Thursday, 1 September 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 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 of 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 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 Donald Cameron (from 882 citizens), Mr Dobie (from 55 citizens), Dr Hewson (from 338 citizens), Mr Jull (from 198 citizens), Mr Porter (from two citizens), Mr Prosser (from 35 citizens) and Mr Ruddock (from 392 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 Charles (from 21 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 480 citizens), Mr Griffiths (from 263 citizens) and Mr Pratt (from seven 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 20 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 119 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 415 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 Prosser (from 25 citizens) and Mr Rocher (from 84 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 Romanian Government plans the destruction in September of 7,000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With that barbaric action millions of people are to 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 87 citizens) and Mr Charles (from 93 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 programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes, by 50 per cent. by Mr Dobie (from 16 citizens) and Mr Tim Fischer (from 966 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Barker points out to the House that 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 urge TV stations to clean up their act and improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards (from 43 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 197 citizens) and Mr Jull (from 110 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, gonorrhea, 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 practise 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 Hicks (from 13 citizens) and Mr Pratt (from 596 citizens). To the Honourable the speaker and members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament. The petition of residents of the State of Western Australia points out to the House that: 1. We object to homosexuals sponsoring their lovers as spouses under the Immigration Department's family-reunion scheme. 2. We believe that the Immigration Department's family-reunion scheme should apply only to blood relatives and that sponsorship of a spouse under this programme should be limited to heterosexual relationships only. 3. The Immigration Department's policy on homo- sexual migration is recognising and permitting a relationship which is not legal in all States of Australia. Your petitioners therefore request the House take appropriate action to ensure that sponsorship of homosexual lovers under the family-reunion scheme is stopped immediately. by Mr Shack (from 25 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. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We pray that the House 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 Kent (from 700 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Canberra: The petition of certain electors draws 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 109 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 sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian Community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles (from 23 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 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 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 Shack (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament 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 jeopardise 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 Dr Charlesworth (from 102 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 Charlesworth (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly (from 348 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 and calls upon the Parliament 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 Connolly (from 90 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; 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 Cowan (from 39 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: 1. Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and 2. Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect to X-rated videos, [and E.R.] and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because:- a. 98% of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. b. the trade is still flourishing, and its availability encourages sexual crimes. c. importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. d. child pornography peddlers are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. e. because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. f. the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The subject of Immigration is of deep concern, and supports the following significant community views placed before the Fitzgerald Committee on Immigration: (1) That Asians accounting for 40% of the total migrant intake is viewed with considerable concern by the Australian people; (2) The Anglo-Australian sense of superiority of their culture previously manifest in the policy of assimilation remains a significant factor in the community and should be taken into account as the wishes of the people on this important matter; (3) It is a matter of concern that 43% of one million of those residentially qualified migrants to take out citizenship have not done so; (4) It is a major recommendation that the Federal Government consult the Australian people by Referendum on the subject of Asian immigration, and then affirm its commitment to the immigration policies which conform to the general wishes of the majority of the people, and should be recognised by Government as such. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Protect our National Identity, and preserve the Australian way of life. by Mr Cowan (from 162 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 the proposed closure and relocation of Runcorn Post Office from 809 Beenleigh Road, Runcorn. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request Australia Post be required to retain the existing Post Office at Runcorn where it is ideally situated on the main Beenleigh Road to serve local communities and provide excellent access and parking for motorists. Customers come from Woodridge, Kingston, Loganlea, Marsden and even Beenleigh. Our local people have the convenience of being across the road from the Railway Station. May we also point out that post boxes provide a service to the local area which should not be abolished causing expensive reprinting of letterheads and stationery. We earnestly request you help to retain an historic and important community service. by Ms Crawford (from 318 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 by allowing professing homosexuals, whether single or ``married'', to immigrate to Australia, you are: 1. Going against God's laws by supporting such practices, 2. Contributing to the breakdown of society by undermining the basic unit of society-the family-in condoning the existence of these unnatural non-productive relationships, and 3. Increasing the likelihood of the spread of Aids within Australia. Your petitioners therefore request the House not to allow homosexuals to immigrate to Australia as a matter of urgency. by Mrs Darling (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens respectfully call for: The retention of the repatriation general hospital as a separate entity to the State hospital system and The retention of the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a separate and continuing department. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject any moves to amalgamate repatriation general hospital with the State hospital systems or to amalgamate the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the other Government departments and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer (from 137 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 rate videos from all outlets patronised by the general public. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 252 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's recent changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, resulting in more than 50 drugs-including many used for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-being placed on a restricted listing requiring doctors to seek permission from a Canberra bureaucrat before the drugs can be prescribed at the usual P.B.S. price. Furthermore, we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge of the medication required to treat a patient's particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force the doctor to waste valuable time referring the case to a public servant who has no personal knowledge of the case. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Government to immediately reverse this decision and keep its election promise of high quality, affordable and universal health care for all Australians. by Mr Halverson (from 238 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 Kerr (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the French Government may have plans to set up a new base for atomic testing at the Kerguelen Islands, south west of Australia. As all weather is influenced by the Roaring Forties, nuclear testing at this site would result in nuclear fallout over Australia, and especially Tasmania. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: Call upon the French Government to abandon any plans of using the Kerguelen Islands as their proposed nuclear testing base. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Parliament ban the importation of any radioactive substances or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country, and ban the irradiation of food in this country, and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the Parliament to advise the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 332 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. We call on the House to ban the importation of any radioactive substances, or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation; disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country; ban the irradiation of food in this country; and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the House to request the Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. by Mr Tickner (from 370 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker the 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 cosignatory country. by Mr McArthur (from 12 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 306 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 respectively 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 that 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 Mildren (from 133 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 610 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 dangers to our nation's security implicit in any granting of fishing rights to the Soviet Union. Your petitioners therefore request the House to use its influence to prevent the granting of any fishing rights to the Soviets within Australia's waters. by Mr Moore (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain members of the Anglican Church of Australia, Parish of Lambton N.S.W. and in particular, members of the Mothers' Union, draws to the attention of the House their concern at the recommendation of the Federal Joint Select Committee on Video-tape Material, that videos classified as non-violent erotica be made available to the public. Films and videos of this nature degrade womanhood, and can only deprave those who watch them. To preserve some sense of dignity and decency in human relationships, they should be banned. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will co-operate in opposing the legislation which is proposed to make non-violent erotica films and videos available to the public. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris (from 170 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 Forrest 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, urge the Government to: 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 Prosser (from 1,400 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of 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 on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr Scott (from 343 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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 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 Shack (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concern at the possibility of the clearance throughout Australia of all X-rated videos now entitled ``Erotica''. We applaud the absence of violence in such videos but we are conscious of the need to protect our children from any influences which endanger them morally or physically, in particular those influences where explicit sex scenes are presented. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House ensure that legislation is not enacted to permit Australia-wide distribution legally of such ``Erotica'' videos. by Mr Sharp (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Gilmore draws the attention of the House to the need to protect our children from the influence of and actual physical dangers resulting from any videos or related material in which explicit sex scenes are shown. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House reject the clearance throughout Australia of all X-rated videos now entitled Erotica, whether containing violence or not. by Mr Sharp (from 357 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned, representing volunteers, user organisations, families and supporters of the Community Volunteers Program have recognised: (1) The contribution made to the community by those involved in the Community Volunteer Programme. (2) The personal benefits of self-esteem and feelings of self worth and value to the community experienced by volunteers. As the Community Volunteer Programme will no longer be funded separately as from the 30th. December 1988, we humbly petition the Parliament of Australia to help us to continue helping ourselves by considering the proposal of the Community Volunteer Programme/Volunteer Centre, that the C.V.P.'s should be funded as Volunteer Referral Agencies, giving the widest possible opportunity to people to seek voluntary work as a way to join the mainstream of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons (from 54 citizens). Petitions received. Dr WOODS(Lowe) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Middle East from 6 to 21 June 1988. First, I acknowledge the leadership of Senator Colston, the deputy leadership of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the contribution of other members of the delegation who worked extremely hard during the two-week period. I also acknowledge the contribution of Graham Bauer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Peter Roberts, the secretary to the delegation, who worked immensely hard and very successfully. In a two-week period the delegation visited first Damascus in Syria, then Amman, the capital of Jordan, then Cairo in Egypt and Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as Jerusalem. We attended some 40 different briefing sessions and visited a number of refugee camps, including camps in Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As a result of what was a fairly hectic schedule it is fair to say that the minds and the perceptions of the situation the majority of the delegation were definitely changed. It certainly applies to me. There are clearly no simple answers to this problem. It has gone on for thousands of years and it has clearly worsened since partition in 1947-48. Israel itself has suffered four wars in 1948 to 1956, 1967 and 1973 and numerous lesser conflicts and terrorists acts of one sort or another. All this has occurred in an area probably less than half the size of Tasmania, with a population of some five million, in Israel if the occupied territories are included. I think that that perspective of the actual size involved was not clear to many members of the delegation. Obviously, the significance of that from a military point of view was not lost on the delegation. I think it is fair to say that the conflicts over the last 40 years reflect a political stalemate. On the one hand, Israel demands the right to exist, and the right to exist behind defensible boundaries. On the other hand, the Arab states initially denied that right and subsequently have insisted upon a withdrawal of Israel to behind the 1967 boundaries. Those requirements are unacceptable to Israel at present. In particular, I think it is fair to say that those boundaries are unacceptable in terms of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem. As well as this, Israel now refuses to accept negotiations with the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, recognising it as a terrorist group rather than as a representative of the Palestinians. The Australian position, which has wide bipartisan support, is that we support the United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, which call for a negotiated peace in the area. We accept Israel's right to secure defensible borders, although we have not defined where those borders should be. Equally, we accept the Palestinian right initially to self-determination and subsequently, hopefully, to an independent state. During the visit most of my colleagues and I became convinced of a number of factors. For example, we were convinced of the sincere desire for peace by all parties, including the governments of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Israel, and the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and its splinter groups, if I may use that term. However, there is disagreement about the mechanism by which peace should be achieved. For example, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Shamir, with whom we spoke, clearly rejected the option of an international conference. The Israeli position at present is that Israel would prefer Camp David type negotiations, that is, country to country. In particular, the Israelis would prefer to negotiate with Jordan rather than with the PLO in regard to the West Bank. This may have been changed by the recent initiative of King Hussein in abdicating responsibility for the infrastructure of the West Bank, which certainly at the time of our visit was very largely run by Jordan on both a political basis and a financial basis. Mr Shamir absolutely and categorically rejects the PLO as being representative of the Palestinians and describes it as a terrorist organisation. I think there is little doubt that, in the past at least, the PLO has been, and possibly still is, terrorist. But the definitions are very difficult in this situation. If we look back to 1946 and 1947-that is, the middle to late 1940s-Prime Minister Shamir was a member of the Stern Gang and other organisations which were described by the British as being terrorist. He described himself as a freedom fighter during that time. It is very difficult to see the difference. It is very disappointing that the paradox has been either lost or ignored by a number of the Israeli leadership, who seem to have difficulty in comparing the Palestinian situation now with the Israeli situation prior to partition in 1948. I guess the only thing that really has changed in terms of whether one describes the freedom fighters in Israel as freedom fighters or terrorists or whether one describes the PLO as a terrorist organisation or a freedom fighting organisation is the perspective of the person doing the labelling. They are both fighting for independent states and they are both using means which many of us would find completely unacceptable. I will return to this matter later, if I have time. One thing was very clear; that is, the Shultz initiative is very much dead. I think from every perspective there is no chance of it succeeding as such. I think it is probably a fair comment to say that at the time we were there, there was never really seriously believed to be an option from the American representatives. I think the second visit by Mr Shultz was seen very much as a representative initiative rather than as something which would lead to concrete results. It seems clear that for a peace initiative to work concessions from both sides are necessary. Firstly, Israel has to recognise the right of Palestinians, to self-determination and, secondly, it has to recognise that that may lead to an independent state and that may be a state, the security of which is, as happens in the Sinai, run by the United Nations as an independent demilitarised area. I believe also that it has to recognise the PLO as the body representing the Palestinians. I think there really can be little doubt from the very widespread discussions we had in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and other areas that the Palestine Liberation Organisation does represent the main body of thought in the Palestinian people. The Palestine Liberation Organisation has now offered to allow elections to take place to confirm what they believe is the situation, which is that they are the representatives of the Palestinian people. I do not really think that this reality can be ignored by those people who are aware of what is really happening. On their part I think the Arabs quite clearly have to formally state what each of the Arab states said privately to us-that they recognise the right of Israel to exist. There would obviously be discussion on where the boundaries would be negotiated but, quite clearly, Israel does have a right to exist, the reality is there. All the countries and organisations we spoke to recognise that situation, but they fall short of recognising it publicly. It seems that the most sensible option would be simultaneous recognition by Israel and by the Palestine Liberation Organisation of each other's right to exist. Hopefully that will be the way in which negotiations could be initiated. In terms of the exact format of the peace conference, I think the most important thing is that the detailed negotiations about how it is structured should not be a stumbling block. To the delegation as a whole it seemed that the United Nations convened international conference type of format would seem acceptable, but I do not think that this should be a major point in terms of stopping negotiations from occurring. My colleagues and I were enormously distressed by some of the human rights abuses which we saw. These will clearly continue whilst the legitimate rights of Palestinians are denied. There was evidence of beatings, of breaking legs and arms, of throwing civilians off buildings, of tear-gassing and of killings. The delegation itself was tear-gassed. We happened to be in close proximity to a bunch of 12-year-old kids who became an unprovoked target for Israeli tear-gas canisters. The Israeli Defence Force policy was stated to be to use bullets only when the life of soldiers was at risk. We found this rather difficult to resolve in terms of the statistics which showed that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed since December and during that time only one Israeli soldier had been killed. It seems clear that as a result of this the Palestinians are winning the propaganda war and will continue to do so until their legitimate rights are accepted. The situation was described by one of the representatives that we saw as an enormous paradox. On the one hand there is the psychology of vulnerability which the Israeli Jews certainly have; on the other hand there is the reality of Israeli power. One could understand the psychology of the vulnerability part of it when we visited the holocaust museum-an immensely moving experience. Understanding that background to the Israeli state, one can understand exactly how they feel about the situation and their distrust of negotiations with relatively hostile neighbours. (Extension of time granted) In conclusion, I believe the delegation was somewhat pessimistic about the future. I think the first step is for dialogue to occur between the two parties. We were grossly saddened by the chasm of distrust and hatred which lies between the two parties in the area. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.20) —I join my colleague in thanking all concerned for the help that the delegation was given, and I refer especially to our foreign affairs adviser, Graham Bauer, the secretary of the delegation, and our hosts overseas, who gave us every assistance and who managed the program very well. I also thank my hardworking colleagues for their friendship during the journey. I am especially thankful to my party colleagues who elected me to the delegation, as I have gained a fair understanding of the very complex situation in the Middle East. May I also say that I lived in Israel for a few years before migrating to Australia, and I have kept in contact with and have visited the country on more than one occasion since that time. One does not know where to begin when talking of the Middle East, as the history of the land and its people is ancient, dating back thousands of years. In the short time that is available to me today, I do not propose to go back that far, nor will I deal with the philosophy of Theodore Herzl, the father of zionism, except to say that I consider zionism to be a legitimate nationalist movement, although at the same time I disagree with many of the actions taken by the zionist State of Israel-especially the persecution of the Palestinians. Nowhere in zionist theory is there mention of the zionist practice to denude Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants, the Palestinian Arabs. The State of Israel came into being as a result of a number of factors, one of which was zionism. Other elements were involved. I do not deny those influences, but I consider that the main factor, the main force, which brought the State of Israel into being was the joint interest of the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Both superpowers sought to establish their influence in the Middle East by weakening the British hegemony in the region. The subsequent vote for the partition of Palestine in 1947 was an almost historically unique position of agreement between the superpowers. While that realised the dream of many Jews, this almost unique cooperation between the USA and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations created a nightmare for the Palestinian Arabs-a continuous nightmare that has now lasted for more than 40 years. Time does not permit me to enter into details now. However, it is clear that a consequence of the resolution of zionist leaders to establish a single nation Jewish state in Palestine was the dispersion and expulsion of Palestinian Arabs-the indigenous inhabitants of the area-in the wake of the Jews gathering from diaspora. The resolution of one problem has led to the creation of another. Had zionism rejected the obstinate and chauvinist wish for a mono-ethnic Jewish state by establishing a binational state in which Jew and Arab could live in peace and equality, history in the Middle East would have provided the world with a splendid example of peace and coexistence. An interesting irony of history is that, while successive zionist leaders have done everything possible to rid the land of the Arab population, their expansionist policies have nonetheless brought them into a situation today in which they have a very sizeable Arab population inside the extended boundaries of Israel and also a large number of Palestinians, dispossessed of their land, living in surrounding countries. While visiting those countries we had the opportunity to talk to Arab leaders of those countries and to leading figures of the Palestinian Arabs in those countries. Following our talks, I cannot come to any conclusion-and I think my colleagues agree with me-other than that, after 40 years of exile and suffering, the Palestinians are ready to participate in the peace process. Their desire for peace is strong and they are ready for mutual and simultaneous recognition of Israel and its existence behind secure borders, in return for Israel's recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination. It is Israel that is opposed to the peace process and mutual recognition. Israel is hanging on to the occupied territories in the hope that it will be able to annexe the land minus its population. To achieve that objective, the Israeli army has instituted a regime of terror and oppression which the delegation witnessed in many instances. Let me describe here just one incident from my diary of the delegation's visit: a group of school children, provoked by the Israeli troops, began throwing stones in their direction. The children were only 10 to 12 years old, yet they were chased by the troops. This episode gave me my first smell of tear gas-most unpleasant. This action occurred in the El Belah refugee camp. Women were running into their houses, whisking their small children in. Others stood by cursing the Israelis. It is a picture of absolute and total rejection of the Israeli occupation. One thinks of David and Goliath. The Arab children use slingshots and throw stones and the modern Goliath is well protected by helmets, visors and bullet proof vests, and retaliates with firearms, tear gas and clubs. Since 9 December there have been three Israeli casualties and approximately 250 Palestinians. The military use excessive violence. Let me read what I wrote about our visit to the Al Alli Hospital in the Gaza Strip: At the hospital I met a patient who had had his arm and pelvis broken by Israeli soldiers. He and his friends had been surprised by an Israeli patrol as they left a mosque. Frightened, they ran and climbed up onto the roof of the mosque, followed by the patrol. The soldiers grabbed him and threw him from the roof to the ground, a fall of seven metres. This threat to the Israeli army was a thirteen year old kid. I also saw other casualties in the hospital. I spoke to the Director of the hospital, a Dane named Jorgen Rosendale. I mentioned to him that I admired the actions of the Danes during the Second World War who had risked their lives to rescue Jews during Hitler's occupation. When Hitler ordered the Jews in Denmark to wear the yellow Star of David on their clothes, many Danes, including members of the Royal Family, also wore yellow stars to confuse the Nazis. Dr Rosendale replied: `Yes, we were rescuing the Jews, sending them to Sweden, so they and their children could do to the Palestinians what was done to them'. Of course, we saw other casualties in other hospitals, but I will not dwell on that. After our visit to the area, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that Israel is using excessive brutality against the peaceful uprising-Intifada-in the Occupied Territories and the Gaza Strip. Intifada is now in its ninth month. It is a peaceful resistance movement of the whole Palestinian Arab population against the 21-year-old Israeli occupation. Whilst the scale of brutality and its depth cannot be compared with nazi brutalities in some parts of occupied Europe, Israel's disregard of human rights and the actions of its armed forces in the Occupied Territories are inexcusable and deserve worldwide condemnation. Whilst the delegation concludes that; `Following its visit to the Middle East, the delegation is pessimistic regarding the prospects for peace', I believe that now is the time to make every effort to achieve peace. As I mentioned at the beginning, Israel was created, amongst other factors, by the United Nations Resolution on Partition. Now, 40 years later, it is imperative that the international community and the United Nations exert every pressure on Israel to behave like a civilised nation. If necessary, the international community should drag Israel, however unwilling, to the conference table. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.29) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's first report on proposals for variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LANGMORE —This report is the first report on variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. The work on this report was done by the Joint Sub-committee on Variations. The Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure is also tabling the same report today. This first report covers variation 1987 No. 1, containing one proposal, variation 1988 No. 2, containing eight proposals, and variation 1988 No. 1, containing four proposals. The Joint Sub-committee, in keeping with the practice of the former Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, held public hearings on variations 1987/1 and 1988/2 on 15 June 1988 and variation 1988/1 on 15 July 1988. The Joint Sub-committee approved the variations to the plan of layout but expressed its concern that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Administration failed to refer variation 1987/1 to the Joint Sub-committee for proper parliamentary scrutiny before construction of the security fence at the United States Embassy had commenced. In relation to current committee arrangements, last October and November, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions referring the matter of variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs to their respective Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report. The resolutions also empowered the committees to sit as a Joint Sub-committee to consider the variations matter. Not only is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, and its counterpart in the Senate, charged with reviewing variations to the plan of Canberra but also the leasehold system in the ACT is the subject of inquiry by the committees. The situation which has arisen where these responsibilities are currently discharged by a joint sub-committee is unsatisfactory and cumbersome for a number of reasons. For instance, not all ACT members and senators are members of the standing committees and thus cannot participate fully in the activities of the Joint Sub-committee. Further, all ACT matters have to be referred specifically by each chamber to its Standing Committee and all sub-committee reports have to be referred back to each Standing Committee for subsequent approval. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the standing committees may be at an impasse on a contentious issue. Such reliance on a clumsy structure of committees and sub-committees, with its divisions of responsibility and authority to scrutinise ACT matters, confuses the public and denies easy access to the Parliament. This convoluted process of inquiry is clearly unsatisfactory. There is an urgent need for a joint committee on the ACT. This committee would enable the Federal Parliament to carry out its ongoing role to oversee the planning and development of the national capital on behalf of the nation. Further, it would provide for efficient and speedy inquiry into matters relating to the ACT and provide the public with an easy access to Parliament and the opportunity to provide an input at the Federal level into ACT matters which affect the national development of Canberra. I hope that Parliament will soon agree to this change to the committee structure. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.34) —I 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. In the motion I have just moved I am arguing three points against referendum question No. 4. The first states what I believe is perfectly obvious to all Australians; that is, that this nation enjoys unequalled rights and freedoms and that those rights and freedoms are not under threat. However, that will not be the case if this referendum is carried and the Constitution, which has protected those rights and freedoms, is weakened. I ask: Why are voters seeing tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars spent to raise a matter which does not reflect their concerns and which is irrelevant to the very political challenges facing this country under Labor? Primarily, I suspect, it is because of what one Labor member once described, as `the ALP politics of the warm inner glow'. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the lawyers who dominated the Constitutional Commission feel-I use that word deliberately-that the Constitution needs to express explicitly those rights and freedoms that it champions and protects implicitly. No doubt the Attorney-General will tell us that that is not the case. He argues that these three rights clauses have suddenly become crucial after 88 years-crucial to the future security of our rights. First, he will refer to the Grace Bible school case and suggest that that case, in a South Australian court, proves that Australians only think that they are free. What he will not tell us is that that case involved not whether the right to freedom of religion exists but whether a particular decision not to register a private school infringed that right. The court found that it did not. Unfortunately, however, the judge in the final appeals hearing offered some gratuitous comment which betrayed his views that rights exist only where the States grant them. As one eminent legal mind has written, those comments went further than legal authority or constitutional prudence required or permitted. So the Attorney-General's primary justification for this referendum is without foundation. I raise briefly a clearer example of the intellectual dishonesty of the Government concerning this referendum. In Parliament in May 1986 the Attorney-General, in explaining why he had not included a reference to property rights in his proposed Bill of Rights-we all remember the Bill of Rights-argued: The Constitution itself entrenches the view that any acquisition of property must be done on just terms and therefore would have to run the gauntlet of judicial supervision . . . That matter is covered by other protective devices such as those that we have here in the constitution. Not only has the Attorney-General provided us with the reasons why the referendum's clause on property compensation is unnecessary but also he has provided me with the point that goes to the heart of my argument: the fact is that each of the three rights covered in this referendum is already covered by protective devices; namely, the Constitution, common law and the Australian parliaments. I suspect that there is another reason why the threefold referendum proposal is before us. Those three clauses are the ones most amenable to propaganda use. Those are the clauses which the Government hopes will allow it to get its foot in the door for a full-blown constitutional Bill of Rights. The coalition has warned voters not just that these superficially attractive clauses are unnecessary but that the practice of inserting rights clauses in a written Constitution is inherently dangerous. When one tries to capture in simple phrases the complex ideas, values and traditions upon which our freedoms and prosperity have developed, one places those values and traditions, and that freedom, in jeopardy. Dr Harry Edwards —You limit them rather than extend them. Mr WEBSTER —One does indeed, as the honourable member for Berowra has said: a great limitation is placed upon them. The Government discovered that very thing for itself with the legislation for referendum question No. 2. It had to amend wording in which it had declared total confidence because it was discovered that the proposal would have made the system of government proposed for the Australian Capital Territory unconstitutional. That was discovered after the questions had been first formulated. However, of greater relevance is the legal consensus reflected in the opinion given last weekend by the New South Wales Solicitor-General-I am sure that opinion will be cited quite a bit in the next couple of days-who said that the words in this referendum proposal will lead to a new challenge to funding for non-government schools and to a review of the current High Court of Australia ruling which depends on the words in the Constitution that the referendum question proposes to delete. The Attorney-General is totally confident that the same legal advice that produced illegal referendum advertising will be right this time. The historical track record concerning such failed confidence by Attorneys-General in the past is reassuring-for example, that of Clive Evatt on bank nationalisation and of Sir Garfield Barwick on outlawing the Communist Party of Australia. The reality is, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) admitted this week in the House, that the Attorney-General can have no idea how the courts will interpret his proposed clauses. That is a very significant factor for everybody to think about. That is what the Prime Minister said in this House. The reality is that, should the referendum proposal be carried, our rights will depend on the world view and philosophy of judges in the High Court. As experience has shown in the United States, that shift in power would see a politicisation of appointments to the High Court. That is something that I hope we will never see in this country. A United States Supreme Court justice, Charles Evans Hughes, once put the view that the United States Constitution not only is, but ought to be, what the judges say it is. That appears to be the approach that the Government is taking to our Constitution. Is that the kind of shift within our delicately balanced structures of government and law that Australians want? I think not. The Canadians took that risk several years ago by drawing up a charter of rights. What was the result of that? I have been told of a recent Ontario court decision to acquit a drunken driver by reference to his new charter of rights. The court ruled that henceforth Ontario police must advertise the time and place of their road blocks. That just shows how ridiculous these interpretations can be. However, of greater legal significance was the Canadian Supreme Court decision in January this year on abortion. Canadian abortion law, which took the middle of the road on this issue by requiring abortions to be approved by a therapeutic committee in an accredited hospital, has been struck down as an infringement of a woman's right to liberty. That was the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution by the Court. Of particular relevance to the proposed clause on religious observances is the decisions by the United States courts to prohibit Easter and Christmas displays because they are deemed to infringe freedom of religion. The question for Australians is: Do we want the High Court to tell us what is and is not a religion, and what is and is not a religious observance? That is what the referendum proposal seeks. That is the kind of situation that this approach to constitutional rights produces. Referendum question No. 4 is an attempt by the Australian Labor Party to re-cast our law, our Constitution and social relations in accordance with its ideological vision and priorities. The Attorney-General will tell us that he intends none of this. However, clear thinking Australians will realise that intentions matter not one bit once a law or a constitutional clause ends up before the courts for interpretation. I conclude by quoting a statement made over 100 years ago by Lord Randolph Churchill, who said: We do not defend the Constitution from mere sentiment for the past . . . we defend the Constitution solely on the ground of its utility to the people. It is on the ground of its utility alone that we go forth to meet our foes. Social reform producing direct and immediate benefit to the Commons-that must be our cry, as opposed to the radicals, who foolishly . . . waste their energies and time in attacking institutions whose destruction would not only endanger popular freedom, but would leave the social condition of the people where it was. I urge all Australians to make sure that they vote no to all four referendum questions, but in particular to referendum question No. 4. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.45) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the contention of my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) that the fourth referendum question, if carried, would be a threat to and not an improvement on or better guarantee of key rights and freedoms which are already enjoyed in this country; it would be a restriction of them. Although the question asked sounds bland and persuasive-a proposal to alter the Constitution to extend the right of trial by jury, freedom of religion and so on-its true effect will be to do the opposite. Therefore, I urge Australians, and I appeal to those here in the gallery, to vote no. How deceptive, misleading and confusing this whole referendum exercise is, especially for the aged and other Australians who really care about these matters. After a meeting the other night an aged, concerned, church affiliated lady said to me, `But surely, Dr Edwards, I cannot vote no to a proposal for freedom of religion'. I said, `Yes, you must, because the effect of this proposal will be to restrict freedom of religion as we know it in this country today-to restrict it, not to confirm or extend it'. That is why the ladies and gentlemen in the gallery and others listening to the broadcast must vote no to this question. I direct the attention of the House to an article by Mr P. P. McGuinness, not known for Liberal Party sympathies, who is among the most acute, perceptive and sensible of commentators. In last Sunday's Sun-Herald, probably the biggest circulation newspaper in Australia, his article was headed in big block letters: It's sheer dishonesty-so vote ``No'' '. In the body of the article he wrote: The more I have studied and analysed the referendum proposals over the past couple of months, the more appalled I have become at the sheer dishonesty of them. . . . None, not one, of the questions which will be put to the electorate next Saturday accurately reflects the changes which are proposed- not one of them- and the significance of the changes has been deliberately obscured. I quote that because if I, a Liberal member of Parliament, said such things straight out, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and others would accuse me of party political bias. Mr McGuinness is not a party political person but, as I have said, an acute and perceptive observer. So it is that I plead with the Australian people: there is much more to each of these four referendum questions than meets the eye. Do the Australian people realise that the seemingly simple four questions involve 33 changes to our Constitution-a Constitution which is strong and relevant and which has served us well over many years? It ought not to be changed or tampered with without the fullest and utmost consideration and understanding. On that point, the second question refers to `fair and democratic elections'. Those words are not mentioned in the Act of the Parliament authorising the referendum. It does contain 13 new clauses to be inserted into the Constitution and would delete five. I would challenge anyone in this House to tell me what those 18 changes are. Yet the people are asked to change the Constitution which is the protection of our freedom and rights without that knowledge. As my colleague has pointed out, the process involves great cost. The Government went through a lot of political pain to cut road funding, with its great effect on local councils, by $50m in the recent May statement, yet it now wants to spend $41m on this unnecessary referendum. There has to be a secret agenda, hidden meanings and a hidden purpose in all the questions in this referendum. This is particularly so in relation to this fourth question, as my colleague has said. Here is an attempt to introduce a mini Bill of Rights by the back door. That is what it is. That will put at risk-as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself conceded the other day-government assistance to denominational schools. There are some people who do not like that assistance, but the majority of Australians support it. It also puts at risk church run hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, it puts at risk prayers and religious observance in our state schools, all matters of critical consideration. I will conclude my remarks in order to permit a reasonable time for an honourable member opposite to speak in this debate. But I urge the Australian people not to reopen what was a most ugly and divisive debate in earlier times now that there is an established consensus among the Australian people. I urge the people not to put at risk the matters to which I referred a moment ago which come under freedom of religion as we know it in this country today. Therefore, I urge the Australian people to vote no to all four referendum questions. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(10.52) —One could not have two more contrasting arguments than those put forward by the two previous speakers. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), to his credit, put together a reasoned and reasonably soundly-based argument, although I disagree with his conclusions. In contrast, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) unfortunately resorted to the fear, dishonesty, hidden agendas and conspiracy theories which is the standard response of anyone who has no reasoned argument at all on the merits of the case. I shall turn most of my attention to the contribution of the honourable member for Macquarie. The honourable member argued that Australians had rights and freedoms which are unparalleled throughout the world. He said that these rights and freedoms were not under threat and as a result there was no need to pass question No. 4. In fact, he argued, if this question were passed then rights and freedoms would be limited rather than enhanced. Unfortunately, I believe there is an inconsistency in that particular argument. We have strong rights and freedoms in this country because of a combination-which the honourable member correctly identified-of the Constitution, our common law system, the Australian Parliament and, probably more importantly, the general acceptance of the Australian community and society that there are such things as rights and freedoms. But other societies do not have those basic preconditions, so the sorts of rights we enjoy in Australia are not necessarily enjoyed elsewhere. However, the underlying premise is flawed in as much as our common law system recognises the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament at any stage to overrule what the common law might regard as a basic right or freedom. That was recognised by our founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution. They put into it a number of rights-not many, but a number-which they obviously considered to be of such fundamental importance that they needed enshrining in the Constitution. So we have had rights in the Constitution, which we are now asking the Australian people to extend, for 87 years. Yet we have not had all the drastic consequences which the honourable member suggests. We have not had the courts bringing out all sorts of weird and wonderful interpretations which in fact limit people's rights. There have been no such consequences at all. I know that the honourable member for Macquarie did not mean it, but his argument was quite insulting to our court system because he seemed to imply that our courts and judges will let loose a great array of unreasonable decisions which will start limiting people's rights and freedoms. Yet the history of High Court decisions in this country and the history of the common law is quite the opposite. The courts are the protectors of people's rights and freedoms, not the opposite- Mr Webster —At the moment. Mr LAVARCH —The honourable member says `at the moment', as if he is implying that that will be so until the referendum is passed and then there will be a sudden change. He is suggesting that on 4 September the High Court of Australia will wake up and scratch its head and say, `For the last 87 years we have been proceeding down this path, but now the referendum has gone through we are going to change completely. We will start limiting people's rights and freedoms; we will start bringing in all these weird and wonderful interpretations; and we will strike out and turn our backs on everything that we have been doing for the past 87 years'. That is palpably nonsense. The main point that was raised concerns the question of freedom of religion. Honourable members argue, `We have this question nice and well settled now, freedom of religion does not impinge on the concept of state aid so let us not change it because we do not want the High Court to have another go and come to a different decision'. If that is a possibility, it is just as likely to occur if referendum question No. 4 is defeated. All honourable members are arguing is that the High Court can come to a different decision. There is nothing to stop the Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) going to the Victorian Attorney-General, or an Attorney-General of one of the States, today-before there is any change-and saying, `We want your fiat to go to the High Court and say that the case in 1981 was wrongly decided and that the judgment of Mr Justice Murphy should be followed instead'. There is nothing stopping that now, and the High Court can, in its wisdom, come to a different decision. The real point is whether the words which are either going to be admitted or added to that particular section of the Constitution-section 116-would in any way change the decision which was reached in the DOGS case. That is the real point and the honourable member for Macquarie skirted around it and did not focus on it. The honourable member said, `Oh, well, this might happen, so be afraid, vote no'. He did not actually want to look at the arguments. But if one reads that decision one will find that it was decided on the concept of what `establishing a religion' meant. The High Court, by a very clear majority-with only one dissenting Justice-said in that case that `establishing a religion' meant creating a state church. It held that giving aid to a church organisation, be it a school, hospital or what have you, in no way led to creating a particular religion as a state church. Would the words being deleted in any way effect that decision? The answer is obviously no. Mr Webster —I said that the system would become politicised. Mr LAVARCH —The honourable member had his go and at no stage did he try to argue how deleting the words `any law for' from that section of the Constitution would lead the High Court to come to a different decision. In fact, had the honourable member read the case and looked at the dissenting judgment of Mr Justice Murphy, he would have realised that Mr Justice Murphy interpreted the word `for' as having the same effect as the word `respecting' in the United States Constitution's First Amendment. Therefore, by removing the word `for' one takes away that one leg of the argument put forward by the DOGS organisation. If this change to the Constitution has any effect on the High Court's decision-and I do not believe it will-it will be to strengthen the position of state aid, not weaken it. It will absolutely strengthen it. Mr Webster —You don't believe that! Mr LAVARCH —I do believe it. I have read that case thoroughly; in fact, I have read every case on the section concerning freedom of religion because I am a strong supporter of the Catholic education system. My entire education was gained through that system and I would not support any proposal which I believed threatened state aid to that system. Therefore, I was extremely cautious when this argument was raised and I went through it with a great deal of thoroughness. I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no threat whatsoever. Any threat can occur now-that is, the High Court can, at any stage, change a previous decision. There does not need to be any change to the Constitution for that to occur. The Liberal Party went to the last Federal election with a constitutional policy recommending the very changes to trial by jury and acquisition of property which are now being proposed. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who was the spokesman at the time the Opposition decided its position on this matter, said, `I am damned if I know why it was done'. We have never heard from the honourable member for North Sydney since in this debate. He had to be muzzled on that point. The Opposition has made a political decision on these questions. It has not made a rational decision or a reasoned decision. There is no concern about Australians' rights and freedoms. If there is any concern it is about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and his position. There is concern about the Opposition itself and there is a fear that if the Government gets any of these proposals through it will be another body blow to the Opposition. There is a lot of concern and fear about those points but there is no fear and concern about the actual merits of the proposal. If there was, why did the Liberal Party go to the Australian people at the last election in July with this very policy? Why would the honourable member for Macquarie-as was revealed yesterday in Question Time-write a letter to the Local Government and Shires Association of his State saying, `Well, I think local government recognition should come, and 1988 would be a perfectly fine year for it'. Of course the honourable member has now changed his mind on this matter and the Opposition as a whole has changed its mind on the rights and freedoms question, even though the shadow Cabinet supported it. If we had a decent Leader of the Opposition who had some sort of strength and authority and could get some reasonable propositions through his party room then we would not have the ridiculous situation of two honourable members getting up in this House this morning and trying to argue against their own policy. They did not mention that fact in their contributions; they did not say, `Look, we were wrong in July last year. We were really trying to limit people's rights and freedoms'. Obviously, the Opposition was not trying to limit people's rights and freedoms. It recognised that in the Constitution we have imperfect rights inasmuch as they are directed only towards the Commonwealth; they are not directed towards States and Territories. All that these proposals do is extend the right in the guarantees to State parliaments and to the Territories. What is so wrong with that? It means that under the common law system-which the honourable member for Macquarie has guarded faith in as being a protector of our rights-when a parliament passes a law which possibly infringes upon this right, someone can challenge it in the courts. For a couple of hundred years in England and almost 100 years in Australia our courts have been doing a fairly reasonable job in interpreting legislation and protecting the rights of individuals. I fail to see the logic in the argument that this will change, that we will get these weirdo interpretations, that suddenly prayers in schools will be held to be against the freedom of religion and that we are going to get rid of Christmas and Easter. That is palpable nonsense. The honourable member knows it is palpable nonsense but he is raising this matter to try to create a sense of confusion and a little bit of fear in people's minds. He knows quite well that, in questions like this, if people are in doubt they will vote no. Members of the Opposition are trying to create this doubt. Even though it is their own policy and it was supported by the shadow Cabinet, it shows the abject hypocrisy of their position when they come into this place today and urge the people of Australia to vote no on question No. 4. Who will be the winner if No. 4 is defeated? The Opposition might say, `We have had a political win'. The Leader of the Opposition might say, `Well, I got out of that. I wanted to support this-- 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. The honourable member for Fisher will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.05) —I 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. This motion comes before the House today because of my deep personal commitment to the role of local government within our political system, and in appreciation of those people who have dedicated their lives to the community through service to local government. It is the ultimate act of hypocrisy that those sitting opposite should campaign against the constitutional recognition of local Government when many of them strongly supported this proposal just a few short months ago. But worse than their hypocrisy is their arrogance in saying to those people who give of their time to local government that their efforts are not worthy of any recognition. Some 8,000 people have been elected by their fellow citizens to represent them in local government. To be elected to any public office, including local government, is one of the greatest honours that can be bestowed on any citizen. To be elected to local government, in many cases, means to be elected by people with whom one went to school, people who speak to one in the shops, people who have known one for many years, and it means that they respect one, they trust one's judgment and they have faith in one's integrity. It must be terribly disheartening to these very fine people-the people who have been elected by their peers to local government-that when their goal of constitutional recognition seems so near the cynics on the other side of the House should dash their hopes. The only consolation is that the people in local government, many of whom are traditional supporters of the Liberal and National parties, will remember this cowardly act by members of the coalition and condemn them for the opportunists that they are. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, why the members of the Federal coalition have decided to campaign against the constitutional recognition of local government, because it demonstrates what utter contempt they have for the people of Australia. They really support the constitutional recognition of local government; everybody knows that. They have a long history of such support. But they thought that if they encouraged a Yes vote on this referendum proposal the voters may get the questions confused. By their actions they have said that the voters of Australia are too stupid to differentiate between four separate proposals, and if they said `vote yes' for one of them the people might get it all mixed up. One of the most frustrating things about the referendum campaign has been the continual battle against the suspicion and innuendo tactics of the Opposition. In the complete absence of rational and logical arguments, the Opposition has let the standard of debate slide to new depths. With each passing day it has become more desperate and its stories-I could not call them arguments-have become more ridiculous. It started out reasonably enough with suggestions that local government would be disadvantaged by the proposal and that it did not guarantee satisfactory funding or protection from arbitrary dismissal. Local government's response to this was that it believed that it was very greatly advantaged by constitutional recognition and, while it fully appreciated it would not stop dismissals of councils, recognition would mean that fresh elections would be held soon after. The next argument the Opposition put forward was that the proper place for recognition of local government was in State constitutions, and not in the Commonwealth Constitution. Of course, as everyone in this House knows, including honourable members opposite, inclusion in a State constitution is no real guarantee since it can be removed again at any time by an Act of the same State parliament. Once the people of Australia have decided to include local government in our Constitution, only the people, through a referendum, can remove it. Further down the track-and one can almost feel the wind whistling as the Opposition grasps at straws-people supporting the No case said that constitutional recognition of local government would lead to the end of State governments and the establishment of `large regional super councils', in the words of the Queensland Minister for Local Government. Such a proposition is clearly preposterous. Dismantling the States would require a complete rewriting of the Constitution and, as the current debate so clearly demonstrates, we are having a tough enough time now just getting a few alterations to the Constitution. As the days have rolled on, the stories of the Opposition have become more and more fantastic, like the plot from a Monty Python film. One simple premise has been added to and made more ridiculous until its final form bears very little resemblance to the initial idea. But the culminating point of the Opposition's ballooning imagination is that the proposal to recognise local government in the Constitution is part of a hidden agenda, a Fabian conspiracy to centralise power in Canberra. However, this once again demonstrates that members of the Opposition have never let the facts get in the way of a good yarn. To make such an assumption, they have masterfully donned their blindfolds so that they can avoid actually reading the proposed new section 119a which would recognise local government. This section states: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. Quite clearly a reading of this decision would demonstrate to the Opposition that it is not an attempt to centralise power, and would reinforce the fact that State governments are responsible for the legislation under which local government operates. Perhaps the Opposition has come up with such outlandish arguments against the constitutional recognition of local government because the reality is that its heart is really not in it. For example, in a letter to the President of the Local Government Association of New South Wales on 22 May 1986, Senator Michael Baume said: The Opposition supports this issue and will continue to strive for Constitutional Recognition for local government at the earliest opportunity. Senator Puplick, a Liberal senator from New South Wales, in a letter dated 14 March 1986 to the same Association, said: The Coalition is also supportive of moves to have local government formally recognised by the Constitution. In a similar letter dated 13 March 1986, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) said: With respect to the constitutional recognition of local government, it would appear that the bicentary year- that is his phrase- is an appropriate time for it to be adopted. The Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in a letter to the same Association on 21 March 1986 said: While in principle I support Constitutional recognition for local government, this depends on a successful referendum following the introduction and passage of legislation through the Federal Parliament. He went on to say: You would realise that the timing of any referendum is for the Government of the day to determine against other priorities it has for Constitutional change. It is therefore not possible to give any undertakings on Constitutional recognition by 1988. Given that his letter was written before the last Federal election, in his closing comment was he inferring that a coalition government would institute a referendum for the recognition of local government? It certainly sounds like it to me. Of course, there is the now infamous letter written by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in February this year on behalf of the Ryde Municipal Council, a council in his own electorate. On that occasion he said: I fully support . . . Council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. I am pleased to say that there are at least some people of principle on the other side. I was also pleased to note this report in today's Sydney Morning Herald: A Liberal backbencher and former Fraser Government Minister, Mr Ian Wilson, has broken ranks with the Federal Opposition's referendum stand, circulating a letter to his electors, advocating a `Yes' vote to both Questions Three and Four. I congratulate the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) because he has at least been consistent on that. I will quote from a statement that he made to this House in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill on 18 May 1988. He said: My Party, in election after election, has made a commitment that has been properly interpreted by local government as a commitment to find ways and means of giving constitutional recognition to local government. Constitutional recognition has been understood as being recognition within the Australian Constitution. We have given local government a clear expectation that we would find a way of recognising it within the Australian Constitution. Later on in the same speech he pointed out that it properly deserves recognition and that all political parties in the past had promised that they would give recognition to local government. Does all this not paint a rather pretty picture? It certainly makes members of the Opposition out as political pragmatists. Really that is what they are. They throw any principle or commitment out of the window for the sake of a fairly weak attempt at hampering the Government. I call on the House to reject the cynicism of members of the Opposition and their mean-minded approach to the entire question of constitutional reform. I further urge the House to support the constitutional recognition of local government-a recognition which would simply and rightfully acknowledge the current state of the Australian system of government. Any school student knows that we have three tiers of government in Australia. It is about time that the Constitution reflected this fact. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Free —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.15) —I am delighted to see that I am losing time very rapidly as the clock hand swings around from 55 minutes to 15 minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Doesn't time pass quickly when you are having fun? Mr NEHL —That is entirely true, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also having fun, if that is the right word-certainly enjoying-taking the opportunity of rising to refute some of the disgraceful things told to this Parliament by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). He is a man that I respect. I know that he means well, but he has come into this chamber and trotted out once again these deceptive utterances which have been put out by the Australian Labor Party so many times in the course of this referendum debate. Mind you, members of the Labor Party have not, apart from this particular forum, been terribly active. In fact, in my electorate, and I think virtually all over Australia, we cannot get a fight from them. I ask: Why is it that the Labor Party has been so negative in failing to put its reasons forward? It think it is a very interesting situation. Mr Ewen Cameron —Because they are going to vote no. Mr NEHL —I think the sensible ones among them will vote no. Nobody on this side of the House would agree with the suggestion of the honourable member for Calare that we were anti the people in local government. Like every other member on this side of the House, I am fully conversant with the work and dedication put into local government by those people who serve the community in that way. I speak from personal experience. I served as an alderman in the City Council of Armidale in northern New South Wales. Of course, I have very close contacts with all the local government people in my own electorate. Nobody in his right mind can accuse anybody in local government of not being dedicated and hard-working. We on this side of the House certainly rebut any suggestion that we do not appreciate them. What we have got to come down to is what is really behind this referendum question. I refer to the editorial in the Australian on Friday, 5 August: The amendments to allow the Constitution to recognise local government and to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to assure fair compensation for people whose property is acquired by a government are calculated to allow an unnecessary Commonwealth intrusion into matters properly in the hands of the States. That is absolutely true. Again, the Australian, in its editorial of Tuesday, 2 August, referring specifically to the local government amendment, states: This amendment appears to propose nothing that is not done already and it lays down no guidelines to be followed by the States in their observance of the new section. It is this vagueness that would open the doors to legal actions and invite judicial interpretations of the section's consequences that could give a quite different meaning to it than had been expected by those citizens who had voted Yes at the referendum. Of course, that synthesises the whole situation. We have a smokescreen situation with this question and, indeed, for the other three questions. What the people of Australia also have to realise is that behind those four apparently simple questions-any reasonable person looking at them would say, `That is not too bad. They seem reasonable; they seem fair enough'-is a massive change to our Constitution. Thirty-three sections will be changed in total because of those four simple questions. Twenty new sections will come in because of those four simple questions. Nine sections of our Constitution will be deleted because of those four simple questions. An additional four sections will be changed because of those four simple questions. Mr Simmons —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The motion specifically refers to local government. I suggest to you that the honourable member for Cowper, with his comments about 33 amendments, is really straying from the question because the amendment proposed simply deals with local government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member for Cowper was probably illustrating a point. There is no point of order. Mr NEHL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was, indeed, as you correctly suggest, illustrating a point, namely, that question No. 3, which is indeed the question we are dealing with now, is important and is one of the questions that will bring about all these changes. While I do not have the actual figures for each one of the four separate questions, it is worth noting that from these four simple questions, including the one on local government, there will be a total of 2,341 word changes in our Constitution. Is that what the people of Australia really want? I do not believe that the people of Australia do want their Constitution changed in such a drastic and dramatic way. I think what people are concerned about is getting change to the Constitution when there is need for it. No member on this side of the House, including me, is opposed to changing the Constitution when there is need, but there is no need for and no benefit to be gained from these changes, in particular the change with respect to local government. I have continually asked for someone to give me details of one single benefit accruing to the ratepayers of Australia, those people who finance local government. As yet, I have not had one sensible answer. Comments that come back refer to an increase in status and recognition, but for the ratepayers of Australia, the voters of Australia who will vote no on Saturday there will be no benefit at all. Therefore, I think it only right and proper that they should be suspicious. As the honourable member for Calare was speaking about the great love that he and his Labor colleagues have for local government and was being very rude, shall we say, about the actions of the coalition in relation to this matter, I think it is well worth while to consider the facts of what has happened with local government. We need to compare Labor's sweet talk in this current political situation with the reality of what happened before. The Fraser-Anthony coalition Government introduced legislation guaranteeing local government 2 per cent of personal income tax collections. That was a real and tangible benefit for local government. The Fraser-Anthony coalition Government regularly increased road funding. It paid local government in lump sums to allow councils to invest the funds, thereby earning interest and increasing the amount available to them to benefit their ratepayers. Most importantly, the most recent coalition Government established the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. That was a great step forward in benefiting local government, because it gave local government representatives a direct voice when sitting around the table with State and Federal governments. It gave them a direct voice in discussing the needs of local government. That is what happened under the last coalition Government. But what has happened under the Hawke Government? What we must realise is that under the Hawke Government the amounts made available to local government have been cut, large reductions have been made in road funding, and quarterly funding has prevented councils from earning interest on invested grant moneys. Further, much to the distaste and chagrin of the then Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the Government abolished the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. That was a very real and practical avenue for local government to have a voice along with State and Federal governments. The referendum, together with the Constitutional Commission, is costing Australian taxpayers some $41m. I wonder what answer local government councillors and aldermen who are saying `Vote yes' can give to their ratepayers who ask, `Would that $41m not be better spent on roads and other facilities that are needed?' However innocuous the question might first appear to be, it would be absolutely naive to believe that any extension of power to Canberra would always be used for benevolent ends rather than for dubious ideological aims. How anyone could ever believe that a government which has so denuded local councils of funds over the past five years is about to become Santa Claus is beyond me. Any citizen of Australia who gives serious consideration to this question must vote no to question No. 3 on Saturday as well as no to the other three questions as well. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(11.25) —As my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) said earlier in this debate, any 12-year-old child in Australia can tell us that our system of government depends on a partnership of three tiers. While they might have difficulty naming their State or Federal representative, there is a better than even chance that any 12-year-old would know the name of the local mayor. Yet there is no reference to the third tier of government in the Australian Constitution. It is entirely proper that local government should receive recognition by a Yes vote on Saturday-and that recognition is long overdue. Local government has grown considerably since it was first established, both in size and function. Currently, there are some 839 local government bodies, with 8,434 elected representatives and 144,000 employees, accounting for some 9 per cent of civilian public sector employment. The local government sector accounts for 5.3 per cent of all public sector outlays and 4 per cent of total tax revenue. The range of functions covered by local government has expanded considerably, well beyond the original three Rs of roads, rubbish and rates. For example, the Penrith City Council in my electorate is responsible for child care, playgroups, youth services, senior citizens' centres, pools and sporting fields, tourist information, international exchange programs, a number of fine libraries, and a network of neighbourhood centres. Also, the Penrith City Council sponsors and continues to assist Australia's finest regional theatre company and the finest regional art gallery in the country. And the list is not exhaustive. Local government is the tier of government closest to the people. It is the sector to which people relate most closely. It is the level on which ordinary people feel that they can have an impact. The biggest political issues locally in my area in recent months have not been the balance of trade or the status of the superpowers in Western Europe, but whether council would give permission for McDonald's to build in Layton Avenue, Blaxland, and the opposition by the Mayor of Penrith to the building of a skateboard ramp. People are concerned about what is happening in their local area. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are a regular and good attender of your local Party branch meetings and you probably have the same experience that I have, namely, that at least half the time party branch meetings are concerned with the very deep discussion about what is happening on local council and about local conditions. There is a very close interest in the tier of government that is closest to the people. The history of this issue has shown a steady and inevitable process towards constitutional recognition. The first Constitutional Convention meeting in Sydney in 1973 included 22 representatives of local government, because the Labor Government at the time, quite correctly, refused to participate unless local government was represented. The meeting of the Convention in 1985 specifically recommended that the role of local government should be recognised in the Constitution. The Constitutional Commission, in its first report, presented to Parliament in May this year, made a similar recommendation. Programs of assistance to local government, pioneered by the Whitlam Government and developed and expanded by the Fraser and Hawke governments, have entrenched and enhanced the role of this third sector as a partner in our system of government. The history of this matter points to the inevitability of recognition. I ask honourable members to look at the words of the proposed inclusion in the Constitution. They are: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. The mere reading of those words disposes of the argument that this would take local government matters out of the hands of the States. In an earlier discussion this morning, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) invited members to look at the small print. In view of that reading of that Constitution alteration, I think that the honourable member for Berowra should see an optometrist as quickly as possible. As honourable members have pointed out, this proposal has attracted widespread support, naturally from local government councils and from their peak bodies, and also from the former Liberal Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer, who was quoted in the Age of 9 August as saying: This proposal has been supported by all political parties, and by the Constitutional Convention, representing all the parliaments in Australia. The Commission also recommends it, and indeed it is difficult to see any rational reason for opposing it. Support for this proposal has cut across political barriers. The Mayor of the City of Penrith in my electorate is a member of the Liberal Party and was elected as a Liberal. He is supporting this proposition. The proposition previously had the support of the Opposition. We heard in Question Time yesterday and we heard again today the honour roll of those erstwhile supporters of the recognition of local government. They include the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) wrote to the Secretary of the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales and said: The Opposition supports and will continue to strive for Constitutional Recognition for Local Government at the earliest opportunity. I trust these comments will provide your Association with the attitude of the Opposition in these particular issues. Yours sincerely, Alasdair Webster, M.P., Member for Macquarie. He is a former supporter. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) is also a supporter. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) wrote to the Ryde Municipal Council as follows: I fully support . . . Council's request that a chapter should be inserted in the Constitution dealing with local government. The Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria, Mr Kennett said: The Liberals, when in government, recognised local government in Sections 74a and 74d of the Victorian Constitutional Act and believe there should be recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution. Sallyanne Atkinson, the Liberal Mayor of Brisbane, said: I know Constitutional recognition is not supported by my Federal colleagues, but I represent the people of Brisbane and local government and I will continue to do so. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has been mentioned as well. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said: I was just being consistent with local government. I was a former wardman of a municipality, and I pledged my support. The honourable member for Franklin added that as `a creature spawned by local government'-we all make some mistakes-he could not `in good conscience' turn his back on the issue. He is another supporter but, unfortunately, we have heard nothing from him since. I do not know whether he has turned chicken on this particular matter of principle. There are others. The fact is that the Liberal Party has jettisoned its policy on this issue which reads: . . . to examine, in conjunction with the States and local governments, appropriate Constitutional recognition and protection for local government. But like so many items in the Liberal Party's policy, the Opposition has turned tail on this. The antics of the political contortionists opposite on this issue make the feats of the great Houdini pale into insignificance. One might well ask why members of the Opposition have turned tail. What was the particular blinding light that they all saw on the road to Damascus? I have looked for clues. I have looked in the booklet distributed to electors to see what it is that really bothers them about constitutional recognition. The Opposition says in the No case that local government could ultimately be controlled from Canberra. That is untrue. All one needs to do is read the section. The Opposition says: This proposal will not stop arbitrary dismissals or amalgamations . . . Again, that is untrue because elections are required to be held after a dismissal. The Opposition says: The proposal is uncertain and vague. Nothing could be clearer than the proposal put forward by the Government. The Opposition says: Labour is threatening the future of Local Government with this proposal. It will give Canberra an interfering foot in the door and . . . give more power to the Federal Government . . . That is untrue. The proposed amendment would, in fact, entrench State powers. We have heard many complaints about this booklet and about the No case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said yesterday that the words `Vote Yes' were in big letters and `vote No' were in little letters. People should understand who wrote the No case. The Opposition wrote it. Incidentally, the Opposition complains about the prominence it gets. I notice the No case gets 12 pages and the Yes case gets only 11. The arguments against this proposition fall into two classes. The opponents say it means either nothing or everything, that it is either a motherhood proposition or it covers some sinister, secret and hidden agenda. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —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 will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Consideration resumed from 28 April. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(11.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I foreshadow a minor amendment to be moved in the committee stage which contains items of clarification, the details of which have been circulated. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1988 is the first piece of legislation introduced in this place that addresses a certain longstanding and clearly discriminatory anomaly in the Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935. This Bill seeks to allow exemption from sales tax on four-wheel drive vehicles and some motorcycles used by professional fishermen as a necessary part of their industry. I am pleased to say that the intention expressed in this Bill reflects the will of the Australian fishing industry. While it is natural that the amendment should be supported by those who will benefit financially from its success, industry representatives have stressed to me that this Bill is at last a positive step towards reform they have been seeking for a considerable time. When this matter was first brought to my attention there was obvious frustration among members of the industry, who have been lobbying over a number of years for a change to the sales tax law. Given those disappointments, I must commend their perseverance. Even today, the fishermen are just as strongly of the opinion that they are entitled to an exemption from sales tax which is already enjoyed, quite legitimately, by the farming sector. It has been clear from my discussions with industry and other groups that, despite wide support for an amendment to the Act, governments of both sides for various reasons have not seen fit to test the merits of the case. I raise this not in criticism but merely to illustrate that this is not a Bill inspired by ideology or political pointscoring. It is a fair and reasonable attempt to correct an irregularity in the Act. My role in the months since I was approached by the South Coast Licensed Fishermen's Association in Western Australia has been to chart a course that would lead to full and proper consideration of this issue. For the record, the fishing industry employs some 17,000 people and ranks as our fifth largest primary industry exporter, mainly to Japan and the United States of America. In 1986-87, well over $600m worth of fish and fish products were harvested in Australian waters by our industry and exported all over the world. Also, the changing Australian lifestyle has resulted in a massive increase in domestic demand for fish, although fish has been a traditional part of the Australian diet for some 200 years since white settlement. Indeed, fishing is very much an industry based on tradition, governed as it is by the elements, like many other primary industries such as agriculture. In spite of its traditions, the fishing industry has acknowledged that it has a responsibility to adapt and change according to modern trends and circumstances. Fishermen have accepted the challenge of harvesting the ocean's riches more efficiently by adopting new methods. Equipment has been updated, and just as the outboard motor has become standard equipment, in recent times for four-wheel drive vehicles and some motorcycles have become an integral part of the fisherman's tools of trade. Although many of the traditional fishing techniques are still efficient and effective and continue to be used in conjunction with new technology, the industry is now very much a business venture. As a group, fishermen have adopted a more professional and corporate approach. They are better organised through local fishermen's associations and industry councils in the States and Territories. This has been very evident in the groundswell of support for this Bill from fishermen around Australia. Despite these advances and the success of the industry in putting its own house in order, it still faces greater challenges in the future. And the industry is under no illusions about the need to confront the economic difficulties head-on. The Executive Officer of the Victorian Fishing Industry, Mr Grant Campbell, gave the following cogent analysis of the situation in a letter of support for this amendment: A strong and competitive fishing industry is needed to help overcome Australia's trade deficit and national debt problems. The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics believes the future prospects for Australian seafoods are promising in the longer term. However, the uncertainties associated with marketing our products and maintaining our export earnings are increasing. The Australian Industry is dependent on only a few markets, all of which are becoming more competitive because of increased competition from other exporting countries. Mr Campbell went on to say: The fishing industry is meeting this challenge by increasing investment in new and better fishing boats and equipment. The Government has an opportunity in this Bill to assist the industry by ensuring it remains cost competitive on world markets. The four-wheel drive vehicle is part of the fisherman's investment in his industry. It enables him to deliver his catch quickly to the market from increasingly isolated fishing areas. In other words it enables him to be competitive, not only within his industry in a business sense, but also in terms of the efficiency of the whole industry. A major problem, which receives more public attention than positive aspects of the industry, is the growing pressure on inshore fishing stocks as a result of the combined effects of professional and recreational fishing activities. If the industry is to retain and improve its share of the world market and at the same time meet ever-increasing domestic requirements-without depleting our valuable fish resource-fishermen must be mobile in seeking new fishing grounds. Clearly, we have to provide the incentive for this to occur. It will not happen while antiquated laws remain on the statute as a barrier to commonsense. Unfortunately for a large number of fishermen, there is no such thing as a new and better four-wheel drive vehicle, part of the necessary equipment that Mr Campbell referred to in his letter. Salt corrosion significantly reduces the life of four-wheel drive vehicles in the fishing industry. But the high replacement cost forces many fishermen to run inefficient and unreliable vehicles. Sales tax inflates the cost of new vehicles by up to $5,000 depending on the brand and model. This is prohibitive for small business operations which represent a substantial group within the industry. As a result fishermen are less likely to diversify into new, often remote, fishing grounds. The problem was highlighted in 1982 when the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce reported on the development of the Australian fishing industry. The Committee found that: Fishermen who operate in less profitable fisheries and have the greatest incentive to enter other fisheries normally do not have the financial backing to diversify and are often forced to either make do with a marginal profit only, or leave the fishery or industry altogether. Significantly, the Committee recognised the need to offer some incentive if underdeveloped resources were to be exploited and new fisheries opened up. Slicing through all the argument, it exposed the heart of the issue with the recommendation: . . . that where a commercial fisherman can demonstrate that the use of his vehicle is essential to his fishing operations, he be entitled to exemption from sales tax on a vehicle to be used in earning income and the relevant sales tax legislation be amended to provide for such exemptions. Six years later the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act still discriminates against fishermen. While the fishing industry has modernised and adjusted, it remains out in the cold, excluded from sales tax exemption on four-wheel drive vehicles because the wording of a 1935 Act is outdated. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act item 13 (1), exempts from sales tax: Machinery, implements and apparatus (and parts thereof) for use in agricultural industry if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, they are goods of a kind used exclusively, or primarily and principally, in that industry. This, quite correctly, enables sales tax exemptions for certain four-wheel drive vehicles used by farmers. In this way, the legislation recognises that vehicles are an important input of production in the farming industry and extends tax exemption on that basis. Likewise, under division 4, the Act provides a distinct range of sales tax exemptions for the fishing and pearling industry. However, there is no provision covering vehicles used for work purposes. Why does the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act distinguish between the agricultural and fishing industries and, subsequently, provide a different range of exemptions? Quite clearly, the inputs of production in each industry are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. I quite clearly cannot recall ever seeing a farmer rounding up cattle with a net. Nor is a fisherman likely to use a Massey-Ferguson plough in his operation. It is for this reason that the legislation sets out a range of exemptions specific to each industry. Generally, the items that are exempted are those that are legitimately required for the productive purposes of each industry. Of course, this differs from the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act which, instead of referring specifically to the fishing and agricultural industries, groups them together under the heading of `primary production'. Perhaps when Australia's sales tax regime was originally drafted, some 58 years ago, there was little reason to suspect that the four-wheel drive vehicle would become an integral part of the fishing industry in years to come. Now that these vehicles have become an important part of the fishing industry, it is time to extend to this industry the same benefit which applies to its primary industry counterpart, and for the same reasons. It will not have a major impact on Government revenue. I recently requested of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) an estimate of the cost but he has indicated that this is not possible. Subsequently, I canvassed the fishing industry and other sources for a realistic assessment. The estimates range from $1m to less than $3m. Certainly, when compared with the magnitude of the sales tax adjustments announced by the Government last week, the impact of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill would be minimal. In the context of the total level of sales tax receipts, estimated at $8,630m in 1988-89, this proposed measure clearly can be accommodated without jeopardising any budgetary policy. I am sure honourable members will agree that this Bill should be considered as a positive amendment to an inequitable legislative provision-not for what it might cost, but for the potential benefit to a key export industry and, therefore, for the benefit of the Australian economy. The merits of the fishermen's argument have been established beyond doubt. This is not a matter of handing out exemptions ad hoc; rather the principle should be that if the purchase of a four-wheel drive vehicle is a legitimate expenditure, essential for the fishing operation, it should be allowed as an exemption. In the current economic climate, we must be flexible enough to break down the barriers to business growth, especially when the imposts are a severe and clear discrimination. I commend to the House the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1988. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Hawker —I have much pleasure in seconding the motion. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.46) —I am pleased to speak in support of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1988, which will exempt professional fisherman from sales tax on four-wheel drive vehicles and some motorcycles used in their industry. There is a very real need to cater for the considerable use by fishermen, divers, oyster farmers and others engaged in the fishing industries, of four-wheel drive vehicles. This is a never-ending campaign and I am pleased to join the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) in supporting this legislation. As far back as 1980, in the life of the previous Government, I recall taking the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Peter Walsh, down to Eden and other areas to look at the fishing industry and to discuss the needs of fishermen. I thought that they put a very good case for exemption of sales tax on four-wheel drive vehicles. But we were not able to convince the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to take action. We do not seem to be getting very far with the present Government either. There are people in the industry on the south coast of New South Wales who have similar needs to those people in the electorate of the honourable member for Forrest. There are people in the industry at places such as Eden and remote areas such as Wamboin, Bermagui, Narooma, Batemans Bay and Ulladulla who have to drive on bad roads and cope with bad foreshore conditions. There is fast deterioration of vehicles. As the honourable member for Forrest said in his speech, this means that they are buying new vehicles every four to six years. He also mentioned salt corrosion. This really means that vehicles deteriorate fast. It also means that in driving to the remote fishing grounds wear and tear occurs very fast. The amendment is needed for many of the activities of people in the industry. Land farmers are now entitled to the exemption. People in the fishing industry are now having to give much more personal attention to their industry. We export tuna for sashimi to Japan. Considerable attention has to be given to each fish which can be quite valuable. We have the abalone industry in which it is extremely important that good care and close attention are needed as the abalone are taken and prepared for export. We have oyster farmers with leases in all sorts of areas where four-wheel drives are needed. The problem is that real change will probably only come when governments are prepared to make changes in their budgetary decisions. Under the procedures covering tax decisions, government parties traditionally allow the Budget measure to go into the House with no perusal other than a pre-Budget briefing and it is not very long before the Budget is presented. In fact, sales tax is one of the major reasons for that. No government particularly wants people to know in advance what sales tax changes there will be because there could be a lot of evasion and taking advantage of the system before the changes come into effect by, for example, people in the wine industry or other industries. Members, particularly Government members of course, have all the input in the world into Budget decisions. But they do not have any feedback about what decisions are being made and about the overall picture. The problem for us is that Budgets are being made in the context of the whole revenue collection system, and somehow we have to try to work around that. We have not quite worked out how to do that while allowing maximum input from the political parties-the Caucus or Opposition parties. Honourable members opposite, were they to return to government, would have the same problem they had under their previous Government. We have tried the Fraser-Howard Budgets; we have tried the Hawke-Keating Budgets. We still have not succeeded; neither Government has really changed the disadvantages borne by people in the fishing and diving industries. I say to the honourable member for Forrest that I strongly support his move. I believe it is a very important move which governments need to take up in the whole Budget context. I can think of a fisherman in a remote area quite a long distance from Eden. He has a mixed fishing enterprise. The road conditions in that area are extremely bad. They have been for some years. He is required to return stock, and oysters particularly take some time for him to transport. Of course, he wants to prepare them in the best order and condition. He cannot do that without a lot of wear and tear to his four-wheel drive vehicle. I am pleased to support the honourable member in the arguments he has put to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(11.53) —I 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. Palau is a tiny island republic just 600 kilometres east of the Philippines. The United States of America, for 20 years, supported the Marcos regime in the Philippines in a trade-off for the military bases in the Philippines. With the fall of the Marcos regime and with the new Government raising questions about the future of the bases, the United States stepped up its pressure on the Palauans for changes to the Palauan Constitution. The United States wanted these changes so that it could build a nuclear base on this tiny island in the Pacific. Palau has a Constitution which is unique in some respects. One of its sections states: . . . Any agreement which authorises use, testing, storage or disposal of nuclear weapons intended for use in warfare, shall require approval of not less than three-quarters of the votes cast in a Referendum. The Constitution of the people of Palau cannot be altered without a vote of 75 per cent in favour of a change. The Constitution adopted in 1979 by the Palauan people was the first in the world to ban nuclear weapons-and that ban could not be lifted unless 75 per cent of the voters agreed. The United States involvement in the area goes back to the Second World War-and that involvement should be recalled, for a better understanding of the plight of the Palauan people. The United States Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which is the last remaining United Nations trust territory, consists of over 2,100 islands covering about 1,300 square kilometres of land scattered over about 7.8 million square kilometres of ocean. The total 1985 population was 161,211. After a period of Spanish, German and later Japanese colonialism, ending in 1945, control was assumed by the United States. The islands were initially administered by the United States Navy. Bikini and Eniwetok-in the Marshall Islands-were used for nuclear bomb tests in the late 1940s. In 1951 the Trust Territory administration was established, and economic conditions improved slowly. Applying ethnic-linguistic and geographic divisions, the United States administered the territory in four districts. Since 1965, when the Congress of Micronesia was formed, there have been increasing demands for local autonomy. In 1967, a commission to examine the future political status of the islands was established. In 1970 it declared Micronesians' rights to sovereignty over their own land and self-determination and the right to form their own Constitution-and to revoke any form of free association with the United States. In 1977, President Carter made a formal commitment to end the trusteeship, and moves to establish constitutional arrangements for the islands have continued. Although in 1977 there was agreement to create a unified Micronesian state, by then separate elected district governments had been formed, each with its own agenda. In 1975, the Northern Marianas-with a population of 20,530-voted, with a 78.8 per cent majority, in favour of becoming a commonwealth within the United States, along the lines of the Puerto Rico model, on termination of the trusteeship. The other three entities-Palau, with a population of over 12,000; the Federated States of Micronesia, with a population of 91,000; and the Marshall Islands, with a population of 37,500-have been negotiating a more independent status; that of self-government in free association with the United States. Compacts of free association were drawn up under which the new entities would have control over their domestic and foreign affairs, except that the United States would retain plenary authority over defence and security for periods of 15 years for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, and 50 years for Palau. Pledges of continued United States funding at agreed levels for these periods were an integral part of the three compacts. Compacts were initialled by the entities in 1980, but signing was delayed by the need to conclude subsidiary agreements. In 1983 plebiscites, the Federated States of Micronesia adopted its compact by a 79 per cent majority and the Marshall Islands adopted its by a 58 per cent majority. Both plebiscites were monitored by teams of United Nations Trusteeship Council observers. These were straightforward exercises, and to all intents and purposes these new states are now independent in free association with the United States. The case of Palau, however, is more complex. The first of the United Nations observed plebiscites in the entities opting for free association took place on 10 February 1982 in Palau. A majority of 62 per cent voted for the Compact of Free Association, but problems existed over the clause in the 1979 Palau Constitution, which banned nuclear materials and weapons, and the Constitution could not be changed unless 75 per cent of the voters waived the ban in a referendum. The section in the Constitution says: . . . Any agreement which authorises use, testing, storage or disposal of nuclear weapons intended for use in warfare, shall require approval of not less than three-quarters of the votes cast in Referendum. The Palauan Government and the United States in the past have argued that this anti-nuclear clause directly conflicts with United States defence undertakings and the United States Government has implied that, if the clause were dropped, Palau could be independent by 1988. There is considerable financial inducement, in that the United States will provide between $US300m and $US1 billion over 50 years under the compact. The amount varies according to whether the initial sum-which is to be invested-and the interest are counted and whether the capital amount itself is then counted once again. Successive Palauan governments have tried to get agreement to the compact but, in all, the people of Palau have in five referenda failed to provide the necessary majority to delete the anti-nuclear section from the Constitution. The last referendum was in June 1987 when the vote was 67 per cent for deletion. The highest vote was 72 per cent-in February 1986. It could be said that the powers behind the push to destroy the Palauan anti-nuclear Constitution have decreed, `You're going to keep on voting until you get it right'. As at June 1987 Palauan citizens had voted for their nuclear-free Constitution eight times. The following figures say it all: in a referendum in July 1979 on the approval of the nuclear-free Constitution, 92 per cent voted yes. A proposal in October 1979 to replace the first Constitution with another which the United States found more acceptable was defeated 70 per cent to 30 per cent. In July 1980, on the reaffirmation of the first nuclear-free Constitution, 78 per cent voted in favour and 22 per cent against. In February 1983 the first compact vote was 62 per cent for and 38 per cent against; in September 1984 the second compact vote was 67 per cent and 33 per cent; in February 1986 the third compact vote was 72 per cent and 28 per cent; in December 1986 the fourth compact vote was 66 per cent and 34 per cent; and in June 1987 the fifth compact vote was 67 per cent and 33 per cent. A further vote was forced on the Palauan people in August 1987, but yet again it failed to achieve the required 75 per cent of the vote that would have been necessary to destroy the anti-nuclear Constitution which was voted in by 92 per cent of the Palauan people. On 4 August 1987 the vote received only 73 per cent and, on 21 August 1987, 73 per cent again-both failing to achieve the 75 per cent required. Having stated previously that it would be unable to work with the nuclear-free sections in Palau's Constitution, in 1986 the United States apparently believed that the situation could be finessed. It was then argued that the apparent incompatibility was one of policy, not of law. However, the Palauan Government said that the language of the Constitution was chosen deliberately so as to enable the transit of nuclear-capable ships and the like, so long as there was no home-porting of nuclear-capable vessels. Thus the United States Government was prepared to accept the compact in its present form although clearly, in the case of Palau, it would prevent the US building storage facilities for nuclear weapons onshore, as has been discussed occasionally when assessing contingencies in the event of the US losing access to bases in the Philippines. The US military would have access to much of Palau's limited land area. The constitutional referendum of 4 August 1987 was designed to make it possible for the Constitution to be declared compatible with the compact. I now raise the problems which Palau has experienced with having pressure applied to it to change its Constitution. This small island nation, which has had all these referendums forced upon it, has been racked by killings, arson, beatings, charges of bribery and mass lay-offs of the work force-all this pressure and intimidation to force this small nation to agree to have nuclear weapons on its island. It is proper and necessary that this House congratulate the people of Palau on their struggle for the retention of their nuclear-free status by rejecting, on numerous occasions since February 1983, attempts to modify their Constitution to allow the presence of nuclear weapons on their territory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Milton —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.05) —I am glad that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) has raised this matter, because it gives us an opportunity to clear up many misconceptions which, unfortunately, the honourable member has included in his speech. He wishes to congratulate the people of Palau, or Belau as the people themselves like to call it-spelt with a `B' rather than a `P'-on rejecting nuclear weapons on their territory. As he outlined in his speech, there has been a consistent majority of the people voting in the successive referenda to have the compact agreed between Belau and the United States (US): in fact, it is a minority of the people who have rejected that proposition. The only thing that is creating the present situation is the requirement in the Constitution for 75 per cent of the people to favour a change. The majorities in favour of a change have ranged between 63 and 73 per cent. So there is no evidence that the majority of the people of Belau, as the honourable member sought to portray, do not wish to have this compact with the United States. Let me put some furphies to rest. The honourable member for Hindmarsh, who has a particular predilection in this area, once again trotted out the old furphy that it is the wicked United States that wishes to build a nuclear base on Belau. That is simply nonsense. There has been no suggestion at any stage, apart from people such as the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that such a thing is contemplated. I will quote from an article by Mr James D. Berg, the Director of the Office of Freely Associated State Affairs, who since 1971 has been deeply involved in Micronesian affairs-first as a Peace Corps volunteer and later as a consultant, an adviser, to the states of Micronesia. On 15 March this year he said: Much has appeared in the media in recent months concerning the future political status of Palau. There have been allegations that the United States is coercing Palau into a Compact of Free Association to establish an important military complex, including nuclear bases, in those islands. That is the very thing that the honourable member for Hindmarsh said in his speech today. Mr Berg continued: These allegations bear no relation to reality. As an example, the compact-approved by the Palau people in six United Nations-observed acts of self-determination-specifically provides that the US will not ``use, test, store or dispose of'' nuclear weapons in Palau. Aside from rotating 13-man civic action teams engaged in public works projects, there is no US military presence in Palau now-and none is planned. Not only are there no nuclear bases planned, neither are there any other elements of a military complex, as has been alleged. The only nuclear issue is whether US navy ships will, under a Free Association relationship, visit Palau ports on the same basis as they do the ports of other allies. The limited military options available to the US in Palau are identified in a subsidiary agreement to the Compact of Free Association and can be exercised only after consultations with the Palauan Government. There it is, straight from the mouth of somebody who actually knows something about the situation. I do not know whether the honourable member has ever been to Belau. I have been there. I advise him to visit the island, because it is beautiful. It has a great deal of tourist attraction about it. Unfortunately, there have been events on the island which, as the honourable member has in this case correctly outlined, have created a great deal of concern among the people of Belau. There has been violence. In my view, there is a growing drug menace because the island is strategically situated between South East Asia and other Micronesian states. There is a real need for strong, united and cohesive government on the islands of Belau to make certain that the economic development which is so urgently required actually goes ahead. There is another factor which must be kept in mind when one is discussing votes taken on Belau. The honourable member for Hindmarsh would have us believe that the only thing guiding the people in their voting pattern was a rejection of the concept of any nuclear powered or armed vessels visiting Belau. That is simply not the case. As in so many Micronesian states and the smaller nation states right throughout the Pacific, the age-old clan divisions play a very real and important part in the way people vote at election times. This solid bloc voting in Belau is, in fact, based on the old clan divisions within the Belauan social structures. In many cases, people are voting along clan lines-rather like voting solidly for a political party. I think that when one analyses the voting patterns not only in Belau but right throughout the island states of the Pacific-the central and south Pacific areas-one must take into account the traditional relationships and allegiances which, in many cases, go back hundreds of centuries. That is the case in Belau as well. We cannot just say that the vote on a certain question was 33 per cent, 37 per cent, 27 per cent or whatever and that, therefore, all those people were voting anti-nuclear. That is not necessarily so. The fact of the matter is that one has to analyse, in much greater detail than the honourable member for Hindmarsh has chosen to do, the reasons for votes and where people actually voted a certain way. For instance, High Chief Ibedul Yutaka M. Gibbons said this in a speech to the United States Trusteeship Council on 20 May 1983: Culturally and traditionally, the traditional leaders of Palau-the Council of Chiefs-must be closely consulted on any issue as sensitive as the land use rights which are granted to the United States under the Compact. The land system in Palau derives from the traditional clan system. Our clan system is still strong and viable after several thousand years of experience. This explains why during the recent plebiscite five of the eight states in which the United States would have either exclusive or joint use of land, including the State of Koror, where over 65 per cent of all Palauans reside, voted against not only section 314 but also the Compact as a whole. Successfully to implement in Palau a Compact which gives the United States use of our precious lands, close consultation and agreement with our traditional Council of Chiefs is absolutely essential. This points out yet again the need to take into account the traditional clan systems which still operate to this day in all of these island states. Having visited the country and having spoken to a number of leaders in the country in November last year, I am concerned about the future political stability in Belau. The Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the Marianas at this stage seem to have gone ahead more successfully in their efforts at economic development and the development of political stability than has Palau. That is a worry because, as I said, Palau is strategically located. It is open to manipulation by people who would not have its best interests at heart. Therefore, as I have already stated, I would hope to see the establishment of strong, stable and successful government there as soon as possible. However, to suggest that the majority of the people of Palau are against the compact and against allowing United States nuclear armed or nuclear powered vessels to visit the country is simply a nonsense. The majority are in favour of the Compact. The majority have continued to exercise that opinion by voting at the polls. Just one final point: having been to Belau and looked at the harbour facilities, et cetera, I can say that any suggestion that because Subic Bay in the Philippines may be at risk one can suddenly substitute a harbour in Belau is simply nonsense. The harbour in Belau is not of a nature which would be suitable for such a development. It has never been, to my knowledge, contemplated. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.14) —My friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) has asked the House to congratulate the people of Palau in their struggle for the retention of their status as a nuclear free nation of the Pacific. I am most pleased to be able to support his motion. The honourable member has described the history of intimidation which has been waged against the Palauan people since they adopted their nuclear free Constitution in 1979 with a majority of 92 per cent. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who preceded me in the debate, seems to have neglected the fact that the Constitution was voted on by a majority of 92 per cent. The honourable member apparently also has not heard of the history of intimidation, terror and bribery in Palau over a long period. He quoted from one expert. Unfortunately, I do not know of that particular expert but I intend in my speech to-- Mr Kent —He has good CIA credentials. Mr MILTON —That is possible. Mr MacKellar —That is an absolutely typical response. Mr MILTON —I think that if the honourable member for Warringah listens to what I say and to the extracts I intend to quote from various papers, he may eventually see the error of his ways. An excellent working paper written by John Anglim of the Australian National University Peace Research Centre-a most eminent academic institution-entitled Palau's Strategic Position Places Palauan Democracy at Risk describes very clearly the background to the intimidation in Palau referred to by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. The paper states: The Palauan people were aware of the physical damage which had been done to other parts of Micronesia by nuclear testing; they knew of the social dislocation of the Marshallese; they knew of the forced resettlement of the people of Kwajalein Atoll and Bikini; they were concerned to preserve control over their land, one of the foundations of Palauan social organisations; and they did not want their islands to again become a target or a battlefield in someone's else's war. That extract makes it very clear why the Palauan people are so strongly against being any part of a nuclear defence strategy. It seems to me that everything the honourable member for Warringah said made it very clear that he just did not understand that fact. It is ironic that the United States, which originally encouraged Palau to adopt an American-style democratic system, since 1979 has endeavoured to undermine Palauan support for the Constitution. I will quote again from John Anglim's working paper: John C. Dorrance, the present US Consul General to Australia, explains the US position: `The constitution presently provides for a nuclear-free Palau, including prohibition of access to Palau by nuclear-powered ships and the transit of nuclear weapons. These provisions are inconsistent with the defence authority and responsibility of the US'. Dorrance's assertion in 1986 that the Palauans `must now devise an acceptable method of reconciling provisions of their constitution which conflict with the Compact of Free Association' does not sit easily with the concept of constitutional democracy, given that the word `must' accurately represents the US government's attitude and behaviour since the Constitution was first adopted in 1979. The compact of free association with the United States, which will give Palau control over its domestic and foreign affairs, but leaving its defence and security matters under the control of the United States for 50 years, has yet to be finalised. