, which was very simply this: we are a sovereign country and we have the right to determine who should come to this country, not simply in terms of numbers but for the future benefit of this country. Mr Kent —But not on the colour of their skin. Mr SPENDER —My friend, I am colour blind! All my life I have rejected any notion of racism, as does the party for which I stand. What do we have here tonight? Let me return to what has been said by the Prime Minister. He claimed that our policy should be repudiated on moral grounds. I noticed when I listened to the speech by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs that he did not in any way attack that policy. Is the Labor view of not asking certain questions a moral view? Are there questions that we must never ask ourselves? Are we, as a society, to be frightened to ask certain questions? Of course, if we ask difficult, contentious questions they can cause difficulty and contention. However, we have to ask ourselves this question: Are there certain things that are off the record of public debate? Mr Holding —No. Mr SPENDER —That question has been immediately answered for me by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. He said no, and I agree with him. He has therefore answered and affirmed our case. Let me conclude on the point at which I started. The Government, through the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, and the paltry support given by the Leader of the House, has sought to portray us to this country as somehow guilty of divisions and divisiveness. What is the motion about? What are honourable members opposite about? I am not referring to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in the sincere things he said, or the honourable member for Robertson, who recalled many things-he could have added that dreadful tragedy when, back in 1938 at Evian the world turned its back on Jewish migrants. We all know the consequence of that. Mr Cohen —Your father made a great speech in this House at that time. Mr SPENDER —My father? I am sure he did. I thank the honourable member. What do we have? On the one hand we have sincerity; on the other hand we have the empty expedient of a political huckster. That is what the Prime Minister is when he comes in here and moves that motion, with the support of the Minister for Trade Negotiations, and makes the extraordinary, fantastic proposal that we are going to bring about the economic ruin of this country by raising a question for national debate. What are they seeking to do? They are the people who are fuelling the debate that they so decry. They are the people who would put at risk our future. They are driven by the basest and, I must say, the most corrupt of political motives-political exploitation of what they believe to be a perceived advantage because of differences of opinion honestly held in the Opposition. We, unlike them, decide issues according to our conscience and our views. We are the party of all Australians. We are the party of openness, justice and tolerance. We are the party that swept aside the white Australia policy. We are the party for the future and for decency for all Australians. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.54) —In listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and several other honourable members we have heard raised time and again the suggestion that we are trying to prevent a debate on immigration issues. Of course, we are not. That has been made clear by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and many other Government members. As a result of the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies of course we want to see a public debate on the whole question of the selection criteria, the points system and that sort of thing. However, as the Prime Minister has made clear, as the Minister has made clear and as I and many other members have made clear, any such debate must proceed in the context of a non-discriminatory policy and it must not introduce in any way the question of selection on the basis of race. Unfortunately, rather than taking up positive suggestions which we proposed when we tabled the FitzGerald report-we asked the Opposition to tell us what it thought about the report and other matters-and having a discussion or a constructive debate about the points system and the selection criteria, what did we have? We had a debate on the issues of race and discrimination. We have had reference to the editorial in the Australian newspaper. Despite the fact that other newspapers attacked the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, he quoted from the Australian. The Australian has been running editorials trying to justify the position of the Leader of the Opposition because it is a paper that simply wants to defend the Opposition, no matter what it does. However, the Australian's position and the rationalisation it gives do not go to the central point, which is the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia. Time and again members of the Opposition have said: `Show us in what way our policy is discriminatory?' Let us read the specific clause which shows that the Opposition is discriminatory. Clause 3 of the Opposition's policy reads: The capacity of the Australian people to accept and absorb change must always be a main factor in immigration policy. The size and composition of our immigration policy should not jeopardise social cohesiveness and harmony within the Australian community. While there is, of course, a question about the size of our immigration program, when we start to talk about the composition of that program in racial terms and ask, `Can we absorb people in relation to race? Can we absorb people from the Asian community, the Middle East community or any other community?' and when we question whether we can absorb a particular group on the basis of social cohesiveness, we open a Pandora's box. We create a very dangerous situation. That is a dangerous situation which none of us should have opened for debate in this House. Unfortunately, it was opened up by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and Senator Stone and taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. It was even put in the Opposition policy. That was notwithstanding the debate. That was notwithstanding appeals by the Prime Minister and other people to the effect that the Opposition should not put that clause in its policy. That clause clearly is discriminatory. Who is to judge as to whether a particular group will be able to be absorbed into the Australian community? Who is to make that sort of judgment? On what criteria and according to what basis will that decision be made? What country in the world uses that criteria? If there are such countries, obviously they are using racist immigration policies, which we reject. Therefore, for the Leader of the Opposition to get up and say, `Our policy is non-discriminatory, irrespective of the fact that some of my comments have been misunderstood' is rubbish. That clause in the policy has a racist connotation. It is not possible to talk about judging the capacity of a community to absorb people in terms of the racial composition of any group. If we do that, we are really opening the Pandora's box and creating a very dangerous precedent indeed. As I said, we can discuss all kinds of things in the area of immigration. We will be having discussions. We will be debating the FitzGerald report and so on, but this issue is fundamental and it should never have been raised. The points made by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), by the then Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Prime Minister and many other honourable members about what we do when we raise racist criteria of this kind are very valid points. The Opposition's policy contains another objectionable clause. That clause states: The standard for eligibility and suitability of migrants should reflect Australian social mores and Australian law. What does that mean? Does that mean that everyone who comes to this country will have to fit into a particular cultural pattern or a particular racial pattern? Is that what is being said? If so, it is a disgraceful performance when set against what we have been standing for over the last 15 years in a bipartisan approach. We appeal once again to the Opposition to reject these approaches. We appeal to the decent members on the other side to support our motion, which contains within it all one needs to have a reasonable debate on immigration. We appeal to decent Opposition members to vote with us on this motion. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.01) —The Government has mismanaged immigration policy in the last five years, and the fact that it has had five Ministers for Immigration is confirmation of that point. It has aroused real concerns in the community-concerns which have been mentioned in the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Therefore, I support the Opposition's amendments criticising the Government and espousing the Opposition's policy. Though I might have wished for some somewhat different wording in some respects in relation to the Opposition's policy, the coalition's commitment to an immigration policy which does not discriminate against people on the grounds race, colour, ethnicity, religion or culture is one that I can support in this amendment. That principle has been fundamental to the coalition's policy since the days of the Holt-McEwen Government. It has been consistently advocated by me with the support of the Cabinet, and then the shadow Cabinet. I am on record, in this House and elsewhere, as unambiguously and unqualifiedly committing myself to the principle of an immigration policy based on non-discrimination on the grounds of race, or colour, or religion, or culture, or ethnicity. Labor has been rightly condemned for its political tactic today, but nevertheless the debate is of such fundamental importance that it raises matters on which every member of this House has to vote as a matter of conscience. I belong to a Party that allows members to vote freely on a matter of conscience, although in my 14 years in this place I have not in fact crossed the floor and voted against my Party. I support the Opposition's amendment, but the Government has made it clear that it will defeat that amendment. I therefore intend to vote with the Government against the Opposition's opposition to the Government's motion. I do that because without for a moment running away from the clear obligation which the government of the day has to undo its mistakes in the last five years and explain to the Australian people exactly what is the nature and direction of its immigration policy and what are the realities governing immigration to this country, nevertheless there is an onus on the Opposition to cooperate with the Government. I am bound to say, and sad to say, that I am worried about statements made by some Opposition spokesmen recently in that regard. I refer of course particularly to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) in this House and the Leader of the National Party in the Senate (Senator Stone), and to the fact that they have not been rebuked or disowned in a way that would have removed ambiguity. Paragraph (3) of the Government's motion speaks of an unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle of non-discrimination. I have that. It is to me the most fundamental thing in my life, and that is a commitment to equality between human beings regardless of any factor at all. I cannot think of anything more fundamental than that. Despite the fact that this is a highly politically motivated debate, in spite of the fact that I have striven not only to try to make a contribution to keeping my Party liberal but to maintain the tradition in this regard that Holt set so many years ago and Fraser and all those who preceded him as leader of the Party maintained, I find that I cannot equivocate and must therefore support the Government's motion. I ask those who in our community want a racist policy: in what way do Asians threaten social cohesion? Are they anti-family? In fact, we know that they are not. Are they lacking in individual initiative? In fact, we know that they are renowned for their enterprise. Are they afraid of hard work? In fact, we know that many of their critics are critical of them because they work so hard. Are they opposed to democracy? Most of them are fleeing oppression and cherish and want democracy. Are they opposed to speaking English? Those that do not are anxious to learn-and it is a failure again of this Government that it has cut back on much of the migrant language training programs and many of the means of enabling people to learn the language. It is also cutting back on the essential commitment that it made before the last election to teach Australians a second language, primarily an Asian one, and certainly a world trading language, which would enable us to understand other people's cultures better and therefore make a contribution to our own evolving cultural identity and our trade interests. Are Asians opposed to freedoms? Are they unclean? Of course they are not. The record shows the opposite. Indeed, all the experience shows that they are better settlers than are many people from Caucasian countries and many people from countries whose skin or complexion is nearer to that of the European. I put it with great feeling that it is important that this is now out in the open. It is important that the fears Australians have about people who are different should be exposed, debated and shown to be, as I know them to be, groundless fears. The next generation of Australians will be as amazed about this debate in this House tonight as we are about the debate that took place about the Jews before World War II and after World War II the East Europeans, the Balts and the Mediterraneans. It is absolutely scandalous that anyone with any understanding of history, with any claim to be civilised and liberal, should espouse or give succour to those who dislike people because of the colour of their skin or any other aspect of their cultural and racial origin. Let us remember that Australia is in the oceans of the Indian and Pacific region. It needs Asia far more than Asia needs Australia. It is unquestionably true that our future is bound up not only in global trading but in particular with trading with the Asian region. It is an insult to all Australians to assume that they cannot cope with the truth, that they cannot give a fair go, that they cannot be tolerant and that they cannot come to grips with the fact that increasingly our migrants will be from Asia. We are not just a nation of immigrants. We will go on for as long as any of us can foresee to be a nation of immigrants, and we shall need migrants of calibre to commit themselves to this country. Any suggestion that there is no social cohesion because of recent migrants is an implied criticism of them. It is utterly unfounded, especially of refugees, who have nowhere else to go, who are so grateful to be given a chance to make a new start in life, and whose commitment to this country is unparalleled compared to those who think that they can go back from whence they have come. Australians of Asian extraction must really wonder what has gone wrong with their contribution to the development of this country. There are welfare workers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, garbage men and factory workers of Asian extraction who have done everything that could be asked of them by any country. They must now be wondering what else they have to do to gain acceptance. The role of government, the role of opposition and the role of any parliamentary representative is to lead public opinion as well as reflect it. It is extremely important that the government of the day give the lead and the opposition of the day unequivocally assist in the education of people about the facts of life. It is in the national interest to dispel fears, not to reflect and endorse them and not to have a knee-jerk reaction to them. Where is our vision? Where is our sense of reality? I have said before and I said again only a few months ago that our chances of getting migrants in large numbers from Europe are clearly limited. The European economies are booming and their birthrates are declining. Those people will not want to come here. The people who need to come here, because of discrimination against them in their countries of origin and because they cannot give their skills where they now are, happen to be in Asia. A generation hence they may be somewhere else. If glasnost does not work, these people may well come from Europe again, but for the time being the reality is, whether it is business migration, skills migration, family reunion or whatever other category we have, the migrants will be largely from Asia. We should take many more migrants; of course we should. I have just come back from a trip to Europe and a little of Asia and there is no doubt about the fact that people in Europe still want to come to Australia, but not in the numbers they once did. We should be more liberal in admitting people; migrants are a necessity for us. Let us not kid the Australian public that we will draw principally from Europe, because over the next few years we will draw largely from Asia. These people will make a great contribution to our country. Honourable members should look at the figures in the FitzGerald report. They should also look at what Dr Charles Price and Dr Jamie Mackie have produced. They will see that even 40 years hence those of Asian origin will be no more than 7 per cent of the Australian population. Australians must understand that there is nothing to fear. Every contribution that will be made by Australians of Asian origin will be at least as great as that made by any other Australian. Yesterday I had a call from a former Foreign Minister for Papua New Guinea. Along with some other people in this House, I was a resident of Papua New Guinea and this man is a friend of more than 20 years. He said to me, `What is going on in Australia?' It is a second home to him and his kids are still in boarding schools here. Australia is losing so much friendship in the country which was a pseudo colony and a loyal defender of Australia, even when it thought Australia was not right. We have an evolving Australian cultural identity here which is unique and exciting. What is different is the time and the actual racial mix compared with other countries. Of course it will be one Australia. I do not care whether honourable members call it multiculturalism or one Australia; it amounts to the same thing. We are committed to the same set of principles and values. There must be equality of opportunity emigrating here and there must be equality of opportunity when people get here. There must be affirmative action programs to give them English language skills and a capacity to settle and compete on equal terms. From my knowledge of history and my three years as Minister for Immigration, I cannot envisage any situation in which any future government of this country will have to say, `We will not take migrants from a particular country or a particular part of the world'. To do so would be racist and discriminatory. It is always open to the sovereign government to say that; there is nothing in this motion which would bind a future government and prevent it from saying that. It is important that we should recognise that when Hitler was running Germany many people were persecuted. Six million people died. If they could have escaped, countries such as Australia should have taken them. The same thing applied when Pol Pot was running Cambodia. There is no conceivable situation that I can think of in which we would ever be justified in saying that a particular people should never be admitted to Australia. Of course, when we process people we do not accept terrorists or divisive people. We examine them on a case by case basis, whether they are refugees or migrants. I am convinced that we need more migrants. I am convinced that the policies which are essentially non-discriminatory and were bipartisan are important for this country. We can argue about administration and detail, but we should explain to the Australian public the realities of migration, why we need people economically and why we need certain policies to help them make their maximum contribution to Australia. We should disown the kind of rubbish that has been spoken by the National Party leaders in the Senate and in this House and I, for one, will do all I can to make sure that we go on as a country holding our head high and being non-discriminatory. Therefore, I must support the motion before the House tonight. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, 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.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Macphee, I. M.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Ruddock, P. M.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hall, Steele Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Donald Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Howard, J. W. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.35) —The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 relates to the forthcoming referendum. It is an amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. That legislation outlines the manner in which referendums are conducted in this country. Under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, the Government is responsible for the administration of referendums and is required to conduct referendums in a fair and democratic manner. The Constitution is the No. 1 law in this country; it is the primary law which establishes our Federal parliamentary democracy. In that sense this law, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, which details the manner in which the Constitution can be changed, assumes a very great importance in the conduct of national affairs. Just as it is important to get our Constitution right and to keep it right, it is also important that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act be properly drafted to enable the existence of a framework which will ensure the conduct of fair and democratic referendums. It is important not only that the rules laid down in this framework be observed but, furthermore, that those rules be seen to be obeyed. I do not think anybody would have any argument with the simple proposition that in the conduct of elections and referendums there ought to be scrutineers to ensure fair play. That is a very simple statement. It is a simple principle but one of fundamental importance. I think honourable members would be interested to know that this Gov- ernment was prepared to run this referendum-if it could get away with it-without scrutineers. The only reason why this issue is before the Parliament before 3 September is that we raised it. Like so many things concerning this referendum, the fact remains that if the Government could get away with it, it would. That is the reality of it. Members of the Government have been bending over backwards to break the rules, to evade the rules, to load this referendum, to rig the vote and to load the case for a Yes vote on 3 September. I say to the Australian electorate, `Watch out on 3 September because we might be able to fix up this problem, this attempt by the Government, but the reality is that so many attempts have already got through the net'. So many attempts to load this referendum in favour of the Yes case have already succeeded. There is a long list of them, starting with the Constitutional Commission, which cost $6m of taxpayers' money. And what for? It was to soften up the electorate for Labor's agenda for constitutional reform. I move to the timing of this year's referendum. Why did the Government pick 1988? It was because it thought, so cynically, that in 1988 people were more likely to vote for something that in other years they would not vote for. Why did the Government pick 10 May to announce the referendum changes? It was because that was the day after the new Parliament House was opened. That has been a central theme of this Government for the referendums. It is part of the brainwashing tactic and strategy that it has employed. It is a theme which simply says, `We have gone from an old Parliament to a new Parliament. We have an old Constitution. How about going to a new Constitution?'. That was the theme which was declared to be biased to the Yes vote, not by the Opposition but by the High Court of Australia. Why are we having this referendum on 3 September? `Why the rush?', one might ask. Very simply, it is because we had the Budget on Tuesday night. The Government deliberately calculated 3 September because it knew that in those two critical weeks leading up to 3 September we would see media concentration on the Budget instead of on the very important referendums. Why was the debate in this Parliament just three months ago gagged? What sort of commentary is it on this Government that on proposals to change our Constitution, Australia's number one law, it has the gall to gag and guillotine debate to prevent elected members of the Parliament from speaking on our Constitution? The reality is that this Government has bent over backwards to load up this referendum for the Yes vote. As I said, one does not have to take the word of the Opposition. We are asked for facts. The honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) accuses us of distortions. There was no distortion when on a Friday afternoon the decision of a High Court judge was handed down which said that expenditure authorised by the first law officer of the Commonwealth was illegal. It says a lot about this Government that it was prepared to act illegally to change the Constitution to suit itself. The questions are biased. Gary Morgan, one of Australia's top pollsters, looked at the questions and described them as blatantly biased, clearly loaded to obtain a Yes vote. The reality is that there are not four simple changes as one would expect, as one would assume from the question; there are 33 changes to the Constitution. The last thing that this Government wants is for people to know what is contained in those changes. There is a simple explanation for that: all of these propositions, in one form or another, have been put to either the Australian electorate or the Senate and all have been rejected. Question No. 1 contains a proposal for simultaneous elections. That has not been rejected just once; it has not been rejected just twice; it has been rejected three times by the Australian electorate. Three times it has said, `We do not want more power for Prime Ministers, we do not want more power for Canberra'. Some bright spark in the back room of the Australian Labor Party says, `We know that if we tell people what is in the questions they will vote no'. So what does the Government do? It changes the label. It dresses the questions up as something else. So we have the monstrous distortion from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the Yes case: the government claims it would lead to fewer elections. Not even Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, would back up that statement. He was asked in the Senate whether there was any guarantee of that and he said, `There is no guarantee'. The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, has taken on the mantle of the Minister for getting the Government re-elected. He was asked, `Is there any guarantee'. The quote is there in Hansard. There are no guarantees. Why are there not guarantees? Very simply, because question No. 1, when we wipe aside the rhetoric and put aside the carrot that is dangling there in front of the electorate, is a grab for more power for Canberra and for Prime Ministers, as it has been on three previous occasions. I say that, not as a Liberal, not as someone looking for some party political comment on it. Our Constitution is not for the next five, 10 or 20 years. It has to establish the framework of our Federal parliamentary democracy for 50, 100 or 150 years. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party might not even be a feature of politics in 150 years time but the power of Prime Ministers will be and if people vote yes to question No. 1 they will give a new and unparalleled power-in fact a blank cheque-to every Prime Minister who succeeds the one we have now. As with most aspects of this referendum campaign, by coincidence or by strategy, the whole question has been loaded to the Yes vote. Question No. 2 refers to fair and democratic elections. Believe it or not, the phrase `fair and democratic elections' would not even go into the Constitution if by chance people voted for the proposal. Most people think that the questions are the changes. They are not. It is the deliberate strategy of this Government to deceive people about our Constitution. This Bill relating to scrutineers goes to just one aspect of a rigged referendum. It is important that we have rules, as demonstrated by the High Court. It was the fact that some rules were put into the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act in 1984 that allowed the High Court to say to this Government, `You are acting illegally'. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) was on the front pages of newspapers for a month in relation to yellow fever. He was on every television and radio station in the country. He had committed no offence. And we had the first law officer of the Commonwealth authorising expenditure-this was declared illegal by the High Court-to pursue changes to the Constitution to suit politicians, particularly politicians on the Government side of the House. Yet we hardly heard a whimper about that. I say to every Australian: the Constitution is the one form of direct democracy we have. It is the one form in which we have a say. Be alert because this Government has set out to con you, to trick you, to deceive you and to mislead you about the changes on 3 September. It does not want you to know that you have voted no to these proposals before so it has drafted them to disguise them. This Bill to deal with scrutineers has been drafted by the Government. I appreciate the debate that took place in the Senate. I appreciate that the Bill is now being dealt with expeditiously to ensure that these new provisions will be in place so that we can rest assured that on 3 September there will be a facility and an ability to appoint scrutineers to ensure fair play. I appreciate the remarks of the Minister, Senator Ray, who acknowledged the very good work done by the Opposition, in his words, in `polishing up' the legislation to make it workable on this occasion. I particularly pay tribute to Senator Jim Short, who has been instrumental in handling this Bill and trying to right this situation. It is an interim measure, as recognised by the Minister for Home Affairs, to ensure that the situation on 3 September is dealt with. I think it is sensible, as he has proposed, that this matter after 3 September be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee for further consideration. We need ground rules for the umpire and this Bill in respect of scrutineers at least improves the framework to ensure the conduct of the referendum is not unreasonable and that what we expect to be a principle of democracy, the appointment of scrutineers, can be carried out. As I said, there are some things that cannot be fixed. I have mentioned the biased questions, the fact that disguised behind the four questions are 33 changes to our Constitution. It is as if there are four labels and each one says `jam' but it is only when one opens the lid of what appears to be jam and has a taste that one realises that it is cyanide; it is not jam at all. Someone put it to me in another way. I was told that it is like going down to the pet shop, buying a talking parrot and getting home to find that the bird does nothing but abuse you. There is more to it than meets the eye. The questions are not related to changes to the Constitution. The changes are there-they are in the booklet that looks as if it is a bit of propaganda from the Government. But I invite people to go to the back of that booklet. They will see page after page of changes being proposed to our Constitution. They are not the simple questions. Oh, no. That is the carrot dangling in front of us. That is the entrapment. The changes are in fact very complicated. The 33 changes are so complicated that the Government found when it introduced one set of them that they were wrong. We pointed that out to the Government. The Government then brought out a second set, but those changes were no good. Finally we ended up with another set of words courtesy of the Australian Democrats. There has been no debate. This is a disgrace. One need only point out how our Constitution was framed. The founding fathers spent years going round the country attending conventions and debates and meetings. They spent a lot of time, and basically they got it right. The crowd opposite reckon that they can just waltz into the Parliament. They do not worry about a few amendments here and a few amendments there. Even the constitutional lawyers are now debating what it all means should the proposals come into law. That is an indictment of the capacity of this Government properly to look to constitutional change in this country. This Bill goes to one issue. Other issues are still on the agenda. I find the ticks and crosses issue virtually beyond belief. We have this Government relying on advice given to it presumably by the same people who said that $3m of taxpayers' money could be spent to sell the Yes case and whose advice was found to be contrary to the law of the land. This Government is told presumably by the same people, `Well, if there are four ticks that will be all right. That is four in the bag for the Yes case. But if there are four crosses, oh, no, they are no good. They are informal'. I see that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), a former Minister, is starting to take some note. It is incredible. This Government says, `Four ticks, that is okay; four crosses, that is not okay'. When we introduce a Bill we find, all of a sudden, that there are technical difficulties with going along with it. My word there are! There are technical difficulties that there might be a few No votes. That is the technical difficulty. This matter is being negotiated. We are sitting down and doing what we can to facilitate the fair conduct of this referendum. But the reality is that whilst we might get one or two of these things fixed up, we might and should be able as a result of this legislation to ensure that there are scrutineers, the biased questions will still be there on the ballot paper on 3 September. There will not be 33 questions, which is how the Government should have put it. If the Government was being fair dinkum and honest with the electorate there would not be four questions but 33 of them, so that people could examine each and every issue. This Government is proposing more changes and more words to go into and out of our Constitution than has been the case in all of the successful referendums since 1901. The only time that the Attorney-General really hits the nail on the head is when he says, as he has so publicly on a number of occasions, that this is the most extensive set of reforms ever put forward. He is not joking. There are more words to go in and more words to be taken out than has been the case with all the successful referendums since 1901. As to the timing of this debate, it was convenient just after the Budget-to stifle debate. Under the Constitution the public should be given six months to read the detail, to go over questions with a fine tooth comb. What does this Government do? It has set a timetable to cut that time from six months to three months. The Government does not want public debate. It does not want people to read the fine print. It wants people to throw the Yes-No pamphlet in the rubbish bin. The Attorney-General and his advisers are sitting up in the big palace on the hill with their fingers crossed. They are hoping that people will not catch on. They are hoping that on 3 September people who may have just rushed down to the shops and rushed back home to do some other chore with the kids will not have the vaguest idea of what has been put up when they walk into the polling booths. They are hoping that people will look at the questions and say, `Well, they look all right. How could anybody vote against that?' That is the game plan. It is a game plan tainted with illegality, as was declared by the High Court of Australia. It is a game plan tainted with blatant bias, as was stated by an independent observer. It is a game plan calculated to deceive people. I am confident that in the end the propositions will be rejected. When the Catholic bishops, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne-- Mr Uren —I will bet you local government gets through. I will give you odds that local government will get through. Mr REITH —That is very interesting. I am glad that the honourable member is prepared to stand up and be counted. But he will be interested to know that this week the Western Australian Country Shires Association, which represents 107 of the 139 municipalities in Western Australia, dumped the Yes case. Does the honourable member know why? It did so because it was not prepared to go along with something that meant more power for Canberra. The interesting thing about local government is that around this country, from Subiaco across to northern Queensland, from Victoria to Tasmania and South Australia, councillors across this country are finally reading the fine print. They are seeing through the Government's deception. They are saying, `We are not going to be conned'. It is not local government-it is a system of local government. The words `system of local government' do not appear in the question. But that is the change; that is part of the deception. I simply say to people listening tonight that the Opposition is doing all that it can to ensure that the referendum on 3 September will be conducted as fairly as possible. But the reality is that it is too late for it to be conducted fairly because this Government has set out deliberately to rig the vote. Whilst there may be scrutineers, those blatantly biased questions will still be asked. The whole debate has been tainted with illegality, as has been declared by the High Court. It is no wonder that senior people in the churches have come out and said no. It is no wonder that the Business Council of Australia dumped the Yes case. It is no wonder that chambers of commerce are saying no in spite of the fact that this Government claims that it has support from the business community. It is no wonder that the Law Council of Australia is attacking and criticising the proposition on trial by jury. It is no wonder that the Real Estate Institute of Australia-it ought to be interested in property-is saying no to question No. 4 and the other three questions. It is no wonder that some of Australia's experts on voting systems-people like Malcolm Mackerras, who is a household name, and Professor Rydon, who is an acknowledged authority-are all saying no. The reality is that the Australian electorate is not prepared to be conned by any government or by any set of politicians. The Constitution sets out the rules of the game for politicians. Fortunately in the past the electorate has said, `We are going to look very carefully at what the politicians want to do with our Constitution'. Members of the electorate are not apathetic. We should not let people on the other side of the House mislead us on that point. It is one of their favourite lines and it is not true. The truth of the matter is that generally in the past referendums have not got through because people do not trust governments and politicians who ask for more power for themselves. That is what the game is about. When we go through this agenda, on each and every occasion the bottom line is more power for Canberra and more power for the politicians at the expense of the people. I conclude by saying that we have seen this Bill introduced on our initiative. It fixes up one very small part of a referendum campaign that has been rigged, loaded, for the Yes vote. I say to the Australian elector-ate, and this is a very simple finishing point, as it was a very simple starting point: `When it comes to our Constitution, look around you. This is a good country. This is a good democracy. We have got a good Constitution in this country. It has served our country well. People are free in this country. Don't be misled by those who say we must have freedom of religion and trial by jury. We have got those things. We enjoy them every day of the week in this country'. I want to keep this country's constitutional arrangements, its institutions and its parliamentary democracy strong. I commend this Bill to the House, but I say to the Australian electorate: `On 3 September vote no. Write the word `No' in each of the four boxes, otherwise this crowd will try to declare your vote invalid or informal. Vote no four times and vote no to maintain a strong Constitution and a strong democracy'. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.01) —The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) delivered a speech tonight that was typical of the sorts of speeches and presentations we have heard right across this nation in recent weeks coming from the Liberal and National parties. It was based on unsubstantiated comment. In fact, it was nonsense. Mr Reith —What about the High Court? Mr WRIGHT —Let us come back to what the honourable member for Flinders has been saying. He has just talked about 33 amendments to the Constitution, but what he should have told the people who are listening to this debate is that there are 33 consequential alterations that automatically must flow legally, and be recommended by an independent commission, given that the six parts of the four questions are carried. Mr Reith —Do you agree that there are 33 changes? Mr WRIGHT —There are 33 alterations. No-one has ever denied it. Mr Reith —Why are they not in the questions? Mr WRIGHT —Because they are all consequential on the four questions, which have six parts. Let us go on a little further with what the honourable member said. He talked about the ticks and the crosses problem. What he did not bother to say in his speech, and he was not honest about it, was that it was the Liberal Party-I believe through Senator Short, a Liberal member in the other place-which stopped this Government from having an amendment that would have sorted out all the ticks and crosses problems. Mr Reith —No. Check your facts. Mr WRIGHT —That is the fact of it. The honourable member then went on and talked about some sort of political motivation. He did not bother to point out that members of the Constitutional Commission have been going around this country for 2 1/2 years, have received some 4,000 submissions, have had over 100 public hearings, and are totally independent. This is not a politician's measure. Mr Reith —What about Gough Whitlam? Is he independent? Mr WRIGHT —What about Sir Maurice Byers; Professor Enid Campbell, from the Faculty of Law at Monash University; Sir Rupert Hamer, a former Premier of Victoria; and Professor Leslie Zines, from the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University? Is the honourable member suggesting that these people are not independent? Of course they are, and they have brought to this nation recommendations that I hope will eventually be acted upon. At this point, for very good commonsense reasons, four specific questions, one with three parts, are being put to the people of this country. There is no political motivation in this; there is a need, and I will explain the need. I would have thought the honourable member for Flinders would understand it, but he has two rules. Under one rule he gets up and tries to take credit for some exposure of misuse of funds. Clearly, that was not the decision of the High Court of Australia. It was the wording of the advertisement that was the problem and the wording can be simply changed. It was only in one advertisement. What about the State of Queensland? The National Party Government in Queensland is allocating $800,000 of people's funds-at least that is what it is telling us will be allocated, but it will probably be more than that-to fight this referendum. The people of Australia are seeing through what the Liberals and Nationals are saying. Why? Because they are changing their position all the time. The honourable member for Flinders talks about local government, but he does not ever tell anybody that on 10 February this year his own leader wrote to the Ryde Municipal Council and stated: I fully support Council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. The honourable member knows that that has been said. He talks about fine print. He knows that, regardless of what the Constitution might do in terms of change, the referendum question does not take away the power to set up local authorities. What does it do? It simply says that if a State disbands or in any way does away with the local authority and puts in an administrator, then in due course, within a reasonable period, the State must give the people the right to have a local authority. That will be the result and the honourable member knows that will be the result of it. Mr Reith —That's not true. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member says that it is not true. Why did Councillor Peter Kyle, the President of the Australian Local Government Association, say the following words: Although there was strong support within the Liberal National Coalition parties for the local government question, it appears that a deliberate strategy has been adopted to oppose the package of four questions, regardless of their individual merit. This attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public. It is an insult. I have spoken to many local authorities in my own area, and the 23 or so to whom I have spoken support the proposition for recognition of local government. Local government existed before this Parliament, before the Federal Government, and it has asked for decades to be recognised as part of the Constitution. The Liberals and Nationals have gone around saying that this argument is all about States rights and preserving those rights. It is not; it is about people's rights. It is about the people's right to better government, to fair elections, to local government, to trial by jury. That exists at the Commonwealth level. If a person faces charges and is on indictment under Commonwealth laws on serious matters that could put him in prison for more than a couple of years, yes, he has that choice; but not at a State level. This proposition says that the people have that right. There is the matter of the right to practice one's own religion. A person cannot be discriminated against at a Commonwealth level. Under Commonwealth law a person applying for a job will not find that he faces questions as to what he believes or does not believe or whether he is Presbyterian or Anglican or Catholic, but there is nothing to stop a State from having those types of rules. The referendum is also about the right to be fairly compensated if government acquire a person's property. This question is important to me personally because just after I entered the State Parliament in 1969 the State Government acquired a large tract of land in the city of Rockhampton. The trouble was that there were houses on it. People had lived in some of those places for 20 and 30 years, but when it came to compensation they got half market value. When we took the issue to the Minister, I was told personally, `they were lucky to get that because there was no legal requirement on the State to give anything'. Those people, some of whom were 50 or 60 years of age, then had to go back into the marketplace and try to raise money to buy a home. The fact is that the States still have these powers. A State can introduce a law that says it is going to acquire land for a main road and it does not have to pay anybody anything, or it can set a limit. At the moment, under the Constitution the just compensation requirement applies only to the Federal Government, the Commonwealth Government. If the Commonwealth Government acquires land, even from a State, it must give just compensation, but that does not prevail for the States when it comes to ordinary citizens. It is no wonder that these constitutional lawyers, these commissioners, bought down these recommendations. Of course, there were many other recommendations-no-one has denied that. Those who have read the summaries know that. The Constitutional Commission has recommended these four matters and the Government believes that they are the ones that ought to go to the people at this time. There is good reason for them. It is amazing that on the one hand the Liberals and Nationals have in their party policies such things as the right to trial by jury. They have in their policies the right to fair and just compensation if one's land is acquired by government, but now they are running around this nation opposing these propositions. We need to change the Constitution in an ongoing way. It was written a long time ago for the circumstances that prevailed around the turn of the century. It is no wonder that people such as Andrew Hay, President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, on 10 May 1988-not too long ago-said: The extension of the term of the House of Representatives would be of benefit in terms of national economic management. Eric Mayer, the Managing Director of National Mutual Life Association of A'asia Ltd, speaking on behalf of the Business Council of Australia, said: A four year term would reduce the frequency of elections which as well as reducing the cost to taxpayers, would also create greater certainty in government policies and planning and boosting business confidence. I do not know these men's politics but I suggest that they would not be the kind of people who would rush in and join the Labor Party. They are recommending four year terms. Why not? We have had some 22 elections since 1945. The last one cost over $40m. When one looks at four year terms, one sees-- Mr Cobb —This referendum is going to cost $35m. Why can't it wait until the next election? Mr WRIGHT —There are people who believe they ought to have the right. I understand that. I do not deny the need for spending money to let people voice their opinions. But we have had 22 Federal elections since 1945. If one looks at the other countries, one sees that the vast majority of them have lengthier terms than we have. If one looks at all the States, all, except Queensland, have longer terms than this Parliament. Mr Cobb —Don't bag your own State. Mr WRIGHT —My State has looked at the question before. I was told that the Liberals were supportive of the proposition that the Queensland parliamentary term be extended to four years. We seem to have two different rules: one that suits the Liberals when they are going around their party branches talking about democracy, and one when they start playing politics on the national platform or the stage. For instance, the Liberals of Queensland argue for one vote one value, yet the Liberals at the national sphere say no. It is no wonder that people are confused and are starting to question what the heck is going on. Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen went to the township of Emerald and told the people at a public meeting that, if the local government proposal went through, they would be governed at a local government level by Rockhampton, almost 200 miles away. That is total nonsense. But that is what she said and because of her standing in the community people are started to believe her. It amazes me that there is not the same fairness and consistency coming from the Opposition that we have heard on other issues at this time. Opposition members know what is happening in Queensland for instance. They know that the town of Roma, which is only a few hours drive from Brisbane, had 8,347 voters at the last election. The electorate of Thuringowa which is in Townsville, almost a thousand miles away, has 25,522 electors. It has three times as many electors as Roma yet it is three times the distance from the capital of Brisbane. There ought to be fair and democratic elections based on fair and democratic electorates. But no, whilst the Liberals say they agree with democracy they are not prepared to support this proposition. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), a Liberal member of Parliament, said: It is the policy of the Liberal Party in Queensland to support the principal of `one vote/one value' and I have no intention of moving away. What a pity her leader and the honourable member for Flinders did not also support the proposition. It was not so long ago-18 May this year-that the Leader of the Opposition said that the coalition of the Liberal and National parties supported the principal of fair and democratic elections. They may say it but they are not doing anything about it. Angus Innes, the State Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, when talking about the backflip by the Leader of the Opposition after he suddenly opposed the proposal said: The Federal Coalition does not fully understand the implication of its stand, either nationally or locally. There is conflict. It is no wonder that people are confused. There is a need for these propositions to be carried and for people to have the same rights at a Commonwealth level as they do at the State and Territorial level. Just as we have the right to trial by jury under section 80 of the Australian Constitution, that ought to flow back through the States. Section 116 on freedom of religion protects people from being discriminated against by a Commonwealth Government or department because of a person's religious beliefs. So too should those powers and protections be there at the State level. In 1970 the Queensland Government attempted to register religions. It tried to tell people what were and were not religions. If it were not for the churches at that time the then Minister in charge, Sir Llew Edwards, would have pushed that issue through. Fortunately, he rethought it and, as a Christian himself, realised the damage and the dangers of it. He therefore walked away from it. I ask the people of Australia not to listen to the emotional garbage that has come forward from the Opposition on this issue but to think about their own rights. This issue is important to them. It is vitally important that they understand the truth behind the issue. People have asked me, `Why not change the State constitutions to protect people's rights'? That could be done but the Constitution could again be changed by another law. It would not go to referendum; there is no requirement in State constitutions to do that. It would simply be a matter of the next party that had a majority to change the rules again. It is therefore important that it be placed in the Constitution so that it requires a majority of the States and a majority of the people. Another question also raised with me is whether all Australians will be guaranteed the right to vote. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote or that one person's vote will have the same value as another person's. In fact, when the Constitution was first enacted in 1901 only in South Australia and Western Australia could women vote. Since that time we have seen major changes. One vote one value does not exist in the Constitution. Another question which constantly arises-the honourable member for Flinders tried to raise it again-is whether recognising local government in the Constitution will give more power to Canberra. The opposite is true. Instead of centralising power in one central government, this proposition states that we will recognise legally and constitutionally those 836 local authorities throughout this nation. Regardless of what the States want to do politically-they certainly try to manipulate local governments-they will never be able to disband them forever; the people will have the right. The States try to hamper and hinder local authorities. At the moment the Queensland Government, because of the Queensland Grants Commission, is trying to cut the allocation to my own city of Rockhampton by almost $250,000. The States do those sorts of things. They play politics with the funding. But what is provided here is that they ought not be able to play politics with the structure of local government. They can change the boundaries and determine the number of representatives but the principle would be there. The people would have a right to a local government in their own areas. Many other issues have been raised by people as I have moved around. For instance, they have asked whether their fundamental rights are protected by common law. I had a debate with Senator Sheil in Biloela. He kept saying that there was no need to have the Constitution changed because all these rights already existed. There is no such thing as a right to vote; a freedom of speech, of the press; a trial by jury; the right to legal representation when standing for trial on a serious charge; the right not to be discriminated against when seeking employment-these situations are not guaranteed by common law. We need to have it guaranteed within the Constitution. I also hear the nonsense being put forward by honourable senators that this will take away the power of the Senate. The only change to the Senate will be that senators will be elected every four years instead of six years. Mr Cobb —That is the maximum. Mr WRIGHT —Why not? Surely it is correct that if the Senate takes this Parliament to the people then it ought to face the people's wrath or support. Do honourable members opposite support eight-year terms for senators? That is what Senator Sheil said. He really thinks that they deserve eight years. We do not need that. If people are to have the right to have a say in who is governing them, then we should make sure that we do not end up with a Senate with an eight-year term. A four-year term in which the Senate goes to the people at the same time as the House of Representatives is fair. It does not matter which aspects of the proposals are looked at. Whether it be the fair and just compensation when land is acquired by a State or Territory; whether it be freedom of religion-the right to believe or not to believe; whether it be a right to a trial by jury-one does not have to choose this as the judgments can be made by the judge rather than by one's peers; whether it be the recognition of local government; whether it be four-year terms; or whether it be fair and democratic elections, these issues have come, not from the Labor Party, not from some party political position, but from thousands of submissions, from people across this country, to an independent commission that has now brought down its recommendations. I ask the people of Australia to think through the issues; to try to cast aside the emotionalism that we have heard from the honourable member for Flinders and other honourable members. I ask the people of Australia to realise that the Government is endeavouring to give them rights in so many areas-rights that exist at the Commonwealth level but which do not exist at the State level. This issue is not about taking away States' rights. It is about entrenching and cementing into the Constitution people's rights; the right to fair government, the right to local government, the right to trial by jury, the right to just compensation. These are rights that exist at the Commonwealth level and which should exist at the State and, also, the Territory level. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.21) —The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) allows each registered officer of a registered political party to appoint one person to act as a scrutineer during voting at a referendum at each place in Australia where voting is conducted. It also allows scrutineers for counting. Originally, the Bill stated that only one scrutineer for counting would be allowed. However, I believe that now the Government has conceded and will allow a scrutineer for each counting table. This Bill came about because we raised the issue of appointment of scrutineers with the Australian Electoral Commissioner some weeks ago. It was found then that only the Governor-General and State Governors could appoint scrutineers for counting in voting. Obviously, scrutineers are needed on 3 September when people vote. There are four questions in the referendum and we will need a very close validity check on the counting of the votes because many different voting combinations will result. We need also to be able to rotate scrutineers during the 10 hours of polling through the day. Changes were certainly needed. One aspect of the counting that the scrutineers will have to check very carefully will be the ticks and crosses-an aspect raised by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). Of course, we are supposed to write Yes or No in answer to the questions. I would urge the people of Australia to write either of those two words-preferably No, of course. However, we have the action of the Electoral Commissioner who, in probably the most amazing decision ever brought down by the Australian Electoral Commission acting on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department-independent advice it certainly was not-has ruled that certain combinations of ticks and crosses will now be allowed as valid and formal votes. This has never happened before in this history of referendum voting in Australia. For example, four ticks will be regarded as a formal vote, equating to a Yes vote, where as four crosses will be regarded as informal and not as a No vote. The bias that the Government has built in to this referendum via the Electoral Commissioner is almost extraordinary. Dr Harry Edwards —That is not the only bit of bias. Mr COBB —There is lots of bias, as the honourable member said. It is amazing what the Government is stooping to in a desperate attempt to get these questions through. The decision of the Electoral Commissioner is consistent with the anti-coalition sentiment that seems to emanate from that Office all too frequently. Apparently the Electoral Commissioner claimed only recently that the Liberal and National parties were responsible for the failure of the Government to pass legislation this year to rule out ticks and crosses as formal votes. We heard the previous speaker on the Government's side, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), rehash this wrong argument. It is wrong. The reason the legislation was rejected in the Senate was that it was technically flawed. Ticks and crosses were not mentioned even once in the debate. That was not the consideration at issue. There were other issues of consideration which the Government had put forward in a quite technically flawed way. That legislation in no sense achieved the objectives of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform which had ruled on ticks and crosses and made recommendations which the Government ignored. I am delighted that the shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Short, has introduced a Bill into the Senate to overcome this. I hope that the Government will allow that Bill to be introduced in this chamber. The Government is saying that it will not do so because there is the technicality that there may already be a few postal votes in the system which have ticks and crosses on them and that we cannot have two classes of voters. Dr Harry Edwards —Just as they ignored the Constitutional Commission. Mr COBB —Yes, how convenient for the Government to be able to make this ruling. We have independent advice from an eminent Melbourne QC, Mr Goldberg, who has said that both ticks and crosses should not be allowed and that only the words yes or no clearly written in the boxes should be allowed. Commonsense as well as any sort of moral principle would dictate that the Government should do the decent thing and rule in that direction. I urge the Electoral Commissioner to get independent advice and at least come to the party with an unbiased referendum. There is tremendous confusion in society about what is proper and correct in this regard. There is much concern at the Latin American type rigging that we are now seeing creeping into the Australian system. It is very sad indeed. The Government is desperate. Mr McGauran —Typical banana republic. Mr COBB —As the honourable member said, it is typical of a banana republic. The Government should indeed be embarrassed at what it is doing. As the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) said earlier, this dishonesty does not end there. The four questions do not lead to four simple changes to the Constitution if the people vote Yes. We find that there will actually be 33 changes to the Constitution. Mr McGauran —How many? Mr COBB —There will be 33 changes. The Australian people should realise that in the 87 years since Federation we have only ever had eight changes to the Constitution. The Government is asking the Australian people to give a blank cheque to make 33 changes on one day. It is almost extraordinary. The Australian people are being conned. They will be out there on 3 September thinking that they are voting for four simple motherhood questions. However, if one reads the detail of the legislation one sees what is proposed. It has been blatantly dishonest from the start. The debate on such an important issue was guillotined in the House when it was first brought in on 10 May, the day after the Queen opened the new Parliament House. Because of that it was off the front pages. We have had only three months to debate it. We know what happened with the identity card and the Bill of Rights; it took six months before the Australian people realised what was being proposed. Dr Harry Edwards —They are supposed to give you six months. Mr COBB —The Government is supposed to give six months but, of course, it does not want people talking about the issue because they will wake up to what is being proposed. It is absolutely scandalous. Now the Government is going to ask the Australian people to vote barely a week after the Budget has been brought down when, again, it is not an issue in the media. The Government is absolutely desperate that the people do not talk about this issue. We have never seen such a low key campaign on such an important issue from a government before. However, I am encouraged that in the last couple of weeks in this country at least the people are starting to wake up. Their interest in this issue is starting to ignite. I believe that they will be informed enough to return a solid No vote come 3 September. The Government is getting people offside all over Australia. The Government is getting offside those people concerned about the independence of the Senate and those concerned about the rights of the small States. Church groups are starting to wake up to the issue and, I am delighted to say, even local government is starting to wake up to the sham proposal contained in question No. 3. The referendum is nothing more or less than a transfer of power. It represents a transfer of more power to Canberra, which is surely the last thing we want in this country. Eventually, of course, it will mean less power for the States. Question No. 1 means that the terms of senators will be reduced from six years to four. The fixed terms of senators will go. It will abolish the rotation of senators-although we are not told that in the question. The second question means that State elections will be run by Canberra on criteria that the Federal Government is not prepared to apply to itself. For example, if it applied the same criteria to itself, Tasmania would be reduced from a representation of 12 senators in Canberra to one senator. That is the sort of deception that is going on. The third question relating to local government does not give any security of tenure to local government at all. State governments can still dismiss them and need never reappoint them again. It will abolish the forum that local government had. The Government has slashed local government funding drastically over the last five years. It seems to me that if this question is passed and local government is written into the Federal Constitution, regionalism will spring up. I have great concern for what will happen to local government. The fourth question, of course, is nothing more nor less than the introduction of a Bill of rights by the back door. This will have immense consequences for juries, for people who have their land taken away from them, and particularly, for the rights of people to practice their religion in Australia. It is outrageous. It is a con job. It is a waste of $41m of taxpayers' money. I urge the Australian people to return four no votes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require that the question be put without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.31) —I have only a short time in which to make a couple of salient points regarding the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2). I wish to make the point-- Mr Uren —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got to my feet before the honourable member for Gippsland but that honourable member was called. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I regret that I did not see the honourable member for Reid. I will give him the call immediately after the honourable member for Gippsland has completed his remarks. Mr McGAURAN —The fact that the Government feels it necessary to introduce this legislation at this late stage in the debate on the referendum questions, when the matter is to be voted on in only nine days' time, should set alarm bells ringing. The intervention by the churches on question No. 4 should send shivers up many spines. However, it should draw attention to the implications of what is happening. So far people generally have been apathetic towards the referendum questions. I wish to touch briefly on question No. 3, which seems to relate to the innocuous, even bland recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution. I urge people to consider carefully the implications of inserting into that Constitution the proposal that will be voted upon on 3 September. I say this for two major reasons. The first reason-and let us not kid around-is that local government will not benefit one iota from constitutional recognition. I have yet to find a councillor anywhere in Australia who can instance one single concrete benefit that will flow to ratepayers as the result of constitutional recognition. There are no guarantees as to road funding or general finance. There is no protection against false dismissal or amalgamations. When local government should be directing itself to considering bread and butter issues, as ratepayers demand that it should do, it is self-indulgently spending its time arguing that constitutional recognition will raise the status of local government. It is a political ploy to suggest that this will raise the status of local government, when in fact it will do nothing for that important third tier of government. Let me put forward the second major reason why the Opposition has grave fears about constitutional recognition-leaving aside the fact that the proper place for such recognition of local government is in State constitutions, as is the case in four out of six States, with Queensland and Tasmania undertaking to provide recognition. One wonders what will be the future makeup and shape of local government in view of the fact that the High Court-a group of unelected judges-will be called upon to define the structure of local government. The key words which should be burned forever into the consciousness of councillors are `to recognise local government'. What is meant by that phrase? We simply do not know, but we do know that the High Court-given the precedents of past decades-is likely to find in favour of centralised power to the Commonwealth, which may well pave the way towards regionalisation. In arguing for constitutional recognition local government bodies are leading their ratepayers into a legal minefield. Ratepayers should be up in arms because a number of local government bodies throughout Australia are contributing scarce funds to a fighting fund, a central pool, to advertise the `Yes' case. Money is being wasted in that way. That money could go to meeting some of the more immediate concerns of ratepayers. Ratepayers should also be up in arms when they consider who will fund the protracted and expensive High Court litigation. It will be the ratepayers who will fund that litigation. Constitutional lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of an endless series of High Court cases. Local Government bodies that support the constitutional question are at best naive, and at worst recklessly negligent. They are naive because the proposition will confer not a single benefit on ratepayers, and they are recklessly negligent because this has opened a legalistic Pandora's box which may well change the whole face of local government as we know it today. Mr UREN(Reid)(10.35) —As a former Minister for Local Government I would say, without being too boastful, that I have probably had more experience of local government than any other Minister in Australia's history. As honourable members well know, in the years 1972 to 1975 I was associated with the Government which made the first untied grants available to local government. At that time the grants amounted to only $56m. This year local government will receive $700m. It is true that in 1974 we placed before the Australian people a referendum to give local government certain constitutional powers under the Australian Constitution. At that time because local government was suspicious of the actions of the then Whitlam Labor Government, it campaigned against it. The provision was passed in only one State, New South Wales, but 47 per cent of the Australian people supported that constitutional move in regard to local government. Under the Hawke Labor Government, arising out of the Adelaide Convention, we set up a Committee to investigate constitutional recognition of local government. That Committee was under the co-chairmanship of Doug Lowe, the former Premier of Tasmania, and Greg Percival, a well known liberal member of parliament in the New South Wales upper House. They did a magnificent job and came to me with three propositions. The first was the status quo; the second involved a charter of principles; and the third was full constitutional recognition. They told me at that time that they thought local government would want the charter of principles attached to the Constitution to attain unity of agreement in local government. I told them that it was Labor Party policy that there should be full constitutional recognition, but that we would not press this as a policy as we wanted it to emerge from local government. They sent the matter back to local government and to the States, and right across the nation every local government authority supported full constitutional recognition. At the Brisbane convention about two years ago, the New South Wales member of parliament I mentioned earlier moved on behalf of the Local Government Association the proposal that is now before the people of Australia. I seconded the proposal on behalf of the Australian Government. Soon after that the Attorney-General suggested to Cabinet that the best way in which constitutional changes could be achieved was to ask a representative body of people throughout the nation to bring forward recommendations from the people. After a lengthy inquiry, the Commission brought down certain recommendations. Four of those recommendations are now before the House. The third recommendation is that local government should be recognised in the Constitution. The question now being asked is what this means in money terms. The truth is that at present local government is not named or recognised in the Constitution. At present if a State wishes to abolish local government, it may do so. Under the new proposals the States will not be interfered with and will have the right to determine the boundaries of the respective local authorities. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has been scaremongering about the basis of regionalism. Regionalism will evolve only if the people at the local government level desire it. That argument is a phoney which I have knocked over. The next issue relates to the statement by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) that once a State dismissed a local government body, it would not have to be re-elected. Under this new proposal that is completely false. It is true that States will still have the power to dismiss a local government body if they think it is corrupt or doing wrong, but after a certain given time has elapsed they will have to see that that local government body is re-elected. That body must be democratically elected by the people. States will not be able to set up bureaucratic bodies like the Sydney City Council commissioners. That is an undemocratic approach and local government authorities will be able to be elected democratically by the people in the electorate. In my time I have seen local government change from being a body with a roads, gutters and drains mentality to being one of broad human community services. I have great faith that local government will develop into a form of government that is truly representative of the people and is responsive to the people. In many studies and undertakings we have found that local government is much more responsive than either State governments or the Federal Government. We also find that it is much more economic to carry out services at local government level than at State or Federal level. After all, we are moving into a period in which, if the public dollar must be spent, the Commonwealth, the States and local government together should work in a cooperative and sensible way and, if the dollar can be best spent at local level, we should make sure it is spent there in the interests of the people. If it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to carry out certain tasks, but we wish local government to carry out these tasks, that should be done. I am quite sure that even the States find that they are diverting responsibilities to local government. In the past local government has been taken too much for granted. Under this amendment to the Constitution, once the recognition comes through-and the amendment will be passed on 3 September-this will change. The Liberal and National parties know that their own people at grass roots level in local government want full constitutional recognition. One only has to look at the people who are making advertisements-for example, Sallyanne Atkinson, the Liberal Lord Mayor of the Brisbane City Council, is seeking full constitutional recognition for local government. Another is Jim Mooney, a member of the Liberal Party from Tasmania, who is openly campaigning for full constitutional recognition. Honourable members all know that at branch level members of the Liberal and National parties will be out there on referendum day handing out how to vote cards and these cards will urge people to vote yes on the third issue of full constitutional recognition for local government. Let us stop this humbug. We know what local government wants. We know that we should support it at all levels and we know that it is in the best interests of the Australian people because local government is the government which is nearest the people and which is the most democratic process. One of the joys I have had from being a member of the Hawke Government was my involvement in local government. Many of that Government's policies have been free market force policies. However, in local government it has adopted interventionist policies, policies which allow the people at the grass roots to spend in excess of $1 billion of Commonwealth funds each year. The people at the grass roots level should have a better say over how their money is spent. I hope that the people listening to the debate tonight will vote yes on the third issue. In fact, they should consider voting yes on all the other issues as well. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(10.47) —in reply-The Opposition has not opposed the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which simply allows political parties to appoint scrutineers. Opposition members have spent most of their time in this debate attacking the substance of the four questions in the referendum. There was a suggestion during the debate that the Opposition had first raised this issue. That is wrong and my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) has asked me to make that point clear. Senator Ray wrote to the responsible shadow Minister about scrutineers before the Opposition had even raised the issue with him and he provided an invitation to the Opposition to look at the inclusion in the legislation of scrutineers nominated by political parties. It took the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) two weeks to respond, so therefore his statement that the Opposition first raised the matter is completely wrong. Nevertheless, although the Opposition did not raise the issue with us, we appreciate the fact that it has not opposed this Bill. As I said, Opposition members have spent their time attacking the substance of the four referendum questions in a most negative, misleading and disruptive manner. It is interesting to ask why the Opposition is opposing the referendum questions at all. The first question in the referendum relates to four-year terms for the National, State and Territory parliaments. Of all the State governments, Queensland is the only one which has not accepted the fact of four-year terms, so one wonders why the Opposition does not accept that these terms should be a fact for the national Parliament. There have been six elections in the past 12 years. I have been in this Parliament less than 11 years and I have won six elections. I think it is about time that the Opposition faced up to the realities of this question. Secondly, it would be interesting to know why Opposition members are opposing the second question, which relates to fair and democratic elections. A Yes vote would ensure that the numbers of voters in any seat in the Federal and State parliaments did not exceed 10 per cent of the average number of voters either way. Of course, that applies in the national Parliament and it is interesting to ask why opposition members do not accept it for State parliaments. The answer is clear: the Liberal Party is protecting the interests of the Queensland National Party. The Liberals in Queensland should put this question to the Federal Liberals in this House: Why are they, of all people in Australia, protecting very narrowly and sectionally the interests of the Queensland National Party Government against the interests of their own people in Queensland? However, to conclude, we are very confident not only that we will pass this Bill in about 15 seconds-- Mr Tim Fischer —Do you want to put some money on it? Mr WEST —Yes, I will put some money on that and I will also put some money on the fact that we will get a Yes vote on the four questions on 3 September. Our victory will hasten the demise of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). There are two issues that will hasten his demise-this one, when the Opposition loses the vote on 3 September, and the issue of migration and the despicable stand that most Opposition members and their leader have taken, as evidenced this afternoon. The fortunes of the Opposition are in decline and when the Government wins on 3 September, it will hasten that process. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-Now that the Parliament has taken possession of this great Australian building, it is fitting that I deliver a progress report on the latest costings and progress of work. There are works still being completed at this stage, including office areas in the southern portion of the building and some landscaping. For some considerable time there will also be rectification work for defects, which is normal after completion and occupation of any large project. This will proceed over the next 12 months. All of this type of work is planned to take place with the minimum of disruption to the work of honourable members and senators. The revised building budget up until February 1988 now stands at $901.54m, with another $162.63m for non-building items. The total project budget has therefore increased from $1,056.31m at November 1987 prices to $1,064.17m at February 1988 prices. This updating includes $4.52m for the effects of inflation in the three months to February. Additional components to cover costs outside the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA) include an allowance of $1.77m for the cost of industrial disputes. This compares favourably with the $2.41m, $4.05m and $5.5m announced in the preceding three quarters. The other allowances include $300,000 for the creation of the thirtieth Minister's suite and $650,000 for additional costs of exchange rate variations over a period of two years. With respect to the decision to cease using rainforest timber on the new Parliament House project, by the end of February 1988 the Authority had received and settled most claims from timber suppliers and furniture manufacturers. The cost at that stage, including all of the settled claims, was approximately $770,000. This needs to be discounted by approximately $150,000, which was the cost already incurred by the Authority due to delays in receipt of timber withheld from the Authority's furniture manufacturers from June 1987. When the decision was taken not to use further rainforest timbers, those supplies were still being withheld. If the decision had not been taken the cost of delivery delays would have continued to increase while the bans remained in place. The Authority has now been reimbursed $620,000 by the Government. While having had only a short space of time to become accustomed to the size, layout and function of the building, honourable members, including some previous detractors, are with obvious pride becoming the building's greatest protagonists. There are a number of defects, as I mentioned, and probably a number of irritants that will have to be cleared up, I hope over the next several weeks. We would expect that the people responsible-that is, the PHCA in some areas, the Presiding Officers in others, and the Parliament House Executive Wing Branch of my Department-will be attending to those matters over the next several weeks. I am sure that all honourable members and senators agree that the permanent Parliament House is a great example of Australian construction skills. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Prime Minister of Australia, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, and Mrs Fraser. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The latest cost blow-out revealed by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) lifts the cost of the new Parliament House from the original estimate of around $300m to $1,064m. And that is not the final bill, either. As we heard the Minister say, there will be the additional cost of getting the gremlins out of the building and overcoming some of the design faults. There is no doubt that that will further blow out the final cost of the building. That is not to say that it is not a magnificent building which should serve the nation for a very long time, but so many of the cost blow-outs were avoidable, and they could certainly have been avoided by a government with a little more intestinal fortitude than the Hawke Government has shown. Four out of the five reasons identified by the Minister tonight for the blow-out in costs could have been avoided. For example, the inability of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to resolve the factional differences within his Party and make some hard decisions was resolved at great cost to the taxpayer by appointing three extra Ministers. Not only did the hard pressed taxpayer have to put up another $1m to cover the extra salaries for the Ministers, their staff and extra office expenses, but also there is the extra expense of the fitout of additional ministerial offices in this new Parliament House. In April of this year the Minister said that an additional $1.42m had been spent on the reinstatement of previously deleted works, including two ministerial suites and the area to house the Australian Protective Services in the southern part of the building. Today we are told that another $300,000 over the budgeted expenditure was required for the creation of the thirtieth Minister's suite. So the cost of the Prime Minister's inability to resolve internal factional differences within the Australian Labor Party is now moving up towards $2m. But this is not the only example of this Government's failure to have a little intestinal fortitude and take tough decisions and stick with them. The Government has never had the resolve to stand up to industrial blackmail, strikes and disruption, which its so-called friends in the union movement irresponsibly implement. Of course the unions know that the best target is the Government, because this Government has a history of meek compliance with the irresponsible and irrational demands of the unions. In the case of this building, the hard pressed taxpayer has had to pay over a quarter of a million dollars a week extra tax over the past year to pay for industrial disruption on this site alone. The only excuse offered by the Minister tonight is that the loss rate in the last quarter was not as great as it had been in previous quarters. Let me remind the Australian taxpayer that that is not because the Hawke Government decided that it was time to curb the irresponsible actions of unions, their actions in milking the taxpayer, but rather because the work was nearly completed and those irresponsible trade union leaders had moved on to greener pastures. The third area of cost blow-out which has resulted from this Government's failure to take tough decisions is the continual cost blow-outs arising from the impact of inflation. One of the reasons we have had such a high rate of inflation in this country is that the Government could not resist demands for extravagant spending in its early Budgets. That weakness has led to a sustained period of high inflation in this country-much higher than that of our international competitors. The devastatingly high cost paid by Australians as a result of this Government's highly inflationary policies has been felt by our exporters, who have had to bear the higher costs at home, which of course they could not recover on international markets. Our higher domestic inflation has cost us export sales and has cost the taxpayer dearly on this particular project. The taxpayer is having to find an extra $1 1/2m a month to pay for the cost of inflation in the final construction stages of this building. That gives some idea of the high cost to the community of inflation. In each of the last four Budgets the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has grossly underestimated the inflation rate. In 1984-85 his Budget estimate of the inflation rate was not only wrong, it was in error by 29 per cent. The Treasurer's record of Budget inflation forecasts is poor, and his estimates have been way off the mark because of his failure to fight inflation first. Why? Because he wants more tax. He wants to reap the benefits of inflation, which pushes wage earners and salary earners into higher tax brackets. Without more tax he cannot pay for the failure of this Government to administer effectively the business of government. The fourth area in which the Government has caused a cost blow-out relates to its sudden change of mind on the timber to be used in Parliament House. Originally the same timber that has been logged and used in the rest of Australia was to be used in this Parliament House. We are not talking about endangered species; we are talking about properly identified milling timber which happened to come from north Queensland. When some lone voice protested, the Government buckled, at a cost, now revealed, of $770,000. That cost is to be carried by the Australian taxpayers. They are to pay for this Government's failure to complete its contractual obligations. I have identified four of the areas of cost blow-out which stem directly from Government policy. This incompetent, inept and weak Government has added millions of dollars to the cost which the taxpayers must foot for this building. This is a grand, if somewhat extravagant, building. Given the cost, we all would want it to be in use for a long time into the future. There is a lot more work to do to ensure that it meets the needs of its occupants. Stories of problems with the building abound-not unexpected, I suppose, with a building of this size. I think it was Senator Cooney who was stuck in a lift for three-quarters of an hour yesterday, or the day before, on his way to a division. I just wonder whether that was a convenient excuse or whether he really was stuck. Mr Tim Fischer —One of my colleagues got stuck in a broom cupboard here. Mr PORTER —Who was it? It may not surprise us. I am sure that Senator George Georges, when voting against the ID card, would have loved the excuse of being stuck in a lift for three-quarters of an hour. Senator Cooney said that when he did get out he took the wrong turn and ended up in a broom cupboard as well. I even heard-I cannot vouch for this-that an attendant got stuck in a stairwell for a weekend when the fire doors locked on him. I did not think that was a very amusing story. We have heard of members being forced to eat in the members' bar because half the dining room was closed because of supposedly unsafe steps. As we all know, the one-minute warning light on the clock which indicates members' speaking time is almost invisible. There are gremlins in the sound system, and so the list goes on. Some of the stories doing the rounds are no doubt exaggerated. Nevertheless, I am sure that someone will catalogue them and they will make very interesting reading for our children who are interested enough to learn of the beginnings of this great Parliament House. Whilst a great deal still has to be done, I condemn the Government for its contribution to the cost blow-out. Nevertheless, I in no way suggest that it is not a great building. Those responsible have done a very good job in getting such a large undertaking operational for this sitting of the Parliament. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House do now adjourned. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.04) —I hope that I will not be infringing the Standing Orders in relation to reopening a debate if I make a personal explanation concerning the way in which I voted this afternoon on the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As one of several from this side of the House who voted with the Government, I feel it is incumbent upon me to explain why I took the step that I did, having been a member of this House for some 15 years and having never seen fit to do so before. I ought to say, firstly, that I regard the question of racial discrimination, particularly in relation to immigration matters, as of such an order that I see this as being a fundamental issue as far as I personally am concerned. Without disparaging those who have crossed the floor before, I do not see it in the same light as policies on airlines or taxation questions-matters that I would characterise as being largely of bricks and mortar in type. I understand that the Government seeks to divide us on matters such as this and I understand the cynicism of the Government when it puts a matter such as this before us. I wish to make three points in relation to that. Firstly, the Government saw this question as being so important that it gagged the debate. It prevented from speaking in the debate people who were in the position in which I was; they had a serious moral position to state on the matter. Secondly, honourable members on this side of the House enjoy the opportunity to have a free vote. Some on the other side chiack us because of it, but they never cross the floor. Thirdly, on an equally important matter yesterday the Government had an opportunity to show its concern to adopt a principled position. In relation to the motion of the Prime Minister on the question of Aborigines, a largely inconsequential, in my view, amendment could have been accepted. In terms of the Government's own position-only more abundantly provided for it-it was not prepared to accede to that minor amendment in order to ensure that a principled resolution had the support of members of Parliament from both sides. I regard that as a pretty poor show on the Government's part. It put me in an equally difficult position. I want to say something in relation to the matter that was before us today because, as I have said, it was an important matter to me. I supported the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I accept the statements made by my colleagues that that amendment, which embodies the policy that we have adopted, is non-racist in effect and application. I accept all of the statements that my colleagues have made that they would not support a racially discriminatory policy in relation to immigration. I accept their bona fides. I voted for the amendment on that basis. But, equally so, when I came to examine the motion moved by the Prime Minister I could not in conscience vote against it. I want to make several points in relation to this matter because, as I said, I voted for the Opposition's statement. The first point that the Prime Minister made was accepted by the Opposition. That dealt with acknowledging the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support in initiating the dismantling of the white Australia policy. The second matter related to Labor Party policies which have been pursued and, it is stated, with bipartisan support. I want to make it clear that that was only in relation to a non-discriminatory immigration policy and not in relation to its other policies. The final point I wish to make is in relation to point (3), which calls for one to give an unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them. I could not in conscience vote against that proposition and I could not be silent on that matter. For that reason, I felt obliged to vote today in favour of the motion. For me it was a very significant step. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(11.09) —I, too, was unable to speak on the motion about migration today because of the closure of the debate. I now take the opportunity to place on record the reasons why I voted today for the Government motion on migration. We were asked to approve the proposition that, as to the reasons used for determining immigration intake, `race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them'. To vote against it is clearly to invite the imputation that one may at some time in the future use race or ethnic origin as a selection criterion. The problem about following that course is the perception held by the public of what politicians are talking about. There are certainly people who are contacting my office suggesting that I should support my Leader (Mr Howard) in keeping Asians out. My protests that he has not adopted a racist attitude do not turn away nor moderate those views. In fact, as I have said elsewhere, the debate from the Opposition's standpoint generally seems to be conducted in an `aura of innocence'. How can we expect to have our Leader introduce the subject of immigration in terms of `Asian', how can we have National Party members of the coalition say that Asian immigration should be reduced, without stirring the question or race within the Australian community? The question therefore has quickly descended from a discussion about the future migrant intake to one about the level of internal racial tolerance. I need go no further than referring to the burning of Mr Peter Dight's garage and his harassment in Adelaide to illustrate that point. The simple fact is that public opinion is easily led on racial issues and no amount of `inertial guidance' can control the racial missile once it is off the launching pad. The report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies gives us plenty of ammunition to push the Government into remedial action in regard to the immigration policy. However, that report does not support a racial attitude to the program. It is now time to unite the community on the race issue before it flares into an ugly reproach for us all. History shows us that we can differ on many things in principle and about administration. We should now put aside those publicly aired views that divide us on race. It has not been satisfactory to me that I have had to do that personally by supporting a Government initiative. Neither is there satisfaction in knowing that the division arises from our side of politics. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.13) —Today the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) tabled the Government response to a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report entitled Poles Apart. The Committee inquired into Telecom's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas of Australia. It was tabled in the Parliament on 20 November 1986. There was a very significant difference from the time the report was presented until the Government response, although the time delay was due in part to the diverse and complex issues that needed to be addressed by Telecom in responding to this report and an earlier report, Ringing in the Changes. When Poles Apart was presented I noted in my comments that, as with Ringing in the Changes, Telecom's technical performance had been generally good but the Australian Telecommunications Commission had been insufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s. Telecommunications are particularly important to Australians who live outside the capital cities and a reliable telephone service is more than a convenience in many rural remote areas: it is a necessity. The Committee was particularly concerned with the communications needs of country people and put together a package of improvements reflected by 33 recommendations. I was pleased to note that Telecom has already undertaken action to address the concerns presented to the inquiry and, further, that relevant procedures have been strengthened and plans have been developed to ensure that Telecom is responsive to the interests of the rural community. Although not all of the 33 recommendations have been adopted by Telecom, it is pleasing to note that alternative actions are proposed which will address the concerns underlying those recommendations which cannot be fully implemented. The Committee identified five major issues in the course of its inquiry. These were: the designation of service centres; the problems relating to countrywide calling; the rural and remote areas program; Telecom's pricing policy; and Telecom's relations with its customers. Overall, I think it would be fair to say that Telecom's response has been positive. Telecom believes that the rural and remote areas package offers worthwhile call charge reductions and greater response to customers-both of which can only benefit Australian telephone users, not only in country areas but indeed throughout Australia. During the inquiry, the Committee heard a number of criticisms of the operation of the service centre concept and it also received many representations seeking its extension. Critics of the service centre arrangements argued either that the selection of some specific service centres had been inappropriate or that the list of minimum services considered necessary by Telecom was too restricted. Other witnesses, who supported the basic concept, sought extensions to the scheme such as untimed access to the service centre in lieu of the charge per three minutes or access to more than one service centre. The Committee was of the opinion that the designated list of basic minimum services required in a service centre was generally relevant and suitable to the needs of rural and remote residents. However, the Committee went on to say that it believed the list should be expanded and redefined to include certain other facilities. I am pleased to note that in the Minister's response today the Government indicated that Telecom has been sympathetic to the Committee's views on this subject and has indicated that it will adopt a more flexible approach to the criteria for determining service centres. I could comment on a number of other matters but, in summary, I think it would be fair to say that most members of the Committee would be pleased to note that Telecom has already undertaken action to address some of the concerns presented to the inquiry. It has strengthened some of its procedures and developed plans to ensure that it is responsive to the rural community. Telecom's continuing attention to its customers' needs will ensure that it satisfies its statutory obligations to telephone users throughout Australia. I am particularly pleased to note the reaffirmation of the principle of the cross-subsidy. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.18) —I also would like to talk about the response of the Government to the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure into Telecom that was entitled Poles Apart. I sat on that inquiry along with the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). I point out to honourable members that the report was tabled in November 1986 and it has taken until now for the Government to respond to the report. I think that would be a disappointment to everyone. When the former member for Port Adelaide, Mr Mick Young, who was a Minister for various things, was in charge of the business of the House he proposed a motion that the Government should respond to such reports within three months. It seems that with his demise that requirement has disappeared. I would like to take up where the honourable member for Calare left off and talk about cross-subsidies. Telecom has come up with some extraordinary figures on cross-subsidies. Much has been made about the fact that Telecom is so generous to people in the country and people have worked on different figures. When the inquiry was first under way back in 1986 the then Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, came into the chamber quoting the figure of the cross-subsidy. He gave a figure of $531 a year for constituents in one Opposition member's electorate and he went on to talk about the various figures as they broke down for each member's constituency. But once the inquiry started Telecom told us that the value of the cross-subsidy was $492m. The Minister then reduced it to $459m in replying to a question. Then, during the inquiry, the Expenditure Committee was told by the Financial Studies and Development Manager of Telecom: Our best estimate of the cross-subsidy metropolitan to country in 1984-85 was of the order of $400m to $500m. Mr N.A. Brown —Give or take. Mr HAWKER —We can give or take a fair bit. The country people have been belted over the ears about this a few times too often. Earlier this year, on 25 May, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate tabled a paper entitled The Australian Telecommunications Services: a New Framework. That paper contains some very interesting comments about the value of the cross-subsidy. When we look at it, we find that the Minister has moved a long way from his predecessor, the present Minister for Trade Negotiations, who was talking about precise figures. We find that the Minister tabled a paper this year in which the following comment is made at page 40: It is not clear how much economic loss actually arises from the current pattern of cross-subsidisation. Telecom's internal management accounts have indicated that cross-subsidy levels from the profitable trunk network are up to $670 million in 1987-88 . . . In seeking to measure only the direct losses that would be incurred in operating the cross-subsidised services, one alternative estimate of $250 million- that is considerably less than half- has been made by officials during this policy review process. However, it is not possible to sufficiently disentangle separate service costs within Telecom's present management information and accounting system to enable a reliable calculation of the costs or levels of these cross-subsidies or to enable proper consideration of possible alternative service-delivery arrangements. I think this shows very clearly that Telecom was trying to tell us that there was a precise figure of cross-subsidy. We have now found, as I mentioned two years ago when this report was tabled, that in fact the level of cross-subsidy is a rather unknown and vague quantity. As a result of this, the Minister has pointed out that the Bureau of Transport and Communication Economics, with assistance from consultants, is going to carry out a special inquiry to report on the actual costs of the cross-subsidies. I consider that the inquiry that the Expenditure Committee undertook has achieved something, but it has taken an awful long time to do so. I hope that when the results of this inquiry are published we will in fact be properly informed about whether there is in fact a cross-subsidy of the order that has been announced or whether in fact the figure is considerably less, in which case Telecom has been loading the cost up as an excuse to charge people in the country more than necessary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.23) —I want to refer briefly to the debate that took place earlier today on the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to a non-discriminatory approach to immigration. I am enormously proud of Australia's record in successfully integrating into the community people from literally over 100 different nations. I do not agree for one moment that Australia is any more racist than any other country. In fact, I think we are considerably less racist. The success of that integration of so many people from so many different cultures is unquestioned. I must say that I get annoyed when countries which do not have that same record of racial tolerance take us to task. The Opposition policy that has been put forward has been accused of having some racist overtones. I reject that criticism. In fact, I voted for the amendment put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) during the debate here today. But it would be unfortunate in the extreme if some people misinterpreted that policy by thinking that it is being overridden in a racist way. The result of that would be to give some respectability to those elements within the Australian community-and they exist within any community-who are bigoted and racist in their approach. In a country particularly like Australia, where so many people from so many different countries are settling and making a magnificent contribution to our development, that racist, bigoted tendency must be opposed and put down at every step. It cannot be allowed to start, it cannot be allowed to flourish and it cannot be allowed to continue. There is no place in a modern Australian society for discrimination based on race. Any suggestion that the policy of any political party may allow that must be put aside. Obviously it is the right of any country to decide who shall or shall not enter that country. In my mind, that right is not disputed. In fact, that was the first principle of the nine principles that I helped draw up in 1978. Obviously that is the right of any country. But that principle is not set aside by a non-discriminatory policy in terms of race because one is not deciding on the basis of race. One must not decide on the basis of race, and the Opposition policy does not do this. This afternoon I abstained from voting on the Prime Minister's motion because I do not think he came in with utterly clean hands in promoting his motion. He made the statement that the motion was not devised on a political basis, that it was not devised to drive a wedge into the Opposition. That is nonsense. Of course it was. Mr N.A. Brown —It was cynical. Mr MacKELLAR —As my colleague says, it was a cynical exercise in that respect. Having said that, looking at the words of the motion, in no way could I vote against it. I voted for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition because it supported the Opposition policy. I support that policy because I believe that it is non-discriminatory in terms of race, colour, creed and religion. But having said that, I do not agree with the principle which was enunciated-that national sovereignty must in some way be prejudiced by a commitment to a non-racially based policy. I think one can be both non-racial in one's approach to this question and also maintain absolutely the right of the government of the day to decide who shall and who shall not enter. Therefore, I was not going to give any encouragement to the Government's attempts to drive wedges into the Opposition by crossing the floor. Neither was I going to compromise my oft stated principle of a non-discriminatory approach to this question by voting against my Party. I therefore abstained. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.28) —It would appear appropriate to place on record the contribution that my extended family has made to the Federal parliamentary process since the Federation of the Commonwealth. The second last item of business that was discussed in the provisional Parliament House on 3 June this year was a vote of thanks to former and present members and staff. Time restrictions precluded me from speaking to that motion. But in this, my first speech in the House of Representatives chamber of the permanent Parliament House, I am delighted to pay those tributes. My maternal grandmother's sister was married to Littleton Ernest Groom. He was the son of William Henry Groom, who was elected to the first Commonwealth House of Representatives in 1901 as the member for Darling Downs. When he died in August that year his son Littleton Groom succeeded him and, apart from a period between 1929 and 1931, he held the seat until he died in November 1936. During his long and distinguished parliamentary career, Sir Littleton Groom was Minister for Home Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for External Affairs, Minister for Trade and Customs, Minister for Works and Railways, and Minister for Health. He was Speaker from 1926 to 1929 and was, therefore, the first Speaker in the provisional Parliament House. In 1984 the newly created Federal seat of Groom was named in his honour. Another of my maternal grandmother's sisters was married to Charles William Grant, who was a senator from Tasmania in 1925 and from 1932 to 1941, when he retired. He was Temporary Chairman of Committees during a portion of his term in the Senate. My father, Oliver Howard Beale, was the member for Parramatta between 1946 and 1958, when he retired to serve as a highly successful ambassador to the United States of America. Sir Howard Beale during his distinguished parliamentary career served as Minister for Transport, Minister for Information, Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production, and was acting Minister in a number of other portfolios over that period. He did not, I deeply regret, live to see me elected as the member for Deakin in December 1984. Accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that my extended family has a remarkable record of service to the Australian people through three Parliament buildings-in Melbourne, in the provisional House and in the permanent building in Canberra; across four States-Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria; and in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as in a variety of ministerial duties. I am proud to be a small part of this family which has given such outstanding service to the development of this great nation of ours. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.31) —Tonight I would like to raise a very different aspect relating to the referendums. I refer to the category of voter known as a registered postal voter. Before proceeding, perhaps I could point out to the House that during the winter recess I had the privilege of visiting Burma. It is food for thought that the right to vote in a referendum is not easily gained in many countries around the world. Sadly, an estimated 3,000 people have lost their lives in recent weeks in Burma as the Burmese people have fought for the right to have a referendum over the reintroduction of a form of democracy and a two or more party state in that interesting and exciting country, which is also the site of many Australian war graves that are kept in excellent condition. I pay tribute to those people who are at postings such as Rangoon in Burma. The Australian Embassy staff there carry out work in very difficult circumstances. That situation would apply also at many other missions around the world, such as those in Iraq and Iran until recent times, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, where the staff face real danger as they go about their work in the interests of Australia. It is not easy. Sometimes there is a military danger and at other times there is danger caused by natural phenomena, such as the recent very bad earthquakes along the border of Nepal and India. I hope that the Burmese people have now won the right to a referendum or referenda in their country. They have paid a very bloody price indeed. Here in Australia we will go to the polls on Saturday, 3 September, hopefully without the loss of any life whatsoever, either in the lead up or on polling day, and that reflects the strength of our parliamentary democracy. So far as registered postal voters are concerned, let the House be advised that the Australian Electoral Commission sent ballot papers to those registered postal voters up to three, four and five weeks ago and some of them are yet to receive the official Yes or No brochure. Indeed, Dr Colin Hughes has formally advised that in the case of New South Wales many of those brochures are still going out to those electors, who have now had to vote without access, because of the isolated nature of the location in which they live, to the official Yes or No brochure. This very specific category applies to hundreds of registered postal voters in western Queensland, western New South Wales, parts of Victoria, northern South Australia, much of Western Australia and indeed, much of the Northern Territory. It is a category which, clearly, the Electoral Commission has not been geared up to. Permanently registered postal voters already on separate computer lists should have been forwarded the Yes or No brochures as soon as they were off the press so that they would have some chance of getting them before they were required to vote under the registered postal vote format. Quite possibly that could be a breach of section 128 of the Constitution; it is certainly a breach of the spirit of section 128. I do not take kindly to Dr Colin Hughes issuing a Press release naming me, misquoting my Press release, and not really dealing with the fundamental question of registered postal voters. I hope that in future referendums a special effort will be made to mail out the Yes or No brochure to registered postal voters who live in isolated circumstances so that the various procedures associated with democracy and a fair go for people in isolated areas can be seen to be adhered to. Finally, I point out that many thousands of voters also voted under pre-poll arrangements without having previously received the Yes or No brochure. They did not take the opportunity to look at the one or two copies that might have been available at counters of divisional offices at Albury, Mildura and elsewhere. That is to be regretted. Clearly, the distribution of the official Yes or No brochure has left a lot to be desired. I hope that in future exercises it will be done more efficiently so that there can be an informed vote on referendum questions. In this case if there is a truly informed vote we will surely see the defeat of all four referendum questions. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.36) —On Tuesday this week there took place in the capitals of the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia very large demonstrations. These demonstrations were to protest against the treaty entered into in 1939 between nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. People who came out into the streets of those three capitals earlier this week were protesting against that initial act which had led to the subsequent enslavement of their own countries. It is appropriate that this House should acknowledge in some way that those demonstrations took place and appropriate also to acknowledge that many of us in Australia recognise the continued struggle of the people who live in the Baltic states and who live, quite against their own free will, subject to rule of the Soviet Union. In particular, this demonstration was significant because the Soviet Union has always maintained that it has hegemony over the three Baltic states since the people of those three states wanted the Soviet Union to be there; in other words, that the Soviet Union entered those three countries in response to a request from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. There are two things to be said about that proposition. The first is that it is utterly and completely false. The second is that we now know that there was a secret protocol to that 1939 treaty which in effect made a gift, so far as the two principals to that treaty were concerned, of the three Baltic states to the Soviet Union. Indeed, the secret protocol that we now know existed gave Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the Soviet sphere of interest, as it was called. The people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were never consulted, of course. They have never been asked whether they want to live under the rule of the Soviet Union and, of course, if they were asked they would say no. It is therefore significant that this week there has been this series of three demonstrations in what is now a long series of demonstrations protesting against the continued Soviet occupation of these three States. What the people of the three Baltic states want in terms of what was expressed in those demonstrations is, I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, very moderate and reasonable. They are asking for some form of home rule. They do not want every act to be determined in Moscow. They do not want to be ruled from Moscow, they want to be ruled as the continuing free, independent countries that they were until they were invaded on the eve of the Second World War. The second thing they want is some greater freedom to develop their economies. I mention that on this occasion because I believe it is appropriate, first, that the Australian Parliament recognise an incident of this type whenever it occurs and, secondly, because it is important that the people in those countries-Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia-know that there are people in the free world who recognise their continuing struggle and support them. I am sure that I speak for many members of this House when I say-I hope this message is conveyed to them by some means or other-that we recognise their continued struggle and we support it. We believe that they should be given freedom from this continued tyranny of the Soviet Union. We hope that one day, in our lifetime, we will see those three countries once again become the free, independent countries that they once were. House adjourned at 11.41 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Milton to move- That this House- (1) recognises the vital and creative role which public enterprise has provided in the development of Australia's economy and, in particular, the significant contributions made by the Commonwealth Bank, Telelcom, Qantas and Australian Airlines; and (2) places on record its view that public ownership is an important and essential ingredient of economic policy. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 August 1988: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education-Report for 1987. National Health Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection- 85 (2), dated- 18 July 1988. 29 July 1988. 85 (2aa), dated 18 July 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 95, 122, 150, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179. Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 53. Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 82. Direction pursuant to section 7 (1), dated 18 July 1988. Mr Smith to ask Madam Speaker: (1) What was the cost of producing the Parliament Pack 2 education kit on federal Parliament for senior students. (2) How many kits were produced. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 928) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: Who is included on the departmental mailing list and how many of the inclusions are: (a) organisations; (b) communities; and (c) individuals. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The departmental mailing list comprises 5,800 names with identifiable sub-components of: (a) 1,876 Aboriginal organisations; (b) 3633 (as per details below); and (c) 291 individuals. A-Aboriginal Hostels. C-Councils, Corps. D-DAA. E-Education. G-Government bodies. H-Housing. I-Individuals. J-Industry. L-Legal. M-Medical. N-Non-government bodies. P-Parliament. Q-Pressure groups. R-Religion. S-Sporting. U-Unions. V-Media (print). W-Media (radio). X-Media (TV). Y-Media (general). Z-Other. (Question No. 939) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) What is the current level of Government assistance provided to the clothing, textile and motor industries. (2) What is the estimated level of assistance to be provided in (a) 1993 and (b) 1998. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The latest estimates of current assistance available for the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) and passenger motor vehicle (PMV) industries are the preliminary figures for 1986-87 which were published by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) in its 1986-87 Annual Report. For textiles the nominal rate of assistance was 25% and the effective rate 68%. Clothing had a 64% nominal rate and 167% effective rate of assistance and motor vehicles and parts 27% nominal and 87% effective. (2) In estimating future levels of assistance for these industries, account must be taken of the recent changes announced for TCF assistance in the May Economic Statement and those changes made to the PMV Plan in April 1988. It is not possible to predict accurately what the levels of assistance will be for the TCF industries in 1993. This is largely because the assistance provided by tariff quotas will vary over time due to, among other factors, movements in the exchange rate between the Australian dollar and the currencies of major TCF exporting countries. In these circumstances, all that can be provided is a conditional projection for 1993. Such a conditional projection has been made by the Treasury and was included in the May Economic Statement. Assistance was projected to be 19% nominal and 63% effective for textiles and 54% and 147% respectively for the combined clothing and footwear industries. In relation to assistance afforded the TCF sector in 1998, if no further changes occur following the Post 1988 Plan, then the estimated average nominal and effective rates of assistance would be 19% and 63% for textiles, 44% and 118% for clothing and 41% and 123% for footwear. The assistance afforded PMV in 1993 and 1998 will depend upon the assistance arrangements implemented following completion of the current PMV Plan at the end of 1992. At the end of the current Plan the average nominal and effective rates of assistance for this group is estimated to be 18% and 54% respectively. (Question No. 948) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 April 1988: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the apparent theft in 1968 of a quantity of yellowcake in transit (the so called Plumbat affair); if so, what amount was involved and has it ever been recovered. (2) Is Australian yellowcake in transit not subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards provisions. (3) Does Australia merely notify the IAEA of the quantities and destination of yellowcake in transit. (4) What safeguards or security arrangements are in place to look after Australian uranium (a) from the mine site to the yellowcake processing facility, (b) to the port of embarkation, (c) in transit by sea and (d) on land overseas. (5) Can the Minister give assurances that no Australian uranium or yellowcake in transit has been lost or stolen; if so, on what does he base such assurances. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The incident referred to is the alleged disappearance without trace in 1968 of a European shipment of 200 tonnes of yellowcake. As my colleague Senator Walsh said in a statement to the Senate in 1984 (Hansard p 1616 of 4 May 1984) this issue is of limited relevance to the question of the adequacy of safeguards now, as that incident predated the present international safeguards regime, including bilateral requirements for physical protection. (2) and (3). All Australian yellowcake in transit is covered by both the IAEA safeguards system and Australia's bilateral safeguards arrangements including physical protection measures. The Australian Safeguards Office notifies both the IAEA and the bilateral partner country to which the yellowcake is being shipped of quantity, shipper, batch number, owner, receiver, date of shipment and arrival details for each separately identifiable yellowcake export. This information is provided pursuant to Article 35 (a) of Australia's agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/217) and the relevant articles of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements. The IAEA acknowledges receipt of this advice which it then compares with the receipt data provided by the recipient state. Recipient states also notify the Australian Safeguards Office of the receipt of shipments. The physical protection measures which are applied to yellowcake in transit are such that any diversion or loss would promptly be detected. (4) As physical protection arrangements are primarily directed against theft or terrorist acts, the specific arrangements which apply to Australian uranium are of course confidential. However these measures, which are applied domestically in close co-operation with the relevant State and Territory police forces, are consistent with, and in practice go well beyond, the recommendations set down in the IAEA document INFCIRC/225/Rev 1 and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, to which Australia is a party. (5). The Australian Safeguards Office confirms that as at 31 December 1987 no Australian uranium or yellowcake in transit has been lost or stolen. This assurance is based on information supplied to the Australian Safeguards Office by Australia's bilateral treaty partners and the IAEA. (Question No. 973) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) What is meant by uranium enrichment and what are the degrees of enrichment. (2) Is there any agreement as to the degree to which Australian uranium can be enriched; if so, when and with what Governments or agencies were such agreements entered into. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the Australian Science and Technology Council report into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle which was completed in 1984 enrichment and enriched uranium were defined as follows: Enrichment: The process in the nuclear fuel cycle by which enriched uranium is produced. Enriched Uranium: Uranium in which the content of the fissile isotope uranium 235 is higher than the 0.7 per cent normally found in nature. Low enriched uranium, containing 2 to 4 per cent of uranium 235, is used as fuel in many types of reactor. High enriched uranium, which may contain more than 90 percent uranium 235, is used as fuel in some types of reactor and also to make nuclear weapons. (2) All Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements prescribe that Australian obligated nuclear material may only be enriched up to 20% in the isotope U-235. Enrichment beyond 20% may only take place with the prior consent of the Australian Government. The list of Australian bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements and the dates which these agreements entered into force are contained in the attachment to my statement to the House on 20 April 1988. (Question No. 974) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) What is the definition of uranium equivalence as it applies to Australian uranium supplied to France and other countries. (2) Could uranium in ore that is still in the ground be regarded as equivalent to uranium in yellowcake or processed uranium. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The equivalence principle is based on the understanding that all atoms or molecules of any substance are indistinguishable from one another and are therefore interchangeable. It is used in accounting for quantities of nuclear material when, for operational reasons associated with any nuclear process, the quantities lose their separate identity. Equivalent quantities of uranium must possess the same amount of the uranium isotope U-235. While the equivalence principle is integral to the operation of Australia's safeguards agreements, it cannot be used to replace one quantity of nuclear material by another of lower quality, eg enriched uranium could not be replaced by an equivalent quantity of natural or depleted uranium. Any such replacement would require the prior special approval of the Australian Safeguards Office. No such approval has ever been either sought or given. The conditions which apply to the operation of the equivalence principle in Australia's safeguards agreements were set out in my Parliamentary statement of 20 April 1988. (2) No. (Question No. 975) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) Is he able say whether South Africa has a uranium enrichment plant; if so, what is its capacity and when was it established. (2) Is he able to say whether France has supplied enriched uranium to South Africa. (3) Is he able to give an unequivocal guarantee that Australian uranium has not been enriched and subsequently supplied to South Africa. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) South Africa is reported to have both a pilot plant and a commercial enrichment plant. The pilot plant was completed in 1977 and is reported to have the capacity to produce 50 kilograms of 45 percent U-235 enriched uranium per year. The capacity of the commercial plant, now at an advanced stage of construction, is understood to be 50 tonnes of low enriched uranium per year. (2) Pursuant to the safeguards agreement between France, South Africa and the IAEA (IAEA document INFCIRC 244 refers), France has supplied enriched uranium in the form of light water reactor fuel assemblies to South Africa for use in the Koeberg nuclear power station. (3) The retransfer of Australian obligated nuclear material requires the prior consent of the Australian Government. No Australian obligated nuclear material has ever been supplied to South Africa, a country with which Australia has no safeguards agreement in force. Furthermore, the Australian Government has received no requests-nor would any be expected-for approval to retransfer Australian obligated nuclear material to South Africa. Such a transfer would not only be inconsistent with Australian Government policy but also with United Nations resolutions and Commonwealth sanctions concerning nuclear cooperation with South Africa. (Question No. 1010) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the judgment of Mr Justice Ryan in Chenoa Pty Ltd v. The Shell Company of Australia Limited delivered in the Federal Court on 10 March 1988. (2) As a result of this judgment, will a significant number of retail sites in the petroleum industry revert from franchisee operation to oil company operation and will the operators of those sites be deprived of their rights as franchisees. (3) Will the Government provide compensation for those franchisees who lose their businesses as a result of the effect of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act as interpreted in Chenoa Pty Ltd v. The Shell Company of Australia Limited; if not, why not. (4) Is it a fact that there is now no enforceable obligation on oil companies arising from their inheritance of businesses previously owned by franchisees. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) No. The decision of Chenoa Pty Ltd v. The Shell Company of Australia Limited was subject to an appeal. That appeal, heard before a full bench of the Federal Court of Australia was upheld, with the result that the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 were found to apply to the agreement between Chenoa Pty Ltd and The Shell Company of Australia Limited. Consequently, retail sites in the petroleum industry operated under franchise arrangements will not revert to oil company operation nor will franchisees be deprived of their rights as franchisees. It is my understanding however, that The Shell Company of Australia Limited intends to lodge a further appeal in this matter to the High Court of Australia. (Question No. 1038) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by the New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority that substandard fruit unsuitable for other export markets would be exported to Australia and sold as choicest grade fruit. (2) What quantity of kiwifruit of choicest grade has been imported from New Zealand. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The statement to which the honourable member refers in the first part of his question appeared in the New Zealand Herald in March 1988. Despite the fact that it was attributed to the Authority in that paper, I understand that the statement was not made by the New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority and that the Authority sought and received a retraction from the Editor of the Herald. The New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority has provided the following explanation. Early this year the Authority decided to send to Australia some trial shipments of kiwifruit of good quality in itself, but which had some blemishes on the skin such as water stain. The purpose of the trial was to test Australian consumer reaction to the blemished fruit. This fruit is being labelled as ``Choice Kiwifruit'' and not ``Choice Grade'' or ``Choicest Grade''. The unblemished fruit for export from New Zealand is labelled ``NZ Kiwifruit''. The volume of ``Choice Kiwifruit'' being shipped to Australia this season as part of the trial exercise is 600 tonnes. Some shipments have already been made and the remainder should be shipped in August. ``NZ Kiwifruit'' is sold in Australia in the September-December period when there is apparently a gap in the availability of Australian kiwifruit. The Authority advises that the cartons are clearly labelled ``Choice Kiwifruit'' and that this fruit sells in Australia at approximately the same price as Australian kiwifruit, much less than ``NZ Kiwifruit''. It advises that the importers in Australia are fully aware of the condition of the fruit and notes that the consumer can clearly see any blemishes on the skin when it is displayed in the shops. In answer to the second part of the honourable member's question, it appears that no imports labelled ``Choicest Grade'' kiwifruit will be imported from New Zealand this year. However, the New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority reports that total exports of ``NZ Kiwifruit'' to Australia last year were 3,850 tonnes and that this year the figure is expected to be 1,750 tonnes. As 600 tonnes of ``Choice Kiwifruit'' will also be shipped to Australia on a trial basis this year, a total of 2,350 tonnes in 1988 is expected. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not publish details of kiwifruit imports. (Question No. 1043) Mr Macphee asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: (1) Did the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) know of News Corporation's apparent breach of foreign ownership provisions as at 23 November 1987 when the Minister's Department prepared a report on prescribed interests; of not, why not. (2) What action did the ABT take concerning this matter and when did it take the action. (3) Did the ABT contact News Corporation to inform it of its apparent breach of the foreign ownership provisions in November or December 1987; if not, why not. (4) Did the ABT reassure the Minister before May 1988 that it was taking steps to rectify the problem or inform the Minister of any action; if so, when did it do so. (5) If the ABT did not reassure the Minister, why not. (6) How many television ownership transactions which have occurred since January 1987 are still awaiting approval by the ABT. (7) How many media companies hold shareholdings in a broadcast licence above the 5 per cent prescribed interest limit and what are the names of those companies. (8) What was the chronological order for licence approval hearings before the ABT as at 18 May 1988. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: (1) According to the information available to the ABT on 23 November 1987, there was no apparent breach of the foreign ownership provisions on the part of the News Corporation Limited (TNCL). In May 1987, the ABT received applications from TNCL for the purchase of shares in Northern Star Holdings (NSH) Ltd indicating that once the proposed acquisitions had occurred its traced shareholding interests in NSH would exceed 15 per cent. However, the aggregate of `controlling' interests (ie greater than 15 per cent at each link in the corporate investment chain) held by TNCL subsidiaries in NHS would not exceed 15 per cent. Therefore TNCL would not have satisfied the criteria in s.89k of the Broadcasting Act 1942 (former s.91aac) for deemed control of a company. Since TNCL would not be deemed to control NSH the ABT would only be able to establish if control existed indirectly within the inquiry process. At 25 June 1987 NSH advised the ABT that a subsidiary of TNCL held only 10.7 per cent of NSH instead of its intended holding of 14.37 per cent. This would result in the total shareholding interests of TNCL amounting to less than 15 per cent of NSH. (2) In June 1987 the ABT commenced an inquiry into the acquisition by NSH of the electronic media assets of TNCL. The inquiry is also related to the acquisition of a major interest in NSH by subsidiaries of Westfield Capital Corporation and lesser interests by Daily Mail and General Trust, Associated Newspaper Holdings Pty Ltd and by News Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd. This inquiry was advertised in the press on 29 July 1987, inviting public submissions. The closing date for submissions was 4 September 1987. On 7 August 1987, NSH announced the acquisition of further significant radio and television interests. As the ABT could not form any views on possible contraventions in advance of receiving all the applications, the inquiry was deferred on 12 August 1987. Ultimately over 200 applications were lodged with the ABT with 121 of those being lodged between 12 August 1987 and 22 April 1988. On 1 June 1988 advertisements appeared in the press, again inviting the public to lodge submissions. (3) The ABT did not contact TNCL in November or December 1987, since according to the information available at the time there was no apparent breach of the foreign ownership provisions. [see answer no (1)]. (4) A Ministerial Briefing Paper on this matter was prepared on 8 April 1988. This paper advised the Minister that the public would shortly be again invited to lodge submissions. (5) See (4). (6) A total of 94 television ownership transactions, which have occurred since January 1987, are still awaiting ABT approval. (7) As at 9 June 1988, a total of 238 entities held a prescribed interest in a commercial television licence. A copy of this list has been forwarded to the honourable member for his information. (8) As at 18 May 1988, ABT public hearings into radio and television ownership changes, were scheduled for: 20 June 1988, 3UZ. 20 July 1988, Broadcast Operations Ltd. 8-19 August 1988, Northern Star Holdings Ltd. 18-19 August 1988, Hoyts Media Ltd. 5-9 September 1988, Golden West Network Ltd. (Question No. 1057) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Further to part (5) of my question No. 4962 (Hansard, 27 November 1986, page 101), is he able to say whether results have now been obtained from experiments in Britain and Japan involving the incorporation of High Level Waste (HLW) from spent radioactive fuel elements into small samples of Synroc; if so, what are the details of the results. (2) Is he able to say whether any other countries are conducting or planning to conduct experiments on the incorporation of HLW into Synroc; if so, which countries and what are the details of those experiments. (3) Is he able to say whether the Synroc involved in these experiments contains aluminium; if so, in what form is the aluminium present. (4) Have tests been carried out to improve the leach rate of Synroc containing aluminium under acidic conditions; if so, what are the results of those tests and how does the performance of Synroc in those circumstances compare with borosilicate glass. (5) To what temperature must HLW be cooled before it can be incorporated into Synroc and what length of time is involved in this cooling process. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Preliminary results only have been obtained from experiments in the United Kingdom on Synroc containing high level radioactive waste. I am advised that the results support the view that Synroc has advantages over borosilicate glass. The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) has commenced tests on small samples of Synroc incorporating highly active curium and plans to add HLW to Synroc samples later this year. Results are not yet available from this program. (2) A co-operative agreement has been concluded between the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the National Committee for Research and Development of Nuclear and Alternative Energy (ENEA), Italy on research involving Synroc. These experiments will evaluate the sol-gel technology developed in Italy as a route for precursor powders for Synroc production. (3) Aluminium is deliberately introduced into Synroc to form the hollandite phase, where it is a necessary component of the crystal lattice. (4) The leach rate of Synroc is relatively insensitive to the acidity of water over ranges larger than expected to arise in groundwater. Advice from ANSTO is to the effect that the leach resistance of Synroc (incorporating aluminium) is superior to that of borosilicate glass, including in acid waters. (5) Liquid high level waste can be incorporated into Synroc at any time; there is no technical need for intermediate cooling. (Question No. 1058) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Was the contract price of the recent sales of uranium to France from the ERA Ranger mine below the present floor price; if so, why. (2) What is the duration of the contract. (3) What quantity of uranium is involved in the contract. (4) With which countries has Australia entered into contracts to sell uranium since 1978 and when were the contracts entered into in each case. (5) What quantities of uranium were involved in each contract referred to in part (4). Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The contract price of the Energy Resources of Australia Ltd/Electricite de France contract is commercial-in-confidence information. In approving the contract I was satisfied that the contract's pricing provisions met the floor price policy requirements. (2) and (3) This information is commercial-in-confidence. (4) and (5) Since 1978 Australian companies have entered into contracts to sell uranium to the following countries: Federal Republic of Germany Japan United States Republic of Korea Sweden France United Kingdom Belgium Finland Whilst all uranium export contracts require the approval of the Government and are commercial-in-confidence, Australian producers have publicly announced the following contracts: Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Belgium, Synatom S.A. FR Germany, Urangesellschaft, RWE, Saarberg-Interplan Uran GmbH. Republic of Korea, Korea Electric Power Corporation Japan Kansai Electric Power Co Inc. Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc. Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc. Sweden OKG U.S.A. Wisconsin Electric Power Co Virginia Electric Power Co American Electric Power Service Corporation Pennsylvania Power &Light Co Florida Power &Light Co South Carolina Electric &Gas Co Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Queensland Mines Ltd Pty Ltd France Electricite de France Export shipments under this contract have been completed. Finland TVO Japan Kyushu Electric Power Co Shikoku Electric Power Co Olympic Dam Marketing Pty Ltd Sweden Swedish State Power Board United Kingdom Central Electricity Generating Board Republic of Korea Korea Electric Power Corporation. Details of contract dates and contract quantities are, in general, commercial-in-confidence information. However, information on certain contract quantities was provided by Senator Walsh in response to an earlier question on notice (Senate Hansard, 28 February 1984, p97-98). Since that date, the following contract information has also been made publicly available by the respective companies: Country Contract Date of Contract Quantity Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Belgium... Synatom SA Not announced Additional 500 tonnes USA... American Electric Power Service Corporation 28 November 1984 2,500 st base quantity Pennsylvania Power &Light Company 28 November 1984 750st minimum Olympic Dam Marketing Pty Ltd UK... Central Electricity Generating Board Not announced 2,500 tonnes Sweden... Swedish State Power Board 1 September 1986 Not announced Republic of Korea... Korea Electric Power Corporation Not announced Approx 2,500 tonnes (Question No. 1071) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What week-end conferences, including management meetings and team building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for the year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved. (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department. (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportation, accommodation, speakers, food and drink costs. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (A) Corporate Services and Co-ordination Division Annual Planning Conference. (B) ABARE Senior Management Conference. (C) AQIS Senior Management Conference. 2. (A) From 15-17 October 1987 at the Lincoln Downs Motel, Batemans Bay. (B) From 25-27 February 1988 at the Golf View Motor Lodge, Bowral. (C) From 14-17 April 1988 at the Country Comfort Motel, Batemans Bay 3. (A) 3 days. (B) 3 days. (C) 4 days. 4. (A) Against the background of implementation of the Machinery of Government changes, the Conference brought together the senior management of the Division for the purpose of reviewing the operational mode of the Division and the major issues requiring attention to enable effective services to be provided to the Department. (B) The main areas covered in the Conference included the reappraisal of the Bureau's goals and objectives with special reference to the wider functions and responsibilities following the amalgamation of the former Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Bureau of Resource Economics, the question of communication (both internal and external) and in particular the research program. (C) The Conference examined AQIS performance over the past year, assessed the more immediate issues, and reviewed the medium to longer term perspective for the Service. 5. Attendees (from the Department unless otherwise indicated) were: (A) Deputy Secretary, Corporate Services and Co-ordination Division Executive Staff (8), Corporate Services and Co-ordination Division Section Heads/Assistant Directors (23), Conference Secretariat (1), Consultant (1)-non-departmental. (B) Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Executive Staff (13), Conference Secretariat (2). (C) Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Senior Executive Staff AQIS (10), Regional Directors (7), Quarantine Review Secretariat Staff (2), Corporate Services and Co-ordination Division Senior Executive Staff (2), Conference Secretariat (3). 6. (A) Total cost $9,433, (B) Total cost $4,404, (C) Total cost $11,947. 7. Itemised costs were as follows: (A)- $ - Transportation... 800 - Accommodation/Meals/Hire of Conference Facilities... 6,408 - Consultant... 1,400 - Incidentals... 825 (B)- - Transportation... 150 - Accommodation/Meals Hire of Conference Facilities... 3,806 - Incidentals... 448 (C)- - Transportation... 1,806 - Accommodation/Meals Hire of Conference Facilities... 9,406 - Incidentals... 735