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has given full details of the unseemly efforts made by United States officials to get the Palauan people to delete anti-nuclear provisions from their Constitution. I wish now to expand on a matter that was touched on briefly by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that is, the contract between the British company Ipseco-International Power Systems Ltd-and the Palauan Government to construct an electric power plant on the island. Last year, on 24 September, I made an adjournment speech in the old Parliament House on the power plant project and the struggles of the Palauan people for independence. At that time I also referred to a speech that was made by Senator Vallentine in the other place. That speech is also worth reading because, again, it adds more details of the history of the Palauan people and the intimidation that has been going on for the past seven or eight years. Last Monday I asked a number of questions on notice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the current situation in Belau. We should bear in mind-and the honourable member for Warringah mentioned this-that the names of Palau and Belau are both used to describe the republic. The questions indicate my concern at the strongarm tactics which the United States is using against this tiny island of only some 15,000 people. In particular, I sought information regarding a $US35m contract for the electric power station. I quote from an article in the Pacific Islands Monthly of August 1988: IPSECO-International Power Systems Ltd-is a British company which, in May 1983, entered into a contract with Palau to construct a badly needed power plant and fuel farm. Funding for the project came via London's National Westminster Bank and the loans were guaranteed by a multinational consortium of banks including: Morgan Grenfell of London, Orion Bank of Canada, the Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Tokyo and Morgan Guaranty Trust of New York. In April last year Palau defaulted on its foreign debt. In December the banks sued the tiny republic in a New York court for over $35 million. The plot then thickened when IPSECO declared bankruptcy in London. In June, Palau struck back, suing IPSECO in the Supreme Court in Koror, claiming $750,000 for non-delivery and non-installation of the power plant's fifth generator, although the company had been paid in full for the diesel engine. A representative of the British manufacturer, Crossley Engines, was interviewed in Palau in June when he claimed that his company had not been paid for the four generators installed at the plant. Palau had already paid IPSECO for the generators and Crossley were now seeking payment from that company, said the representative. I think that when one is talking about these things one must appreciate that the evidence can sometimes be conflicting. But when eminent bodies and people, such as Mr Anglim, who prepared a report, produce information I find it very puzzling that the honourable member for Warringah is unable to accept the evidence that has been provided. I wish to quote again from the report of Mr Anglim, in which he refers to possible fraud and misappropriation: President Salii, ex-Speaker Carlos Salii and Ibedul Gibbons are being investigated over the alleged IPSECO bribes mentioned above, and senior officials are under investigation concerning heroin trafficking and bribes in connection with a major construction project. President Salii is yet to face seven court cases for fraud and misappropriation and has admitted spending $50,000 of government money on his own home, and the Inspector-General of the US Department of the Interior has reported 87 instances of financial mismanagement by the Salii administration. An article in the Melbourne Age of 17 June gave details of a report on Palau by the Geneva based International Commission of Jurists. That article says: A respected international law body has suggested that the US is responsible for the `breakdown of the rule of law' in the Pacific island of Palau. The article then says that the jurists' report is `an account of murder, violence, intimidation and threats'. It goes onto say: It alleges that the US used its influence to make islanders vote in six referendums in four years in an attempt to change Palau's constitutional ban on nuclear weapons. The commission, acting on behalf of its American association . . . comprised the president of the NSW Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Kirby- and I am sure that the honourable member for Warringah has great respect for Mr Justice Kirby- a senior federal US judge and an International Commission of Jurists' lawyer from Geneva. The Commission's report speaks of: . . . criminal acts including fire bombing, shootings, direct threats of violence to the plaintiffs, and the murder of the father of one of the main plaintiffs. The final tragedy in all these matters was the apparent suicide several weeks ago of President Lazarus Salii. It should be pointed out that the present Speaker of the Palau House of Delegates, Santos Olikony, has claimed that the Ipseco contract was all part of a plot to bankrupt Palau and force the tiny nation to enter into the proposed compact of free association with the United States and into adopting United States nuclear strategy in the Pacific-all in exchange for United States aid. Unfortunately, I do not have time to detail all the draconian clauses of the proposed compact of free association but I do have some time to quote one or two of them. The first one states: Palau must deny entry to any military forces other than those of the US (Section 311); however, Palau must accept any military forces invited by the US (Section 312) with no provision to determine their nuclear status. I quote from another which says: Palau must consult with the US on foreign policy (Section 123) while being subject to any United States defence treaty or security agreement (Section 331) and must refrain from any action which the US determines is incompatible with US responsibility for security (Section 313). Earlier in my speech I mentioned the tragedy of the apparent suicide of President Lazarus Salii. In my view, our Government should urgently seek assurances from the United States Government that it will ensure that the people of Palau are allowed to govern their country in their own way, independent of superpower influences and that they be assisted in achieving financial and economic independence. Currently there are accusations in the newspapers and other parts of the media about influence which the United States Government is apparently exerting on our Government and that it is almost virtually dictating foreign policy to us. This is an opportune time for our Government to show that we are prepared to take a foreign policy view which is independent of the United States while, at the same time, striking a blow for the freedoms of the peoples of Palau. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) would have liked to take part in this debate in order to underline and support the proposals we have put today. We hope that a majority of honourable members in this House, unlike the honourable member for Warringah, would be strongly supportive of the motion that was moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.30) —I want to dwell on the nature of our cherished Budget surplus, what caused it and what it is proposed it will be used for. The entire business of the Budget surplus is, I regret to say, an exercise in chicanery of the worst kind. As in other actions of this Hawke-Keating Government, the reality diverges from the carefully cultivated public image. This is no better illustrated than by the events of this week which allege that the former Foreign Minister painted himself as a moderate, cautious Minister who was able to deal effectively with our regional neighbours. In reality, it seems that he held those with whom he dealt in other countries in our region in contempt. He publicly treated his overseas counterparts as equals, while privately holding the most patronising and insulting views of them. It is as if the former Foreign Minister dealt with other countries in our region out of charity, not because of regional relationships being one of the most important facets of our foreign policy. Similarly, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has treated both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Australian public with contemptuous disregard. He arrogantly pronounces that he has led the world in restraint and wise fiscal management, that this restraint has produced a remarkable Budget surplus and that this has saved Australia from our economic problems. We are told that the period of restraint is nearing its end. Remarkably, we are told that in the lead-up to the next election we will be presented with some pseudo evidence of that. The reality, unfortunately, is quite different to the heady rhetoric of the Treasurer. He has produced a taxation driven surplus which owes little or nothing to fiscal restraint, as the economic outlook becomes increasingly uncertain. Pay as you earn tax receipts will increase this year by 13.8 per cent, according to the Budget Papers, but I remind the House that the Treasurer's record is not to be much admired for his revenue estimates in previous Budgets. He has consistently underestimated the revenue effects of new tax proposals. On that basis alone we should consider that the 13.8 per cent increase in taxation proposed over the present financial year as a minimum possible rise. At this level the revenue share of income tax measures will rise to a massive 54.3 per cent. The dependence of this Government on the direct taxation of Australian businesses, families and individuals continues unabated. Taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is estimated to remain at around last year's all time record level of 25.7 per cent. During the five long years of Labor rule taxation revenue has increased by a massive 66 per cent. Why has taxation revenue increased so much? One reason is simply the draconian enforcement of the existing taxation legislation with an eye to maximum revenue rather than just and fair administration of the law as it stands. We can never calculate the total effect of this on revenue. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the current enforcement zeal is not nearly as cost effective as the Commissioner of Taxation suggests. It does not justify the effects on the time and enterprise of the well-meaning taxpayers who are subjected to the latest campaigns from the Australian Taxation Office. Probably more important in the increasing tax revenue is the effect of new taxes and the changes to the collection of existing taxes. People do not forget that they have had to bear the burden of capital gains and fringe benefits taxes, that their provisional tax bills are now so much more frequent than ever before and that inflation has eroded the value of the money left after these new and burdensome taxes. Inflation is the major cause of bracket creep, which has been the other significant contributor to burgeoning tax collections. The average income earner now pays tax at marginal rates once reserved for the rich. Every year more people move into the top two marginal tax brackets. This is a government which pretends to represent the values and interests of middle and lower income earners. The effect of this on the disposable income of Australians has been enormous. The effects on Government revenue have been equally large. This does not justify the Treasurer's talk of restraint. It does not support the rhetoric of the Treasurer. The reality is that the Government has collected so much of the resources of the Australian public that it has had enormous difficulty in limiting the demands of its Labor Caucus for new spending programs. Perhaps the Treasurer has managed to keep the growth of new programs to $400m, as he seems to think in the latest Budget Papers. It is disturbing to contemplate the magnitude of expenditure under Labor if the Treasurer considers this is a Budget of restraint. We have a tax driven Budget surplus. Clearly, the same result would have been achieved in a way offering greater benefits to all Australians if the Government had the courage and the sense to cut Government spending programs and deliver genuine tax cuts now-phased in tax cuts, as proposed by the Opposition parties. The Treasurer seems to forget that the money confiscated from Australians through taxation is produced by those taxpayers in the first instance. The pork barrelling tax cuts which we are told he will offer just before the next election will only return some of the excessive collections of the past five years. What will the Government do with the surplus which it has finally managed to salvage from its past mistakes? One could be mistaken for thinking that this surplus will solve not only the problem of Australia but the economic problems of the rest of the world as well as if we take the Treasurer seriously. That is the impression that he attempts to give. The Government has made more promises with the surplus money it intends to collect than it can possibly keep. It is acting like the lottery winner who promises the world to each of his friends but squanders his good fortune before fulfilling a fraction of his commitments. We are told that this surplus will neutralise the public sector borrowing requirement. Does this mean that it will be used to pay for the borrowings of all State and local governments or does it mean that the surplus will be pumped into investment on local capital markets so that the effect of those borrowings on the demand for capital will be zero? In reality, neither will be the case since talk of eliminating the public sector borrowing requirement is a vain boast which actually means nothing. We are told that the deficit will be used to help fund future tax cuts. If that is the case then we might as well have those tax cuts right now. On top of these promises is a suggestion that surplus funds will be used to pay off foreign debt. Again, this is a desirable goal but in the light of other demands on the surplus there is little room for major debt repayments. A Budget surplus is undoubtedly a good thing after years of high deficits. But if it is to turn into a slush fund for spending promises before the next election then all Australians would be better off with tax cuts right now. The other interesting factor connected with this year's Budget is that the Treasurer is not out there selling it. He is not out there presenting the Budget as he has done with the previous five Budgets. People might dwell on the reason for that. Is it that he is so worried about the shaky assumptions about inflation, about total tax revenue collected and about the movements in commodity prices on which he relies so much? He is nervous about the projections in the Budget and as a result of that nervousness we witness his failure to go out and sell his Budget to the public as he has in years gone by. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(12.40) —Today I want to talk about the schizophrenic attitude of the Victorian Liberals and the Victorian Liberal Party towards multiculturalism and immigration issues. We have a very big problem in Victoria; that is, that the Liberal Leader, Mr Jeff Kennett, by his statements, is obviously trying to have two bob each way in relation to the multicultural debate. On the one hand, Mr Kennett has stated that he accepts the Federal Opposition's immigration and ethnic affairs policy which clearly rejects multiculturalism and, on the other hand, he is stomping around Victoria trying to tell ethnic groups and others that he supports multiculturalism. He cannot have it both ways. I want to emphasise that the recently adopted Liberal policy has clearly rejected the principles of multiculturalism and replaced them with the so-called one Australia policy. The Australian Government and the Cain Labor Government in Victoria reject the central claim in the Liberal policy that multiculturalism has `connotated division rather than unity'. The people who are rejecting multiculturalism and pressing for the one Australia concept, such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), are playing into the hands of those who want to set Australia back 30 years; that is, to the time when monocultural assimilation was being imposed on Australian citizens. The fact of the matter is that the people who have been waging this war against multiculturalism, such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey, have been listened to in relation to the Liberal policy that was adopted recently. In the House of Representatives on 17 March this year a motion was passed reaffirming the principles of multiculturalism. That motion was passed without dissent and people from the other side supported that motion. Amongst other things, in its crucial second paragraph, the motion states: there should be freedom to maintain one's cultural heritage within the context of a common legal and political system, with English as the accepted national language; That has all been dropped from the Liberal platform. All references to multiculturalism, except negative references, have been dropped, and the one Australia concept has been put in its place. This is the Liberal's policy in relation to cultural diversity-and just listen to the jargon: The one-Australia policy will include a generous acknowledgment and understanding of the desire of Australians born overseas to preserve a continuing affinity with and an affection for the cultural heritage of their birthplace. This is a total watering down of the basic cultural rights which have been attained under multiculturalism. The one Australia proposals, as put forward here, mean that the cultural rights gained in Australia in the last 30 years, those rich cultural traditions, would be threatened and undermined. It is a very serious matter indeed that the Liberal platform has dropped multiculturalism and adopted the policy of one Australia. That Liberal policy attacks the very kernel of multiculturalism, which is that diverse cultures have a right to contribute to the evolution of Australian culture; that is, the Australian culture of the future involves a synthesis of the elements of the many cultures that immigration has brought. Multiculturalism in this sense is a completely different model from the assimilationist view of the past. It promises the coexistence of diversity with equal rights and participation precisely so that these cultures can help to contribute to the evolution of the Australian culture of the future. The New South Wales Premier, Mr Greiner, has rejected the Liberal policy on multiculturalism and in contrast to this he has stated quite clearly about multiculturalism, `I will sing from the rooftops that it is the greatest achievement in post war Australian society'. Contrast that with the statements of Mr Howard and others. The New South Wales Liberal Premier said, `I will not tire in any way from claiming the benefits and success of multiculturalism'. Of course, the Cain Labor Government has affirmed again and again its complete support for multiculturalism. What about Mr Kennett, the Liberal leader in Victoria? Of Mr Kennett the Melbourne Herald on 16 August 1988 reported, `Kennett slams Howard stand on migrants'. And we have Mr Kennett saying things like, `We are a multicultural society and a multicultural society to me is a society that gives a fair go for all and a tolerant society'. He went on to attack Mr Howard's comments in relation to Asian migration. Having said all that, and given the Liberal policy, which was clearly a victory for Mr Howard and his approach on multiculturalism and on the issues of immigration and race, one might have expected Mr Kennett to get up and say, `I do not accept the Federal Liberal platform, the Federal Liberal policy. We have our own policy in Victoria'. Instead, what does he do? He says, `I have no problem with it. I accept the Federal policy'. As I pointed out, that policy has attacked multiculturalism and has also put down principles of immigration selection which involve a racial element. So what happens? At the same time as he has done all this, Mr Kennett goes around Victoria trying to tell all the ethnic groups and other people that he is actually a champion of multiculturalism. You cannot have it both ways, Mr Kennett. The Victorian people are not going to allow the Victorian Liberals to have it both ways in this matter. They have to make their position clear, they have to make a decision. If they accept the Federal Liberal policy, then that policy is clearly in contradiction with the principles of multiculturalism and clearly in contradiction with a truly non-discriminatory immigration policy. If that is the case, Mr Kennett ought to reject the Federal Liberal policy; either that, or he ought to go and state clearly to the ethnic communities in Victoria what his position really is on multiculturalism. Let us make no bones about it. If the Liberal Federal policy were ever to be implemented, the basic cultural rights gained by the various communities in this country in terms of multiculturalism would be very seriously threatened indeed. Victoria is a crucial society in terms of its multiculturalism. The most comprehensive groups of different cultures exist in Victoria and New South Wales. In that situation, the policy of multiculturalism and the existence of the policy on multiculturalism are crucial aspects that people in Victoria have to decide when they go to the elections. It is about time Mr Kennett clarified his position and stopped trying to have two bob each way on this crucial matter. If he does not do so, the Victorian people are entitled to consider that in real terms he is siding with Mr Howard and the Federal policy and that the basic cultural rights gained under multiculturalism would be very seriously threatened under a government led by him. It is not good enough to have the various Liberal spokespersons like the ethnic affairs spokesperson, John Richardson, who three weeks ago was saying Mr Howard's policies are disastrous for us, say when the actual written policy comes out, as he said at a public meeting the other day, `I see no problem with it'. How can he do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the policy contains elements that are clearly obnoxious, have created division in the community and must be rejected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.50) —The House will recall that during the grievance debate on 19 May last I dealt in some considerable detail with the proposal put forward by the Soviet Union that a fishing and ancillary service deal be struck between that country and Australia, a deal this Government is seriously considering. In my earlier speech I dealt solely with security aspects of the proposed deal. Whilst there are other important considerations such as the Soviet Union's harmful fishing practices, its habit of not fulfilling contracts and the hypocritical position that the Government would place Australia in in our relations with certain Pacific neighbours, I wish today to address further the security aspects of the proposed deal. In an interview on Channel 9's Sunday program on 24 July of this year, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) admitted that the security threat posed by the Soviet fishing deal would be too great for Australia's existing counterespionage resources. When asked by the interviewer, Mr Laurie Oakes, what sort of resources would be needed, the Attorney-General replied, `Staff, particularly staff and trained staff, fair amount of training involved, a lot of intelligence . . . expertise is required in the general wellbeing of the nation'. After having said that, the following day in the Melbourne Herald the Attorney-General is reported as saying, somewhat paradoxically, that he would not be pushing for any further funding of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) for this purpose, and any extra funding for an increased surveillance of a Russian fleet would come from ASIO and not from the Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, the 1986-87 ASIO annual report shows that ASIO's expenditure for that year was a meagre $43m. As the Attorney-General well knows, ASIO with its existing resources does not have the capacity properly to monitor or contain the existing threat to our national security posed by Russian intelligence service officers and other hostile intelligence service officers who are currently operating in Australia; with a miserly $43m budget it is not hard to see why. This situation is hardly surprising, however, given the fact that this Government has systematically run down Australia's security and intelligence services. In that we have much of the explanation for our current dilemma. If the Government gives the go-ahead to the Soviet Union's proposed fishing deal, the security situation in Australia will become grey indeed. Just exactly how the Government expects ASIO to deal with what literally will be a tidal wave of additional Russian intelligence service officers without providing additional resources to ASIO is beyond me, as it would be beyond any Australian genuinely concerned for the protection of our national security. Lest there be any doubts that the Soviets use their fishing fleets and crew members for intelligence purposes, let me remind the House of the comments made by the Hon. David Lange, Prime Minister of New Zealand, when interviewed on the Sunday program on 14 August of this year. Remembering that New Zealand has had experience with Soviet trawlers, Mr Lange was asked, `What advice would you have for the Australian Government if they go ahead with their deal, if they are allowing Aeroflot charters and up to 50 fishing boats to be based there?' He replied, `The same advice I would give to mine . . . make sure there was fish involved'. Mr Lange was then asked, `How likely is it there would not be?' He replied, `They paid a lot of money once a couple of years ago to go somewhere in the Pacific and they flung their nets over the side for about four days and shot through and I think they even sort of got a feed'. `Electronic surveillance?', the interviewer asked. Mr Lange replied, `There are all sorts of things you can do on a ship and there are all sorts of things you can do with a shore base and there are all sorts of things you can do on an Aeroflot charter'. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I might digress a little, it seems quite apparent that this Government has been seduced by General Secretary Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost. Whilst I welcome these new initiatives from the Soviet leadership, I remain cautious. The Soviet's propaganda organs have worked tirelessly to win over the Western media and through them the Western democracies. However, perestroika and glasnost are essentially internal reforms, not external reforms. The Russian intelligence services have not been affected by either of these initiatives. They pursue their objectives as aggressively as ever. Indeed, Ilya Dzhirkvelov, a defector from the KGB, has said: In spite of glasnost and perestroika, the KGB will work as before. It continues to operate on the principle that despite good relations between the Soviet Union and foreign countries or any changes inside the Soviet Union, counter intelligence and intelligence activities should never be lowered. Instead, it should be increased. In my speech of 19 May I said that of all the Soviet proposals the one with the deepest concern has to be the one regarding landing rights for Aeroflot. I refer to the fact that periodically members of Aeroflot's foreign ticket agencies and maintenance staff have been arrested for illegal activities, including espionage and attempts to gain access to national security information through use of local nationals. Having said that, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a little-known fact that Aeroflot already has a presence in Australia. I refer back to my earlier comment when I said that the Attorney-General well knows that ASIO does not have the capacity properly to monitor and contain the existing threat posed to Australia by Russian intelligence service officers already in the country. I put it to the Attorney-General that this particularly pertains to Mr Podshipkov, the manger of the Aeroflot ticket agency, located on the first floor of 388 George Street, Sydney, who is in reality a suspected officer in the GRU, the GRU being Soviet military intelligence. He is believed to hold the rank of major. I further put it to the Attorney-General that little is known about Mr Podshipkov's activities, his movements, his agents or his contacts because ASIO, as I said earlier, does not have the resources to do its job properly. In concluding, let me say that I believe that if this Government agrees to the Soviet Union's fishing proposal it will go down in history as one of the greatest acts of gross irresponsibility by any Australian government. Australia's national security is worth more than the minute sum of $10m that the fishing deal will contribute to our economy. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(12.56) —A leaflet recently produced by the liberal Party in the State of Victoria states on its cover page: In Victoria there is a murder every three days, an armed robbery every seven hours, a burglary every six minutes and 510 rapes a year. These figures are calculated from the 1986-87 major crime index. Aside from the front cover rhetoric, it provides no further justification for the list of the policies the Liberal Party has adopted to, so-called, fight crime. A different perspective of Victoria's crime rate can, however, be obtained by utilising the 1986-87 major crime statistics, an Australian Bureau of Statistics publication current at 30 June 1987. Using those figures, a Victorian household can expect a burglary once every 16 years; a car theft once every 42 years; a Victorian risks being the subject of a homicide once every 28,623 years; or of a rape once every 8,250 years. The tragedy that is occurring in Victoria on the so-called law and order campaign is a typical approach of the Opposition parties in this country to raise fear, to run on ignorance and to ignore evidence on any campaign they run. The facts are that there is no evidence whatsoever that increased police powers or increased police numbers reduce in any way, shape or form the rate or statistics of crime. That is a fact which is unarguable and no-one in this country will argue about the evidence supporting the crazy notions of the Victorian Opposition under Jeff Kennett in the campaign now that the poll is on. The Australian Institute of Criminology has compiled a comparison of interstate statistics which indicates that there is no correlation between a clean-up rate and greater police powers, and no correlation between the rate of crime and the supposedly preventive effects of increased police powers. In Victoria a consultative committee has been established by the Cain Government on police powers of investigation. It is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr John Colby, QC, and includes representatives from the Victoria Police Force, the Bar Association, the Law Association and the Legal Aid Commission. Its brief is to report to the Victorian Attorney-General after examining the issues surrounding the granting to Victoria police of powers which would enable them to require suspected persons to undergo investigating procedures and to supply bodily samples for forensic testing. To date it has delivered reports in relation to the six-hour rule and fingerprinting. In both reports the committee considered that an extension of the ambit of the police power under its examinations had dubious quantity of merit in police investigations. Commenting on the argument by the Victoria Police Force that the six-hour rule unduly hampered police investigations, the committee said of the statistics that were presented to it, `On the most pessimistic view of the operation of the section, the police were able to deal with 40,113 cases out of 40,256 cases; that is more than 99.5 per cent of all the cases. It is only 112 cases that section 460 of the Victorian Crimes Act was raised by the police as an issue, and in all of those cases it is arguable that the real issue was the right to silence.' The nonsense that they go on with in Victoria is even more ridiculous when one compares average Australian crimes statistics across the States; for example, from the Australian Institute of Criminology's statistics, the following comparisons are made for reported offences to police. On the question of murder, Victoria averages a lower rate per hundred thousand population than New South Wales and Western Australia but higher than South Australia. On serious assault, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have a similar rate per hundred thousand population, which is larger than the rate that applies in New South Wales. In robbery, New South Wales has a much higher rate per hundred thousand population than Victoria, which in turn has a higher rate than South Australia and Western Australia. Does the Opposition of Victoria seriously suggest that because Mr Greiner is the Premier of New South Wales, that justifies the argument that the robbery rate is higher in New South Wales? From some of the nonsense that has been said down there, it would follow logically that that is the reasoning behind what they say. As to break and enter and stealing offences on dwellings, New South Wales and Victoria fluctuate as to which State has the highest rate, but they are fair dinkum comparable. In motor vehicle theft, New South Wales has the highest rate of reported motor vehicle thefts per hundred thousand of the population. So statistics can be used to make any claim on these matters, but the reality is that crime results from repressed individuals and from people who come from sections of our community which require assistance, not gaol. On the drug situation in Australia, the reality is that drugs exist and organised crime exists because there is a demand in the marketplace. One can pass as many laws as one likes, one can have the most draconian penalties that one likes, but one will not reduce the amount of drugs being sold in this country, so long as the marketplace demand exists. We know that from research conducted anywhere around the world, and I find it quite tragic, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former member of the Victoria Police Force, that that body has decided to run a campaign on law and order. It says publicly that it is going to have 3,000 retired policemen letterbox and campaign in marginal seats. I am not quite sure what the Victorian Police Force proposes to achieve by this entering into politics, but I say to the Victoria Police Force that it is of no use complaining about lack of powers until it can publicly demonstrate the need for them. It is no use going to the public saying simply that more policemen will reduce crime, unless it can demonstrate the correlation between increased police numbers and the rate of crime. It is no use going to the people of Victoria saying it wants more powers when any statistical base examined shows that despite other States having increased powers, such as compulsory fingerprinting, which the Victorian police want, they have not reduced the rate of crime in those States. I find it even worse that the Police Association is going to be used simply as a political force for the Opposition. It will be a nonsense for Mr Sarong to suggest that the campaign being conducted by the Police Association is not political. Those who say it is not political are politically stupid, or worse, politically ignorant. By campaigning on their law and order approach, they will fall directly into the hands of the Liberal Party and the National Party, and they will be supporting the nonsense that they put forth in their proposals. The police force in Victoria, I believe, deserves the highest respect of all individuals, as a good police force; for it to enter the political scene in support of a political party in this manner can only lower its esteem in the eyes of the public and lower its esteem generally, because it is not something, I believe, that police forces should be involved in. There are some other strange things happening in Victoria. In the recent by-election in Ballarat South, the National Party-often one does not know what one can say about it-not having a member of the National Party available to stand as a candidate, sought a Mr Marks to become its candidate. As the National Party usually does, it approached the biggest right wing, meanest-looking person it could find in the community and said, `We do not have a candidate. Mr Marks, you are involved in shooting. You sold books on the history of the Third Reich; you sold books on too much power to women; you sold books on how to murder your neighbour', and other such nonsense books, all of these so-called macho-style Rambo books. That is the sort of man that the National Party put up as a candidate in the Ballarat South election. Guess who it has in the Central Highlands as a candidate? None other than Mr Ted Drane, President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Victoria. He joined the National Party, I think, two days before he became a candidate. These are the people who want to talk about law and order as a campaign. What utter nonsense for any political party, but particularly the National Party, to put up such people as law and order people when they do not even have the political morality or the political nous to belong to a political party and they actually have to be asked to join by the National Party, in which case they get automatic endorsement. Mr Sciacca —It happens a lot. Mr CLEELAND —It happens a lot, right throughout Australia. The Nationals do not have people of principle they can run themselves. They have to approach individuals. I find that just so poor, to think that that is the way the National Party runs. It puts up people like Mr Marks, who sold books on how to kill your neighbour and make bombs and things like that. It is even said that he sells them to the Duntroon library. I have a letter in my possession from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who says, `Mr Marks has never sold any books to the Duntroon library of that kind. We don't buy books of that nature'. That is the sort of people the National Party runs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(1.06) —I feel I must say right at the outset that, unlike the previous speakers on the Government benches, I have no intention of using this current forum to participate in the Victorian election because I wish to raise something which I believe is vitally important to the whole of Australia and in particular to the youth of Australia. That is the situation of the life education centres, which were started by the Reverend Ted Noffs. I would like to refer briefly to some correspondence. First is a letter from Mr Dennis Cortese, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Sydney, to Mr Trevor Freestone of Coffs Harbour regarding the Banana Coast Life Education Centre. In this letter, dated 6 September 1987, Mr Cortese advised that particular Life Education Centre that gifts of $2 and upwards to the organisation were an allowed deduction under the provisions of the appropriate paragraph of the Income Tax Assessment Act. He also advised the Life Education Centre that goods for use and not for sale were conditionally exempt from sales tax, that a motor vehicle could be obtained free of sales tax, and that exemption was also available in respect of the bank account debits tax. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is right and proper that an organisation such as the Life Education Centre should enjoy those benefits, but I stand now to make an appeal to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, indeed, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to reconsider the action which has taken away significant deductions from the life education centres. A letter from Mr Wesley Noffs, the national director of the Life Education Centre, to Mr Boucher, the Commissioner of Taxation, of 23 March 1988 said in part that he sought the urgent assistance of the Commissioner regarding a recent and apparently new determination regarding the eligibility of tax deductibility for income tax purposes of donations to life education centres throughout Australia. It is quite obvious that the work done by the life education centres is worthy of receiving tax deductibility. The problem is apparently the various mobile units. I quote from a letter from Mr R. T. Carter, for the Assistant Commissioner, Information Branch: . . . the various mobile units operating throughout Australia play a purely educative role in the field of drug education and therefore cannot be accepted as a public benevolent institution. I think this is wrong and I believe it is vitally important to the future of Australian youth and indeed the future of our country that every possible support is given to the Life Education Centre. I would like to make the point very clearly that in the current school year it is estimated that some 500,000 Australian schoolchildren will attend life education centre classrooms. Currently they have fixed centres at Potts Point, Terry Hills, Colyton, the Gold Coast and one at Newcastle under construction. Land has been acquired at Frenchs Forest. A new complex will be constructed within two years, estimated to cost $750,000. At the present time 27 mobile units are in operation throughout Australia. There are 11 more under construction. One of those 11 under construction will be commissioned in the next few weeks at Coffs Harbour to serve the area in the northern half of my electorate. These units cost $115,000 each to construct and fit out and approximately $80,000 a year to operate. Each mobile unit can accommodate 11,500 pupils annually. I think it is fair to say that they are 11,500 children each year who are going to be exposed to the extremely worthwhile teaching and education from the Life Education Centre. The estimated cost of running the Life Education Centre from the Wayside Chapel for 1988-89 is $1.9m, of which only 30 per cent is provided by governments. The balance has to be raised from the community. In addition, there are throughout Australia hundreds of volunteers in regional areas giving their time for nothing. Life education, which started in Sydney, is operating internationally in the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. Interest has been forthcoming from Brunei, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia. But, of course, with the limited finance available it is very difficult for the Life Education Centre to extend the benefits to these other countries and make them available. We have to consider the future cost to the Australian community if the drug problem is not contained, because that future cost will be totally beyond our resources. Mr Deputy Speaker, each heroin addict in this country will cost the Australian taxpayer dearly during his or her estimated seven-year lifespan from initial addiction, because that is how long addicts last. Become a heroin addict, and you will be dead, on average, in seven years. Each one of those people will cost the Australian taxpayer $750,000 in that seven-year period. Currently it is estimated that there are 50,000 addicts to heroin in Australia and this number is increasing at 25 per cent per annum. The cost to this country really does not bear thinking about-I am not concerned about the cost in monetary terms really. I am concerned about those young lives. I am concerned about the loss of potential for our fellow Australians. I believe that it is absolutely essential that this work started by Ted Noffs should be continued. I see my friends on the Government benches nodding in agreement. Perhaps they would be kind enough to join with me in an approach to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to see whether anything can be done to remedy this particular omission. It needs a bipartisan approach; it really does. I am prepared to stand here and say before the people of Australia that I know of nothing better that can be done for our children and for future generations than to continue the work of Ted Noffs and these life education centres. We have spoken of the fact that the cost of the average addict is $750,000 over a seven-year lifespan. On these estimates, heroin addicts alone are costing Australia between $3.5 billion and $4 billion dollars annually. Yet, going back to the cost of running the life education centres, it is $6 per child per annum to participate in that life-giving education, guidance, counselling, call it what you will, which is provided for our children throughout Australia. I would like to see the life education centres expanded throughout Australia. As I have said, currently there are 27 mobile units and another 11 under construction. There is a very large area of Australia where the kids still do not have this opportunity and I would like to see the centres expanded. The reality is, as I have said, that about a third of the funding comes from governments; the rest has to be raised from donations. It is a matter of fact; it is a matter of logic and plain commonsense. When people are making donations to an organisation such as this, they can be encouraged by tax deductibility. This is why I say clearly to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister that I hope they will heed the request from the Life Education Centre because it is of such vital importance to the future of our country and of our kids. I note that Mr Wesley Noffs, the chief executive of the Life Education Centre, wrote to the Treasurer on 2 June 1988 asking for his urgent assistance regarding this apparent recent alteration. The new guidelines preclude most of the mobile drug education facilities operating throughout Australia from receiving tax exemption because they are operating in a `purely educative role' and not providing `direct relief from the affliction' of drugs. Like the Life Education Centre people, I find this concept very difficult to accept and if left unchanged it could be disastrous to the future of the Life Education Centre organisation. The life education centres provide the only national drug education facility in Australia and much of the funding will cease if they cannot be granted this tax deductibility. They endeavoured to explain this in their letter to the Commissioner of Taxation, but apparently to no avail. I join with Mr Wesley Noffs in appealing to the Treasurer, and I extend that to the Prime Minister, to give favourable assistance on this question of tax deductibility because the future of Australian children is worth tax deductibility. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(1.16) —I would like to comment on the state of the global economy and about the place of Australia and our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, in that international context. For most countries, the 1980s has been a decade of depression and faltering recovery. At the beginning of the 1980s, Western industrial countries experienced the most severe recession for 50 years. Real income per head fell and with it total employment so that unemployment rates doubled. The volume of world trade stagnated; interest rates multiplied. Since about 1983, per capita growth rates in Western countries have haltingly recovered but only to half the rates in the 1960s and early 1970s while unemployment generally remains appallingly high. The impact of Western recession on developing countries has been catastrophic. Much of the Third World has experienced a depression during the 1980s more severe than that of the Great Depression in industrial countries in the 1930s. In sub-Sahara and Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia and the Pacific, average living standards have fallen by 10 to 15 per cent. The World Bank says in its 1988 world development report that poverty in developing countries is on the rise. Between 1970 and 1980 the number of people with inadequate diets in developing countries, excluding China, increased from 650 million to 730 million. Since 1980, matters have turned from bad to worse. Economic growth rates have slowed, real wages have dropped and growth in employment has faltered in most developing countries. Precipitous declines in commodity prices have cut rural incomes and governments have reduced their real spending on social services. One of the most tragic aspects of this depression is that the impoverished people lose hope. After years of deterioration they cease to hope that life will be any better for their children. We must aim for the restoration of that hope. External debt of developing countries doubled between 1980 and 1988 to over $1,200 billion. In combination with high real interest rates, this caused a sharp increase in the proportion of export earnings which had to be used for servicing debt, so reducing investment and the capacity to import both essential investment and consumer goods. Investment in indebted countries collapsed. The 1980s have been a lost decade for development. These global trends are often neglected by commentators on both Australia and Papua New Guinea. There is a tone of criticism implicit in much writing about the fall in income per head since independence in Papua New Guinea. A recent paper commissioned by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau makes the quite inaccurate assertion that `output growth since independence in 1975 has generally been slower in comparison with other developing countries'. Perhaps the authors are aware of only the newly industrialising countries of Asia. A more realistic comparison is with developing countries exporting minerals and tropical agricultural commodities. For example, between 1980 and 1986, GDP grew by the same average rate in all lower-middle income countries, amongst which the World Bank classifies Papua New Guinea, of 1.8 per cent a year. One of the principal reasons for the slow growth in Papua New Guinea has been a sharp cut in aid received during the last 12 years. Extraordinary gains have been made by Papua New Guinea in cutting aid dependence from over 60 per cent of total revenue in 1975 to 21 per cent in 1988. This is a really remarkable achievement. Now at a time when there are urgent needs for investment and for extension of economic, educational and health services in Papua New Guinea, one wonders whether the highest priority might not be to negotiate hard for a pause in reductions in Australian aid and for increases in other aid so as to maximise the resources available for development. Australian aid officials would like aid to Papua New Guinea reduced further so that more became available for other countries. While it is true that many countries need aid more than Papua New Guinea, the solution to this problem is for total Australian aid to be increased. In Australia, too, there is still insufficient recognition of the power of international influences, though the fall in living standards following the decline in the terms of trade in 1985 and 1986 taught many Australians about the strength of global interdependence. As commodity importers, both Australia and Papua New Guinea have suffered from the long term decline in commodity prices and from the price collapses in 1981-82 and 1985-86. The origins of this decade of depression and slow growth were complex but, in brief, powerful factors were the monetarist and militarist Reaganite policies used by the United States, Britain and some other Western governments. The aberrant monetarists believed that tight monetary control and cutting public outlays were the key policies for controlling inflation. They were successful, but at the cost of soaring interest rates, unemployment and severe recession. In combination with the equally aberrant supply-siders whose highest priority is to cut taxes, and the militarists, these policies led to the massive United States budget deficit, the overvalued dollar and the historically high United States current account deficit which has turned America into the world's largest debtor. The Western recession led to the slump in commodity prices and to extreme debt servicing difficulties for Third World debtors. Misjudged policies within developing countries sometimes compounded problems. Overvalued exchange rates led to increased imports and encouraged capital flight. Military expenditures wasted capital, which could have been invested. Subsidies for consumer goods and inefficient public enterprises dissipated funds in some countries. The dramatic consequences have been described already. This stagnation and deterioration need not become chronic. Policies are available which would contribute to solutions. The necessary condition is political will amongst pragmatic rather than doctrinaire governments. The possibility of a Dukakis Administration in the United States offers the hope that such policies might be introduced, for there is a change of mood in the United States. Paul Kelly reports that the tax revolution is over. He says support for cutting the size of government is fading; Americans instead are looking toward government for help. Policy changes in the most powerful economy would influence every other country. The Japanese, too, are thinking more creatively about the implications of their international financial power. Policies which Australia and Papua New Guinea should be encouraging these and other major Western countries to introduce include: first, coordination of their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rate and interest rate in balances and instability; second, adoption of expansionary macro-economic policies in current account surplus countries like Japan, West Germany, Korea and Taiwan, so as to increase imports and stimulate world trade; third, reduction of wasteful military expenditure and negotiation with the Warsaw Pact countries to do the same, of course, so as to release resources for more economically and socially useful activities; fourth, increasing aid for developing countries to the greatest extent possible to contribute to reversing the outflow of funds from developing countries; fifth, adopting new policies for coping with the debt crisis including forgiveness of official debt for the poorest countries, establishment of a debt management facility by the International Monetary Fund, a moratorium on interest rates, interest payments in creditor currencies, allowing instead payment in debt currencies, and relaxation of the severity of IMF and World Bank conditionality; sixth, resuming issues of special drawing rights, this time allocated to developing countries so as to ease their balance of payments constraint; and seventh, convening of a global conference on reform of the international economic system. The aim of all these policies would be to increase rates of economic growth in both industrialised and developing countries. Faster expansion in the West would lead to faster expansion in the South. A global summit in 1990 could resume the process of international economic reform that was stopped so abruptly by Reagan at Cancun in 1981. The United Nations Secretary-General and many other leaders of international organisations have called for a global summit on development in 1990. I hope that the next US President will adopt that idea and initiate planning for an international summit conference on reform of the international financial and economic system. Australia and Papua New Guinea are both minor players on the international stage but neither country need be as passive as it has been during the last decade. Australia does not have to continue slavishly following United States international economic policies. Australia could join with other like-minded countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Canada, to advocate these policies at international fora such as the World Bank, IMF, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I hope that those policies will be adopted. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.26) —On 4 July, which is ironically American Independence Day, 7,500 Australian households were marked down to become respondents in the 1988-89 household expenditure survey. That means that one household in 1,000 was earmarked and over the coming months those people will be required to respond to a knock on the door by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and to respond to what I regard as bordering on an inquisition. The ordinary family will have to answer some 350 questions. Someone with a complicated income structure will need to answer anything up to 1,100 questions. I am standing in this place today to express deep concern as to the direction in which we are going as a nation in making demands on the population in terms of providing information of a very private nature to government officials. I recognise that all of us in this place use material from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Indeed, government does at every level, business does, and individuals do. But what I am saying in my address here today is that they have gone too far. This household expenditure survey requires people to provide the most intimate information in terms of their financial affairs. It is time consuming and it is morale stripping. This is the fourth household expenditure survey, one being conducted by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1974, a second by the Whitlam Government in 1975, and the third by the Hawke Government in 1984. But for the first time, the people of Australia who have that knock on their door will have the authority to say, `No, thank you', because, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a result of the Australian Statistician's office trying to bypass the people's Parliament, it has got itself on a hook that I am not going to let it off. The Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 has section 6, subsection (3), which was put there in 1975 as a safeguard for the liberties and the rights of the people of this nation. It is a provision which requires the Statistician's office before it conducts a survey to come to the Parliament and to table before the Senate and the House of Representatives its intentions. This has been followed on numerous occasions with requirements rightfully applied. On this occasion the Bureau, against internal advice and recommendations, decided that it was not going to table, that it would give the Parliament and the people the flick. I became aware that this had happened in late May, but it was not until the middle of June that I started to develop some confidence that the Bureau might have been perpetrating an abrogation of the law and, indeed, simply not abiding by the law. I started to move and to ask questions. I put out press releases; I drew the matter to the attention of none other than the Treasurer of Australia (Mr Keating). Indeed, I even circulated copies of opinions that I obtained to all members of the Parliament-Labor, Liberal, National and Democrat. So let no-one say that I have tried to hide my concerns from the other side. I have tried to obtain a recognition of this by the entire Parliament, but unfortunately the Statistician dug himself further and further in, finally to a point where what I regard as a shonky submission was made to the Attorney-General's Department. The Attorney-General's Department, acting on that shonky submission, gave the Bureau what it wanted-its first piece of paper to say that what it was doing was within the law. Up to that point I had had five legal opinions: one from the Parliamentary Library's legal service; one from the Office of the Clerk of the Senate; one from a barrister in Western Australia; one from a QC in Queensland; and a final one from Professor Whalan, the head of the Law Department of the Australian National University. Since the Attorney-General's Department has come out, I have received an opinion that it is just without foundation from the Office of the Clerk of the Senate, from Professor Whalan, and from a barrister in Adelaide-and I have paid for this opinion. He was the barrister who successfully defended a woman against the ABS last week. Indeed, these very words are what the Office of the Clerk of the Senate says in relation to the way the Government and its supporters are standing behind this; they are all the way with it. The Office of the Clerk of the Senate said of the way the Government is interpreting the law: Such a view of the law, which does violence to the intention of Parliament and to the rights of individuals, is, in my view, entirely unacceptable and a court could not countenance it. It is time the requirements of the law took precedence to the requirements of policy, convenience and expediency in this matter. I say to those 7,500 households out there, who have either received the knock on the door already or will receive it in the months ahead, `Gently close your door'. I am absolutely convinced that the Bureau is wrong; it is dogmatic; it is obstinate, as is the Treasurer and his Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who lectured me in the Parliament only this week. He said, `He does not understand the law', referring to me. Granted I am not a lawyer, but at least I had the brains to go and gain opinions from people who were in a position to judge; experienced people, people without an axe to grind. I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying to the people out there that the Bureau pays those people who knock on their door $12 an hour to interview them. They are highly skilled and highly trained in the art of pulling down defences and getting at the interviewees. Be rigid, be firm, because for the first time in this country a compulsory survey will not be a compulsory survey by virtue of the Bureau's own attempt to bypass the Parliament and to bypass the people. I believe that the Bureau was motivated by a desire not to draw attention to what it was doing. In its own documentation which I received under freedom of information provisions, it talks about the intrusive nature of this survey. I assure the other 999 households out of 1,000 that will not get the knock on the door that the matter I raise today is a matter of national liberty, a contravention by the very Government that runs this country of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 17, No. 1. I am pleased to say that I was advised last night that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has agreed to a full-scale investigation into what is going on. I have not been able to get it from the Government. It has been warned for almost three months that there were problems about this and chose to ignore it; that is its problem from now on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.36) —Speaking in this new chamber of ours gives me a fellow feeling for my goldfish, for it gives one the impression of being in here and being peered at by people through glass windows. It is an eerie feeling and I now have some sympathy for my fish. Listening to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), I sometimes feel that the level of intellect in my fishpond is probably greater than one finds in this House on occasions. Mr McGauran —That is unnecessary. Mr CAMPBELL —I will be quite happy to explain that. I have, however, a soft spot for the honourable member of Moreton. In fact I once had a three-legged dog. He makes an issue of the Bureau of Statistics, a bureau which is simply trying to collate information for the betterment of all Australians. What it is seeking is not a real intrusion of civil liberties and I think it is appalling that we should make such an issue of this. But I must say that if the honourable member for Moreton can find so much passion to devote to an issue like this, the constituents of Moreton must indeed be very lucky people. I did not intend to speak on the tirade of the honourable member for Moreton, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will turn to what I originally intended to speak on, which is government involvement in industry. I must commend the Western Australian Government for the initiative it has shown in supporting industry. Without the intervention and the farsightedness of the Western Australian Government a lot of industries simply would not get off the ground. This is not to say that all these industries that it supports are going to be successful. Indeed, I would say if that was the case that the Government has clearly failed, for in business not everything is successful; it is simply the nature of things. The Western Australian Government has shown itself prepared to go out and support initiatives from people, initiatives industry cannot attract from the private sector and it does not attract them simply because the private sector in this country does not have the nerve. Right now I am very interested in a company called Farmers Tractors at Merredin. Farmers Tractors is one of the most innovative machinery designers and manufacturers in the world. With soil erosion and salinity being the number one environmental problem in Australia, it is to its great credit that it has come up with a machine which leaves on the surface all the cultivated trash and enables farmers to farm through the trash. It leaves on the surface a mulch layer which improves the intake of water and stops wind erosion. It is a machine which is vital to the future of Australia. Alas, the people who originally put up their capital are fast running out of resources and unless the Western Australian Government comes to their assistance nobody else will, because the private sector is incapable of thinking in investment terms of more than about six months. This is a company with a product which I believe has world export potential, but the returns are not going to be immediate; it is going to need a little patience and a little courage, things that are simply lacking or appear to be lacking in Australia, from the private sector. So I believe very strongly that there is a need for governments to take a lead in this area. Mr McGauran —Like the Victorian Government? Mr CAMPBELL —I would say that the Victorian Government should be highly commended for what it has done and if there are mistakes made, they were made in the interests of Australia. It is better than the negative and carping attitudes we get from honourable members opposite. In Western Australia we have a situation where the Government is being badgered over its involvement in a petrochemical plant. It is a project that is made necessary by the criminal foolishness of the previous Liberal Government which signed a take or pay contract-something the private sector would never do. It agreed to take gas at high prices on the basis that it would pay for it whether it took it or not. The consequence of this was that it had to be taken to Perth by pipeline. The Court Government invested a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to build a pipeline to take this take or pay gas to Perth. We now have the ridiculous situation where that gas is actually cheaper in Perth than it is at its point of origin. The only way out for a government under these circumstances is to use the gas to generate power, a very inefficient method of generation. To do that, the Government would have had to abandon the town of Collie, in the south-west of Western Australia, which is a coal producing town. A Liberal government felt no hesitation in simply folding that town up, closing it down, destroying the jobs and the livelihood of the people who live in that area, wreaking economic havoc, economic vandalism in an area where employment is at premium. It is to the credit of this Government that it sought an alternative, and the alternative is, of course, to use the gas for petrochemical production. With the enormous world demand for that, I am sure that industry will prove to be a great success. I hope that when it is profitable the Government will divest itself of the industry, but I am sure that the future will show that it was the vision and the foresight of the government which served the people well. Mr Deputy Speaker, I sometimes in the hurly-burly of this place like to console myself with poetry. There is a very good poetry book called The Voice of the Nullarbor, and it is, some might say, not great but it is written by people who lived on the Nullarbor, people who pioneered the Nullarbor plains. As honourable members know, it is one of the last great pastoral developments Australia will ever see. It is a development that, I am pleased to say, I was part of. A stanza from this book Voice of the Nullarbor sticks in my mind and I think it is very relevant. It goes something like this: `We do not look for sorrow in the sunrise of tomorrow, but tread with trust and courage to the jungle of our fears'. I believe those are words that we in this Parliament have a duty to remember, a duty to take to heart, for unless we have governments prepared to show the way, governments prepared to have the guts to put the money on the line to develop new industries, to develop the fields in which Australia is to be world competitive in the future, there will be no future for our children and we are going to leave to them a heritage of a jungle of fears-the fears of unemployment, the fears of lack of future. I believe that the great trouble with this country is that we have no vision for the future. We have very few companies in this country-in fact we have no companies-that think in 30-year terms. Governments of course, seldom think beyond 3-year terms. Unless we can develop this long term perspective, I fear for the future and I commend those governments in Australia that have taken the initiative and the risks, and have invested money in trying to develop the future for Australia and for our children. I think it is an indictment of the Opposition parties that they quibble and cavil at these initiatives. They should be out there wholeheartedly supporting them. Of course there are going to be failures; of course there are going to be mistakes made; they are made every day in the private sector. I spend quite a bit of my time trying to promote industry and Australian exports. There are many captains of industry in Australia, people who are highly regarded in the media, who succeed in business on the premise that they cannot always be wrong. They are simply gamblers; they have no great vision and they much prefer to invest in old technology things they know, than take a chance on which the future of this country does depend. I think part of the trouble we have stems from the mentality of this country, and I think this is no better exhibited than when this nation rejected Waltzing Matilda as a national anthem. Instead we opted for an anthem which is, to say the best, banal in its tune and pompous in its words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Canberra Times of 23 August there appeared a report entitled `New House Blessed in Service'. This referred to the service of worship organised by the Federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship held in the Great Hall of this new Parliament House on Sunday night of 21 August last. That was on the eve of the first sittings of Parliament and the beginning of the legislative work in this new House. Two thousand people and more-many from Canberra, but people were there from all over Australia-crowded into the Hall and the galleries. The Governor-General read from the Bible and members and senators from both sides of the Parliament participated in prayers. The address by the Reverend Neil Adcock was on the theme of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God-and this clubhouse on the hill. Mr Deputy Speaker, this was an inspiring occasion, richly blessed as many have averred by the spirit of God. I seek permission to include in Hansard the report of the service in the Canberra Times on Tuesday 23 August. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that Madam Speaker has inspected the document and has agreed to its inclusion. The report read as follows- New House blessed in service A congregation estimated by an organiser at about 2000 attended a service of praise, thanksgiving and commitment at the Great Hall of the new Parliament House on Sunday. The service, to mark the first week of Parliament sitting in the new building, was organised by the president and executive of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and the congregation was welcomed by the fellowship's president, the Member for Berowra, Dr Harry Edwards (Lib, NSW). Prayers were read by several people including the Member for Macquarie, Mr Alasdair Webster (Lib, NSW), the Member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Jim Snow (Lab, NSW), Senator Kay Patterson (Lib, Vic) and the Member for Fraser, Mr John Langmore (Lab, ACT). The introduction and appreciation was given by Senator Teague (Lib, SA). A presentation of Good News Bibles to the Parliament was made by the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. The Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the Most Reverend Francis Carroll, gave the blessing and the address was given by the president of the Baptist Union in NSW, the Reverend Neil Adcock. The Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, read the Lesson. A choir arranged by the Canberra branch of the Royal School for Church Music sang Psalm 24 to music composed for the occasion by the former Bishop of Gippsland, Bishop Neville Chynoweth. All the hymns sung were from the Australian Hymn Book, including For Australia, with lyrics by Canberra couple Mr Michael and Mrs Honor Thwaites. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia) —I rise to voice my concern on what I believe are heavy-handed, dictatorial tactics being used against hundreds of service station lessees by some Australian oil companies. The problem arises because the protection of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1988 expires next year on 18 September. The companies are jumping the gun and they are forcing proprietors-the dealers-to enter new agreements as their leases come up for negotiations now. The effect could be that thousands of the 10,000 proprietors throughout this country could forfeit or sacrifice at least a year of the tenure afforded by that Act. There is one main bone of contention and that is that the companies are charging franchise fees for little tangible benefit. But the Australian Service Station Association argues that some of the new provisions also conflict with with the Trade Practices Act. They are taking away the right to buy fuel from another supplier. The proprietors are being forced to agree to conditions that destroy the principle of quiet enjoyment of their premises. For instance, there is one clause that gives the company the right to enter the premises without consultation with the proprietors to carry out a major rebuild of that site. The companies can also automatically move in there and bring about a massive increase in site rent if the profitability of that proprietor increases significantly, because of something that occurs outside the control of the company; for instance, if it could access to the lowest wholesale price, or if there is some other reduction in cost. The proprietor is being locked in to using only one company in the transportation of fuel, and when that fuel is to be delivered or how much is to be delivered-that is, the volume-will be decided by the company. I want to signal to those companies that I intend to take this issue all the way, to ensure that the buyer is protected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm) —Following the raising in Parliament last night of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation's loan to Whipstick Goldmining Co. I have been attacked by the Premier of Victoria for raising the issue and I wish to direct to him the following questions: Why did the Victorian Economic Development Corporation grant a loan of nearly half a million dollars to a company with a paid-up capital of $12, a company director with a 30-year criminal history who had recently got out after being gaoled for producing amphetamines, the laboratory of which was described by the police at the time as the most sophisticated they had ever seen? Was the Premier aware that in gold mining reagents are used that are necessary also to produce amphetamines? Had the company previously been knocked back by other financial institutions? When the illegal amphetamine laboratory was raided in 1981, was all the equipment known to have been supplied to it recovered by the police? Is the Premier satisfied that the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and his Government have not indirectly financed, aided and provided the mechanism whereby the reagents could be supplied for illegal amphetamine production? I give the Premier notice that I am considering referring this most serious matter to the National Crime Authority. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —The Brisbane Airport is located in the electorate of Lilley. As representative of the people of Lilley I have carried their collective voice to Canberra and have provided a conduit between government and the people. We now have a new domestic terminal worthy of Brisbane which, while bringing obvious advantages to Queensland, has caused distress in varying degrees to people living in the environs of the airport or under flight paths. I know the stress that this can cause after organising numerous public meetings, submissions, et cetera during the many years when my constituents suffered the most excruciating noise from the old airport. While major noise prone areas near the old airport are now comparatively noise-free, there are still major areas of concern which I have presented to the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), and now have presented to the incoming Minister, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch). Pinkenba and Nudgee Beach are the suburbs closest to the airport and I have strongly represented their interests, as I have the interests of the bayside areas from Shorncliffe to Brighton and Bracken Ridge. Craft must cease flying over Pinkenba. Jets pass at an altitude of 500 to 600 feet. I have also strongly presented the objections of my bayside constituents to any extension of the existing cross-runway since 1981-82 and will continue to do so. The arrival flight path to the cross-runway passes off-shore Nudgee Beach at an altitude of 400 feet and to use it for jets would bring severe noise problems. I join with my Brisbane colleagues who are representing people in their areas as vigorously as I am in mine. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —Yesterday at Question Time the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to a certain number of letters that were written to the Local Government Association concerning the question of the recognition of local government under the constitutional referendum to be held on Saturday. A letter that I had written some months ago was actually referred to. I want to make it quite clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have changed my mind completely, whilst I was wavering at the time, since the legislation came before the Parliament and actually refers to a system of local government within Australia. The actual question proposed, question No. 3 upon the ballot paper, does not readily conform to what local government and many people expected it to be. I am particularly worried and so are many Australians as to what the interpretation of the High Court will be concerning a system of local government within Australia. We are very concerned and this is why we are opposing it, advocating a no vote because a system of local government could easily be a system of regional councils or some other interpretation. This would not conform to the present system of local government. So it is that we strongly oppose this question. We ask people to vote no and we remind people that there will be-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler) —When John Kennedy was running for President he had a tape prepared which contained the words, `Everyone is voting for Jack because he has what all the rest lack'. The words still apply today, and they very aptly apply to the appearance of Jack Herbert before the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. In evidence yesterday Herbert named Sir Terence Lewis as a person who accepted bribes and had been doing so since the late 1960s. Against the advice of the then Police Commissioner, Ray Whitrod, Sir Terence received a senior appointment under the National-Liberal Party Government and was subsequently made Police Commissioner. Years later under the National Party Government Sir Terence Lewis was knighted for his services. Since his name first appeared in the inquiry Lewis has been suspended. Surely in the light of mounting hearsay evidence, the Ahern Government will stop its indecision on this matter and demand Lewis's resignation for the inefficient manner in which he administered the police force. It should also take action to strip him of his knighthood. The most galling part of this whole episode is that the allegations were made years ago. The various Liberal and National parties were too arrogant to take action. Their arrogance was based on the infallibility of crooked electoral boundaries. Crooked boundaries breed a crooked system. The people of Queensland have a unique opportunity on Saturday to breathe new life into Queensland's electoral system. They should vote yes on the fair election system to show that they are tired of their institutions being undermined by an arrogant, inactive State government. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I wish also to speak on the referendum regarding question No. 2 raised by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice). He has yet to establish any sort of name for himself in this place which would remind us of the seat he represents. The simple point is that question No. 2 is fraudulently, dishonestly and deceitfully drawn. The people of Australia are being asked to vote for fair and democratic elections. Of course one would vote for fair and democratic elections. But the point is that this question is utterly misleading. It will not in any way address gerrymanders. The gerrymanders that exist in the federal system as a result of Labor Party actions in the seats of McEwen and Burke in Victoria are utterly and unequivocally drawn to favour the Government. In Queensland there is a tolerance only to take account of the large country areas so as to give country people in Queensland some sort of voice in their Parliament. What would honourable members opposite do-have State electorates the size of Victoria contained within Queensland? That is what they mean by one vote one value. Ten seats would change overnight in Queensland. What sort of representation would country people have under those circumstances? This question is a fraud. Those who argue for it are fraudulent. It will not assist in any way in ridding ourselves of the drawing of gerrymanders. All it does is deal with malapportionment between seats. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman) —Madam Speaker, I want to raise in this House for the second time, but probably not the last time-there will be plenty more times-the question of the serious noise problems that occur in my electorate of Bowman and, indeed, also in the electorate of Griffith, but mainly now in Bowman, as the result of the building of the new Brisbane Airport. I have made a number of representations, along with a number of my other colleagues, to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and certain things are sought to be done to help the problem. The fact is that all those people who are there in that area around my electorate in southern Brisbane are being subjected to horrendous noise problems. I want to publicly call today, Madam Speaker, on the airline companies, both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines, to do something about banning the use of outdated DC9 aircraft and 727 aircraft from using the Brisbane Airport. I know it is a problem for them but it is not half as much of a problem as it is for the people who live under the flight paths. If they have any nous at all and anything to do with public goodwill they should start to think about that, to get rid of them a bit quicker than they reckon they are going to get rid of them and do something straight away about stopping that horrendous noise problem. I call upon them to do it and to do it forthwith. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —Madam Speaker, the now notorious Hayden papers contain a reference to the country of Nauru, one of our former protectorates and now close ally in the South Pacific. It is a most disparaging reference to the Government of Nauru and to its people and apparently the disparaging references did meet with the approval of the former Foreign Minister. I have been placing questions on the Notice Paper in the House for quite some months with no satisfactory results from the Foreign Minister as to why the Australian Government did not make a submission to the committee of inquiry set up by the Government of Nauru into the terms of its independence and into the basis upon which it should receive compensation for the phosphate mining conducted there, largely at the behest of Australian farmers. I believe it is imperative, Madam Speaker, that the Government now dispel the fears of the people of Nauru and others in the South Pacific who will be concerned by these references and state exactly what it is going to do as the committee of inquiry has now completed its work. Its report is imminent and I do believe it is most important for our relations in the South Pacific that the Government act and make clear what it thinks of the people of Nauru and the Australian obligation towards them. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —Madam Speaker, the reported blistering attack by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists on the CSIRO chief, Mr Wran, cannot be ignored. Other areas of scientific investigation are likewise concerned over Budget cuts. The pressure to have the Australian Analytical Laboratories fight in the marketplace for sufficient funds to make them economical and viable is a great disservice to the health and welfare of the community. The commercial client-laboratory relationship can preclude laboratories from reporting to the proper health authorities cases where they may have found suspect or even contaminated food or products. The Australian Analytical Laboratories must be given sufficient funding to enable them to carry out the full range of food and product testing in the interests of the health and welfare of the community. The television program Page One will tonight be dealing with some of these very real concerns. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —The Cain Government is engaged in a massive cover-up in its handling of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) affair. Its secret conduct and refusal to come clean with all the facts about VEDC investments are outrageous. Taxpayers' funds have been negligently invested and lent by the VEDC to a number of failed and failing companies. The Deputy Premier, Mr Fordham, is the Minister whose portfolio is directly responsible for the affairs of the VEDC. He is accountable for the Government's failure. His demise is inevitable if the Cain Government continues in office. He should be sacked. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106 (a) the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments that he made on the Sunday program on 4 May 1986, in which he said: Both Bill Hayden and I have worked assiduously from day one to try to create a viable and constructive relationship with Indonesia. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how his former Foreign Minister could be constructively working for such a relationship, when his views, as expressed to his Department, were that the Indonesians were erratic, hostile and sententious? Mr HAWKE —I did go to this issue yesterday but, as the Leader of the Opposition has raised it again, let me make what I believe are the relevant comments to be made. As I said yesterday, without conceding the accuracy of leaked documents, it is quite proper for opinions to be expressed privately by Ministers to officials in the course of their duties, and I imagine that it would make very interesting reading-not that I have sought to do it-if there were to be disclosed comments that may have been made by Ministers of the previous Government between 1975 and 1983. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition would regard it as appropriate to the interests of this country if that were to be done, because for them, as is the case for my Ministers, if there is to be a proper discharge of the relationships and obligations between Ministers and officials, there will be in the interchange of opinions and the arriving at positions notes and observations which are necessary to reach positions but which in no way will be regarded as appropriate for disclosure. It is the leaking and the publication of such private internal communications which put at risk Australia's foreign relations and the national interest. May I say on that matter that I completely repudiate, as in a sense I would hope the Leader of the Opposition would, the views of the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney, who this morning absolved the leaker, or leakers, of all blame. Mr Spender —I did not. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member says he did not. Well, let us read the transcript. It was put to the honourable member for North Sydney: On the point of a Minister having the right to communicate his own views within his Department, aren't the real culprits in the case those who have leaked the documents, rather than Mr Hayden writing his views? The honourable member's response to that was no. Mr Spender —Go on. Mr HAWKE —Sure I will go on. He continued: You see, there are two points. First of all that the documents have been leaked, and that is a very great pity- how nice it was of the honourable member to concede that it was a great pity!- that they have been leaked, because they are extraordinarily damaging. But his answer is that `the real culprits are not the leakers'. Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Well, the English is there, and it is quite clear as far as I am concerned. On the question of relations with our neighbours in general, and in regard to Indonesia in particular, let me repeat the general point that I made yesterday; that is, other countries can be completely assured that Australia's foreign policy is as it has been articulated in definitive statements by the Government, including, of course, therein the complete commitment of Australia and this Government to the development of friendly and productive relations with all the countries of our region and our commitment to an independent foreign policy based upon Australia's national interests. Importantly, those public definitive statements represent the view of my Government-and I trust that they represent the view of the Opposition-that we on both sides of this House understand that it is the interests of Australia that are paramount and that we are about the development of the best and the most cordial and constructive relations as possible with all the countries within our region, including Indonesia. I suggest that it does the Opposition little credit to attempt, in a situation where there has been a leaking of documents which referred to alleged statements or observations by the ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, to use those in a way which, to the extent which the Opposition uses them in this way, can only have some deleterious effect. As far as I am concerned and as far as this Government is concerned, we will continue to do what we have done in the past 5 1/2 years, that is, steadily improve the relationships that we have with the countries of this region. I am proud to be able to stand here, after 5 1/2 years of this Government, and say that the relations of Australia with the countries of this region have never been better. Mr COURTICE —I address my question to the Attorney-General, and I do so bearing in mind the recent revelations of widespread and institutionalised corruption in Queensland. Can the Attorney inform the House how the passage on Saturday of the referendum question on fair and democratic elections will provide more accountable government throughout Australia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question is very relevant to the fact that one of the questions to be asked next Saturday relates to fair and democratic elections. Honourable members would have noticed that, in the course of the debates that have been taking place here in the past few days, we have been saying that the emphasis is on giving good, effective government in the States as well as in the Commonwealth sphere. Bearing in mind that the Commonwealth, for the House of Representatives elections, requires fair and democratic elections, the interesting part about this debate at the present time is the resistance that this question is meeting in Queensland, where, of course, the National Party is in control. The point is that it relates to the gerrymander and malapportionment in Queensland. If we get bad government, we get it because of bad boundaries; let us make it very clear. Mr Sinclair —That is why we have a bad government federally. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Naturally, the Leader of the National Party is getting sensitive; it is getting close to the bone from the point of view of the politics involved. Last year the Queensland Parliament sat for 49 days. It does not care a jot about being accountable in parliament, nor does it account for its administration. That is the point to be made here. The other significant part about this question is that it also gives Australians the right to vote, which also needs to be entrenched. These are some of the interesting points, but we hear the Opposition saying that we do not need this question, that it is a sham. Yesterday Mr Ahern took the trouble of mailing to the taxpayers of Queensland, at their expense, a letter saying how dangerous it was to vote yes. I can understand his concern about the fact that there might be some element of danger in it, but the element of danger is to the likes of the political administration that has been in existence in Queensland for some time. Even the Liberal Party in Queensland is now urging a yes vote on the basis of getting fair and democratic elections. More to the point as to the danger of the situation is that, judging from the evidence given yesterday to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, one would not want to think that graft and corruption were limited to the police force. I refer to an interview broadcast this morning on 4QR between Mr Ray Whitrod, former Police Commissioner in Queensland, and Doug Weller, which proceeded as follows: Mr Weller: Could it be possible we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here? Mr Whitrod: Unless we get some evidence from Herbert which leads us up to higher echelons then I think we've missed out on a great chance to clean out the force and the corruption and bribery protection. Mr Weller: So you obviously mean the political arena? Mr Whitrod: Well yes. Mr Weller: The Government, the Cabinet? Mr Whitrod: I had a phone call yesterday from a very senior officer in the Queensland Police Force who told me that favours were still being extended to certain licensed premises. That is pretty dramatic evidence from a person who held a position of law enforcement responsibility. It would be important, of course, for the Fitzgerald inquiry to pursue those matters. Most importantly, this relates to the fact that, if a government can gerrymander electorates and rely on the patronage of, cronyism with or giving of favours to certain people, it will obviously rely on those people. One of the ways to do that is to have corrupt boundaries and not to face up to giving all Queenslanders equal weighting in their votes. That is the problem in Queensland at present. It is no good Mr Ahern running off and issuing a letter to the whole of Queensland, saying that there is a danger from Canberra. The only danger for Queensland is going to be the inbuilt political corruption that has been there for some time. The responsibility was with the Cabinet and the law enforcement politicians up there. They could not wake up to the fact that massive amounts of money were being paid by way of corruption. If one went down the streets of the city and saw all of those sleazy places operating without any legal authority, would not one have made inquiries, or would one have just left it on the basis that one assumed everything was in order? I give top marks to the Deputy Premier up there because at least he established the inquiry. The point is that it was the Deputy Premier who did it. That is the interesting thing about Queensland. The members of the National Party of Australia have a responsibility to stand up in this place and talk about these matters. They owe it to their own Party and its very survival, instead of sulking here on the basis that there will be some sort of interference in the rights of Queensland. They know very well what is wrong with Queensland. When Whitrod said that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg, he was obviously right. It would be important to have some analysis of the pecuniary interests of members of the Queensland Parliament. Federal parliamentarians have disclosed them, so why cannot they be disclosed in Queensland? People would then be able to see where they got their assets from and whether they are legitimate. What about public scrutiny from that point of view? The people of Queensland are entitled to know these things. There needs to be a guarantee of fair government. If Queensland had that sort of fair government there would be fair elections. So on Saturday there is a chance-- Mr Donald Cameron —What rot you talk. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know the honourable member is sensitive about it. It is about time he stood up for the Liberal Party in Queensland instead of being so beholden to the people here. I think it is about time Queenslanders got a chance. The honourable member has a responsibility to everyone in Queensland, and that includes the Liberal Party in Queensland. What I am talking about here is graft and corruption which can be so insidious that it can bring down the whole political structure. So a resounding vote of yes on all questions, particularly on question 2, by the people of Queensland when they vote next Saturday will give us a chance to clean up the graft and corruption. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the one I asked him earlier. I refer the Prime Minister to his reply to that question and I ask: Is one entitled to conclude from that reply that he is asserting that it is perfectly in order for a Foreign Minister in his Government to hold and privately assert views which by any measure are offensive, prejudiced and closed-minded, but it only becomes a problem when the fact that he holds those views and has privately expressed them comes into the public arena? If not, why not? Mr HAWKE —Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that I referred to the alleged comments. I am not in this House going to go beyond the fact that allegations have been made. If I had the view that one of my Ministers, whether in this case the Foreign Minister, or another Minister in regard to his portfolio, held views which were not consistent with what I regarded as the appropriate position of this Government, that would be a matter for concern for me and a matter with which I would deal. But if the honourable member wants to have an analysis of the record and the performance of Bill Hayden as Foreign Minister, I make this assertion: Australia has not had a better Foreign Minister than Bill Hayden. If the honourable member wants to relate that assessment to his position in the countries of Asia, let me say that Bill Hayden is held in the highest regard in these countries. The honourable member mentioned in particular Indonesia. I ask you, Madam Speaker, and all members of this House to understand that, as far as our relations with Indonesia are concerned, the role that Bill Hayden played was of very great significance. Let me say that the assessment that was made of him in terms of personal relations with the Indonesian Foreign Minister during the greater part of Bill Hayden's tenure of that portfolio was one of the highest esteem and admiration. They had a very close and mutually advantageous relationship. Let me briefly contrast what I have said about Bill Hayden-his position, his relations with these countries and the impact of his views on the countries of the region-with the hypocrisy that is exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of what he is prepared to do or not prepared to do in regard to offensive and dangerous positions by people in his shadow Cabinet. Do not rely on what I have to say. I rely on the comments of the honourable member for Goldstein on AM on 26 August. Mr Sinclair —What about what Bill Hayden had to say? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Well may the Leader of the National Party of Australia make a noise because it was he that the honourable member for Goldstein had fair in his sights. This is what the honourable member for Goldstein had to say: Well I'm very concerned that the National Party leaders have introduced a racist element in this debate. I hope that John Howard, who's certainly not racist himself, has rebuked him privately, but it's certainly a public perception that they have not been adequately rebuked publicly and I felt that the things that have been said in the last few days left open a reasonable interpretation that, while we say we're not discriminatory, perhaps in Government we would find reasons to be discriminatory. There we have a member of the Leader of the Opposition's own Party sitting behind him and saying-not merely of some ordinary member of the shadow Cabinet but of the Leader of the National Party-that the Leader of the National Party has introduced these racist elements into that debate. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, rather than trying in any way to damage the extraordinarily high reputation that Bill Hayden established, should pick up the challenge of the honourable member for Goldstein and publicly and completely rebuke the Leader of the National Party whose racist statements, so described by the honourable member for Goldstein, will do infinitely more to damage this country in its relations with the countries of the region than anything that has ever been said by Bill Hayden. Mr GRIFFITHS —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the timing of the next round of tax cuts for Australian and, in particular, Victorian workers? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong for his question. As he will be aware, since coming to office in March 1983 this Government has in fact delivered several rounds of tax cuts, which have benefited the workers of Australia generally and, of course, included in that, the workers of Victoria. As a result of those tax cuts that have been introduced by the Treasurer on behalf of the Government, we have reduced the top tax rate of 60c that we inherited after seven years of Liberal government and some 4 1/2 years of Howard treasurership to 49c with reductions down the line. As the Treasurer indicated, the present Budget provides about $1 billion worth of cuts in indirect taxes. Also, as the Treasurer said and indicated firmly in his Budget Speech, on behalf of the Government, we have laid down a specific timetable for the next round of income tax cuts which will be paid and received in the pockets of all workers, including Victorian workers, from 1 July next year. I can say to the honourable member that this Government's timetable of tax policy and tax cuts is clear, specific and delivered. But we cannot help contrasting the specificity of what is being done by this Government with the position on the other side of the House. It will not have escaped the attention of many members of this House that last week the Federal President of the Liberal Party sat in the gallery looking with considerable bemusement at the pathetic efforts of the Leader of the Opposition. He must be wondering what has become of the tax policy of the Leader of the Opposition because back in April the Federal President of the Liberal Party said to the meeting of the Liberal Party's Federal Council: John Howard has told all his shadow Ministers that their policies-- Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell the people of Victoria what he is going to do to pensioners. Madam SPEAKER —That was not a point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield was abusing the Standing Orders. Mr HAWKE —In April, John Elliott said to the Liberal Party Federal Council: John Howard has told all his shadow Ministers that their policies have to be finalised by August this year, and that will give us at least 14 months to clearly communicate the Liberal plan before the next election. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition had given Mr Elliott cause for saying this because honourable members should remember what the Leader of the Opposition said a couple of months earlier on the AM program. I quote him: I have said all along that timetable for policy release is by August is going to be adhered to. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is now 1 September. The policy has not been released. Given the chaos, confusion and lack of support he has on the other side, it is no wonder that that is yet another promise that he has broken. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his rather coy refusal officially to confirm or deny the offensive and reported remarks of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade about our close friends and neighbours in South East Asia. Would it not be in Australia's interest for the Prime Minister to seek and obtain from the former Foreign Minister an assurance that he did not hold or express the views reported which have done so much damage and to make that assurance public? Is it not a fact that his failure to do that merely confirms the reality that the Minister did hold and express those views which have done enormous damage to our relationships? Mr HAWKE —The double standards of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter are almost beyond belief. On this side of the House we have come to understand the hypocrisy and double standards which characterise that side of the House. Any objective analysis of the events in this country in the last two months would establish one thing beyond doubt: that if anything has been done to damage the relations between this country and countries in this region, it is what has been unleashed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the damaging thing that has been done in respect of our relations with Indonesia and the rest of this region-not anything else. I remind the House that, as the honourable member for Goldstein has said, while the Leader of the Opposition is not a racist himself, he has refused to rebuke and repudiate the racist elements of the comments made by the Leader of the National Party and Senator Stone. Because the Leader of the Opposition has refused to discharge that responsibility, which the honourable member for Goldstein properly says resides upon him, we have had in this country the despicable-- Mr Shipton —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, I refer you to standing order 145 which states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. I believe the Prime Minister's answer is not relevant to the question. He has been asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether the Prime Minister would seek and obtain an assurance from the former Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister's answer is not relevant to the question asked. Madam SPEAKER —I do not think the Prime Minister has finished his answer Mr HAWKE —I certainly have not. The issue in question is whether damage has been done to the relations between this country and the countries of the region. In answering this question I am pointing out the unden- iable truth: the one thing that has happened in recent times, which has done damage and will continue to do damage with the countries of this region, is what has been unleashed by this irresponsible Leader of the Opposition. That is the fact. The Leader of the Opposition can take it that the record of Bill Hayden, in his assiduous work in cultivating relations with the countries in this region, has enhanced the status of Australia. These countries will not in any way be diverted from the judgment they have made about the quality and standards of this Government's relations with those countries in the region by these alleged comments and leaks. It is equally clear that, in addition to the damage that the Leader of the Opposition has caused, he will only continue to accentuate that damage if, for pathetic political reasons, he now seeks to give added weight to the leaking of these documents, something which I believe is appalling. Any responsible person who really has the interests of this country at heart in terms of our country's relations with this region would not be seeking, for his own perceived political advantage, to continue consideration of this matter. The record of Bill Hayden stands as a proud one. Importantly, the stature that he enjoys with the countries of this region is strong and undiminished. Mr LAMB —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Under what conditions is the Government prepared to provide personal tax cuts? Mr KEATING —In order to provide personal tax cuts responsibly there must be a demand trade-off through the wage fixing system and this must occur against the background of a reasonable and tight fiscal policy. The Government, since coming to office, has sliced about five percentage points off outlays to gross domestic product which will see our outlays to GDP ratio fall to around 25.6 per cent this year, with 24 1/2 per cent in prospect for next year, from a peak of 30.5 per cent. This has been achieved by the most thorough examination of Commonwealth spending programs in the history of the Federation. On the wage front, next year we will be sitting down with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to negotiate a wage-tax deal which will both accommodate personal tax cuts and secure Australia's inflation rate at or below that of the rest of the world. But the conditions for the payment of personal tax cuts cannot be met in 1988-89. This year the surplus must do its work in underpinning the zero net public sector borrowing requirement and helping to generate a better investment performance. We have a wage system afoot which will work to preserve living standards but as a forerunner to the wage-tax trade-off. By 1989-90 the process of adjustment will, of course, have developed by a further year. By then we expect to have about another 2 1/2 percentage points off the inflation rate. We expect the Commonwealth sector to be even smaller. But now would be the wrong time to contemplate tax cuts. That is why we have said we will preserve this year's surplus. In the Australian today Senator Stone endorses the Government's analysis that tax cuts delivered would be irresponsible. I quote from that article: On August 20 1988, responding to Laurie Oakes's question on Channel Nine's Sunday program as to why the Government couldn't give tax cuts now, the Prime Minister said: ``. . . it's quite clear that when we've still got a significant external problem, large external debt, current account deficits, ordinary Australians know that we've got to be careful about running up high import bills. ``Demand is running strongly in the economy at the moment and if we were to significantly increase the level of demand in the Australian economy (i.e. by giving a major tax cut), our import bill would go up to unacceptably high levels and it would be dangerous.'' Those were the words of the Prime Minister, to which the shadow spokesman on finance, Senator Stone, said: Now I don't always praise Mr Hawke's economic analysis but this time he was spot on. And he was spot on. Here we have Senator Stone, the Opposition's shadow spokesman on finance, saying that the coalition's position on tax cuts is wrong and that he disagrees with it. The members of the Opposition are having a little discussion over there. When it gets a bit hot in the kitchen the Leader turns his back to us because he can never take a bit of blowtorch on him. The fact is that Senator Stone knows we are right-and what he is saying will have triple the force on the Opposition that it will have on the Government. Senator Stone knows that honourable members opposite would never make the spending cuts necessary to fund the tax cuts. As late as a few minutes ago at the National Press Club, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, `Of course, we will make spending cuts. That will be done. It will have to be done'. This was said with the serious face and the big stentorian voice. `It will be done', he says. But we never hear any facts. As the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, we were promised tax details by August. Then the Opposition said it would give us tax details by February. But we have no idea where they are. Last year Senator Stone said that he understood the policy void within the coalition. He said that the proceeds of any consumption tax in the hands of the coalition parties would be spent: the coalition would not be delivering the spending cuts. Senator Stone said, `Don't trust us on tax'. Here it is. I have the headline here. It says, `Don't trust us-Stone'. Here we have a re-run. This year we are having a re-run; that is, we have the Deputy saying there is a need for tax cuts. I have been keeping this headline. I have had it in the folder for 15 months. Everything comes around in its turn. And I knew it would be a case of deja vu for coalition tax cuts again. We are right back where we were in 1987. We have gone right back down the time tunnel to 1987-and no policy on tax cuts. In the previous Parliament in April 1987-- Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I remind you that yesterday you drew attention to the fact that the honourable member for Prospect was reading a newspaper in the House. Can you explain to me the difference between a newspaper and a newspaper banner? Mr KEATING —One hurts and one doesn't. Madam SPEAKER —Could I point out-because I think in fairness I should point out-that the Leader of the Opposition himself was using a newspaper in the House during Question time the other day or during the matter of public importance debate-I am not quite sure which. I am trying to be even-handed. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Honourable members will remember in the previous Parliament in April 1987 the Leader of the Opposition said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: We have a policy on tax. The only thing that is missing is the numbers. Well, you are not wrong about that, Ninette. Fifteen hundred million dollars was missing when it came out. In February 1987 the Leader of the Opposition said: the details of that policy are going to be released a lot sooner than many people imagine. And it was released in the last couple of weeks before the election campaign. It is simply a bad case of de javu-the fiction of massive spending cuts coming from some small fraction of total outlays. There are no specifics, but there are endless feel-good statements about the size of tax cuts. There are tax policy releases timed to come before an election. And all of these statements come from the coalition when the spokesperson on finance, a former Secretary to the Treasury, says that he does not agree with the coalition's policy in relation to tax cuts now and, for demand management reasons, agrees with the Government's analysis and the Prime Minister's remarks. In other words, the Opposition's whole tax strategy could not be delivered by the coalition parties as a government, and they are again mouthing empty rhetoric about where they stand on tax cuts. They are trying to cadge a few miserable votes while putting the economic and structural change of this country at risk. The Deputy Leader was over at the Press Club at lunch time today talking about tax cuts and spending cuts, knowing full well that spending cuts would never be made. And here is Senator Stone saying that tax cuts should not be made now. Is it any wonder Senator Stone says, `Don't trust us on tax'? Well he might, because he will guarantee that the Opposition's more irresponsible policies-obviously this is his view-will not be permitted to happen. Mr SINCLAIR —In light of the Prime Minister's oft repeated claim that his Government pursues a fully independent foreign policy, I ask him: How does he explain his Government's almost word for word acceptance of a draft press release of the United States State Department under Secretary George Shultz's name as its own policy on the visits of nuclear ships to Australia? Mr HAWKE —It is often the case, as I would have imagined the Leader of the National Party would be aware, that, in the conduct of relations between Australia and the United States, there is an interchange between us as to how we think a common view that we have reached should be expressed. It happens very frequently. Because of the deep importance of the relationship that Australia has with the United States-a matter to which I will be referring later this afternoon in my report on my recent visit to the United States-we are often in consultation about particular issues. The United States puts to us a view as to how it thinks a common view would best be expressed; we put a view to it. And it is obviously sensible when we are, as we are, in an alliance relationship to exchange such points of view so that in the outcome there will be an acceptance on both the part of the United States and Australia that the perceptions of our interests-the United States on its part and Australia on its-are properly represented. I have no doubt that, during the period of government when the Leader of the National Party held high office, he would have been aware that that practice was followed. I would be very surprised if he were not engaged in it himself. So I make no apology for the fact that, when there comes a point where the United States and Australia wish to express a view on an issue of common concern, we will exchange between us views as to how that view may best be expressed. That is not something that uniquely happened on this occasion. Mr GAYLER —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he is aware of certain documents being circulated in various communities about the proposed treaty between the Commonwealth Government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. Is the Minister concerned that these documents are being used deliberately to misinform the communities, thereby generating fear and concern about the proposed treaty? Will this affect importantly the Government's plans to continue to negotiate a treaty with the Aboriginal and Islander people of this country? Mr HAND —I am aware of some documents circulating around the country-I might add, in an informal way, I am told-mainly coming from the shadow Minister's office. In case honourable members do not know who the shadow Minister is, he is the third one from the end on the other side of the chamber-with the red tie. Mr Hawke —That's unkind. Mr HAND —It is not unkind. I am just trying to let people know. I am sick of telling people who he is. The shadow Minister is quick to fire off a press release about what this Government ought to be doing. So, in view of a conversation I had with the Leader of the Opposition about an issue he raised with me regarding the Northern Territory, I thought I would take a few minutes of the time of the House to give some information about what we are doing in regard to that sort of problem. This week we announced a new joint program-- Mr Howard —I did not raise it politically. Mr HAND —No, I know the honourable member did not raise it politically. It was a genuine attempt by him to raise a point with me; I concede that. So, in order to answer that query he had, I will announce to the House what we have done with the Northern Territory Government. A $30.3m program over-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAND —I am answering a question dealing with literature circulating around the country on a treaty, and it is connected. To get on with the answer: we are attempting to overcome the problems to which the honourable member continually refers, such as housing and education, rather than have a discussion about a treaty. We are reaching agreement with all the States on various programs. The most recent is a $30.3m program over three years with the Northern Territory Government. I make that point just to show that this Government is able to work with almost everybody in this country. The only people with whom we seem to have difficulty are honourable members opposite. In every State we are able to get on with the job of developing programs to assist Aboriginal people along the lines that we discussed the other day, and we are doing that. I want to address a couple of these documents that have been circulated because they are important. This Government, through the Prime Minister, announced its commitment to a treaty and we maintain that commitment to discuss it. A document called An Information Guide has been circulated: it was put out by the shadow Minister. The document ought to be retitled `A Misinformation Guide'. Mr Howard —Oh! Mr HAND —The honourable member can say `Oh!', but I will tell him how he is involved in this little exercise too. He talks about people being offensive, but it is about time he took on some of the offensive people in his parties who are offending Aboriginal people and the bulk of the Australian community. When is he going to pull Glen Sheil into line? When is he going to discipline Senator Stone, who, the day after the Leader of the Opposition's Budget reply in which he said that he supported the Government's drive in the Budget in terms of Aboriginal affairs, said that that was not right; he contradicted him. When will the honourable member pull the parties together so that we can get a decent opposition? This so-called document deals with a number of things. Firstly, it says that it was endorsed by the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations. That is a fib; that is misleading comment No. 1. The coordinator of the Aboriginal Organisations wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and said: The National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations has not endorsed any treaty proposal by anybody. The 23-page document referred to has been circulated by one person and who contributed to it we don't know. That was in June. The Leader of the Opposition offered to respond in writing to that person when he wrote to him and he has not done so. After that and knowing that, the shadow Minister put out the misinformation document claiming that this was endorsed by the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations. That is an outrageous lie; it is misleading the Parliament; and it is misleading the people. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HAND —I withdraw the comment. It is about time that we had an honest discussion on this issue, rather than one full of misleading comments to distort the facts and create confusion and fear in the community, as some people did in 1984 on other issues. That is not good enough for the Opposition. It is not what these people want. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people want to have a balanced discussion on this. The honourable member should know better, given his beliefs and the things he says, than to peddle this sort of thing around the community. Therefore, we have to ask the Leader of the Opposition: When will he pull into line the shadow Minister, John Stone, Senator Sheil and other people who are making these distortions around the countryside? Mr Sinclair —Come on, wind up. Mr HAND —I will take as long as is needed to address this question. The document peddles the question concerning two States. It says: The shorter Macquarie Dictionary says, `A treaty is a formal agreement between two or more independent States'. The National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation drew our attention to what must be the longer Macquarie Dictionary, which defines a treaty as a compact or agreement or negotiations with a view to a settlement. Normally I do not get involved in such academic arguments, but I think that it is worth while doing so on this occasion. The Concise Oxford Dictionary says a treaty is an agreement between persons. Again, Opposition members have set on a path of creating confusion and distorting the truth. I conclude by referring to what the Government is trying to do in this respect. I quote, yet again, from what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate said on this point: . . . the concern which is felt by some Australians that the concept of a treaty involves the recognition . . . of two nations- that is what the shadow Minister claimed in his document- is a concern that the Government would wish to put to rest. The Government's approach to the treaty . . . is this: We are not looking at two nations; we are looking at how the Australian nation properly deals with the situation of its Aboriginal people. If we can arrive at arrangements between the national government and the Aboriginal people of Australia which are consensual in nature and which represent the views of Aboriginal citizens of this country as to what is appropriate . . . That was said by Senator Chaney in 1980. I address a more recent statement by Senator Baume on 14 June 1988 regarding the Prime Minister's announcement: I think what we were trying to do in government, and I suspect what the Prime Minister's trying to do- that is, this Prime Minister- is to try to advance the condition and the prospects for Aboriginal people, and we would all share that as a very good and caring goal. Does the Leader of the Opposition support Senator Chaney or does he not? Does he or does he not support Senator Baume? Or is he, when he comes to me and talks about the problems that we as a government face and which he faced when he was in government, in terms of Aboriginal people, going to continue to allow people to walk around this country distorting the truth and telling those lies? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that term. Mr HAND —Those untruths, Madam Speaker, that are being reported in the newspapers. I invite the honourable member to look at Senator Stone's statement and at the filth being peddled by Senator Sheil. If the Leader of the Opposition supports such statements, let him stand up in the House and do so. Otherwise, he should do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition is going to change his front bench. When he does so he should change those people who have difficulty telling the truth. He should move those people who care about this issue from the back bench. Then we can get on with having a rational debate and discussion. Mr COBB —I refer the Prime Minister to his well-known racist remarks concerning the late Prime Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not attribute such remarks. He will reframe his question and continue. Mr COBB —I refer the Prime Minister to his well-publicised abuse of Mrs Thatcher, following the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and yesterday's quote from his former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, describing the Foreign Minister of Malaysia as `oafish'. Is it the Prime Minister's view that Australia's foreign relations are responsibly served by such reflections on international leaders? Will the Prime Minister provide an assurance that no other personal references have been made which could severely undermine Australia's interests in our region? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing further to add to the answers that I have already given on this matter. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can the Treasurer indicate to the House the economic advantages that will flow from a longer parliamentary term? Mr KEATING —Since about 1950 the average duration of each term of the House of Representatives has been about two years and two months. It has been entirely too short for the kinds of decisions which Australia needs for structural change; for decisions taken by governments which take a number of years to have an impact; and for decisions to be taken which are not at once easily understood but need to be taken, nevertheless, in the national interest. Past governments, particularly in the coalition's years, never took such decisions for fear of reprisal at the ballot box. This Government is introducing, along with all the other structural changes which we have introduced, yet another important structural change; that is, urging support for a four-year term for the House of Representatives. I might add that, if one looks back to the recent past, to the terms of trade collapse and the Government's decisions in the 1986-87 Budget and the May economic statement of 1987, one realises that few governments around the world would have taken the electoral risks which this Government took in making those decisions. The Government did that against the cycle and against its own interests; but it did so in the national interest. That has not been par for the course in Australia. What has been par for the course is safe decisions which ignore the national interest and which do not permit proper economic policy making-proper economic policy decisions. We did that in 1985-86, in 1986-87 and in the May 1987 economic statement, within six months of the technical expiration of the Parliament. That sort of thing is not par for the course. However, those decisions needed to be taken in the national interest, and we took them. A longer parliament would permit those sorts of decisions to be taken so that political parties would not have to fear their extinction at the ballot box for decisions taken in the national interest. A framework of four years would be much more supportive. We have had supporting statements from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There is even a letter from Mr Hay, representing the Australian Chamber of Commerce, to my colleague the Attorney-General, in which he says: The business community regards four-year terms as absolutely critical for the long term welfare of Australia. Nevertheless, the members of the business community in regard to this structural change, like all others, are letting the risk be the Government's, not theirs. The Business Council of Australia came out and said that it: . . . supports an extension from three to four years for the House of Representatives and a separate proposal that senators be elected for two terms of the House. In other words, the Business Council of Australia is barracking for eight-year terms for senators. In a press statement the Business Council said: The Business Council continues to support an increase from three to four years in the maximum term for the House and maintains the view that such a change would be beneficial to business and general economic planning. However, the Senate proposal differs significantly from the Council's preferred position. In the absence of bipartisan agreement, the Council is, therefore, not able to support the proposals as put by the Government. It considers that the question must now be approached as a matter of on-balance judgment on which individuals on the Council and in the community generally must make up their own mind. In other words, this is the Business Council doing what it did at the taxation summit in 1985, that is, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by another show of gutlessness in not coming out in support of a decent structural change; leaving it, as usual, to the principal Ministers of the Government to wear the heat out there in the electorate for supporting structural change. Members of the Business Council will whisper in one's ear privately at cocktail parties that such changes are necessary, but will never chance their hand out in the community by barracking for a decent change. The members of the Business Council of Australia, which represents the largest group of the major business corporations, ought to be out in the community pushing hard for a four-year term and supporting that. They should be putting their shoulder to the wheel of structural and constitutional change. However, they have the shoulders of the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister and other Ministers to the wheel and will not chance their hand because a few people might have Liberal Party tickets in their pockets. The Business Council does not understand that the Leader of the Opposition cannot rise to the occasion and support a bit of a decent constitutional change to make Australia a better place in which to live, a country with decent economic policies and a decent framework within which decisions can be taken. Every time, without fail, the honourable member for Bennelong will put his hand up for a bad result, for the bad outcome. Instead of the Business Council saying, `This fellow has nothing to offer. We owe him no allegiance and no support. We will put our hand up, when it matters, for a four-year term', it goes to water again. However, the next time members of the Business Council see me in private they will tell me, `We really agree with you. That Liberal Party is shocking; it is hopeless. The coalition is as weak as water. It has no policy, no structure and no leadership'. I will say to them, `Put your hand up for something'. But, oh no, gutlessness as usual! What they are saying is, `We won't fight'. It is an insult to structural change that the Business Council of Australia will not come out and support what it supports in private-four-year terms for Parliament. The Business Council will be hoping like hell that the four-year terms referendum gets up, as I believe it will. I believe that the proposal by the Attorney-General for a decent constitutional change which will allow this Parliament to make proper public interest decisions, in a proper timeframe and in a proper framework, will be carried by the public of Australia. If it is carried, the Business Council of Australia will be delighted. The Business Council still has a couple of days left in which to get up and put its mouth where its money is and to put its mouth the way it normally is at our ears at private functions. Now members of the Business Council have a chance to get up and say what they really want instead of worrying about any allegiance to the broken-down Liberal Party, which they have all forsaken. Madam SPEAKER —In the House yesterday the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) asked me a question arising from an article in the Canberra Times. We have had a situation concerning two non-union casual employees in the Catering Service at Parliament House. I have been advised that recent reports in the media attributing remarks on this matter to a representative of the Joint House Department are inaccurate. It is true that the two persons in question were removed from the casual list, as they were non-union members. The Joint House Department acted in accord with precedent established by the previous Government in removing the persons from the casual list. The action was not taken with the knowledge of the Presiding Officers. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has advised me that discussions between the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union, the Joint House Department and his Department will take place tomorrow. Hopefully, the matter will be resolved at that time. Motion (by Mr Spender) agreed to: That so much of Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for North Sydney moving forthwith a motion of censure of the Government. Motion of Censure Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.57) —I move: That this House censures the Government for the incalculable and lasting damage done to the conduct of foreign affairs by this Government consequent upon the revelation of the views held by its former Foreign Minister. I will start by putting this debate in context. I refer to the clumsy fiction that has been paraded by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. He said in answer to a question: Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that I refer to the alleged comments. I am not in this House going to go beyond the fact that allegations have been made. If I do, the view that one of my Ministers, whether in this case the Foreign Minister or another Minister, in regard to his portfolio held views which were not consistent with what I regarded as the appropriate position . . . We are not talking about alleged comments. Everybody here knows that. Why has the Government been in the High Court of Australia today? Why has it sought and been granted a temporary injunction restraining the publication of this material? It is because we are dealing with facts which are as hard as rocks; we are not dealing with allegations. Let me remind the House, in terms of putting this debate in context, that last week we had the immigration debate in this House. That was no more and no less than organised hypocrisy by this Government. Both the Prime Minister and the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), came into this House and claimed that debate on a domestic issue in this country would have devastating effects on our position and trade in Asia. I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said: It is critical that we keep in mind the extent of Australia's economic ties with Asia. Five out of the top 10 export markets of this country are in Asia. He went on to say that we were putting these things at risk. The Minister for Trade Negotiations was far more explicit. He said: The Opposition's policy is putting at risk billions of dollars worth of trade- Honourable members should note that-billions of dollars; the Minister does not skimp on large figures-- Mr Peacock —Who said that? Mr SPENDER —The Minister for Trade Negotiations. His quote continues: 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. It is against that background that we bring this motion of censure against the Government. That was an organised hypocrisy dealing with a matter of domestic debate in Australia. It was speculation, a beat up. What do we have here today? Everyone in this House and everyone who reads the newspapers knows that what we have today is a revelation of the real state of mind of the Government and of the former Foreign Minister, a revelation of its views and his views about some of the most important countries with which we have to deal in the Asian region. If one reads what the former Foreign Minister said-and I wait for someone to stand up in this House and say that these documents are a fabrication-one sees that it is plain that he viewed our neighbours with distrust, suspicion, contempt, disdain and derision. Let me quote some of the words he used about Indonesia, our closest neighbour with a population of 170 million people. He said they were `a hostile and erratic people', that the Government of that country was `immature'. He said that the conduct of the former Foreign Minister of Malaysia was `oafish'. He described the Japanese as `hypocritical'. He called the people of Papua New Guinea `immature'. But, of course, the former Foreign Minister himself is a mature person. What does that smack of? Does it not remind honourable members of the classic old colonial statement, `Those people do not know how to look after their affairs.'? If those statements had come from a former patrol officer, retired for about 40 years, one could understand them. But who do we get them from? From the darling of the Left, the former Foreign Minister himself, the person who parades as open, informed and unbiased-a person concerned with our relations in the region. The truth is, as his words have demonstrated, the former Foreign Minister treats the region with contempt. He was fond of aphorisms while Foreign Minister and he said that, in foreign affairs, words were like bullets. Bullets indeed. They have come back and shot this Government and the country. What is the Prime Minister's response to that, to the most serious, most damaging event in our relations with our near neighbours? What did he say today? He said that this country had not had a better Foreign Minister. He did not say, `No, I entirely reject these statements. No, I believe that these statements are against our national interest and do not reflect the views of my Government'. Effectively, is the Prime Minister not adopting those statements? He said that the former Foreign Minister had the highest esteem and admiration of Professor Mochtar, the former Foreign Minister of Indonesia. I had dinner with Professor Mochtar two nights ago in Singapore. It was a very useful dinner. We talked about foreign affairs, the relationship between this country and Indonesia and how that could be improved. I wonder what Professor Mochtar's views would have been had he known that the Foreign Minister of Australia regarded his people-Indonesians-as `erratic, hostile, given to sententiousness and immature'. What would our relationship with Indonesia have been over the past five years-bad as it has been-had that been thought or known to be our view? What could be more damaging, given the fragile, vulnerable nature of our relationship with Indonesia-indeed, its frigid nature, during the period this Government has been in office-for it is to be revealed to the Indonesian Government that it and its people were held in contempt by the Foreign Minister of this country. Yet, what did the Prime Minister do? Did he make a bold statement in our national interest? Did he reject the views of the former Foreign Minister? He did not. He spoke of his `strong and undiminished stature' in Asia. Does anybody in this House or anyone in the country believe that that is so? Can anybody believe that after the contemptuous and derisory way in which the former Foreign Minister has treated our nearest neighbours and Japan, he has a `strong and undiminished stature' in Asia? Of course not, but the Prime Minister stands by him. Let me just remind the House in a little more detail the extent of the disaster that has overtaken the conduct of the foreign affairs by this Government. We have the former Foreign Minister referring to the people of Indonesia in these terms-and I shall read the whole passage: There is no doubt about it- no doubt about it at all, he says in his majesterial way- the Indonesians are an erratic, hostile people- here is the Australian Foreign Minister making a judgment on the Indonesian people- to deal with, with an added sententiousness which makes them difficult neighbours. How will that be read in Indonesia? How will his other contemptuous remarks be read? They will be read as the views of this country. When he speaks of Malaysia's former Foreign Minister as behaving in an `oafish' manner, that will be well understood! When he speaks of the Papua New Guineans having behaved `very foolishly' on a matter concerning Indonesia, having put up `a clumsy bluff' and having `limited maturity', that will be very well understood by the people and leaders of Papua New Guinea! When he speaks of the Japanese `soft soaping the Asians' and `keenly interested in Indo China in their hypocritical way', that will be well understood by the Japanese! It is difficult to conceive of a more damaging collection of statements. Let me ask the House: Who will defend these views? Will anyone come into the House to defend them? The Minister for Trade Negotiations and the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) are sitting here, but nobody else from that side is in the chamber. Of course, the little boys and girls have all be sent out under instructions. Will we hear these people come in and say that they will defend these views? How can these views be defended? They cannot. Who will explain these views to our neighbours? Who will justify them? The Government certainly cannot. If these views are not defended or justified, where does that leave us? We are not sure. We are not sure because the Prime Minister today got up but he did not reject the views; he said that this man was the greatest Foreign Minister the country had ever seen. Mr Beale —The world's best? Mr SPENDER —The greatest Foreign Minister in the last 80 to 90 years. Does that not mean in the clearest sense that the Prime Minister endorses those views? Is he so cowardly that he would say, `Look, this man is the greatest Foreign Minister, but he is wrong here'? Why did he not say he was wrong? He had the opportunity to do so. He could have said that these things should never have been said. He could have said that the statements were an outrage and that he rejected them entirely. He could have spoken up in the national interests because we are talking about this country's national interests. Did he do that? He did not. He came in here and stood by his former Foreign Minister. We are not talking here about casual views or an aside made by the Foreign Minister in an unconsidered moment. We are talking about considered views-views which were put by him to guide and instruct officials of his Department and illuminate what was in his mind; views expressed by him as part of his job as Foreign Minister, expressed by him in the course of making foreign policy. Where else have they been expressed? The Foreign Minister was never known for his willingness or desire to keep a closed mouth. Does anyone in this House challenge that? It certainly will not be challenged. He was notorious for speaking his mind on all kinds of occasions. Does anybody believe that when, around the Cabinet table, questions concerning Indonesia or Papua New Guinea came up these very same views were not repeated by the Foreign Minister to his Cabinet colleagues? Is that conceivable? Only one of two things could have happened. We all know that Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the other countries that have been mentioned come up for discussion in Cabinet. The Foreign Minister could have given an entirely different view of the way in which he judged our neighbours. Of Indonesia he may have said, `These people are straightforward and easy to deal with'. But is it likely that he would misrepresent to his own colleagues his considered views or is it not likely, indeed inevitable, that when questions concerning these countries came up he would have said in Cabinet just what he has said in writing and those views would have really been taken on board as being the right way to approach things? The truth of the matter is that what has happened has set back foreign and trade policy by Australia in our region and in Asia, particularly in South East Asia, for years. How can this Government possibly say to the Indonesians, `Well, that is not true'? They will say, `But these were the views of your Foreign Minister. You stand by your Foreign Minister. You said in the House recently that he is the greatest Foreign Minister this country of yours has ever seen'. The Government in return would say, `Yes, but we did not really agree with those views; that is something quite different'. The Indonesians will know only too well that the views of the Foreign Minister have been given currency by this Government unless, of course, the Prime Minister comes in here and says, `The Foreign Minister never conveyed those views to us. He never expressed these sorts of things about Indonesia, about Papua New Guinea, about the former Malaysian Foreign Minister or about Japan'. The Prime Minister can come into the House and tell us but he will not. Is anybody on the Government side going to get up and say, `No, Bill never told us about these things; Bill always presented a different case to us'? The Minister for Trade Negotiations and the Leader of the House would not do that, because they know it would be untrue. We have reached the stage where because these revelations are now public we understand the Foreign Minister's mind. All of the talk about concern for relations in South East Asia and all of the claptrap which has been paraded in this House and outside for the last 5 1/2 years on behalf of the Government we know for what it is: basically, the Foreign Minister held these people and these countries in contempt. That is the end of a credible and constructive regional foreign policy by this Government. Why do we censure this Government? It is plain, is it not? Immediately this material became known, it should have been disavowed. The Prime Minister should have said, `Under no circumstances were those our views'. Who speaks out for Australia? Should it not be the Prime Minister? Should he not have put aside partisan party considerations, considerations of factions, and spoken out bluntly in the national interest and disavowed the Foreign Minister? He should have but he did not. After all, the Foreign Minister was the Prime Minister's choice. It was all part of the expiation of guilt process. His views would have been known to his colleagues and the Prime Minister. He was a loose cannon in foreign policy. As I have said, we censure the Prime Minister because the Cabinet would have been involved, because of the deep hypocrisy we have had in this House and outside about immigration and foreign policy, because of the immense hypocrisy of last week when the Prime Minister sought to induce the belief that a domestic debate was somehow destroying our credibility and our trade lines with South East Asia. We censure him for the gross incompetence displayed in keeping the Foreign Minister on. The Prime Minister must have known that, of all regions in the world, South East Asia was to us the most sensitive and that, of all countries in the world, Indonesia, as our closest neighbour, a powerful country with whose future we are inextricably tied, had to be handled sensitively. Yet what did the Prime Minister do? He left it as a fiefdom with the Foreign Minister to play with as he wanted to. There is only one solution. This Government can never repair its image overseas; it can never repair its position with South East Asia or the Asians, as they know this Government for what it is. The only solution is to get rid of the Government and install a new government with a new foreign policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Downer —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(3.17) —The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) came in here today and, amongst other things, I would like to pick up a couple of points that he made. He said he knew what was in the mind of the Foreign Minister. I assume he was referring to the former Foreign Minister. I interjected to say that I assumed he was referring to the former Foreign Minister, because there is an Acting Foreign Minister in the House today. That was an extraordinary statement for the honourable member to start off with. For all the years we have listened to him in this House in relation to the former Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, he has never laid a glove on him. In all the years that we have been in government not once has he touched him. In fact, today he has been dragged out of obscurity by nothing more than documents which were leaked to the press recently. He has been dragged out of obscurity by a leaker. Let me come back to what we have said about this matter. This Government-and let me make this absolutely clear-regards as an extremely serious matter the leaking of confidential documents. We do not, under any circumstances, propose to allow this matter to rest without taking every possible step to stop any further publication of these types of documents. After all, it is the publication of these documents that has created the problem for this country at the moment. It is the publication of these documents which has caused the difficulties that we now find ourselves in. Today at Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to what had happened in relation to this matter. The Prime Minister made that point absolutely clear-that it was the leaking of the documents causing the difficulty. He referred to the AM interview with the honourable member for North Sydney. The honourable member for North Sydney was a bit concerned about that because he asked the Prime Minister to go through the whole transcript. The honourable member for North Sydney was asked the direct question: . . . aren't the real culprits in this case those who'd leaked the document rather than Mr Hayden writing his views? The honourable member for North Sydney said, `No'. Then he went on and said: You see, there are two points-First of all . . . The rest of that is fairly difficult to follow. He then said: The second thing is that the judgement-the view-that is, in those documents. These will be seen by people throughout South-east Asia-by Governments throughout South-east Asia-as representing the general bona-fide views of the Foreign Minister which are the views of the Government and they will be seen to be the views of the Prime Minister unless he can, in some way, disavow them. I think the honourable member might have been away yesterday. Yesterday the Prime Minister, in fact, did just that. He went into the whole area of where we stood on this matter. Mr Spender —Rubbish. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member keeps on saying, `Rubbish'. He should just listen for a minute. In answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) yesterday this is what the Prime Minister said, inter alia: . . . suggesting that a Minister, in the course of his duties, is not able to make comments. As I say, I do not refer to the accuracy of what has been published, but a Minister must have the opportunity of full freedom of comment between him and his officials. As to comments which have been published, I think the leader of the Opposition would know that those comments do not reflect my views. That is what the Prime Minister of Australia said yesterday. The honourable member for North Sydney carried on yesterday morning and said that `they will be seen to be the views of the Prime Minister unless he can, in some way, disavow them'. Then he comes in here today and he makes the same allegation. He got up here today and said, `What is the Prime Minister going to say about it?' That is what the Prime Minister said: As to comments which have been published, I think the Leader of the Opposition would know that those comments do not reflect my views. I would have thought that even the honourable member for North Sydney would have understood that, but he seems to be having some difficulty with it. That is what the Prime Minister said. Let us have a look at what has happened under this Government in relation to the area that we are talking about. As the Prime Minister again said yesterday-I keep coming back to what he said because in this House today-- Mr Peacock —Do you want an atlas so that you know what you are talking about? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Mr DUFFY —In the questions asked of the Prime Minister today by the Leader of the Opposition-not so much by the honourable member for North Sydney-the Prime Minister was able to come back to one basic point: The clear policy of commitment to close relations with countries of our region is not qualified by the publication of alleged private comments by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Before we look at the performance of this Government in relation to the area we are talking about, I will just comment on the appallingly offensive performance by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), playing the great smart alec a moment ago. One would be very tempted during Question Time to walk in front of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and put in front of him a book on economics for beginners. When he comes in here and asks one of those questions about price deflators, and heaven knows what else, he has no idea what he is talking about. We all know that. Not only do we know it, but the honourable member for Kooyong knows it. He puts on an absolutely fraudulent performance. He comes over to this side of the chamber in the middle of a serious debate and holds up an atlas and carries on like a great smart alec. It will do the honourable member for Kooyong no harm to sit here and listen to a few things that are now going to be put to him. No government has put more resources and more effort into the region that we are talking about. Let us have a look at Indonesia. This Government has sought to ensure a well coordinated and businesslike approach to all our dealings with Indonesia. It has not tried to pretend that there are not sensitivities on both sides, but there have been sound intergovernmental relationships between Australia and Indonesia throughout our period of government. The honourable member for North Sydney says that Indonesian government Ministers will not come here. In that case, I do not know who it was that was sitting in my office last week-it was the Minister for Tourism, Posts and Telecommunications. We are currently engaged in constructive negotiations on the Timor Gap territorial sea issue and Indonesian fishermen in Australian waters. Let us look at Singapore and Malaysia. The diverse and substantial relationships with Malaysia and Singapore have been further consolidated under this Government. Frequent high level ministerial exchanges, including the Governor-General's visit in September 1987, have enhanced political and commercial ties. Very close cooperation under the five-power defence agreement continues. That is a matter which has been well looked after by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is sitting at the table. There has been very close cooperation under the five-power defence agreement, including revised arrangements for a continued presence at Butterworth. Let us move on to the other matters that the honourable member for North Sydney has made such a great fuss about. Let us look at north Asia generally. We have established a position with both Japan and Korea as a natural dialogue partner on international and regional issues where Australian interests are engaged. There has been agreement by both Japan and Korea to regular consultation on regional issues; the exchange between the two Prime Ministers-Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Takeshita-on trading blocs; the establishment of regular consultation with Japan on aid cooperation, especially in the south Pacific; regular foreign policy consultations with Korea in 1987; and close consultation in the multi-lateral fora, for example, the United Nations and the Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference. There has been improved access by Australia to the Korean and Japanese markets, something about which the former Liberal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, now the phoney shadow Treasurer, would not know anything about. We have improved access in a way that the honourable member would not even understand, securing a fundamental change to the terms of our access to the Japanese beef market, leading to quota free arrangements. Who came back here, smart alec, waving around a piece of paper, saying, `What a great beef agreement this is for Australian beef producers'? The lot opposite did. It was the most discriminatory trade agreement that one could possibly imagine. It absolutely discriminated against Australian beef producers. That is what those opposite managed to negotiate. We have now negotiated a fundamental change in that, a non-discriminatory agreement. And those opposite are talking about our relationships and what we have done in relation to Asia and, particularly, Korea and Japan in the north Asia region! It is just a nonsense to have those opposite coming in here suggesting that we have not done far more than they ever dreamed about in relation to our association with countries in this area. The honourable member for North Sydney, in one of those pompous performances, came into this chamber this afternoon and carried on about the debate that took place the other day on immigration. He was sneering about all that, as he always is, standing there looking down his nose at everybody, saying-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister might tone down the remarks. Mr DUFFY —If I might say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, it has not been too easy with the constant barrage of interjections from across the other side of the table. But out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tone down. If honourable members have a look at what the Prime Minister of Singapore said, they will see that he did not think that that was an overstatement of the position in relation to the difficulties those opposite have caused through the immigration debate. As I said to them the other day, the Times of India did the same thing. It had an article headed `Australians hostile to Asian Influx'. There was an article in the Indian Express headed, `Aliens row revived in Australia'. And what about the comment in the Far Eastern Economic Review-probably well known to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who would read it every week-`A wolf in white clothing'? The comment in the Kuala Lumpur Star was `Racist thinking will only make it hard for Aussies'. I do not know whether, in the course of that debate during the afternoon and into the evening, any honourable member opposite got up and dealt with any of those matters at all-except for the reference made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who said that he was sorry that I had said that it could lead to the economic destruction of this country. The honourable member then said that I was playing ventriloquist's doll to the Prime Minister. The fact is, whether honourable members opposite like it or not, that the damage they have done in the immigration debate may well be irreparable, unless they can smarten themselves up. As I said the other day, it is not too late on this issue, but they had better start thinking about it pretty quickly, because the problems that honourable members opposite have created for us in this respect are enormous in the area of foreign affairs and trade. There is no question about that. Honourable members opposite cannot come in here today and carry on as if we are not taking this issue extremely seriously. Why do they think we are trying at this stage to make absolutely certain that there will be no further publication of the sorts of things that we have seen in the press in the past few days? We have done that simply because of the serious nature of the disclosures and the damage that we consider they will do. The publication of those comments is an enormous problem. It is a pity that the Opposition would not go public and denounce the publication of things that are damaging. What a tragedy it is that this morning honourable members opposite were not prepared, when they had the opportunity-- Mr Spender —Read the whole of it. Mr DUFFY —I have read the whole of it. The honourable member had the opportunity this morning to say what he felt about this publication. However, when he was asked who the real culprits were-was it those responsible for the publication?-he was not prepared to say yes, but waffled on and equivocated on the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.32) —For most of his speech, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) tried to make out that the really damaging revelations that have come forward in the past 24 hours did not particularly matter. But then at the end of his speech what he revealed was what I had thought all along, namely, that the Government must basically support the logic of our censure motion, and if honourable members had any integrity they would vote with us on this motion. If the Government had any integrity in this place it would admit that the reason it has gone to the High Court to seek an injunction-and it has successfully received a temporary injunction-is that it has realised that these documents and the conduct of Australian foreign policy in the last five years have caused enormous and lasting damage to this country. The Minister for Trade Negotiations, who has just concluded his remarks, and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), sitting beside him, I learned this afternoon, tendered in the High Court affidavits in which they said that the disclosure of the contents of the documents harmed Australia's national and security interests. That is what this censure motion says. I do not know how the Minister for Defence can possibly shake his head, when both Ministers have argued in the High Court that the words of the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs have done incalculable damage to the standing of this country in its region. Having said that this really does not matter very much and then without saying much about going to the High Court, Government members went on to say, `Well, at least we have said in the name of the Prime Minister that what the former Minister for Foreign Affairs said did not reflect the Prime Minister's view'. What the Government should do, and what the Minister for Trade Negotiations refused to do in his 15 minute speech, is to totally repudiate what the former Minister for Foreign Affairs said, as has been revealed in these documents. Why did the Minister for Trade Negotiations not repudiate what the former Minister said? Why did the Prime Minister, in Question Time yesterday and in Question Time today, not totally repudiate what the former Minister for Foreign Affairs said? The fact is that they have significantly exacerbated this problem by not repudiating the words of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs. What, of course, is so damaging about the words of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs is that they were his private views. All the public statements in the world become quite meaningless when it is revealed that behind the scenes there is a man who holds these deeply contemptible and extraordinary offensive private views. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs was the voice of the Australian Government, the voice of Australia, in its dealings with other countries. What is revealed is that he held so many of those countries and so many of the leading figures in those countries in complete contempt. How can anyone argue that that is not going to do incalculable damage to the interests of this country? This does not come as an overwhelming surprise to those of us on this side of the House, because we have argued all along, ever since March 1983, that the present Government has had no particular interest in our own region, the Asia-Pacific region. What has been revealed is that not only were we correct but that the Minister for Foreign Affairs throughout that period had a private contempt for so many of the countries and so many of the people in our region. We have drawn to the attention of the House again and again the fact that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs took three years to decide that he would venture into the South Pacific region. We all remember the quite scandalous way in which the aid budget for the region, and specifically aid to Papua New Guinea, was reduced, contrary to an undertaking that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs gave to the Government of Papua New Guinea. We all recall the utterly outrageous statement that was made only last year by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in welcoming the constructive involvement of the Soviet Union in our region. We all know, and have said again and again, that it was this Government which disbanded the Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings because it does not care much about the Commonwealth and, as we all now know, does not care much about the region. The Government presided over the collapse of the ANZUS alliance, and said practically nothing because it did not want to offend its mates in the New Zealand Government. It created the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which weakens the role of our closest ally in our region, the United States of America. Further, there was the scandalous mishandling of the two coups in Fiji, and considerable disputation, I recall, between the views of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the behaviour of the Prime Minister throughout those two coups, particularly the first coup. Then, of course, there was that childish little slanging match with France, when France did not have a socialist government, over the future of New Caledonia. That has been the public practice of Australian foreign policy in our region over the past five years-and now we know what the private thoughts of the man who was responsible for that practice really were-and how embarrassing and contemptible they are for Australia. There is all this cant and puffing and humbug from the other side of the House about the immigration debate, which we all know is simply political rhetoric. But we are not talking about rhetoric here today; we are talking about facts and documents-things that really will do damage. Government members and Ministers come into this House and try to make political points against the Opposition in the context of the immigration debate, but the reality is that this is something far more serious. This is not an internal political debate; this involves detailed fact that will do enormous damage to our security relations. I am sure that the Minister for Defence would privately concede that. It will do enormous damage to our political relations and it will do enormous damage to our commercial relations with the countries of our region. What is more, it will reduce Australia's standing and stature in the region, and it will reduce our influence. When Ministers go to meetings with representatives of the Association of South East Asian Nations or other countries in our region, do honourable members really think they are going to be taken terribly seriously when we now know what the former Minister for Foreign Affairs thought all along about so many of those countries? The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has reminded the House of some of the quite amazing things that were revealed in these documents about the thoughts of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs. In relation to Indonesia, the former Minister said: There is no doubt about it, the Indonesians are erratic, hostile people to deal with, with an added sententiousness which makes them difficult neighbours. Goodness me, that is the private view of the Foreign Minister of this country for five years, and it is extremely damaging. Mr N.A. Brown —It has not been repudiated. Mr DOWNER —As the honourable member for Menzies points out, it has not been repudiated by the Prime Minister or by any other Minister in this Government in spite of all the opportunities they have had to do just that. The former Foreign Minister said that the Indonesians did not have sufficient maturity. I would not have thought that a lot of these comments showed particular maturity from the man who was responsible for our foreign policy. As the honourable member for North Sydney pointed out, the former Foreign Minister of Malaysia was referred to as an oaf. The remarks in the case of Papua New Guinea are terribly and deeply damaging to the standing of Australia in our region. Those remarks have been quoted in this debate. What an extraordinary thing he had to say about the Japanese. He said that they are hypocritical and self-effacing and are: . . . flat out to get whatever advantages they can for their future benefit-Let's say this, but more elegantly than I have. Goodness me, what a revelation about the way the Foreign Minister of this country for five years regarded the most powerful economic unit in our region. He regards them as hypocritical and self-effacing. Those remarks are not repudiated by a single Minister in this Government; they are not repudiated by the Prime Minister. What is more, these documents show the complete, almost total, amazing incompetence in the handling of foreign policy of this Government. Look, for example, at the Kampuchean peace initiative. I remember well the former Minister for Foreign Affairs going around blowing his trumpet about his Kampuchean peace initiative. He was going to solve all the problems. He hopped on planes and flew around as though he were some so-called honest broker. What these documents reveal is very interesting. They reveal that the Malaysians did not think too much of the former Foreign Minister's-should I say, the Government's?-Kampuchean peace initiative. They reveal that the Indonesians did not think very much of the Government's Kampuchean peace initiative. I do not have time to go through all the quotes, but they are there. The documents also reveal that the Chinese did not think very much either of the Government's so-called Kampuchean peace initiative. This is what the former Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote in relation to the Chinese: While I am confident that the Chinese will not bucket our efforts (on Cambodia) publicly,- revealing of course, that they did not like them too much privately- we must be content to see them ignored . . . and subsequently, as in the past, belittled privately to our American, European and ASEAN colleagues. That is what we find the Chinese thought of the Government's Kampuchean peace initiative. It never worked, of course. It was a disgraceful phoney little exercise by a Foreign Minister who at the time was staggeringly naive and who has done incalculable damage to the interests of this country for years and years to come. As the honourable member for North Sydney pointed out-and this is not a party political comment-the truth is that it is only with a change of government that this terrible damage will be able to be rectified in this country. There is a funny little remark in these quotes about the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Stewart West, who is the Minister for something less significant now. It was very interesting to see just another aspect of incompetence of Government foreign policy. Apparently he had some absolutely wild left wing dream to bring to Australia 600 left wing political detainees from El Salvador. Is that Australia's priority, to solve the problems of El Salvador? We suddenly discover that while we were going around abusing and dismantling Australia's relations with our region, all the time we were trying to curry favour with left wing people in El Salvador. Of course, this is the Government that gave loans to Nicaragua and Cuba. We remember that. The former Foreign Minister went to Nicaragua and El Salvador long before he started concentrating on our own region. We should not be surprised to find these things-they just provide confirmation. Finally let me refer to the absolutely incredible story about Australia's relationship with the United States of America, which is so humiliating and so damaging to Australia's standing. I think all of us, as Australians, can say only that it is so humiliating to find that the staff of the Secretary of State of the United States writes press releases for this Government. Is that not incredible? Of course, honourable members know that we, on this side of the House, are very enthusiastic about the American alliance and that we are very supportive of so many aspects of the United States. But we never went around getting the Americans to write our press releases for us. Is this a reflection of the literacy of the Ministry? Is this a reflection of the intellectual capability of the Ministry? Is this really what it appears to be, a ministry that goes crawling to the Secretary of States through, as it turns out, the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister gave George a ring. He then said, `Bill, you had better give George a ring tomorrow at 9 a.m. and get some instructions from him'. George then wrote out a press release which was put out by this Government. It is so humiliating for the 16 million Australians for their Government to behave in that way. Was that repudiated by the Prime Minister in Question Time today? No, he actually revealed that this was rather normal practice, that apparently we often have our press releases written by the Americans or by other countries. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Gorbachev. Mr DOWNER —The honourable member referred to Mr Gorbachev. Perhaps he was the author of the famous speech in Singapore when the Prime Minister said he would welcome the constructive involvement of the Soviet Union in our region. The Government knows that our censure motion is right. That is why it went to the High Court of Australia and sought an injunction. That is why the two Ministers involved in this debate put forward affidavits in the High Court. They think the former Foreign Minister is the best Foreign Minister we have ever had. That is confirmation that the Government is apparently quite proud of the remarks that were made. From the public statements that have been made, apparently the Government thinks that the remarks do not matter; that he is a great man. But look at the enormous and incalculable damage the people opposite have done to the standing of our country all around the world. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.47) —The Opposition has a Midas touch for failure when it comes to dealing with regional relations with South East Asia and the South Pacific. It has always had it and it will continue to have it. It had it in the days when it committed Australian forces without thought to the conflict in Vietnam. It had it in the years of the Fraser Government when it created a policy vacuum in the South East Asia, and South Pacific regions. Malcolm Fraser had a few global views but he had nothing to say about South East Asia and the South Pacific. We heard the childish intervention of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), which followed on from his completely childish performance last night when he giggled and cackled all over the 7.30 Report about whether or not views get exchanged with the Australian Government on press releases on matters related to the American alliance. Let me tell the honourable member a few things that he would have learnt if he had stayed in the diplomatic service and got above third secretary. He might well have discovered that one of the matters we deal with concerning the American alliance is the question of press handling on every conceivable item-the sort of thing that the coalition Government dealt with. In fact, some of our treaty agreements oblige us to have a joint position in the press handling area. I am just amazed at the honourable member's ignorance. For the last two or three days he has been trying to subvert the position of the foreign affairs spokesman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), and at every other opportunity he gets he has been white-anting him. I am trying to educate the honourable member, to give him an opportunity to get some comprehension about the way in which our most important alliance relationship is conducted. Mr Downer —Really hurt you, this; hasn't it? Mr BEAZLEY —I would strongly suggest to the honourable member that in the unlikely event the Opposition gets into office, it would continue the practice it had when in office, that where there is a matter that requires mutual explanation in both the United States and Australia, he is likely to find that there is tick-tacking on press releases. It is no great revelation. As I said, some of our treaty arrangements on the joint facilities require not only tick-tacking but also, in the end, identical statements between Australia and the United States because of the obligations that we have under those joint facility arrangements. Who negotiated the requirement for identical statements from the United States and Australia? It was not members on this side of the House. Honourable members opposite negotiated that. We are dealing with the pathetic ignorance of the child shadow spokesman combined with the tired old effort of Clarence Darrow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Minister should refer to members by their correct titles. Mr BEAZLEY —I will certainly refer to them by their titles when I work out what they are. In this regard damage has been done not by the view allegedly held by Mr Hayden but by the revelation of those alleged views. That is why, as honourable members opposite have said, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) and I are at the moment taking depositions to the High Court of Australia-to ensure that those allegations are not circulated. But what was the position adopted by the honourable member for North Sydney when he had an opportunity to prove himself as having more substance than shadow? This is the man who would be a government Minister, the man who wishes to conduct our foreign policy. The question asked by the would-be Foreign Affairs Minister was, `Does it matter if documents leak from the Foreign Affairs Department?'. His answer was, `No. It's a pity but no, it doesn't matter that documents leak; just so long as the Opposition has an opportunity to score points'. It shows the level of maturity of the Opposition when honourable members opposite come into this House and suggest that they are likely to do better in the conduct of foreign policy. Any damage that is being done in respect of these alleged comments is being done, firstly, by their release. The second possible area of damage I do not rate terribly highly because absolutely nobody takes any notice of the Opposition around here. But insofar as there is any damage to be done, it is done by the interpretation that is placed on the comments by the Opposition spokesmen who have participated in this debate. The Hawke Government's record of relations with our regional neighbours is in fact outstanding. The honourable member for Mayo, who spoke previously, suggested that the events in Kampuchea in some way discredit the sorts of propositions that were being put forward by the former Foreign Minister when he assumed his role. I would have thought that the recent events related to Kampuchea, which are very welcome, vindicated what the Foreign Minister had to say when he came into office and decided to take a stand which was a little unusual-unusual because previous Liberal governments had essentially conducted South East Asian foreign policy in a vacuum and had nothing at all to say on any significant regional event. That stand by our Foreign Minister perhaps secured a higher profile for Australia in the region and provoked disagreement. But it ought not be thought that foreign policy is simply about securing agreement. Foreign policy in the first instance is about defending the national interest and having a view of the appropriate regional arrangements. That may or may not provoke agreement in the region. The policy is tested not by the level of agreement; it is tested by the value of the policy to Australian national interest or to an appropriate regional arrangement. The Opposition never comprehended that essential element of foreign policy. One can see the fact that it did not comprehend that underlying the speeches made in this censure debate. That the honourable member could not see that the policies that were being forwarded on Kampuchea, then objected to but now taken up, did not at least qualify the Foreign Minister for at least a degree of visionary ability, merely confirms what I said about the Opposition's essential ignorance. One can find that in every area of South East Asian policy that we tackle. With regard to Indonesia, we have attempted to develop a careful and constructive management of our foreign relations with that country. Those relations are difficult. There is no question about that. There are substantial differences in culture and in the nature of our societies which can, from time to time, cause a clash of views. In circumstances where there has been a cooling of relations at different points of time over the last five years, the Foreign Minister has addressed the problems, understanding that this cooling of relations had nothing to do with events which emanated from this Government. They came about because of the objective nature of our two societies and the fact that those sorts of disagreements-because of the nature of the two societies-can from time to time arise. The Foreign Minister-I think it is one part of the very substantial contribution that he has made to our relations with South East Asia-has gone a long way, because of the way he has conducted his relations with Indonesia, towards settling down in this community a great deal of mental turmoil in the areas in which there is potential for disagreement between our two countries. He has done that in the internal debate in Australia and he has, in a way which the previous Government never could have done, brought to rest, for example, the issue of Timor as a source of potential conflict between our two countries in the foreign policy area. That was the activity of a mature man, not of the children opposite who have spoken in this debate. After Papua New Guinea's independence, there was the odd visit but it was largely walked away from by our political opponents. A Joint Declaration of Principles that was put in place-I would say perhaps 10 years too late but nevertheless put in place-was not put in place by honourable members opposite. It was put in place by our Government. The Joint Declaration of Principles, for the first time in a formal public document other than in an exchange of letters, placed on a correct basis the defence relations between our two countries. It is an area of substantial strategic interest to this country. It took this Government to place those relationships in the defence area on a substantial treaty-like basis. They were ignored by our opponents for the previous seven years before we came into office. Let us turn to the South Pacific. Who was the first Defence Minister to make a tour of the South Pacific? I was. Why should I have been the first Defence Minister to make a tour of the South Pacific? It has been there for a while but did it get a whit of attention from the relevant officials in the Government that preceded us? No. It is us who have developed mature relationships with that area, and just in time I might say. As these countries come to an appreciation of their national interest, as they get a sense of self-confidence in participation in the international system, they will from time to time develop policies which disagree with ours. There will have to be this type of mature relationship where we can talk about policy disagreement while the fundamentals of our close relationships remain. There is nothing in the Opposition's policy which suggests any sophistication of analysis in this area. That gets to the heart of the immigration debate. I saw the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs offer an absurd position the other day when he made a speech in Singapore. As though the recent debate on immigration had not occurred, he sat up there as the epitome of sweetness and light and all things new in the international affairs of the region and suggested a regional Pacific basin economic development organisation. Does he think that Singapore cares one whit what he said about that if it assumes that the Opposition's fundamental attitudes are based on some sort of racial criteria? The sort of debate that the Opposition now conducts on immigration is the sort of debate that this country could afford 20 years ago when British or some other European colonial power ruled the bulk of South East Asia and when we had imperial preference. Then we could afford the sort of debate we had in the House last week. These days, when we are substantially locked out of European markets and North American markets, we cannot afford to go into an offensive set of relationships with the countries of our region based on a criterion that they take enormously seriously. Who do honourable members opposite think objected to the White Australia policy in 1901? It was the Japanese. Who do they think is offended by the suggestion that they are incapable of contributing to social cohesion in this country if it is not the Malaysians, the Singaporeans and the Indonesians? Honourable members opposite should not come in here and tell us that they in some way know how to effectively conduct affairs in South East Asia. They do not know. It is like when the Leader of the Opposition was coming back from Japan. He suggested there should be a close defence relationship between Japan and Australia. We happen to have a sophisticated attitude to that matter. We understand that there is a requirement for a substantial improvement in Japanese defence capabilities in the North Pacific. We also know that that is unrelated to anything that is happening here in Australia and that if one suggests an axis between the two one causes great offence in South East Asia, because the countries of South East Asia do not necessarily have the sorts of views on defence relationships with Japan that we might have in terms of an improvement of Japanese capabilities in the North Pacific. That the Opposition could not see that at the time is evidence of the fact that when it comes to these areas it has complete ignorance. In regard to our other arrangements in South East Asia, we have the five-power defence arrangement. That was left to grow moribund under the government of honourable members opposite. We have since attempted to put an increasing amount of flesh on the bones of that relationship-and we have been rewarded by some very favourable comments that have come forward from Singapore recently-both by a sophisticated employment of our new aircraft in that area and by starting once again the rotation of warships on a permanent basis through South East Asia. These are initiatives of this Government. We are the ones who get correctly placed the balance between our defence interests there, our economic interests there and our general regional interests there. We are the first people in this country to devise a defence policy in relation to those things, so that in the contemporary circumstances in which we find ourselves largely alone we have the central strategic underpinning to our foreign policy through our defence policy. None of this is comprehended by the Opposition. We are not surprised at that. Honourable members opposite merely persist in the sort of ignorance of this area that they had when they were in government. There is no point in discussing this matter any further. We on this side of the House will get no sensible advice as far as foreign policy issues are concerned. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. MacKellar, M. J. R.Aldred, K. J. Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. Webster, A. P.Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.McArthur, F. S. Woods, R. L.McGauran, P. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.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.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.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.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Pursuant to section 9b of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 1987-88. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 1 September 1988 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General on audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-September 1988; and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —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 HOWARD —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —In Question Time the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) referred to a discussion that we had had in the Parliament. I am sorry to have to talk to the House about what I had, until he got up and spoke, regarded as a personal discussion. There was an implication in his remarks that in some way I was seeking to blame the Government for a matter that I brought to his attention: I was not. The context of it was that recently when I was in Alice Springs I met Father Phillip Hoy and Aboriginal people of his congregation of the Sacred Heart Church. In the course of that visit I went to meet a group of Aboriginal people who had camped on a site known as White Gates on the Gundallya Road north of Alice Springs. They had been squatting on that site for over two years, having come in from St Theresa community outstation. I undertook on behalf of Father Hoy, not in a political or partisan sense, simply to bring to the Minister's attention some of their concerns about providing running water and other basic amenities. I did an interview on the AM program about this and said that I was not blaming the Government for that situation; that it had probably existed for a number of years in relation to a number of families under a number of governments. I told Father Hoy that I would raise this matter. In my note to the Minister I said that it was not something I intended pursuing on a partisan political level. I think it is a matter of very great regret that the Minister chose to use that personal approach, which was not meant in a point-scoring fashion, as the trigger for a partisan, bitter, political attack on the shadow Minister and on me. All I can say is that on this occasion it was conduct that ill became the Minister, who I think, on occasions, manifests a genuine commitment to his portfolio. On occasions it might be possible for him to appreciate that honourable members on this side of the House will raise things with him in a bona fide manner and we ought not to be treated in that way. Mr MILES(Braddon) —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 MILES —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILES —I believe that in Question Time the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) reflected upon my integrity and suggested that I was dishonest, had acted improperly and was misleading the Australian people. I could go on to illustrate many occasions on which he indicated that I was misrepresenting the truth to the Australian people. Therefore, I seek leave to have the document to which he referred incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is a difficulty with incorporating the document. The honourable member may seek leave to table it. Mr MILES —I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of procedure. Perhaps you can explain why the doors were locked while the bells were ringing during the recent division. I was unable to get through one door and had to go around and enter through another door. It was very difficult to get from where I was to the chamber in the required time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —My understanding is that the doors into the advisers' areas on both sides of the chamber are locked during divisions and that honourable members are required to enter the chamber through the lobby doors. I will take up the matter with the Speaker and have it checked. However, I understand that that is the situation. I am told by the Chairman of the House of Representatives Procedure Committee that his Committee has taken up this matter with the Speaker, so it is under consideration. 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 Military Forces Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. Schedules of Special Purpose Flights by the Royal Australian Air Force-1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987. Industries Assistance Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-together with a statement of what action has been taken during that year in respect of each report made to the Minister by the Commission during that year or a preceding year-section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. Thirty-first Annual Report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Year ended 13 August 1987-section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-It has been my practice to report to Parliament on visits I have made to overseas countries. Notwithstanding the time which has elapsed since my visit to the United States of America from 19 to 26 June, I believe that the practice is worth following and I therefore wish to take the first opportunity available to me to inform honourable members about the main features of this particularly successful visit. I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), across the table, that when I speak on occasions such as this I pay the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy of staying in the House to hear his response. On this occasion I have a commitment to go to Melbourne. I intend no disrespect by leaving the chamber when I have made this statement. Let me say at the outset that the visit demonstrated that Australia's relations with the United States have never been in better shape. The reception I was accorded as head of government of Australia, and the conversations I had with individual American leaders, demonstrated both the high regard in which Australia is held in the United States and the success which my Government has had in fostering a creative, mutually advantageous and solidly based relationship. The visit took place at a time when decisions of enormous importance are being made in world political and economic affairs. It followed closely upon both the summit in Moscow between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev and the summit of the seven largest industrialised countries in Toronto. It also came at an important phase of the multilateral trade negotiations as nations prepare for the Montreal mid-term review. I was able not only to press Australia's positions on major economic and political events but also to ascertain from American participants themselves their views on the most recent developments at the highest levels of global affairs. Clearly, the highlights of my visit were my talks with President Reagan and my address to the joint meeting of Congress. In our talks, President Reagan reaffirmed the importance which the United States Administration attached to Australia as an ally and a friend. I fully reciprocated these sentiments, noting that Australia's alliance with the United States was a cornerstone of our foreign and defence policy. I took up with the President Australia's concerns on trade and economic matters and stressed the importance we attach to fair access to the United States market and fair competition in the markets of third countries. In this context I raised our worries over the proposals for the extension of the export enhancement program and the possible protectionist implications of the Trade Bill. As Americans prepare to elect a new President I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to President Reagan and the members of his Administration, particularly Secretary of State George Shultz, for the leadership which they have provided to the Western alliance during their time in office. The progress which has been achieved on a variety of world issues, and particularly in the area of arms control, has unlocked the door to what may very well be a new era of peace and cooperation. It was a signal honour for the Australian Prime Minister to be invited to address a joint meeting of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. It was an honour paid through me to all the people of Australia and demonstrates the mutual respect which marks the Australian-United States partnership. That mutual respect is real, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, in light of some current media reports, I want to take this opportunity to reassert strongly that it is based on our right to define and defend our own interests. Nobody who heard what I had to say on my visit to the United States-both in private discussions and public statements-could think otherwise. The key principle of this Government in managing our relations with the United States was set out definitively in my speech to Congress. It is this: the test of good United States-Australian relations is not that as individuals or governments we should agree on everything. It is rather that we are in accord on matters of basic principle and that where we disagree we do so with civility and respect for the other's point of view. It was on this basis that, for example, I firmly told the Congress that Australians must not be given reason to believe that while we were first class allies we were, in trade, second class friends. In Congress, I participated in most useful separate meetings with groups of senators and congressmen, notably from the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Trade Sub-Committee of the Senate Finance Committee. These discussions covered a broad spectrum of issues, including protectionism and the United States Trade Bill, the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, subsidisation of agriculture, fiscal and budgetary matters, foreign investment, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, Indo-Chinese refugees, burden sharing in the defence area, Soviet naval activities in our region, and our own program of defence cooperation with the United States. I was also pleased in Washington to take the opportunity to have discussions with both candidates for the United States presidency, Vice-President George Bush and Governor Michael Dukakis. I had excellent discussions with both men and placed clearly before them Australia's views on significant global, regional and bilateral issues. Both candidates stressed the value they place on the United States alliance with Australia. I have no doubt, as a result of my visit, that, whatever the outcome in November, the incoming United States Administration will have clearly in mind Australia's role as a constructive, independent and worthy ally. I was able to have an extremely full program of discussions with senior figures of the Administration. I renewed my long-standing friendship with Secretary of State George Shultz. I met for the first time the new Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. I also had a very informative discussion with the then Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker. These discussions covered the gamut of world affairs-strategic, political, economic and financial-and demonstrated yet again the value of the close and trusted relationship my Government has established with the American leadership. Each occasion provided me with the opportunity to raise the consciousness of United States decision-makers with respect to Australia's concerns for free and fair trade in agriculture. Apart from my discussions in Washington I also took the opportunity to make brief but very worthwhile stopovers in three other centres of importance in the United States. The first was Chicago, where I had the pleasure of visiting the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and meeting there a number of key figures in the world commodities markets. Since Australia is itself a major commodities exporter, this was a visit of particular significance and interest. I addressed a luncheon hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, and took that occasion to state frankly and clearly Australia's views on the need for a rational approach to world trade, for progress on the elimination of subsidies in agriculture and for the removal of world trade barriers. In New York I spoke to the annual dinner of the Asia Society, which on this occasion was a combined function with the Australian-American Association. This was an occasion for me to discuss the dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region, the dramatic changes which have taken place in our part of the world in the last few years, and the opportunities for Australia which this growth in the Pacific rim offers. I also announced that I had initiated an examination by this Government of a new step in arms control for the Asia-Pacific region; namely, greater regional effort against chemical weapons proliferation. Mr Hayden subsequently discussed this idea with Foreign Ministers of a number of South East Asian countries, and officials are continuing work on possible options which could be useful and applicable in our region of the world in stopping the spread of these abhorrent weapons. In New York I met with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Perez de Cuellar. Our discussions covered the principal regional conflicts where the United Nations is actively participating in seeking solutions, including Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war and Kampuchea. We also discussed at some length the state of the United Nations itself. I met with a group of senior New York banking personalities to discuss global and bilateral financial matters. I had another, and highly productive, meeting with some of the most significant business leaders with interests in Australia to discuss investment opportunities. My last stop in mainland United States was in Austin. My major purpose there was to speak at the University of Texas which, as a bicentennial project, is establishing an Australian Studies Centre. This is an initiative of considerable significance because it is the first time that an American university has created a course of studies, including at the undergraduate level, entirely devoted to Australia. I believe that this initiative will lead to a significant improvement in the knowledge of Australia in the United States. I pay tribute to the University of Texas for its farsightedness, its determination and its enthusiasm in pressing forward with this project. In my representations to Americans in both individual meetings and in speeches to large audiences, I spelt out the reforms my Government has implemented to restructure the Australian economy, to make it more competitive and more able to participate in the global arena. I drew to their attention the attractiveness of the Australian economy as a location for productive American investment and as a base for dealing with the Asian-Pacific region as a whole. Both on the way to the United States and on the way back I profited from brief stopovers at Pearl Harbour to have discussions with the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Forces, CINCPAC, Admiral Ronald Hays. I have seen Admiral Hays on a number of occasions now and he is a valued friend. I greatly valued this opportunity to discuss with him a broad spectrum of regional issues of significance to our two countries, including the United States negotiations with the Philippines over the future of American bases there. I want to assure honourable members that wherever I went in the United States I found an awareness of the contribution which Australia is making to the alliance and to global affairs. President Reagan said that he treasured this relationship. It has been said often before, but it is worth saying again, that the mature relationship which Australia now has with the United States is one which suits the best interests of both countries: we are close allies but this does not preclude either of us from speaking our minds and acting in accordance with our independent judgment. On this occasion I had no hesitation-indeed I sought out opportunities-to remind Americans of Australia's concerns about United States agricultural and trade policies. I stressed our particular concern about decisions such as the lowering of the acreage reduction rate in the 1989 wheat program, and the possible extension of the export enhancement program to Indonesia. Similarly, I was able to bring to bear our special perspective as an active participant in regional affairs. At a time of rapid change in our part of the world, including prospects for greater instability than in the past in the South Pacific, my visit enabled United States Government, congressional and business leaders to gain a greater appreciation of Australia, of our policy concerns and of the importance of the United States-Australia relationship. I present the following paper: Prime Minister's Visit to the United States of America-Ministerial Statement, 1 September 1988. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.30) —On behalf of the Opposition I would like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for continuing his practice of reporting directly to Parliament on overseas visits. There is a great deal in the speech made by the Prime Minister that I can very readily support. I endorse the Prime Minister's remarks which underline the importance of the United States relationship as the cornerstone of Australia's foreign policy and defence policy. Certainly, I very strongly support the Prime Minister's remarks to the Administration and the United States Congress that any extension of the export enhancement program and protectionist implications of the Trade Bill would be very detrimental to Australia. This is an area where a good deal of bipartisanship in Australia has been possible. It was an initiative of the coalition that led to the dispatch of a parliamentary delegation, including representatives of all parties, to the United States in 1986. That was an initiative of the then Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and my Liberal Party colleague, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), who was a member of that delegation. I take the opportunity of saying to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the representatives of the United States here in Australia, that on this issue there is a common view right across the political spectrum. Some of the punitive protectionist measures which are canvassed by some of the supporters of Governor Dukakis and others within the Republican Party are against Australia's interests. I wish to say to the Parliament that Australia's constant support of United States positions, our constant willingness, as a friend and ally, to maintain a leading role-under different governments-in the Western alliance, entitles us to say with complete candour to the United States that we cannot be expected to remain silent if our trading interests are affected by United States action. I do not want those remarks to be interpreted in any way as breaking the long standing view of the Liberal and National parties that trade and security matters are distinct and separate. I have never held the view that the joint facilities have anything at all to do with trading matters and I hope that that remains the view of the present Australian Government. I know that it is the view of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I would also take this opportunity to record my profound regard for the leadership that the Reagan Administration has given to the Western world since it was elected late in 1980. The Prime Minister referred to President Reagan and the Secretary of State, George Shultz. I would add another name to my tribute-that of the Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, whose efforts in leadership, more than those of anyone else, were responsible for the enormous recovery of American military capacity and the rebuilding of the United States defences which had been allowed to run down during the Carter years and, indeed, over a longer period. Together, the President and Caspar Weinberger rebuilt American pride, certainly in the Services area. I hold the view that it was the determination and resolve of the Reagan Administration on issues such as the strategic defence initiative, the MX missile program and a general willingness to defend attacks on freedom which more than anything else led the Soviets to go to the negotiating table. I share the satisfaction and enthusiasm of the Prime Minister to the full about the prospects for a more stable international environment and the return of what used to be called detente. I hope that all the optimism that he and others have expressed on that subject is in fact realised because the world will be a safer place for all of us if there can be a lasting understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although I do not look at glasnost through rose coloured spectacles, there is no doubt that Gorbachev represents a new generation of Soviet leadership and, to the extent that that can be built on and taken advantage of, it is greatly to the advantage of us all. Also on a positive note, I pick up the remark of the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech about the negotiations that are now under way between the United States and the Philippines about the bases at Clark Airfield and Subic Bay. Those bases are of immense significance to the stability of our region. The Subic Bay naval facility, which I had the opportunity of visiting only a few months ago, is regarded by the United States as the most outstanding naval facility in the world outside San Diego and any suggestion that that facility would be lost to the United States and the Western alliance is a matter of great concern. Certainly, I discerned from my discussions with the leaders of the Philippines Government that, far from the Philippines Government resenting expressions of view about the importance of those bases, it in fact welcomed such expressions from other countries in the region and to the extent that we, with the Government, have a common view on this issue, that is also to our advantage. The Prime Minister talked about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. We have a rather different view from the Government on that issue. We share the Government's distaste for French nuclear testing but we think the Government's view on the treaty is naive and we do not share it. We are at one with the United States Administration and a number of other countries which have declined to associate themselves with the protocols of that treaty. In his speech the Prime Minister said he was able to bring to bear, and I quote: our special perspective as an active participant in regional affairs at a time of rapid change in our part of the world, including prospects for greater instability than in the past in the South Pacific. In making those remarks the Prime Minister, not surprisingly, neglected to acknowledge that one of the features of the conduct of foreign policy under the former Foreign Minister was that many of the events in the South Pacific as they have unfolded over the past several years were not foreseen by the present Government. All of us in this Parliament remember the occasion when we were told by the Prime Minister that things were getting back to normal in Suva, that things were settling down in Fiji. Within 24 hours Colonel Rabuka had moved again. That was an illustration that the early warning systems of the Government in the South Pacific were not all that good. Of course, I cannot let the opportunity go by without observing that any speech today about the foreign relations of this country is completely overshadowed by the monumental damage that the gratuitous prejudice and narrow-minded views of the former Foreign Minister have done. I take the opportunity of observing to my very great regret that, during the censure motion that was debated earlier, at no stage did the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) explicitly repudiate the opinions expressed by the former Foreign Minister. Let us not kid ourselves; he made those comments and he held those views. There is not a person in Australia who does not believe that and there is not a person in the countries that were the object of his bullets-to use his own words-who does not also believe it. Yet did we get a word from the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Trade Negotiations by way of rebuke? Apparently, mateship on this issue is more important than repairing the damage that has been done to our relationship with Asia. I speak on this subject with some feeling, given the gratuitous, inaccurate, sermonising and hectoring remarks that were made last week in this Parliament in the debate on immigration. Any alleged damage that may result from that debate is as a minnow to a whale compared to the damage that has been done by the revelation of the true thoughts of former Minister Bill. The thoughts of former Minister Bill are the most lethal bullets that have been fired at our relationship with the countries of our region for decades. There is nothing that the Government can say to alter that fact. It is true that for five years within the ranks of the Government was a man who holds, about Asian countries, views which are offensive, demeaning, European oriented and colonial in the extreme. The Government has the gall to lecture us about a modern sophisticated relationship. It has the gall to criticise me because I assert the sovereign right of this country to decide who will live here. It has the nerve to criticise me and yet it had within its ranks for 5 1/2 years a Foreign Minister-a man who is now going somewhere else, but I will leave that aside-who holds views that are more Colonel Blimpish and more out of touch with the need for a modern relationship with South East Asia than the views of anybody on this side of the Parliament. No country in South East Asia will react against the right of this country to decide in its own sovereign way its immigration policy. But every country in the region is entitled to be offended by the remarks that were made by the Government's man. He is still the Government's man; he is still its mate. As we were clearly shown today, when it comes to Australia's foreign relations and mateship in the Labor Party, mateship always wins out. As has been the case from the very beginning, when the Prime Minister has to make a choice between mateship and duty, what does he do? He chooses mateship. He could have come into this Parliament today and said, `I want to say to the countries affected, I want to say to Indonesia'-people would have to be pretty narrow-mined and bovine in the extreme not to understand the importance of Indonesia's relationship with Australia-`I repudiate those offensive, repugnant remarks'. But he cannot do that. He is not man enough to do that. He is not strong enough to do that. Just as he cannot barrel the Treasurer over the telephone conversation, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to barrel the former Foreign Minister and make it perfectly plain. He knows that if he did that it would be a grave reflection on his own judgment in relation to another matter. That is his problem. He is absolutely skewered on this. By his own conduct he has rendered himself incapable of properly setting at rest the very grave concerns that must exist in these countries. In a proper spirit of bipartisanship and generosity, I acknowledge the many areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government in respect of our foreign relations. But nobody in this Parliament or in the Australian nation should imagine for a moment that what has been revealed over the last 36 hours has not done enormous damage. I can only say to honourable members opposite that the cant, the humbug, the hypocrisy and the sermonising to which we on this side of the House were subjected last week, merely because we asserted the undeniable and inalienable right of this country and this country alone to decide the nature of its immigration program, is revealed in all its stark clarity by the embarrassing revelations that have been made. The tragedy is that the Government's Prime Minister did not put the national interest above political interest, above mateship and affection, and did not repudiate those remarks on behalf of the entire Australian nation. Debate (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-The report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management practised by the Department of Housing and Construction was tabled in the House on 23 March 1987. The report deals extensively with the methods adopted by the Australian Audit Office in this audit, and those matters are being separately pursued by the Auditor-General. The report directs seven recommendations to the former Department of Housing and Construction. The Department of Administrative Services accepts all seven recommendations and has undertaken or will undertake the actions required. Specifically, for recommendation 1, the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for the year ended 30 June 1987 included a full statement on post-occupancy evaluations. For recommendation 2, as a matter of sound management practice, the Department will continue to review performance on all major construction projects where there has been a lack of achievement in respect of timeliness, suitability or cost. For recommendation 3, the Department will undertake a full assessment of the approach adopted by other appropriate organisations on the calculation of construction management fees. For recommendation 4, the Department will be reporting progress on the implementation of accepted audit recommendations in its annual reports. For recommendations 5 and 6, post-occupancy financial reconciliations of the Australian Defence Force Academy and the National Acoustics Laboratory projects will be undertaken, providing particular emphasis on the identification of the causes of real cost increases. For recommendation 7, consultation has been, and will continue to be, undertaken with the Department of Finance on the question of a cost performance indicator to measure increases in real costs of projects. Future annual reports will include details of real increases in costs of major projects. Upon completion of actions arising from the recommendations of the report I will advise the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of the results of those actions. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) following its review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management as practised by the Department of Housing and Construction. The honourable member for Deakin will deal with that matter in more detail in a moment. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) says, the Department has now been split, with the housing function going largely to the Department of Community Services and Health, and construction going to the Department of Administrative Services, still under the current Minister. The Committee report recommended that action be taken in a number of areas to ensure more efficient and cost effective operations. The report was critical of the administration of the Department of Housing and Construction. I think it is interesting for the House to note that the then Minister was the present Minister, who has accepted the criticism in the report and has come into the House and said, `I accept that my administration was faulty and we will take up the recommendations of the Committee'. I am interested in the Minister's response because earlier this year I raised in this House and outside other areas of concern to the Opposition regarding waste in the construction function of the Department of Administrative Services. Public servants who were sick and tired of government waste had drawn to my attention a review of the provision of offices for just one department in just one State, involving 22 projects which in recent years showed dead rent losses to be between $5m and $6.2m. This is yet another example of the administrative incompetence of this Minister. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The response that I have just given in the House is in relation to a report of a standing subcommittee of a-- Mr Beale —What is the point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I am listening. Mr West —The response that I have just made is with regard to a report from a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which had a specific mandate to report to the House upon a report of the Auditor-General on two specific projects: the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and the National Acoustics Laboratory. The shadow Minister is obviously not addressing the statement that I made. He is ranging widely across the administrative functions of the Department of Administrative Services. The report of the subcommittee deals with the projects of ADFA and the National Acoustics Laboratory and deals with no other questions. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, could I speak to that point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. The honourable member for Barker is speaking to the report. I know that he is ranging fairly widely, but he is dealing with the Department of Administrative Services generally. I am listening carefully. At this particular stage I do not feel that there is a point of order, but I will listen carefully to further statements the honourable member has to make. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is that the Government and this Minister have now accepted one report into the administrative efficiency of his Department. In accepting those recommendations, I point out to him that we are glad that he has accepted those recommendations. There are other matters which we have drawn to his attention which also need to be dealt with. As I was saying before the Minister interrupted, one of those other matters related to his administration of the construction section of his Department. I was saying that offices within his Department have raised with me their concern about the continuing administrative inefficiency of the way in which projects are handled by his Department, in particular, the matter of dead rent. Dead rent is paid for office space which is not used. Rent losses are being incurred as a result of bureaucratic delays within the Minister's Department during the fit-out of offices following the completion of the construction of buildings acquired by the Commonwealth. During this time rent is being paid, but the building remains unoccupied. The scope of the problem is massive. At the time I raised the matter in April of this year the Minister's response to that particular inefficiency was to try to deflect- Mr Gear —What would you do? Mr PORTER —If the honourable member will just sit down and listen for a moment I will tell him the answer to the problem. It is a very simple problem which can be resolved by better administration. The Minister's response at that time was to try to deflect the issue by making excuses for the level of waste and questioning the figures. According to the Minister, the problem is one that cannot be avoided because of the way that the private sector does business with the Government. For example, the Minister says that the leases have to be committed before or during the construction of a building to obtain accommodation in the first place, or that the private sector lessor requires rent to be paid before the fit out commences. But that entirely misses the point. The Minister claimed that there was not a great deal that could be done in this area. He is dead wrong. It is totally inappropriate to blame the private sector for dead rent losses. The rent losses are being incurred as a result of bureaucratic delays during the fit out of offices following the completion of the construction of the building. That is because client departments have no incentive to finalise the fit out because the cost of any dead rent does not come out of their budget. Changes in the administrative arrangements would soon ensure client departments get the fit out done as quickly as possible in order to save themselves money instead of shifting the cost and the blame on to the Minister's Department, the Department of Administrative Services. Not only did the Minister fail to respond properly in that instance to legitimate concerns, but he also sought to shift the debate on to the issue of the accuracy of the figures. He claimed that in the first nine months of the last financial year the dead rent loss was only $6.2m-as though that was some kind of excuse. In any event, I have grave doubts about the figure that the Minister gave to this House. Let me just give honourable members two examples: the Commonwealth Offices at 22 Margaret Street in Sydney were vacant for 26 months. For each of those months the Government was paying over $141,000 in rent. That is over $3.7m in dead rent at one location. That is under the current administration of this Minister. The point I am making is that this is yet another example of maladministration by this Minister and this Department. The new Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission offices at 80 William Street in Sydney were not fully occupied for some 18 months. The fit-out took 18 months. The cost of the dead rent there was $4m. That is $4m paid by this Government-$4m of taxpayers' money-because of inefficient administration by this Minister. The dead rent in those two buildings alone adds up to $7.7m. I remind honourable members that this is only for two buildings in one capital city in this country. Of course the Commonwealth is entering into new leases of hundreds of buildings in all the States around the country. If we have got those sorts of dead rent losses in just two buildings, I ask the House: What is the likely dead rent loss around Australia? Administrative changes must be made. In this instance the Minister, only as a result of a House of Representatives committee report, has been forced to take action and he has come in here and accepted that this House committee was right and he was wrong. I say to him again: `You are wrong in this instance too. The dead rent losses suffered by the Australian taxpayer as a result of your administration are massive and you are doing nothing'. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I patiently accepted your ruling before that the shadow Minister could range across the functions of the Department of Administrative Services. But I have to draw your attention to the fact that the response that I made is with regard to a report of a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in relation to a report by the Auditor-General on construction management of two projects only: the ADFA and the National Acoustics Laboratory in Sydney. If the debate is to range across the alleged administrative failures of the former Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Administrative Services it well might be worth taking into account the fact that the report to which I made the response- Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order! The Minister is now attempting to enter into a debate about other departments in other periods. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat. Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my point of order on this note: it should be worth taking into account the fact that the report to which I have responded-the subcommittee was, in fact, chaired by a member of the Opposition-was far more critical of the efficiencies of the Auditor-General in this regard than it was of the former Department of Housing and Construction. To conclude the point of order, we are talking about construction management in respect of two projects, not dead rent or any other alleged deficiencies of a now axed department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member for Barker was given leave to address the House. The report is a fairly wide one. It takes into consideration the Department of Administrative Services and also the former Department of Housing and Construction. There is no point of order in the matters that the Minister has raised. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Minister feels heated about this matter. He should have taken corrective action, but he has not done anything. It is high time that he did something to overcome the problems that I identified some six months ago. Nothing has been done, but something should have been done a long time ago. In fact, his Department has been advising him to do something. People in the Department know that these massive losses can be avoided. The Minister's failure to take action is continuing to cost Australian taxpayers millions of dollars a year. We are talking not just about a couple of million dollars a year but about massive amounts. As I have indicated, there was $7.7m in dead rent for just two buildings alone. That is rent paid when the Commonwealth is not even occupying a building, because of delays taken in fitting out the building-avoidable delays. This goes to the heart of what the Minister is referring to, that is, the construction function of his Department. Action needs to be taken to improve the administrative efficiency of this Government. If a private company operated in the fashion in which the Minister does, it would go bankrupt. We must ensure that the taxpayer's dollar is well spent. Whilst I welcome the Government's response to this efficiency audit, a lot more remains to be done. The Government should confront the problem rather than, as the Minister for Administrative Services has done, seek to hide the failures of the existing administration by smear tactics, by political tactics, and by avoiding the issue which must be addressed: the Government and the Minister must take action to avoid these massive dead rent losses. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —by leave-At the outset let me say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is entirely appropriate that you are in the chair on this occasion, as I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) says, I chaired the Expenditure Committee subcommittee which prepared the report on this matter. In the foreword to the report I said, `I particularly want to pay a tribute to the Expenditure Committee Chairman, John Mountford, for his support'. On this occasion I again, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that support in your previous capacity. As the Minister has identified, this report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `An Efficient Organisation, or An Efficient Audit? was a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management practised by the then Department of Housing and Construction and, as I have said, the subcommittee was chaired by me. This was a very complicated report, because there were major differences between the auditor and the auditee which required the subcommittee to spend a considerable amount of time, which normally we would not have needed to spend, to review what was going on. It is true, as the Minister has pointed out, that we did criticise the role of the Auditor-General's department in this matter. I want to quote a couple of items that demonstrate the nature of our criticism, as follows: Turning to the Audit report, the Committee has found it to be less than satisfactory . . . There is considerable confusion in the Audit analysis and resulting recommendations . . . There is an inconsistency in a logic [that was used by Audit] . . . the Audit analysis of the second construction management package gave us no assistance because the analysis was naive . . . The Audit analysis is superficial because it is selective and inaccurate. We also said that we believed that in at least one instance in the preparation of the Audit report there had been some massaging of figures, and we went on to say that we hoped that would be the last of its type from the Australian Audit Office. However, having said all that, we also criticised the Department of Housing and Construction. Again I shall quote from the tabling speech that I made and make reference to what was in the report itself. We said that the task of the Committee was made `unnecessarily complex as a result of the contempt with which the Department treated the Audit report'-and that is the Department that the Minister at the table was in charge of at that time. We further stated that, when Audit asked the Department to give `consideration' to doing something, the Department accepted some of the recommendations, but what it accepted was the `consideration' to do something; it did not accept that it should be doing something. We further pointed out that the Department for which the Minister at the table was then responsible had not obeyed certain edicts of Audit; it just ignored them. We also noted that there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Department to own up to criticism that had been made of it by Audit. I should also say that in his statement today the Minister for Administrative Services has accepted all seven recommendations and has undertaken to implement them. It is worthwhile identifying just what those recommendations were. The recommendations related to what the Department of Housing and Construction should do. Having conceded that the Committee was critical of Audit, I point out that we were also critical of the Department of Housing and Construction. The Minister's statement today indicates that the Government will accept all the recommendations of the Committee, which were mainly about what the Department of Housing and Construction had to do. They included that the Department include a full statement of post-occupancy valuations; that the Department continue to review performance-noting that there had been a lack of achievement in respect of timeliness, suitability or cost; that the Department of Housing and Construction undertake a full assessment of the approach adopted by other appropriate organisations; that it report progress on the implementation of accepted Audit recommendations; that it do some post-occupancy financial reconciliation; and that it operate with effective cost performance indicators. The point that my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has made-and, if I may say so, he made it very succinctly and effectively-was that the Department of Housing and Construction was criticised in this report, that the Committee made certain recommendations about what the Department of Housing and Construction should do, and that the Minister has said that he accepts those recommendations. Mr West —Well, is there anything wrong with that? Mr BEALE —There is nothing wrong at all, except to say that the Minister is criticising himself, because he was in charge of the Department of Housing and Construction when we criticised it and he is now saying that that criticism was accepted. So, the Minister is really shooting himself in the foot. What we have here again is the myth of this solid Government front bench being exploded. We have the world's best Treasurer (Mr Keating)-remember that?-under whom foreign debt has gone from $30 billion to $100 billion. Now, today, we have Australia's greatest former Foreign Minister, who has done more damage to Australia's reputation in this region in the last-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Now the honourable member for Deakin is straying. I bring him back to the report. Mr BEALE —What I am doing, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may say so, is pointing to the fact that this Minister at the table had responsibility for the Department of Housing and Construction when this report criticised that Department's activities and now in a different capacity he says, `We accept the recommendations'. What he is really saying is, `Oh, I am sorry, but I was guilty of maladministration in the Department of Housing and Construction'. He joins Mick Young, John Brown, Biggles Evans and all those people. It is a sad, sorry story. The Minister's response confirms what we already know, that we have a sad, out of touch, decaying Government, and at the next chance the Australian people will throw it out and replace it with a Liberal-National Party government that has a better and brighter vision for the future of Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-The report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure inquiry into meteorological services entitled Gone with the Winds was tabled on 3 June 1986. The impetus for the inquiry arose from public concern at the possible reduction of public weather services for a number of communities, located mainly in provincial areas of Australia. It followed proposals for closure of several Bureau of Meteorology weather service offices which had originally been established to provide aviation meteorological services. The initial terms of reference envisaged a review of the provision and funding of non-aviation weather services at airport weather service offices. During the inquiry, however, it became clear to the Committee that the issues went beyond the terms of reference it had set itself in two major respects. Firstly, the Committee was persuaded by the arguments of some aviation operators that aviation matters should be included in its investigations. Secondly, it became convinced that the facilities and resources available to the Bureau had, during the 1970s and early 1980s-that is, during the period of the former Fraser Government-been reduced to such an extent that the Bureau's ability to provide the standard of forecasts required by any section of the community must be seriously questioned. The terms of reference were widened to include these issues. Although originally established to serve aviation, the inquiry concluded that six provincial weather service offices located in the major remote centres of Alice Springs, Cairns, Launceston, Mount Isa, Port Hedland and Rockhampton had provided an increasingly important service to the general public outside the capital cities and recommended they be maintained. The inquiry further concluded that closure of these six offices would centralise the Bureau of Meteorology's weather forecasting systems to an unacceptable extent. The report also noted the important link that the offices in Cairns, Port Hedland and Rockhampton provided in the Bureau's tropical cyclone warning service. The Government has accepted the inquiry's recommendations. The six weather service offices will be retained in the public interest and Budget funded from 1988-89. Their costs will no longer be charged to the aviation industry. In the case of weather service offices located at Canberra, Hobart, Essendon and Tamworth, the aviation industry indicated that a requirement no longer existed for local aviation weather services and the offices did not provide essential non-aviation services. The Government has accepted the inquiry's recommendation that they be closed. Canberra, Hobart and Essendon offices closed in late 1986, and Tamworth on 31 March 1988. In line with an inquiry recommendation, the Bureau along with the relevant unions is examining ways to improve the effectiveness of the remaining provincial offices. The report noted with some concern the general run down nature of the Bureau's capital infrastructure and the obsolescent equipment which formed the basis of the Bureau's tropical cyclone warning service. Recommendations called for an urgent increase in funds to upgrade the warning service and accelerate the Bureau's capital re-equipment plan. The Government has recognised that during the 1970's and early 1980's the needs of Australia in terms of meteorological information were not being sufficiently met; particularly because of the run down nature of the tropical cyclone and other severe weather warning programs. We therefore acted positively to both recommendations and provided funds in the 1986-87 Budget to accelerate the Bureau's re-equipment program and upgrade its severe weather warning services. These initiatives are having a major positive impact on Bureau operations and its ability to provide effective and responsive severe weather warning services for the people of Australia. The total capital allocation for the Bureau in 1988-89 is approximately $8m. Major initiatives announced in this year's Budget include: the upgrading of eight offshore automatic weather stations in the Coral Sea; installation of automated regional operational systems-AROS; computing facilities at Adelaide, Canberra, Bankstown, Richmond, Moorabbin and Perth; the completion of a new upper air observing station on Lord Howe Island; and the replacement of obsolescent upper wind measuring radars at Mildura and Esperance. The report recommended the development of an automated briefing service initially for general aviation. Many pilots have a need for detailed information on likely flying conditions before committing themselves to leaving home. Information technology has now advanced to the stage at which videotex and automated voice systems can handle such demands in a very cost effective way. The Bureau, in consultation with the aviation industry and the Civil Aviation Authority, proposes to set up a screen and telephone based briefing system and to give specialised attention to general aviation operations. A charge of $259,000 will be levied on the aviation industry in 1988-89 as a contribution to the development of an electronic briefing system. I now turn to the administrative and financial arrangements for the provision of meteorological services. The inquiry recommended a review of the Bureau's working arrangements with the Department of Transport and Communications. This is now complete. Under the new arrangements the Bureau of Meteorology will be formally identified as the Meteorological Authority for Australia for the purpose of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Procedures are to be set up to promote formal consultation between the Bureau and the aviation industry as recommended by the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. Such consultation is in line with the closer customer relationship being developed by the Bureau for the whole range of its services and will help to ensure the cost effectiveness and relevance of future aviation weather services. A special annual meeting of a subcommittee of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council and the Bureau of Meteorology will consider the Bureau's five-year forward plan. Recommendations from that meeting will form the basis of forward estimates for provision of the aviation weather service. In accordance with the Meteorology Act 1955, and Government policy for cost recovery from the aviation industry, the full incremental cost of aviation meteorological services, including a charge for aviation observations made by Bureau staff and the new electronic briefing system I have just described, will be recovered from the industry. The total charge in 1988-89 is $17.56m. The Government has, however, called for a review of the detailed costing of the provision of meteorological services to aviation to be undertaken in consultation with the industry. The review will report to me and my colleagues, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in time for the 1989-90 Budget. I will now refer to the recommendation of the Committee that the level of Bureau representation in Canberra should be upgraded. Current resources do not permit this. This recommendation will therefore be set aside. Finally, I would like to thank the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who chaired the Committee up to 14 February 1986, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), chair from 14 February 1986, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), chair of the subcommittee, their colleagues and the secretariat staff, for a very thorough job on a very complex issue. Their work was essential in resolving the difficulties which had developed in providing and funding aviation meteorological services. It is a tribute to their good judgment that despite the environment of financial restraint, the Government and I have been able to accept most of their recommendations and pave the way for more fruitful and effective administrative and financial arrangements between the Bureau of Meteorology, the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation industry. I present the Government's response to the report of the Committee and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE INQUIRY INTO METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES Recommendation 1 To satisfy a demonstrated public need, Weather Service Offices in the major remote provincial centres of Alice Springs, Launceston, Cairns, Mount Isa, Port Hedland, and Rockhampton be maintained: to avoid further centralisation of the Bureau's operational organisation; and to continue to provide public weather services to the local community. Response Agreed. The Government will maintain the six weather service offices to ensure continued provision of local weather services for the general public and major user groups including farmers, graziers, fishermen, mining and industrial users. Recommendation 2 Weather Service Officers located in major remote provincial centres be funded from consolidated revenue; funding commencing in the 1987-88 financial year. Response Funding from consolidated revenue will commence in the 1988-89 financial year. Recommendation 3 As a matter of urgency the Bureau be provided with special purpose funding to upgrade the Tropical Cyclone Warning Service. Essential features include: improved communications links between the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres and remote communities in northern Australia, including the use of all-weather satellite communications; `remoting' of the weather watch radar network to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres; investigation by the Bureau of the use of RAAF and coastal surveillance aircraft for tropical cyclone reconnaissance; and improved provision of accurate tropical cyclone location data to local communities, including the feasibility of providing quasi-continuous radar scans directly to emergency services and/or the general public. Response Special additional funding was provided through the 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 Budgets. Major improvements in 1987-88 included the provision of specialist staff for research and operations in the Bureau's Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres and improved communications links to enable data from coastal radars to be immediately accessible in the warning centres. Further specialist staff will be provided in 1989; as well, eight automatic weather stations along the Great Barrier Reef will be upgraded. Recommendation 4 Weather Service Offices located at Essendon, Hobart and Canberra, adjacent to Regional Forecasting Centres and not required for public weather purposes, be closed. Response This recommendation was implemented in the 1986-87 Budget, and resulted in the following closures: Essendon WSO on 29 October 1986; Canberra WSO on 17 December 1986; and Hobart WSO on 31 December 1986. Recommendation 5 Subject to the arrangement of suitable alternative methods for the provision of aerodrome and synoptic weather reports, the Tamworth Weather Service Office be closed by June 1988. Response The Civil Aviation Authority has agreed to provide observations when the Tamworth Flight Service Office is manned, and the Bureau of Meteorology has made alternative arrangements to obtain the observations necessary for public weather and climate services. The Tamworth WSO was closed on 31 March 1988. Recommendation 6 Government endorse the Bureau of Meteorology's accelerated re-equipment plan. The plan will enable a long overdue upgrade of the Bureau's basic infrastructure. It includes: accelerated implementation of the Automatic Regional Operations System, AROS, with the potential for increased efficiency and a reduction in staff numbers attributable to the Department of Aviation, replacement of the Laverton and Gladstone radars and an associated relocation of the Laverton Observing Office to Melbourne Airport and the Gladstone office to Rockhampton. The relocations will enable further reductions in staff numbers attributable to DofA and the release of qualified observer staff to strengthen the Bureau's basic observation network; and upgrading of the Tropical Cyclone Warning Service. Response The re-equipment program is proceeding on the basis of funding increases provided through the 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89 Budgets. Recommendation 7 Notwithstanding the long-term demarcation dispute between Technical Officers (Meteorology) and Meteorologists, Technical Officers be given responsibility for the issue of short period forecasts. Response Implementation will be subject to further consultation with unions. Recommendation 8 The Bureau be provided with special purpose funds to enable the development of a television or videotex type briefing service initially for general aviation with the possible extension to public weather services. Funds are required for: the purchase of additional equipment; the employment of consultants, as required, to develop additional computer software; and the promotion of the service with a view to obtaining future commercial sponsorship. Response Agreed in principle, with initial funding of $259,000 in 1988-89 to be recovered as a component of the charge on the aviation industry. Recommendation 9 In accord with recommendations 1 to 6, the Bureau of Meteorology be given an additional time period of approximately 18 months in which to implement the cost saving measures required by the Department of Aviation, and, consistent with its own needs, to strengthen its basic operating infrastructure and reduce centralisation. Response Agreed, in line with the Government's policy to improve, extend and upgrade the Bureau of Meteorology's data network. Recommendation 10 The current 1985-86 shortfall of $1m in Bureau of Meteorology revenue be met from consolidated revenue in the form of an additional capital grant in the 1986-87 Budget allocation. Response The 1985-86 revenue shortfall was offset within the Bureau's appropriation; however the Bureau's capital funding has been lifted progressively to the 1988-89 Budget level of $7.987m. Recommendation 11 As a matter of urgency, D of A and Bureau of Meteorology Working Arrangements and, in particular the Financial Arrangements be renegotiated and a formal binding agreement signed prior to the 1987-88 Budget process. Considerations should include: an investigation of the most appropriate charging policy; an accurate and timely estimate of costs attributable to D of A; an agreed method of calculation of Forward Estimates; a more equitable method of cost sharing for equipment upgrade and introduction of new technology in the Bureau of Meteorology; and the establishment of a trust fund or similar mechanism to allow carry over of funds. Response New Administrative Arrangements, prepared jointly by the former Department of Aviation and the Bureau of Meteorology, were approved by the respective Ministers in June 1987. These will be further revised during 1988-89 in the light of the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority. The detailed costing of the provision of meteorological services to civil aviation will be reviewed during the year, in consultation with the aviation industry, with a report to the Ministers for Administrative Services, Transport and Communications and Finance in time for the 1989-90 Budget. Recommendation 12 The Bureau of Meteorology reassess the need for a Director's Office to be in Canberra. In the event that Bureau management decide to retain the Director's Office in Melbourne, the representation in Canberra should be upgraded to Senior Executive Service level to enable more successful liaison and negotiations with other Commonwealth Government departments and agencies. Response Set aside on the basis of higher priorities for use of SES staffing levels in the Bureau. Mr SMITH(Bass) —by leave-At the outset of his speech, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) made the observation that the reason for this inquiry, which was completed in May 1986, was the widespread concern about the level of funding and expertise which existed in the Bureau of Meteorology. The Bureau of Meteorology is an organisation in this country which is fundamental to our everyday lives. The people who are driving home tonight and listening to the news will hear, at the end of it, the weather forecast. To a large degree that will determine what they do tomorrow. It is amazing how the matters of fundamental importance to us are often not discussed in this place. It is very rare that we get the opportunity to discuss the weather and, more particularly, the Bureau of Meteorology. Interestingly, the Minister formerly responsible for this area, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) is in the chamber tonight. I know he has a keen interest in the activities of the Bureau of Meteorology. Unfortunately, it was during his stewardship that the extent of the downgrading and the problems that existed in the Bureau came to public attention. This report is a good report. Mr Barry Jones —Because I raised it. Mr SMITH —The Minister raised it and he deserves credit for it. We are all grateful. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which presented this report-it involved three different chairmen-has had its recommendations accepted by the Government. I think the Minister and the Government should be commended for that because it is a matter beyond politics. It is extremely important to us. I think that everyone in this House would appreciate that fact. There are a few points that perhaps I could make. There was a delay in the Minister's response and whilst that is a criticism in itself, many of the recommendations in that report have already been addressed, as he has outlined today. More particularly, a concern was expressed some years ago about the level of funding for meteorological services and the rundown in the Bureau's ability, particularly to forecast cyclonic activity. It was brought to the attention of this Parliament by Senator Archer in the other place. This concern was certainly acknowledged by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business-the former Minister in charge of the Bureau. That led, in large part, to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The strong recommendation in that report called for an urgent increase in funds to upgrade the warning service and to accelerate the Bureau's capital re-equipment plan. Certainly, the Government has recognised that and in each subsequent Budget there has been additional funding. Indeed, if one deems meteorological services to be science related-and I do-it is a rare area in the science field which has actually attracted more funds from the government. One knows about the debates currently going on and the lamentable performance from the Government in respect of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). But that is a debate for another day. The other point worth making concerns the proposal that the Minister has accepted for the development of a forward plan for the Bureau of Meteorology Services-deciding where it will go in the next five years. A sub-committee of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council has been established and recommendations from it will form the basis of forward estimates for provision of the aviation weather services. The whole issue of weather services as it relates to the aviation industry is complex. We have sorted our way through that in this report. I urge the Minister to make sure that the phrase `consultation with the industry' is not just rhetoric. The aviation industry is subject to cost recovery. That is a principle in the aviation industry which springs from the report of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. We support that but I urge the Minister to make sure that there is consultation. These are vexed issues and we want to see an increase in efficiency as well as benefits to the aviation industry. We do not want to see cost recovery for cost recovery's sake. There must be improvements in efficiency as well. The Minister, when speaking, ought to have made clear the recommendation that he has not accepted from the Committee about Bureau representation in Canberra. It does not in any way relate to weather forecasters or services to the aviation industry. I understand that it relates to Senior Executive Service officers being placed in Canberra. The headquarters of the Bureau are in Melbourne and they ought to stay there. The Bureau is doing its job effectively. There is no reason to move it to Canberra and create more bureaucracy here. To double-check what is being done in Melbourne is something that need not be done. In that sense, I disagree with the Committee's recommendation. I commend the Minister for the stand he has taken. The first recommendation-the Minister for Administrative Services would be aware; certainly the former Minister was aware-relates to the major controversy in Tasmania about the weather services at the airport. The weather services in Launceston were retained as they were in Alice Springs, Cairns, Mount Isa, Port Hedland and Rockhampton. The Committee went to extensive lengths to consult with the community. I certainly congratulate the Committee members for doing that. It is appropriate to draw the Minister's attention to some related matters concerning forecasting and meteorological services. As shadow Minister for science I have been pursuing these issues for some 12 months and trying to get from the Minister some commitment about an overall coordinating approach to the questions of the greenhouse effect, ozone layer, weather forecasting and drought prediction. There are many activities undertaken in this country but they have no coordination at present. I would like to take up that point with the Minister again. I have written to him several times but I am yet to get an extensive reply. The climate affects so many of us in this country. Proper predictive services are now possible. The Minister installed new computers in the Bureau which it has been wanting for some years. That gives it an enhanced ability to do far more work than it has been doing. The atmospheric division and the division of oceanography in the CSIRO have been doing excellent work. If all that work could be combined and coordinated we may be able to develop far better predictive services for long term weather forecasts. We should not ignore the importance of issues such as the greenhouse effect. Yet again science got a kick in the Budget. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) went to Cabinet to seek funds for further research into the greenhouse effect, something which will, in time, affect all of us, particularly the young members who perhaps have longer here than others and who are worried about those issues. The Minister for the environment got the thumbs down and was unable to get further funds. It is to be lamented and regretted. It is those long term issues in relation to science that are important but that we ignore at our peril. Investment in science is about investing today to reap a possible harvest tomorrow. To walk away, to ignore it and to think of everything in either two- or three-year terms is certainly folly. It is not good government. Either side would do itself a disservice and, more particularly, a disservice to the nation if it ignored these very vital issues. So, firstly, I commend the Minister for accepting the recommendations of the Committee report. It was a good Committee report. But I make a further plea to the Minister: he is now in charge of a science activity in his Department and he should be making every endeavour to convince his Cabinet colleagues that science is important and that meteorological services are important and, more importantly, that a much better co- ordinated approach to climate predictive services in this country is certainly needed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The misleading nature of the Hawke Government's referendum proposals. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.32) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. 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, 29 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 Tuesday, 27 September 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 29 September 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 29 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. Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted Order of the day *1 INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-STANDING COMMITTEE-REPORT ON INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA MANUFACTURING-MOTION TO TAKE NOTE OF PAPER: Resumption of debate (from 25 August 1988) on the motion of Mr Beddall-That the House take note of the report. 20 mins Notices *2 MR WRIGHT: To move-That this House condemns the insidious, sinister activities of the League of Rights in this country which are aimed at undermining public respect for, and public confidence in, the democratic institution of Parliament and its elected representatives. (Notice given 23 August) 36 mins *3 MR MOORE: To move-That this House rejects the ongoing use of taxpayer' funds for public enterprises which would be more appropriately funded by the private sector. (Notice given 15 September 1987) 36 mins *4 MR McGAURAN: To move-That this House- 36 mins (1) acknowledges the critical importance of Australia's road network to the well being of rural communities and to the economic performance of export orientated industries; (2) recognises that a deterioration of this national infrastructure is highly wasteful in both human and economic terms; and (3) accepts the need to address urgently the many issues surrounding road funding by the 3 tiers of government. (Notice given 27 April 1988) *5 MR SCHOLES: To move-That the Procedure Committee be asked to examine and prepare recommendations to provide that rules for the election of a Speaker at the first sitting of the Parliament, or at any time when the position becomes vacant, be changed to provide that the Member with the longest continuous service, not being a member of the Executive or Opposition office-holder, shall take the Chair until such time as a Speaker is elected and shall exercise whilst in the Chair all of the powers vested in the Speaker for the conduct of actual sittings of the House of Representatives. (Notice given 16 March 1988.) any remaining private Members business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day LEO McLEAY Chairman 29 September 1988 Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 27 September 1988, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAND —I claim to have been misrepresented and I wish to clarify a point arising out of an earlier claim by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to have been misrepresented by me. I certainly did not intend to embarrass him. I did acknowledge that his comments to me the other afternoon were of a genuine nature, and I think if he reads the transcript he will see that I stated: . . . in view of a conversation I had with the Leader of the Opposition about an issue he raised with me regarding the Northern Territory, I thought I would . . . give some information about what we are doing in regard to that sort of program. I also, after his interjection, said: . . . I know the honourable member did not raise it politically. It was a genuine attempt by him to raise a point with me. I want to stress that, if that was offensive to him, it was not intended that way. I take his comments of the other afternoon as genuine, and I did not wish to imply anything else. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I accept what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has said. I simply say to him that the context of my personal explanation was that he really did use the conversation as a bit of a trigger to have a go at one of my colleagues. I accept what the Minister says. I accept that he was being genuine in saying that I was genuine. Okay? Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not know how much indulgence should be granted, but as long as it is in good humour-- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am prepared to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition's genuine concern on the issue he raised with me, but I suggest that he not take it too far into the rest of the question. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will implement measures to attack the last remaining area of widespread tax evasion in our economy. It builds upon the unprecedented action this Government has already taken in the past 5 1/2 years to close the net on tax evasion and avoidance. Right from the beginning of our period in office we announced our intention to act retrospectively against any new avoidance schemes that emerged, in one stroke wiping out a large part of the professional tax avoidance industry. That overriding commitment to nullify any reward from avoidance has been backed up by a host of specific measures aimed at particular schemes that threatened the revenue. At the same time we have given the Australian Taxation Office the necessary resources in staff and equipment to do its job properly. But much more than that, through the most comprehensive tax reform process in Australia's history, we have turned the whole psychology of avoidance on its head. The integrity of the tax system has been restored. Today people much more readily comply, simply because lower rates make compliance less of a burden. But if they choose to evade, they run the risk of much stiffer penalties, some of which had not previously been updated since 1936. At the same time the old loopholes have been eliminated and closed off. Income derived from capital gains is now taxed on the same basis as income derived from employment. Fringe benefits are no longer tax preferred, the deduction for entertainment has been removed and people claiming tax deductions now have to maintain proper records. All of the proceeds of these and the other measures we have taken have been fully devoted to cutting personal income tax rates. The result is that we now have a genuinely progressive personal income tax scale. That is in complete contrast to the situation before, when what at first sight appeared a highly progressive scale was in reality highly regressive. Higher income people walked around it while lower income pay as you earn taxpayers carried much more than their share. The same principle of lower rates, tougher enforcement and fewer concessions has been extended to the corporate sector. As recent publicity testifies, the Commissioner of Taxation has devoted a large part of his increased audit resources to a crackdown on company tax avoidance. I make it clear to the so-called `tax industry' that the Commissioner's actions in this area receive the full support of the Government. However, I stress that there is something much more fundamental than increased enforcement activity underlying the improvement in compliance from the company sector. By implementing the new imputation system of company tax we have changed the whole basis of company tax collections for the better. The new system allows tax-free dividends to be paid to shareholders if tax has already been paid at the company level. In other words, it removes the double taxation of dividends, and in doing so it completely reverses the previous incentive for companies to minimise their tax payments. Today, managers who arrange their corporate affairs so as to minimise tax will only be depriving their shareholders of tax-free dividend payments. Only now is there a growing recognition of the massive shift in favour of the psychology of compliance that has been brought about by the imputation system. In this way its impact is totally beneficial-it tips the balance of the system towards companies that earn genuine profits and honestly pay their full tax liability. As I said at the outset, this Bill mounts a fundamental attack on tax evasion, where people use false names, do not declare income, or fail to lodge returns. The measures I am announcing today will attack these practices by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office's income matching system. In doing that, it will return to the revenue $2,200m over the next 10 years. All of this money will be redistributed in the form of tax cuts. There is a clear need for action to clamp down on these evasion practices. To take one recent example, an inspection of the employment details of a firm with an annual wages bill of some $13m revealed that less than $2m had been included in returns lodged by employees with the Tax Office. The Tax Office estimates that tax properly payable was in excess of $5m. In another case, in a firm with some 800 employees, over 400 resigned hurriedly on hearing of the arrival of Tax Office inspectors. That they were being less than honest with their tax affairs can be gauged from the fact that they have left behind almost $120,000 in unclaimed severance pay. The case for concerted action against such evasion is reinforced by the opportunity currently being allowed by the Tax Commissioner for people who have not been lodging returns to do so without penalty or prosecution if they do so by 31 October 1988. For those who do not take up the Commissioner's invitation, the file number arrangements now being introduced will provide a trail for future strong enforcement action by his Office. The Government fully shares the genuine concerns in the community for the protection of privacy. My colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is presently near finalising proposals for a revised general privacy Bill. He anticipates introducing this legislation to the Parliament shortly. The revised privacy Bill will include provisions relating to the tax file number. More specifically, the Government has also been determined to include very strict privacy safeguards in the present Bill. There will be no requirement on people to produce a card or any other evidence of their tax file number. No other government or non-government agency will have access to the Tax Office file number registration system, nor will it be able to use an individual's tax file number for any registration system of its own. In addition, the Bill contains a range of quite specific privacy safeguards. New offences punishable by a penalty of up to $10,000 or two years' imprisonment are proposed for a person who in unauthorised circumstances requires or requests another person to quote his or her file number, keeps a record of another person's file number, discloses another person's file number or uses another person's file number. While the Tax Office has an exemplary record in maintaining the confidentiality of taxpayer information, this Bill further toughens the law against disclosure. It doubles to $10,000 or two years' imprisonment the penalties that already apply to unauthorised release of information by Tax Office employees. An equivalent offence is being introduced for disclosure of information obtained in unauthorised circumstances by non-employees. The Commissioner will also be able to obtain an injunction to prevent unauthorised disclosure of information. I will now turn to the major features of the Bill. As foreshadowed in my statement in May, extensive consultations have been held with industry groups affected by the proposals. Those discussions have proved fruitful and the views expressed have, where possible, been incorporated in the arrangements. Before doing so I should record the Government's appreciation for the constructive way in which industry groups have approached the discussions with Tax Office officials. I and Tax officials have also discussed these measures with members of the Opposition, in particular, the shadow Treasurer the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I believe that the Opposition has approached this issue constructively, and has made a number of positive suggestions which have been incorporated in this Bill. In particular, the Government has adopted the Opposition's suggestions on extending a withholding tax system to interest paid on bank accounts where no tax file number is quoted. This is in lieu of the original proposal to freeze bank accounts. The Government has also agreed to adopt the Opposition's suggestion that a similar provision apply to dividend payments on shares. This means that people will not be obliged to quote their file number to enter into a relevant transaction or operate an investment account. However, prior to receiving income from those investments the taxpayer would be required to quote his or her file number to avoid tax being deducted from the income by the payer. As I stated, the essential purpose of the new file number arrangements is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office's income matching system as a means of furthering the attack on tax evasion. That system presently relies on names and addresses to match details contained in taxpayers' returns with those supplied to the Tax Office on, for example, interest and dividend advices received from companies. By providing for the use of tax file numbers rather than just names and addresses, the measures incorporated in this Bill will substantially improve the matching process. By way of example, the present reliance on names and addresses means that around 30 per cent of interest reports cannot be readily matched. Subject to certain extensions to ensure comprehensive coverage, the new arrangements will apply to the principal areas in which income reports are already received by the Tax Office. The first of these is employment. From 1 November those starting a new job or changing jobs will need to quote their file number on an employment declaration to their employer. If they do not, tax will be deducted from their pay at the highest rate, plus the Medicare levy. From 1 April the arrangements will extend to all employees who will be asked to lodge with their employer a revised income tax instalment declaration form and quote their file number. These arrangements will extend to recipients of unemployment or sickness benefits. Pensioners, including age, invalid and service pensioners, will not be required to quote a file number; nor will children under 16 who do not earn enough to have tax taken out of their pay. The second phase of the implementation of the scheme will be its extension to investment uses. The investment areas to be covered by the legislation fall into two groups: First, interest income received from investments with banks and other financial institutions and with companies, government and semi-government authorities and solicitors' trust funds. Second, dividends from share investments and distributions from cash management and property trusts. In my May statement I announced the investment use arrangements would be phased in over two years from 1 July 1990. However, discussions with organisations have established that, provided there were adequate lead times, phasing arrangements were unnecessary and were, in any event, difficult to administer. Revised implementation arrangements now decided on will require file numbers to be quoted for all new accounts opened or investments made on or after 1 July 1991. The quotation requirement will also apply for existing accounts or investments at that date. To assist in the administration of these, people will be able to quote their file numbers in respect of existing investments from 1 July 1990. As I mentioned the Government has also considered views expressed about the severity of the original sanction for non-quotation. The Government has now decided to align the investment sanction with that proposed for employment. That is, where people have failed to quote their file number at the time any interest or income distribution is payable, tax will be withheld at the maximum marginal rate, plus the Medicare levy, which is 50.25 per cent, but of course the marginal rate may change. In light of the new sanction arrangements and administrative difficulties identified in relation to the original proposals, the quotation arrangements for investments in shares in public companies will apply to pre-existing shareholdings at 1 July 1991, and not just new investments, as was originally proposed. In this way the rules for shares will apply on an equivalent basis to that for other forms of investments. The general rule is that the withholding sanction will apply to interest or income distributions made on or after 1 July 1991. In the case of shares the withholding sanction will apply on a pro rata basis to the extent that the dividend is not a franked dividend. As with employment, deductions made under these arrangements will not be a final tax. A person will be required to include total investment income in his or her income tax return, and credit will be allowed for any amounts deducted. Early access to funds withheld will be possible only in certain hardship cases. There will be a range of exemptions to these investment uses. For accounts with banks, building societies and credit unions in existence at 1 July 1991, there will be no requirement to quote a file number where interest is payable at a rate that is less than $120 per annum. This reflects the original proposal to exclude pre-existing accounts with a balance of less than $1,000. Financial institutions have advised that they cannot efficiently administer a system that distinguishes accounts by reference to account balances. All new accounts opened after 1 July 1991 will require a file number irrespective of the level of interest paid. I wish to advise the House that the Government will be moving an amendment to the Bill to ensure that people receiving any part of an age, invalid or other pension from the Department of Social Security, or service pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, will be exempt from the need to quote a tax file number to operate bank or similar accounts, buy shares, or have dealings with other financial institutions. This exemption will not apply to people receiving unemployment or sickness benefits since in these cases there can be no expectation that the recipient will permanently remain out of the work force. Children under the age of 16 who do not have a tax file number will also be exempt from quoting a tax file number to carry out banking and other financial transactions, provided interest is payable at a rate that is less than $420 per annum. This exemption does not extend to dividend income. As a further measure designed to improve the efficiency of the income matching system, the Bill will also introduce an obligation on employers and investment bodies who store information on computer to supply information reports to the Commissioner in a form suitable for processing by the Tax Office computer system. Organisations will not be required to establish computer storage systems where they do not already exist. For those who presently store information on computer, there will be exemptions from the requirements where meeting the Commissioner's specifications for transmission of data would create substantial difficulties. As was announced by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), there will be one other use for the tax file number. That is, as part of the higher education contributions scheme, students choosing to pay their contributions through the tax system will be required to have a tax file number. The legislative authority for that use of tax file numbers will be included separately in the legislation for the higher education contributions scheme to be introduced at a later date. I stress at this point that the same strict privacy safeguards I have outlined applying to this Bill will apply to the use of the tax file number under the higher education contributions scheme. As I said earlier, the measures in the Bill will result in retrieving substantial revenue that would otherwise remain uncollected. It is estimated that revenue will progressively build up from 1988-89 to the point where an additional $337m annually will be collected by 1993-94. Those who choose to oppose these measures are choosing to allow those who are cheating on the tax system to continue to do so at the expense of the more honest members of our community. The whole purpose of the Bill is to allow the efficiency of computers to match incomes with individuals other than by the laborious method of dealing with the matching of names and addresses. It is a numbering system that, perhaps, should have existed some years ago. Therefore, with the carriage of this legislation the Commissioner of Taxation will be better equipped to run the tax system in a way which lifts its efficiency without devoting enormous staff resources to the inefficient business of manually matching information. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus measure proposing amendments to five bounty Acts and one subsidy Act. The Bill's major purpose is to make amendments to the Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981, and the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981, and the Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act 1977: (i) To extend the life of the first two bounty schemes until 30 June 1995, as part of the Government's post-1988 textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) plan; and to implement the phasing down of assistance under the schemes to a final rate of 30 per cent, as announced in that plan and the 25 May 1988 economic statement-clause 4, schedule 1; and (ii) to increase the maximum annual amount of bounty available for payment under the third scheme as announced in the TCF plan, from $600,000 to $3.2m, commencing on 1 March 1989 and operating until 28 February 1993 when the scheme will be reviewed-(Clause 4, Schedule 1). Under the Government's post-1988 TCF plan, the bounty rate for the printed fabric bounty-which is paid for the printing of certain apparel fabrics-was originally scheduled to be phased down from 56 per cent to 30 per cent by the end of the plan-in other words, 1 March 1996. However, as part of the changes announced by the Government in the May economic statement, it was decided to shorten the TCF plan by eight months-in other words, the plan is now to operate until 30 June 1995. Accordingly, the phasing period originally proposed in the TCF plan has been recalculated so that the 30 per cent end point is reached by that date. This Bill proposes amendments to the Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981 in Schedule 1 to the Bill, to give legislative effect to this segment of the TCF plan. With regard to the textile yarns bounty, the TCF plan proposed that all products eligible to receive bounty under the bounty scheme would be paid at a uniform rate of 30 per cent by 1 March 1994. The only amendment to the timetable for the phased amendments to existing rates of bounty announced in the TCF plan relates to the pace of reduction in bounty assistance for continuous filament polyamide and polyester yarns. Under the TCF plan the rate of bounty was to be reduced from the current 47.5 per cent of factory cost value added to 45 per cent on 1 March 1989, with a reduction to 37.5 per cent on 1 March 1993, and a final drop to 30 per cent on 1 March 1994. In the May economic statement the Government decided to slightly accelerate the reduction, and it is now proposed to reduce the amount of bounty payable to 42.5 per cent on 1 March 1989, then to 35 per cent on 1 March 1993 before finally reaching 30 per cent on 1 March 1994. Further, similar to the printed fabrics bounty, this scheme is to operate until 30 June 1995. The proposed amendments to the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981 in schedule 1 to the Bill give legislative effect to this segment of the TCF plan. The final amendment to existing legislation that is necessary to implement the Government's TCF plan is the proposed amendment to the Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act 1977. This Bill proposes to increase the maximum amount of bounty that may be appropriated to that scheme by Parliament in any one 12-month period from $600,000 per annum to $3.2m per annum, until the scheme ends on 28 February 1993. This increased annual ceiling will assist the revitalisation of this important industry in the TCF sector. In addition to the above, a number of technical drafting amendments to clarify or effect consequential changes to two bounty schemes and one subsidy scheme are proposed. These are set out in detail in what will be the eagerly read explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Financial Impact Statement The proposed extension of the textile yarn and printed fabric bounties is expected to result in total bounty outlays for both of these schemes of about $300m over the three financial years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. This figure incorporates the estimated savings arising from the changes announced by the Government in the post-1988 TCF plan and the May 25 economic statement of $0.8m in 1988-89, $4m in 1989-90 and $5.5m in 1990-91. The proposed amendments to the bed sheeting bounty will require the Commonwealth to outlay a maximum of $12.8m between 1 March 1989 and 28 February 1993. The four-month bounty period 1 November 1988 to 28 February 1989 is subject to a ceiling of $200,000-a pro-rating of the current $600,000 ceiling for four months. The amendments to the other bounty schemes and the amendment to the subsidy scheme have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(5.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, to give effect to the Government's decision announced as part of the May 1988 economic statement to remove the exemption from liability for excise duty presently afforded to government business enterprises, and to incorporate into that Act various excise tariff proposals tabled in this Parliament during the last sittings. Removal of Excise Duty Exemption from Government Business Enterprises The amendment relating to Government business enterprise removes from 1 July 1989 the exemption from liability for excise duty on goods which are used by those agencies and Budget-funded authorities. Honourable members will recall that the exemption from liability for customs duty on goods imported by these bodies was removed as a result of the Government's decision in the May 1987 economic statement. It is the intention of this Bill that all such Commonwealth agencies which are now liable for customs duty on their imports will also be liable for excise duty from 1 July 1989 on domestically produced excisable goods which they use. Government business enterprises which are currently subject to customs duties but exempt from excise include Telecom Australia and Australia Post. The proposed amendment in clause 5 of this Bill will rectify the anomalies situation whereby goods acquired by these and other like agencies can attract different indirect tax treatment depending on whether they are imported or produced domestically. The removal of these excise exemptions is consistent with the Government's moves to improve the efficiency of government business enterprises by placing them on a more commercial footing. The May 1988 economic statement endorsed the general principle that these enterprises should be exposed to the same taxes and charges as private businesses. In line with this endorsement the timing of the removal of a number of remaining tax exemptions attracted by government business enterprises, including excise duty, was announced in the May 1988 economic statement. It is proposed that by-laws will be made under the Excise Act 1901 prescribing an identical list of exempt agencies in relation to excise duty as has been promulgated for customs duty by by-laws made under the Customs Act 1901. Liquefied Petroleum Gas The excise duty for naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas is adjusted six- monthly on 1 April and 1 October each year in accordance with the Government's LPG excise policy announced in April 1980. The excise rate is calculated as 60 per cent of the amount by which the realised price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 a tonne. The realised price is based on the weighted average of the prices received from exports and local sales of LPG during the immediately preceding six months. Under the petroleum excise arrangements introduced from 1 July 1987, LPG produced from onshore fields is exempt from excise, so the excise now only applies to offshore fields-that is, Bass Strait. No excise is payable on refinery produced LPG. Clause 3 of the Bill will amend the excise rate, with effect from 1 April 1988, from $13.21 to $15.39 a kilolitre, an increase of $2.18 from the previous rate set on 1 October 1987. The increase reflects the higher export prices obtained for LPG over the six months to March 1988. Aviation Kerosene-Avtur Clause 4 of the Bill will remove the excise duty on aviation kerosene, with effect from 1 July 1988, by reducing the rate of excise from 16.087c per litre to zero. This adjustment stems from the Government's decision in the May 1988 economic statement to discontinue the excise on aviation kerosene and substitute an en route charge levied by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The Authority commenced levying the charge on 1 July 1988, the same day the excise was discontinued. This measure gives partial effect to the funding element of the Government's decision to transfer the functional responsibility for the provision of air traffic control, flight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance systems and rescue and firefighting services to the Civil Aviation Authority. Hitherto, revenue from excise tariff duties on aviation kerosene have been attributed to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes. For purposes of aviation cost recovery calculations, aviation fuel excise revenues had generally been set against the cost of providing airways en route facilities and services and system overhead costs. With the transfer to the Civil Aviation Authority of the responsibility for the provision of airways en route facilities and services from 1 July 1988, the Government reviewed the funding arrangements for the new Authority and decided that the CAA would introduce domestic en route charges for its services in place of Budget revenues from excise duties on aviation kerosene and departure tax. Clause 4 of this Bill therefore abolishes excise duties on avtur in accordance with these arrangements. These changed arrangements ensure that the CAA is fully responsible and accountable for the provision and pricing of its commercial airways services. The new en route charges of that Authority represent a more appropriate and efficient user pays basis for these services. Financial Impact Statement (a) Government business enterprises-removal of excise exemption. There are no direct financial implications for the 1988-89 year, as the measure does not come into operation until 1 July 1989. Additional excise receipts in 1989-90 are estimated at $25m. (b) Liquefied petroleum gas. The 1 April 1988 increase in the excise rate for naturally occurring LPG is estimated to result in an increase of $3.4m in excise receipts in 1988-89. (c) Aviation kerosene (avtur). The removal of the excise duty on aviation kerosene will result in a decrease in excise revenue of $190m in the 1988-89 financial year. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(6.06) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1988). The tariff proposals I have just tabled introduce alterations to schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1987. The proposed new item will allow original components of large machines to attract customs duty at the same rate as the complete machine. Currently, goods imported in this way often pay considerably more duty than would apply if the machine were imported complete. The concession formalises and extends current administrative arrangements which allow unit classification where goods are imported separately for transport reasons. It will remove an unnecessary burden on capital equipment investment. Consistent with the strategy set out in the May economic statement, it will encourage local industry participation in large projects and assist our manufacturing industries to become more competitive internationally. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to put in place the Commonwealth's general revenue assistance arrangements with the States and the Northern Territory for 1988-89, following the expiry of the States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985. In conjunction with the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988, it implements the arrangements agreed to at the May 1988 Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting in respect of the Commonwealth's general purpose payments to the States. The payments provided for in this Bill, $12,400.6m, account for about 15 per cent of estimated Commonwealth Budget outlays in 1988-89. As such, these payments constitute a major element of the Commonwealth's Budget. In combination with the general purpose capital assistance provided for under the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 and the global borrowing limits agreed at the Loan Council meeting, they have a major bearing on the spending and borrowing of State governments. The level of assistance provided in the Bill involves a reduction of $650m against the Forward Estimates at the time of the Premiers Conference. The base funding that was agreed at the conference is to be adjusted for the actual increase in the consumer price index (CPI) in the year to the March quarter 1989. General revenue assistance to be provided in 1988-89 will also be reduced so as to recoup 90 per cent of the revenue available to the States and the Northern Territory as a result of the removal of the payroll tax exemption for Commonwealth Government business enterprises. In 1988-89 it is estimated that the additional savings to the Commonwealth from this measure will be $179m. However, because the States will retain 10 per cent of the additional collections, the net effect of this measure will be to enhance their fiscal capacity. Adjusted for the payroll tax recoupment and the new hospital funding arrangements that were also agreed to at the Premiers Conference, general purpose payments to the States and the Northern Territory-comprising the general revenue assistance provided for in this Bill plus general purpose capital payments-are estimated to decline by 4.6 per cent in real terms in 1988-89. This compares with a reduction of 5.1 per cent in 1987-88. The significant reduction in payments last year contributed toward the fiscal restraint exercised by the State and local government sector in 1987-88. That restraint is welcomed. As the Commonwealth has emphasised at both the 1987 and 1988 Premiers Conference and Loan Council Meetings, it is essential that all levels of government restrain their spending and borrowing in order to restrain domestic demand, reduce the call on domestic savings and arrest the build up in foreign debt. The level of payments provided for in this Bill will ensure that the budgetary policies of State governments continue to complement the Commonwealth's fiscal strategy in 1988-89. Turning briefly to some of the details, the major part of the general revenue assistance to be provided under this Bill is to be paid as financial assistance grants, which are currently estimated to total $12,313.2m. Before account is taken of the payroll tax adjustment, the distribution of these financial assistance grants is to be determined in line with per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its 1988 report on General Revenue Grant Relativities. The relativities adopted apply to a combined pool of general revenue assistance and hospital grants. By using these relativities, no State is advantaged or disadvantaged relative to other States because of the altered distribution of hospital funding grants to apply from 1988-89. The Bill also provides for part of general revenue assistance to be provided to Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory as special revenue assistance, estimated at $87.4m. This is also to be adjusted in line with the actual CPI increase in the year to the March quarter 1989. This assistance is intended to ease the adjustment for those governments to the reduced level of funding and the new relativities adopted at the Premiers Conference. In most other respects, the arrangements provided for in the Bill are similar to those applying in the triennium completed in 1987-88. The main differences are that the arrangements proposed for 1988-89: encompass the Northern Territory on the same basis as the States; apply for a single year rather than a triennium; no longer include a component for general purpose identified health grants, which instead are being provided as a specific purpose payment under new hospital funding arrangements; and make provision for the Commonwealth to reduce general revenue assistance payments to any State or States if they were to exceed their 1988-89 global borrowing limits. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's endeavours to continue public sector restraint at all levels of government. I commend the Bill to the House and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.13) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Expansion of international terminal complex, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. My colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has given concurrence to a proposal by the Federal Airports Corporation for a major expansion of the existing international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The existing international terminal was opened in 1970 and at the time ranked equally with other major terminals around the world. However its design only partly foresaw the enormous growth in international air traffic that would accompany the spectacular success and public acceptance of jumbo aircraft. Its design capacity of 1,000 originating and terminating passengers per hour is no longer adequate to cope with the peaks of demand that occur in the early morning and mid-afternoon. Works currently in hand to upgrade the existing terminal and improve both its amenity and handling capacity will still only meet traffic projections at the start of the 1990s. The proposed work is the result of extensive concept studies by the Federal Airports Corporation and its consultants. It will complement the aforementioned improvement works and is designed to process the passengers from an additional eight 747-400 aircraft gates. The proposal includes a new 47,000 square metre four-level terminal building to the immediate south of, and fully integrated with, the existing international terminal complex. This building will retain the existing vertical separation between arriving and departing passengers and will include all facilities necessary for the processing of passengers and baggage, together with appropriate concession areas, office space, et cetera. It will be designed to blend aesthetically with the existing terminal. The new terminal will give direct access to a 17,000 square metre three-level pier which will provide aerobridge connection to six aircraft of Boeing 747-400 size plus a further two gates without aerobridge connection. The pier will contain appropriate concessions and airline VIP lounges. The new terminal will also be sized to permit a further four gate positions to be added at a later date by the simple addition of a second pier. The proposal also involves the construction of new aircraft aprons and taxiways, alterations to landside roadworks and the provision of a new bus parking area. Other requirements include the upgrading or duplication of existing trunk services and the provision of associated security fencing, signage and landscaping. Being substantially to one side of the existing international terminal, the proposal will minimise disturbance to the travelling public and to airport employees. However, some integration and interconnection with existing facilities is essential and this will be undertaken outside peak traffic hours as far as is practicable. The estimated capital cost of approximately $170m at April 1988 prices is essentially a budget figure. It makes appropriate allowance for design and construction contingencies and for asbestos removal works. It is based upon the outcome of extensive conceptual design studies but detailed requirements are still subject to further definition in the forthcoming technical specification and design stage. Reference to the Public Works Committee at this time is essential to permit the ongoing development of the project and enable review at the earliest possible time. Early endorsement is also essential to permit commitment of initial site works towards the end of 1988. This is fundamental to the fast-tracking approach which the Federal Airports Corporation intends to apply to construction. Such an approach is essential to facilitate completion by mid-1992. I table plans and details of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(6.18) —The motion moved by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) in respect of the upgrading of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport raises some fairly fundamental questions. Over the last five years of this Government there have been repeated calls for the upgrading of the international terminal at Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney. They have come from the tourist industry, the airlines and other related sectors of the aviation industry. Mr Beale —But never from that Minister. Mr PORTER —The honourable member is quite right. The honourable member has indicated that the responsible Minister has avoided a response to the calls from the industry. Both Liberal and Labor New South Wales governments have raised this issue with the Minister. So has the Opposition and even some members of the Government. But the Government and this Minister have not responded to those requests. This Minister's answer has been to adopt a patch up approach. That approach has utterly failed-it has failed all those who rely on the international terminal. In 1986 the Joint Committee on Public Works considered a Government proposal to spend $20m on patching up the terminal. The Public Works Committee looked at the Government proposal and recommended against the expenditure of the money and the patch up job. Nevertheless, this Minister and this Government took the relatively rare step of overruling the Public Works Committee recommendation and proceeded with the expenditure of that $20m on a patch up job. It did so against the recommendations of the Public Works Committee, a committee of this Parliament. It is clear that the $20m expenditure has proven to be a waste of taxpayers' money. The recommendation to the House and the referral to the Public Works Committee of this proposal are a stark indicator that the Government was wrong in overruling the Public Works Committee in 1986. It was wrong in delaying significant extensions of the present terminal at that time. In so doing, the Government has not only wasted the taxpayers' money, but also it has been responsible for considerable damage to the tourism and aviation industries. The Kingsford-Smith Airport carries more traffic than all other Australian international airports combined. It is an extremely important airport. It generates over $2 billion worth of income for aviation companies and the surrounding communities, and directly employs in excess of 14,000 people. The airport receives almost two out of every three tourists who come into Australia. It is, and will remain, the premier gateway to Australia. As the former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), often points out, first impressions are very important in encouraging tourists to make return trips. However, the Government and the Minister have consistently refused to spend the sort of money on the airport that is essential. The international facilities are on a par with many Third World airports. It is just not good enough. The fundamental problem with the airport relates not just to the facilities for passengers but also to the incapacity of the airport to handle the growing number of aircraft which seek to land there. We all know of the delays which are frequently incurred by planes waiting to get into Kingsford-Smith Airport. The delays are bad for tourism and for the airlines. They add to the holding costs of the airlines. Those holding costs are incurred whether the aircraft are on the ground with their engines going, waiting to take off, or circling in the air, waiting to land. It is bad for the residents of Sydney, especially those near the airport who have to put up with the aircraft waiting to take off, with engines running, and no doubt contributing to the noise and air pollution of the area. To date, Labor's answer has been, as I have said, to spend $20m tarting up the international terminal. Now, the Government is going to spend $23m on the construction of taxiways, without addressing the basic problem of landing the increased number of aircraft which seek to land in Sydney. A matter which I want to raise and which I would like the Public Works Committee to consider is whether this proposal is not yet another example of the Government yet again getting the wrong end of the stick. It is interesting to look at the Minister's statement to the House tonight in referring this proposed work to the Public Works Committee. In his second reading speech, the Minister drew very heavily on the report of the Federal Airports Corporation, entitled Expansion of International Terminal Complex: Technical Report. The Minister merely lifted out and used large slabs of the report. It is interesting to note the section of the technical report to which the Minister did not refer, and I refer to the comments under paragraph 1 (ii), to the effect that one of the reasons for the need to upgrade the passenger terminal is `a major expansion of the terminal facility allowing for airline schedule expansion and the accommodation of increased peak passenger flows'. In other words, the Federal Airports Corporation is expecting an increased number of aeroplanes to land at the airport, and that is why it suggests there is a need to upgrade the international terminal to enable it to handle the increased number of passengers. It is that factor that the Minister has sought to ignore-and he has sought to ignore it because it is too hard for this Government. For years now the Government has sought to ignore this problem. It will not confront the basic problem which must be addressed, that is, how we will land these extra aircraft that will use these upgraded international terminal facilities. I understand that the Government has refused to contemplate another runway, which would improve the capacity of the airport by up to 50 per cent. Instead, Labor has chosen a new site for a second Sydney airport-at Badgerys Creek, to the west of Sydney. Even if construction on that started tomorrow-and, of course it will not-that new airport will not be operational for 15 to 20 years. Therefore, the pressure on Kingsford-Smith Airport will continue to increase. As I have said, the Federal Airports Corporation acknowledges that. It says that it is one of the reasons why it needs to upgrade the terminal complex. Yet, in recommending that this work be undertaken the Minister ignores that fact, and the Government has failed to address that problem. Of course, we in the coalition-forward thinking parties-have confronted the problem. We have already announced our policy in relation to this and we have made clear that action has to be taken. In our policy we have outlined what action will be taken-the construction of a runway parallel to the main north-south runway, thereby improving the capacity of the main runways and improving the air traffic control equipment. The present equipment is up to 25 years old and is based on old technology. Action must be taken. I therefore raise this matter with the Government and I ask the Public Works Committee to look at this proposal and answer the question: How can expenditure on the much needed upgrading of the existing facilities for passengers in the terminals be justified if the Government continues to fail to address the problem of the incapacity of the airport to handle an increase in the number of aircraft which seek to land there? The Government simply must come to grips with this problem. It has avoided it to date. Clearly, the Public Works Committee will have to look at this matter if it is properly to review the expenditure of this massive amount of money on the much needed upgrading of the facilities in the terminal complex. The Minister cannot put the cart before the horse. It is no use upgrading the facilities without upgrading the airport to ensure that the increase in aircraft arrivals can actually be handled. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.27) —The referral to the Joint Committee on Public Works of this project involving expenditure of $107m on the expansion of the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport demonstrates just how hypocritical the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and the Government are. Over the last five years frequent calls have been made for the expansion of the international terminal at Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney. These calls have come from the tourist industry, the airlines, other related sectors of the aviation industry, both the Liberal and Labor governments of New South Wales, and the Opposition. Even members of the Government have called for something to be done about the mess at Kingsford-Smith Airport. I draw the attention of the House to a report prepared by the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney in 1986. It needs: Sydney airport is in a state of crisis. It is threatened by economic decline and stagnation. Air traffic is growing faster at Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Cairns and Adelaide. Congestion and delays at Kingsford Smith will lead to a decline in tourists, international business and freight. Mr Porter —And boy, we need the international dollars. Mr BEALE —We certainly do. Here is another example of this Government doing everything it can to stop Australia's overseas trade from growing. The report continues: Country air services will deteriorate as competition for [the landing slots at] Mascot intensifies. . . . A new airport for Sydney will not be operational until at least 2010. I have received a whole series of letters about the horror that we can describe as Sydney Airport. By way of example, after the suspension of the sitting for dinner I shall read extracts from a letter I received in October 1987. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BEALE —We are debating a motion to refer to the Public Works Committee a proposal to spend $170m on the expansion of the international terminal at Sydney Airport. At the outset I should say that I am not surprised that the Minister for Administrative Services, who is responsible for the carriage of this matter, is not in the House. He was forced to come into the House this afternoon and, in his current capacity, to admit that the job that he did when he was the Minister for Housing and Construction was faulty. He said today, `The Government agrees with the proposal from the subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure that what I did when I was the Minister for Housing and Construction was wrong'. Following that, he came back into this House and took an absolute savaging from my friend and colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), so it is no surprise that he is not in here tonight. Mr Hand —You are frightened. That is a slightly different perspective. Mr BEALE —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is in here tonight. We can always tell when the magpies are chirping-yack, yack, yack! Over the last five years of this Government there have been repeated calls for the expansion of the international terminal at the Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney. These calls have come from the tourist industry, from the airlines, from other related sectors of the aviation industry, from the former Labor Government and the current Liberal Government in New South Wales-and, by the way, it will not be too long before there is a Liberal government in power in Victoria-from the Opposition, and even from some members of the Government. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was quoting from a Sydney Chamber of Commerce document on the Kingsford Smith Airport that said, amongst other things: Sydney Airport is in a state of crisis. It is threatened by economic decline and stagnation. Airport traffic is growing faster at Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Cairns and Adelaide. Congestion and delays at Kingsford Smith will lead to a decline in tourists, international business and freight. Country air services will deteriorate as competition for Mascot intensifies . . . And even if a new airport were to be built in the Sydney area, it would not be operational for well over 20 years. In my role as spokesman on transport and aviation, I get what we loosely describe in my office as horror letters, and I want to quote tonight from a couple of those horror letters on what is happening at Sydney Airport. This is one that came to me in October last year: I really suffered a bout of cultural cringe when I arrived at Sydney Airport . . . It sours the returning Australian to face the inadequate facilities, but imagine what impression is created for the visitor. If the facilities cannot cope with the traffic now, imagine the trauma in 1988 with the world coming to celebrate our Bicentenary with us. Here is another one also from October last year-it must have been a bad week at Kingsford Smith: I feel constrained to write to you about the facilities at Kingsford Smith International Airport. This is the first time I have ever felt strongly enough to write a letter of complaint . . . It took us 55 minutes- to clear Customs- in Sydney, where there was no attempt to direct people into an orderly queue or to see that they were directed into the appropriate lane. Having cleared immigration the luggage retrieval area was chaos. Not a trolley to be had and no help to hand. No attempt to see that people collected their own luggage. Outside in the arrival area-- Mr Hand —It would have helped. Mr BEALE —The Minister is in enough trouble with his portfolio without getting into the aviation area- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I fail to see how the honourable member's comments relate to the matter before us. They have upset me a bit. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. He will cease interjecting across the table. Mr Hand —Stop trying to waste time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has heard the Chair. Mr Hand —I have. Mr BEALE —Yes. If you do it again she will throw you out. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will not usurp my place. Mr BEALE —Madam Speaker, I would not dream of doing so. I would like to continue to quote from this letter in October about arrival in Sydney Airport. It says: Outside in the arrival area it was like an English Soccer Final at its worst. My sister, who had waited for two hours in a scrum, missed our exit and was reduced to tears . . . I was frantic. That is what has been happening at Sydney Airport. This Government has done nothing at all to alleviate the difficulties there. I have a few press clippings that have been assembled over the last few months. The headlines read `Sydney Airport the ``Worst in the World'' ', `it's a gala welcome at Gateway to Chaos', and `Pulling the plug on our tourists'. The last headline is followed by the words: Sydney Airport is our gateway to the world. But all too often it is a frustratingly creaky gateway . . . Another press clipping is headed `Flooding leaves airport in chaos', another, `Airport disgrace'; and another-this is one you will love, Madam Speaker-`The airport where nobody smiles'. The Government's answer to all that has gone on over the past few years has been to adopt a patch-up approach which has utterly failed all of those who rely on the international terminal. The spending of some $20m, against the wishes of a parliamentary committee, on patching up the terminal has proven to be a disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money. I quote from a 1986 report by the Pubic Works Committee relating to the improvement of the international terminal facilities at Sydney Airport. Point 2 in the summary states: The Committee believes the proposed work will not alleviate congestion to a significant extent and at the end of the three year construction period the problems now being experienced will be even more acute. Point 3 states: The Committee does not believe the proposed work at an estimated cost of $20m will be the most effective use of the money to be expended. Despite that recommendation by the Public Works Committee, the former Minister for Housing and Construction, who is now the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), in his speech to the Parliament to approve the works, said: The Public Works committee agreed in its report to Parliament that improvements are required to the terminal but it did not endorse the solution put forward by the Government. The solution put forward by the Government was for a patch-up job. What the Public Works Committee recommended was expenditure on additional international terminal facilities that this mob are now bringing forward. The Government is two years behind the times. The Minister went on to say: Instead, the Committee-- that is, the Public Works Committee, in its report of 1986-- recommended that planning for the provision of a new or substantially expanded terminal building should commence immediately. In other words, the Public Works Committee recommended two years ago what the Government is now bringing forward. I just happened, by a strange coincidence, to be at the table when the Minister-who did not say very kind things about me-- Government members interjecting- Mr BEALE —That is interesting coming from the honourable member because he is-- Mr Hollis —I didn't say anything. Mr BEALE —That is just as well, I can tell the honourable member. Given this time lag-- Mr Hollis —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Deakin is waving his fingers about and pointing at me. I have not said a word in the 10 minutes I have been here. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin did acknowledge his mistake. Mr BEALE —The Minister went on to say: Support facilities such as an apron for aircraft parking, taxiway and carparks would increase this to about $110m . . . This is what the Standing Committee on Public Works said two years ago. The Minister went on to say: Given this time lag, the Government cannot agree to the Committee's recommendation that improvements to the existing terminal not proceed. Can you believe that Madam Speaker? I welcome the Minister for Administrative Services to the chamber. I regret that I only have two minutes of my speaking time left and that I will not be able to demonstrate, as fully as more time would allow me to, the unbelievable administrative bungle that you have perpetrated. We have really nailed the Government on this whole thing. You have wasted $20m of taxpayers money. You should not have that job. Two years ago you said that the Public Works Committee-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will speak through the Chair and not to the Minister. Mr BEALE —Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that there is a better way. The Government, although it has adopted much of the coalition's aviation policy, still has not gone as far as it should. It should go the whole distance. The best way, not the second best way that the Government is now proposing, is privatisation of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, transferring their ownership from the bureaucracy and the trade union bosses to the Australian public-to allow those terminals to be built by the private sector and to dismantle the Federal Airports Corporation. If the Government does that it will finally get it right. It did not get it right two years ago when the Minister at the table bungled and wasted $20m of taxpayers' money. This is a step in the right direction. I urge the Government to adopt the coalition's policy so that next time around when the Minister comes into this House he will not get the savaging he has taken today. Next time he will get it right. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.12) —I join with my colleagues tonight to speak on this motion before the House which relates to the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I also speak on behalf of tourists as my responsibility in the Opposition is, of course, as spokesman for sport and tourism. Tourists have a major role to play in the development of Sydney international airport. Quite obviously the people who use airports such as Sydney international airport are either businessmen or people coming here for a holiday-tourists. Sydney international airport is the gateway to Australia. Some 60 per cent of all foreign visitors arrive in Australia via Sydney airport. In Australia today tourism is our fastest growing industry. It is probably our most exciting industry. It is growing at a rate greater than anything we have in this country and anything that can be seen in the future. At present tourism has the greatest potential to create employment for Australians, particularly young Australians, as the industry lends itself to employing young people. Nearly 500,000 people are employed in the industry today. In 1980 we had 200,000 people employed in the industry. So tourism is crucial to the future of this country for both our economic growth and our employment growth. Unfortunately, there is one hurdle in the way to proper growth of our tourism industry in Australia and that is Sydney Airport. Sydney Airport is a blot on the landscape. Unfortunately, a number of honourable members tonight have described the scene that one will often find at Sydney international airport. Just about all members have experienced over recent years unnecessary delays and inconveniences whilst travelling through that airport, and indeed others throughout Australia. Most people that one speaks to are spending one, two or three hours standing in queues trying to get through the barrier to get into Sydney. That is after they have been delayed on many occasions by their plane being sent into a holding pattern above the airport waiting for a slot to come into Sydney international terminal. It is a major embarrassment to the tourism industry in Australia. If Sydney Airport is not upgraded very shortly it will stop the proper development of our industry and those jobs that could be created by the growth of our industry will not be created. This year we will have two million foreign visitors entering Australia, 60 per cent of whom will come through Sydney international airport. In 1984 we had one million foreign visitors coming to Australia. By the year 2000 we are forecast to have five million foreign visitors coming into this country each year: the expectations are that that figure will be surpassed before the year 2000. The response of this Government to the massive increase in traffic generated at Sydney international airport is to say, `We will build Badgerys Creek Airport'. Badgerys Creek airport will take from 15 to 20 years to be fully constructed. Mr Beale —And they are not even putting any more money towards it. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Deakin points out, insufficient funds went towards the proper development of Badgerys Creek in the last Budget. It will be 15 to 20 years before Badgerys Creek airport is fully operational. It will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to build. In the meantime, that terrific growth in tourism is expected to be handled through Sydney international airport, and there is already doubt as to whether it can cope with the existing demand. Over the next few years aircraft types will get larger. In 747s the upper deck will be stretched even further, to the point where in a few years time it will be a complete double-decker aircraft. There will be 600 to 700 passengers disgorged from big aircraft at Sydney international airport every 15 or 20 minutes. The airport, even with the extensions proposed by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Peter Morris) today, will not cope. The only solution we are being offered is a new airport at Badgerys Creek that will be operating with 15 or 20 years. What the tourism industry is expected to do to cope in that time I do not know. It will not be able to cope unless we have a Government that is prepared to face up to the facts. The only way we will deal with the immediate problem is by the construction of an additional runway and by the complete reconstruction of a new international terminal that will see Australia into the future. If we do not have a government that is prepared to make that sort of commitment, I am afraid that the potential of our tourism industry will not be reached. Whilst I speak on the subject of tourism, my other responsibility is sport. It has been interesting to note in the last few days various bids for the Olympic Games. Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne will bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. If we are successful-as I am sure we will be-in obtaining the 1996 Olympics, how will Sydney Airport, or the other airports for that matter, cope with the increased traffic that will be generated because of the Olympics being held in Australia? If Sydney gets the Games I do not think the airport will cope. It will be one of the things that will go against the Australian Olympic Federation's bid for the 1996 games-all because this Government is not prepared to bite the bullet and make the sensible decision. If honourable members talk to the people in the industry, as I have had the opportunity to do, they will all tell them that the only solution to the problem that tourism and our airports face is to have an additional runway and a completely new international terminal. Until we have that our bid for the Olympic Games will not have the best chance. Until we have that the growth in our tourism industry, the growth in our economy, the growth in the opportunities for employment for our young people will not be reached, purely and simply because of some parochialism by some Labor sitting members around Sydney international airport. It is a great shame that Australia will not reach its full potential because of a few votes in a few seats around Mascot Airport. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Hand: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.20) —I rise to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill 1988. I want to begin by giving a little bit of background, particularly four dates, for the people who are listening to this debate tonight. The rearrangement of the Aboriginal affairs area-the four portfolio areas-into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) goes back to 14 July 1987, just after the last election when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the reorganisation of Aboriginal affairs. Then, on 10 December 1987, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) presented the document Foundations for the Future, in which he outlined the general changes which would be made and said that consultations would occur. After those consultations the Minister came back into the House on 27 April this year and presented proposals which had been revised after those consultations. Then, just on Wednesday of last week, the Bill was tabled in the House, warts and all. The catalyst for this proposal goes back to the Block report, a Government report on the administration of Aboriginal affairs. This was part of an overall strategy by the Government to reorganise government administration. The coalition was, and is, not averse to constructive well targeted administrative change. In fact, we welcome it. We recognise that there were, and there are, deficiencies in the delivery of programs to Aboriginal communities. The Bonner review clearly indicates that to us, because less than a third of the funds-that is, less than a third of around about $24m-actually gets through to the people in the north-west region of South Australia. Also, the Toomelah report on the Problems and Needs of Aborigines Living on the NSW-Queensland Border, which many of us are very familiar with, is evidence of a basic breakdown in the lines of governmental responsibility which has led to bureaucratic buck-passing. It should be noted that the genesis of this rearrangement was not in response to Aboriginal demands. It was a Government response to a Government initiated report, the focus of which was not Aboriginal advancement but rather expenditure savings. Since the appointment of the Minister, however, the proposal has become a vehicle through which the Minister saw the opportunity for him to place his ideological stamp on the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. Over the past 12 months I believe the Minister's concern for the future welfare of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians has been secondary to his commitment to the promotion of the radical wing in the community. Why else would he employ a recognised activist as a consultant on his staff? Why else has the Minister not once criticised Mansell and his trip to Libya? Why else would the Minister oppose the very fundamentals of self-management and self-sufficiency when opposing the right of Aborigines to mine uranium on their own land? The Minister did that only a few months ago. Why else does he support moves for a treaty that by its very nature divides Australians? How else can the Minister justify the rejection of the Opposition's amendment to the Aboriginal resolution except on grounds of creating division and political point scoring? The Minister said himself that there was nothing wrong with it; it was just unnecessary. In the resolution, the Government's commitment to building a consensus view of Aboriginal affairs has been seen for what it is-absolutely non-existent. There were no discussions beforehand and the speech that rejected the amendment was hollow and farcical. We are positively disposed to any government and any Minister developing alternative ways of administering Aboriginal affairs. But they must be prepared to have those proposals scrutinised, analysed and considered by all Australians, in particular by the Parliament and the people directly affected-the Aborigines and the islanders. In the original document of 10 December last year the Minister stated that these proposals are of great and historic importance for all Australians. I think all Australians should note the words `of great and historic importance'. The Minister also said that these proposals address issues of considerable magnitude. Does the Minister still agree with that? Mr Hand —Yes. Mr MILES —So why the rush? The Minister brought this legislation in last week and now he is rushing it through the Parliament. Why the urgency? Could it be political expediency or is it because the Minister does not want the Aboriginal people to appreciate the ramifications of the legislation? This is an opportunity for us in Australia to have a look at Aboriginal affairs and its administration. So why not get it right? Let us build something which will not be on the shifting desert sands of Australia but something which will go into the future and let us take some time about it. No matter what our cultural heritage and, irrespective of the country of our forebears, as Australians we have a common future. The future of Aborigines is our future; the future of Torres Strait islanders is our future. The `them and us' mind set must be broken, not only in words but also in the structures that governments set up. Australia is a timeless land and the Aboriginal people have been custodians of the Australian land mass for thousands of years and, in an intimate way, their culture reflects that timelessness and the spirit of the land. The Liberal and National parties believe that the Aboriginal culture has a special place in the mosaic of Australia's heritage because of its uniqueness, its history and its status as Australia's indigenous culture. To participate in mainstream Australian community life and to fulfil their personal goals, Aborigines must be secure in their identity and their self-esteem and strong in their family heritage. Whatever our perspective of history, wherever we lay praise or blame, whether we feel pride, anger or guilt at the events of the past 200 years, it is our responsibility as Australians to foster togetherness in a caring and sharing way. We must take from the past what is good and use that as the foundations on which to build the future. In addressing the future we must be progressive. The Government's proposal has not been progressive because it fails to address the fundamental administrative problem in Aboriginal affairs; that is, duplication and bureaucratic buck passing, particularly between different tiers of government. In fact, some responsible Aboriginal people consider the proposal put forward by the Government to be dangerous. Let me quote the words of an Aboriginal person who has worked for Aboriginal advancement for many years: Gerry Hand's gift- and he is referring particularly to this proposal- to the Australian nation during the Bicentennial is this time bomb; it is in fact left-wing madness. He goes on to state: Since becoming Minister, Gerry Hand has created no lasting solutions to the problems that exist between Black and White in Australia. He has not contributed to any policy development and has strung the nation along for twelve months on reforming the Department, when all other Departments have been through the process and are getting on with the job. In this proposal Aboriginal Australians are being further marginalised from mainstream Australian community life. Mr Snowdon —Whom is it attributed to? Mr MILES —I will not mention the person because of that person's significance. This is a vital opportunity for reform, which should not be wasted. Therefore, we will move an amendment to ensure that there is time for the Bill to be given due consideration. As the Government has acknowledged, it is vital that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders understand legislation-not just be consulted. When the Minister introduced the changes into the House last Wednesday no rationale whatsoever was given for them. It was just like his speech on the motion-all rhetoric; all words, no rationale, no merits, and no substance to the arguments: there was no analysis of the defects of the present structure. No assessment was given of the performance of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or the exiting Aboriginal Development Commission. There was no evaluation or reference to goals achieved in the past; no reference as to why those goals, if they had been achieved, could not still go on being achieved with the old structure. Not only was there no review of the old structures but also there was no systematic, rational argument for the new structure. Here we are, today, being asked to debate, consider, a proposal of historic importance when the Minister did not argue the merits of his case. The most substantial argument given by the Minister, which took up about four pages of his 11-page speech last Wednesday, was `we have consulted' and, therefore, the Australian people should believe that what he has presented to the Parliament and the Australian people is right. Where is the substance for such a massive change? We acknowledge the Minister's efforts in consultation, but how effective was it? I understand that there was a lot of interest in the dynamics of local representation, and in particular the boundaries, but how many understood what the responsibilities of elected regional council members were going to be? How many understood the political dynamics of being an elected representative in this new structure? The Minister says that he consulted 6,000 people. Can the Minister assure the House that not only were those people consulted but also they understand what the preamble means; they understand that it does not raise expectations beyond what can be delivered by the Government? Do they understand that, or has it raised expectations far beyond what this Government can deliver? Do the people understand the election procedures for the regional councils? Do the 6,000 people whom the Minister consulted understand the powers and responsibilities of the councillors or how the commissioners are elected? Do they understand the Minister's powers? How many of the 1,000 or so ritual tribal elders that exist in Australia were consulted? Or was it just the political activists in Australia who were consulted? How many ritual tribal elders in Australia did the Minister consult? How many agreed with his proposal? Mr Hand —All. Mr MILES —It is fascinating that the Minister tells the House that all of them were consulted. Dr Woods —With a straight face. Mr MILES —And with a straight face. Do they understand all aspects of this proposal? I put it to the Minister that there was little understanding, at the local level, of the dynamics of the national administrative bodies being set up. I asked one Aboriginal gentleman from the Northern Territory what he understood about this proposal, and he said: `When the Minister came he outlined the area where our regional council would be based.' I then said: `What about the elections?' and he looked at me with a completely blank face because he did not have a clue. I said: `What about the election of the commissioners?' and he said: `I have not heard a thing about them.' The only thing that he understood was that the electoral boundaries in his region were the boundaries that suited his people. There is a lot more to be understood than just having consultations. Quite frankly, at these consultations people in effect had their arms twisted to make them agree to the proposal. Every place that I visited communities indicated to me that it has been a set up job. Place after place they told me- Mr Hand —On a point or order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a very serious charge to make and I think that it should be withdrawn or evidence put forward to prove that that in fact occurred. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr MILES —When one of the main models was put forward to this Parliament for consideration by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC)-the largest Aboriginal-controlled organisation in Australia-what was the response to the alternative put by the Aboriginal people? The Minister's response was to sack the commissioners-not because they were incompetent and not because they did something wrong, but because they disagreed with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That is why they were sacked, and that is the way in which many Aboriginal people have been treated around this country. They are fearful that if they disagree, their community or their association will lose funding. That is the way that it is organised. No explanation was given for the sacking of the people from the ADC. There was not even any note of appreciation expressed by the Minister for the work that they had done, and I believe that they did a reasonably satisfactory job. That is absolutely pathetic. They dared to disagree and they dared to put forward an alternative. The Government, on this proposal, has been most impatient. Why were not community meetings told that if they insisted on a delay, it would be delayed until July 1989? We now have a 1 January start-up date. Why the breach of faith, why the rush, and why the bullying of the Senate over its Committee? It is merely one week since the Bill was introduced for debate. Clearly, the Minister has no desire to allow consultations with the Aboriginal community and other interested parties. There is no way that the Government can achieve its goal on practical grounds with respect to the start-up date. The Bill gives all the indications of being rushed with much yet to be decided on. It is like a cheque on which the first number has been written with the number of noughts yet to be decided. As the Minister has said, the regional councils are the linchpin to the operation of the new Commission, yet even the boundaries have not been finalised. The very bases on which elections will occur have not been finalised. Further, the Bill allows the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to confer functions on the Commission by publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Why will the Minister not enumerate the powers in the legislation? Does not the Minister want the Australian people to know what he has planned, or has he abandoned attachment B of Foundations for the Future? I look forward to the Minister's answer to that question. Not only does this proposal not address the confusion of the current duplication of delivery of programs to Aboriginal people in this country, but it confirms that. The Aboriginal people have been asking for more time. That is why the Opposition and the Australian Democrats joined together to set up the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. We have had representations from every State and Territory of the Commonwealth asking for more time. The coalition believes that, for Aborigines and Islanders to be able to endorse the ATSIC proposal, they must be allowed time to understand the final proposal as reflected in this Bill. The coalition is committed to ensuring that the Aboriginal community and other interested parties, particularly State and Territory governments, have an opportunity to comment on the Bill before the legislation is considered by the Parliament. Draft legislation was widely circulated as part of the consultations leading to the establishment of the Aboriginal Development Commission. I am sure that it can be done again for this. We believe that the legislation should be considered by the Senate Committee, be subject to final consultation, and then be redrafted, if necessary, before submission to either House. By bringing this Bill into the House at this stage, the Minister is wasting our time. I will move the amendment circulated in my name, to be seconded by my colleague here in the House. Mr Hand —What is his electorate? Mr MILES —My colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). I move: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the House is of the opinion that, to enable Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians to consider the Bill, it should not be proceeded with until the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs has reported to the Senate on the Bill''. I turn now to the provisions in the Bill. First of all, the Bill contains a new definition of Aboriginal: a person has to be a descendant-not the other two criteria of identification. What will this do? It will increase the number of potential electors and give support to the radical activists who will see the regional councils as an opportunity to build themselves a taxpayer-funded power base. Australia's internal community relations could be set back 50 years by that loophole. The election date for the first round is not set and there is no compulsion for the Australian Electoral Commission to have electoral rolls before this election, or at any time in the future. This is an electoral system that can be abused and manipulated by dominant families in the community. There will be 60 regional councils, each with 20 members, with a total Commission budget in the vicinity of $460m. Each councillor will get allowances for meetings and travel and support staff. Not only that, councillors will have the power to engage staff in addition to the Commission-provided staff. The accountability problems could be significant. The powers of the Minister in relation to the new Commission will be directly analagous to the powers of the Minister over the Aboriginal Development Commission. Therefore, the expectations of many Aboriginal people that such powers would be removed have not been realised. With the ADC dismissals fresh in many people's minds, many are particularly concerned with the present Minister's exercise of ministerial control. What are the purposes of these changes? Quite frankly, I think that they can be summed up in the fact that the Government supports the radical and minority political activists who prefer a separate political forum and a separate administrative structure from that provided for all other Australians. The National Aboriginal Conference was abolished and the Government has not given one reason why the elected bodies proposed in this legislation should be any more effective. Our concerns for this legislative package are numerous. Following speakers on our side will outline many of those concerns. I will quickly cover some of them myself. The Bill will downgrade economic development, as against welfare. The coalition is concerned that, by establishing a body which delivers both welfare and economic development services with their differing emphasis, the growing commitment to economic development will be overwhelmed by a welfare mentality. Mr Snowdon —Who wrote this? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory has been interjecting through most of this debate. If he interjects again, I shall warn him. If he then continues, I shall name him. Mr MILES —In the area of administration, having a popularly elected consultative structure which also has administrative responsibility could lead to a process which does not maintain a sufficient demarcation between political and administrative processes. Aborigines have been consulted on the local level, but have they understood the election process? Do Aborigines at the regional level understand that they will be at the mercy of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in deciding how much money will come forward? Having been elected as representative, do they understand how much flak there will be if the piece of cake gets smaller? Have the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders agreed to handle the built-in difficulties of being elected representatives who administer the distribution of funds but who have no control over the raising of that revenue? Rather than its being an act of self-determination, it may become an act of self-destruction. In regard to common institutions, the coalition questions the appropriateness of entrenching separate administrative structures which, to justify their existence, rely on the continued disadvantage of and the conferral of privileges to a special group. Participation in real decision-making in Australia occurs in local, State and Federal government areas. Elections under this proposal will try to reflect Senate elections. It is inevitable that the people who are elected will come to believe that this is where the action is, but in fact they will be trying to be big fish in a small pond. It would be far better to encourage Aboriginal Australians to participate in the mainstream of political life. The Bill assumes the primacy of the Commonwealth in Aboriginal affairs and fails to address the need for co-operation and reduced duplication in Federal-State administration. This country is very diverse, but this proposal centralises the activity of Aboriginal affairs. It is actually diverse and the different Aboriginal regions in this country have a varied history. The common blanket approach to the administration of Aboriginal affairs has enormous difficulties. The Bill includes a preamble which raises a number of fundamental legal issues. The constitutional law of settlement is a matter of significant debate and is currently the subject of High Court litigation. As the Parliament should allow the Court to clarify these issues free of legislative interference, it is intended that the coalition will oppose the preamble whenever put. In conclusion, I wish to make a few general comments about the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Among people who have come to me and spoken to me about Aboriginal Affairs over the last year the common thread has been that it is a shambles. The Department is locked out of major considerations and I understand that the Department had no major scrutiny of this Bill, which came into the House last week. The morale in the Department is the lowest it has been for many years. Aboriginal Affairs is not being administered on established administrative principles where programs are developed and delivered on a fair and equitable basis to those in need. Rather, community after community has indicated to me that the pay-back system is alive and well, and has been strengthened in the last year. People feel that they are being stood over and are fearful of speaking up either in regard to ATSIC or any other issues for fear of reprisals. The overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people are genuine and deserve a better deal than they are getting under this Government. The Government should delay this legislation and allow the Senate inquiry to continue unfettered, so that the Aboriginal people can look forward to a solid foundation for the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Dr Woods —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.50) —I was hoping, when I learned that the Opposition was going to put forward an amendment to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill 1988, that we would at last see what we were hoping to see from the Opposition; that is, some constructive element which would improve the Bill as the Opposition saw it. But no-- Dr Woods —That is what you have got. Mr BLANCHARD —Unfortunately, the honourable member is not right, because what we find in this amendment is a `just hold your horses, we do not want to do anything' approach, and that is not very constructive. I must say that the snide comments of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), against the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), and his advisers were not called for. He spoke of creating divisions and political point scoring. After listening to the shadow Minister's speech I ask the House: Who is responsible for creating division and political point scoring? I have tried to understand the shadow Minister's arguments. Behind them is a lack of knowledge of how Aboriginal communities make their decisions. He is an infant in a world which he finds very hard to comprehend. It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I rise to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, a Bill which will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a much greater say in the running of their own affairs. On 10 December 1987 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs announced to the House that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC, would be established. This followed a commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that an Aboriginal affairs commission be established. In that statement the Minister made it clear that the proposal would not go ahead unless it received a positive endorsement from the Aboriginal and Islander community of Australia. In other words, the Government had to be satisfied that the proposal was endorsed by the people it will directly affect. The Minister than made a commitment to consult directly with Aboriginal and Islander people, a commitment which even the Opposition admits has been kept. Between 23 January and 10 March the Minister visited all States of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. These visits were an example of democratic consultation which this country, and indeed the world, had never seen before. I pay tribute to the Minister for his initiative. Accompanied by the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins, he attended 46 meetings involving an estimated 6,000 representatives of some 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and groups. I mention that I and my colleagues the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) and other members of the Caucus committee on Aboriginal Affairs participated in some of the meetings with the Minister. At these meetings the Minister stressed two points: firstly, that the proposed Commission would not go ahead if Aboriginal and Islander people do not want it; and, secondly, he made it clear that he did not come with a fixed blueprint for the change and that he would take into account the local views of the people he had addressed. Subsequently, a series of follow-up meetings was convened by departmental officers and Aboriginal liaison officers to resolve some of the concerns which had been expressed at the earlier meetings. Of course, there was some opposition to the proposal. Aboriginals will determine their own future. Some will want to go one way and others will want to go another way. That is part of our democracy. But the majority of persons consulted agreed with the changes. As the Bill seeks to abolish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, there was some opposition from within those organisations. The ADC in particular strongly expressed its concerns to the Minister and to members of this House, including me. I could not help smiling when I listened to the shadow Minister, because some of the comments he made in his speech were similar to the comments made by the ADC in its attack on the proposal. In my reply to the ADC on 15 March I pointed out that it was being less than fair to the proposals; that the Minister had taken on board a number of proposals for changing the proposed structure to allow for more grassroots participation in decision making, which was one of the arguments being used against ATSIC. Fortunately, wiser counsels have prevailed. There is now a greater willingness on the part of those who felt threatened by ATSIC to work towards making it a success. With good will-I hope that there is good will on both sides of the House-it will be a success. Let us examine the Bill that is before the House. The Commission would be established as a body corporate with responsibilities across the whole spectrum of Aboriginal and Islander affairs. As has already been mentioned in this debate, there will be 15 commissioners-all Aboriginal and Islander people-and 12 of the 15 will be elected. Sixty regional councils will be established, and the elected commissioners will be elected from among the regional councillors. Each regional council will have up to 20 councillors elected from within the respective region on the basis of one person one vote. The councils will determine priorities and proposed programs for their regions. They will also provide policy recommendations and advice to the Commission. The regional councils will represent grassroots democracy, determining their own future within their own region, at the same time providing a means for their voice to be heard at the national level through the commissioners whom they elect. I am very pleased to see that the particular needs of the Torres Strait Islanders have been recognised by including them in the title and in the substance of the Bill. Previously the portfolio department was a Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This was perceived by many Islanders as a slight to them. They are, understandably, a proud people and are determined to maintain their separate identity. The Government proposes to create a Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board which will advise the Minister, the Commission and the local regional councils on matters relating to the social, economic and cultural advancement of Torres Strait Islanders. As more than three-quarters of Torres Strait Islanders live on the mainland, six Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland will be elected to that Advisory Board. That is a sensible way of recognising the different needs of Islanders living on the mainland from those remaining in the Islands. There will also be an Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs with the Commission. This body will ensure that attention is given to the development, conduct and effectiveness of programs aimed at alleviating the disadvantages suffered by Islanders throughout Australia. I know these developments will be welcomed by my good friend the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) who has worked hard over a number of years on behalf of the Islander people. Mr Snowdon —A good member. Mr BLANCHARD —The honourable member for the Northern Territory says that he is `A good member'. Of course he is a good member. I also welcome the establishment of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. Through an injection of additional funds to its capital base, it will be able to extend the commercial and financial activities of the organisation it replaced, the ADC. As the Minister said in his second reading speech: The Government expects that the Corporation will enhance the opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to begin to break free from the web of dependency and achieve a significant degree of economic independence. It is proposed to replace the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS) with an Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (ATSIS). The former body had a proud record in the area of Aboriginal studies and research, and certainly those on this side of the House appreciate what it has done. The new body will be different in that it will have a majority of Aboriginal and Islander members who will determine the policy of the Institute with respect to all matters. This Bill is a commitment by this Government and, in particular, by the Minister to the Aboriginal and Islander people. As I said, this Bill is the result of extensive consultations to a degree not previously known. For too long, white people have been determining the policy decisions which affect Aboriginal and Islander people. For too long in our history, white administrators have known what is best for Aboriginal and Islander people regardless of the wishes and aspirations of those people. I do not need to detail to the House the disadvantages which Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have experienced over the past 200 years and continue to experience in so many areas, including those of health, education and unemployment. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I have visited a large number of Aboriginal and Islander communities over the last few years and have witnessed at first hand the lack of essential services and community infrastructure. In the Committee's report on the homeland movement entitled Returned to Country, a report which I suggest all members of both sides of this House should read, there are detailed examples of the lack of adequate facilities in the homelands and outstations. In one survey-I will just quote this one survey-by the Central Lands Council in the Northern Territory, of 24 outstations with 614 residents, 19 lacked adequate water supplies, all lacked adequate ablution blocks, 21 out of 24 had inadequate sewerage or waste disposal and 22 had inadequate electricity supplies. The Committee found that many communities had levels of mineral constituents in their drinking water in excess of World Health Organisation accepted levels. No wonder Aboriginal and Islander life expectancy at birth is about 20 years less than that for all Australians. I could instance other surveys which show similar disadvantages existing in other parts of Australia. Whilst the proposed Commission will not be able to solve these problems overnight, it will have the right to prioritise-it will be able to determine its own future-those problems which need early attention. It will be Aboriginal and Islander people who will be setting the priorities for their own people. This will be a great step forward and one, I hope, that will be welcome by members on both side of this House. I support the Bill before the House. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(9.05) —Australia's bicentennial year has inevitably brought into greater public focus and dialogue the past, the present and future of our Aboriginal people. Within this dialogue attitudes are often, in fact, all too frequently/rigidly polarised and based more on prejudice and emotions than on understanding and knowledge. I guess this is perhaps inevitable because the matter is very complex and requires a deeper insight into the motivations, the cultures and the religions of the Aborigines than most other Australians do, at present, possess. There is no single Aboriginal question or indeed any single solution. The perceived needs of the northern Arnhem Landers-the northern island and coastal peoples-are quite significantly different from those of the centralians, the people of central Australia. There are special problems and special challenges which I think are peculiar to each of the settlements, to the multitude of outstations and to the homelands. There are different problems too relating to the fringe dwellers-those Aboriginals dwelling on the edge of country towns or cities. There are quite different problems again for those living often, at present, in enclaves in the big cities. Sadly, history records that so many now existing nations have been overrun, often a number of times, by foreign invaders whose cultures, social and economic structures, and religions have become dominant, creating in many cases very different problems for those who have been invaded. Very sadly too, these invaders have frequently been brutal to the inhabitants and have been disregarding or ignorant of the previous social structures which they have disrupted. Australia of course is no exception. There has been cruelty, abuse and disrespect for different cultures and widespread misunderstanding. One of the most important questions is what is our responsibility, whether to history or to the present or to the future. We clearly cannot turn back the clock and we should not feel guilt or be judged for the sins of either omission or commission of those generations before us. However, with a clear and an objective knowledge of the past and with a genuine attempt to understand the unique characteristics and the spiritualities of the Aboriginal people we have a very close and very clear responsibility to assist those fellow Australians of ours towards individual fulfilment and human dignity. This is so not only in a material sense but also most importantly in those intangible areas of the human spirit which distinguish tribes, races and individuals one from another. Australia today is in many senses a multicultural society. We have come to respect the vastly different cultures and religions of our many ethnic groups. Our country includes Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems and many others whose beliefs basically differ very significantly from our original Anglo-Saxon, Judo-Christian core but who are working together towards one Australia. Whilst preserving in our own family and friendship groups the right to pursue our own cultures, we have come, I think with tolerance, to accept the right of others to be different and to live freely alongside us in our overall society. Strangely, the Aboriginal people have rarely, if ever in fact, been studied in this way. Almost all of the controversy ranges and rages over material issues. In effect, the argument frequently revolves around whether we are giving enough or too much specialised social security support, for example, to Aboriginals. Our judgments are all too frequently made at the sight of derelict looking fringe dwellers, creek bed squatters, or street drunks, or viewing Aboriginal housing, or equipment in bad disrepair. The epithets lazy, dirty, flyblown, drunken, abusive and aggressive run freely from an over-simplistic observation. They fuel divisiveness and they thwart any sympathetic understanding of the problems. Our early squatters came upon a people who were unique in their culture, unique in their social and economic structures and in their religions. They inhabited the driest continent on earth. The Aboriginals adapted themselves intelligently and skillfully to achieve not only survival but dignity and a very special system of community welfare. They were virtually entirely nomadic-the essential response that they had to a very harsh environment and to what I guess might be termed scattered edible flora and fauna. Constantly on the move over their tribal territories they built no fixed dwelling structures as such and nor did they or could they engage in any form of animal husbandry, such as the Anglo-Saxons had pursued. They were, however, a very highly organised community with hunting, foraging, fishing and they protected their own very well. They were sensitively attuned to nature, with a fine knowledge of conservation and resource regimen. They were organised in a very high system of specialised skin groups and clans, with demarcated territories in which the defence of their families against inter-tribal attack was of primary concern. The adult male was, often out of necessity, both a skilled hunter and a skilled warrior. Against that sort of background, their cultures are heavily interwoven with legends of hunting, foraging, fishing and, above all, the warrior's role in protecting the clan. These were the very motivations for survival, the essential goals for living, and the sources of great dignity and great pride-which persist to this day. Overlying this unique background was, and is, the concept of the extended family, the equal duty of the parents not only to their natural offspring but to all members of their group. This concept which is so different from that of our westernised, limited and nuclear family is still operative amongst many Aboriginals. The coming of the white man brought not only murder, rape, brutality and abuse but other factors, and these changed more imperatively, and probably forever, the Aboriginal way of life. The Aboriginal has been, and remains, very vulnerable to Western disease, for example. In the early years, smallpox alone was a major cause of death. Recently, and ongoingly, upper respiratory tract infections have had disastrous consequences. Otitis media, middle ear disease, still causes serious deafness in a large number of Aboriginals. Many school children so affected are incapable of effective learning unless treated because of that deficiency. Measles has found the Aboriginals particularly vulnerable, resulting in many deaths. The Aboriginal diet had been heavy in animal and vegetable protein, and the attraction to a Western diet has brought new illnesses, such as diabetes, particularly middle age diabetes. Again, the Western insistence on wearing clothes has brought other hazards, with scabies and generally poor hygiene, whereas in the natural environment the Aborigine worked steadily and sturdily until the needs of the group were temporarily satisfied, and then rested until the next challenge. So, the concept of a fixed working week, such as we know it, was, understandably, totally foreign and, quite reasonably, completely illogical. Sharing with the group and not simply with a spouse and children was an essential rule, and in many areas has remained so until today. There are various tribal taboos which made fixed dwelling places impractical. For example, death in a particular dwelling often denied its future occupation, either temporarily, or often permanently. Tribal elders had, and indeed in many places still have, great authority. Tribal ritual was very complex and very deeply instilled. Polygamy was practised in many tribes. Many young Aboriginals today are torn between the beckoning of these tribal elders and the attractions of a wider and, in many cases, Western life. As white occupation progressed, many Aboriginals moved from the tribal homelands to the fringes of Western dwelling, and many Aboriginal settlements were established, often by church missions. They provided health care and education, as well as their religious instruction. In the higher rainfall areas the settlements were more fully occupied in the wet seasons, whereas in the dry many Aboriginals returned to the outstations in their homelands for a more traditional life, and also for instruction in tribal ritual. But once the white man arrived with his diseases, his diet, and his intrusions, the traditional ways of the Aboriginals were lost, possibly forever. It was no longer possible for the Aboriginal to seek to live in a homeland without recourse to minimal health support and to some basic Western education. But on the whole I think it is fair to say that far more intrusive and destructive to the Aboriginal lifestyle was the growth of a complex social security system which we gave to them, or in many cases imposed upon them. We extended it to them as an equal right, as indeed it was. The support system, however, involving the needs and the values of a westernised limited family, had unforseen and massive impacts on the Aborigines. In effect, it did much to destroy the very basis of their culture and rituals, the motivation for their existence and, in many cases, the foundations for their dignity. Some white Australians have argued that Aboriginals have the choice between living in their traditional lifestyle on outstations or homelands or joining Western society. But for many years now that choice has never been wholly or even significantly possible. The full penetration of family allowances, age and widows' pensions, unemployment benefits and other support systems has inevitably changed what was an independently viable people into a government dependency. Social security inevitably creates natural benefits in a material way, but in so doing it creates both a cultural and a ritual, vacuum. It takes away the need to hunt, forage and fish and eliminates the inter-dependency of the extended family. It changes the fundamental lifestyle and removes the vital purposes of Aboriginal living. I am afraid that in many cases, indeed in most cases, it diminishes dignity. I do not believe there is a road back. Penicillin and pensions alike must be available without question to all Australians. But our coming to Australia and our subsequent good and bad intentions have had an adverse impact on the whole lifestyle of Aboriginals. Their original purpose in living has been largely diminished or is gone, and their tribal values clearly have been weakened. Some people argue that after two centuries of white occupation the old outdated cultures have dissipated and the Aborigines, like so many minorities throughout the world, should be assimilated or integrated-or whatever those concepts might mean. But it is only a short period, comparatively, since tribalised Aboriginals have gone, and the urge for land rights and the preservation of sacred sites has gathered impetus in recent debates. The drift from established settlements to a multitude of outstations and to homelands, whether that be to avoid drugs, petrol sniffing and the like, or to attempt to stimulate traditional values, or with an eye on mineral exploitation in some cases, has been marked. Young mothers, in particular, have been moving their children away. In Arnhem Land, alone, for example, there are still in use some 137, or more even, distinctly different Aboriginal dialects or languages. Some schools are bilingual and tribal customs and rituals are still observed. Teaching aids must be compatible with the skin groups of the students. The problems are enormous. In the cities and fringes the traditional skills and lifestyles of the Aboriginals are no longer relevant. Their clans and family groups have been shattered. The traditional values are no longer applicable. Their dreamtime culture seems very distant and, in many cases, lacks meaning in that situation. Escape through alcohol and other drugs may offer some relief in a life which, once rich and complex, has inevitably been alienated. It is sometimes argued by many that so-called Aboriginals are not full bloods but half-castes or quarter-castes and are removed from tribes and cultures and should find little difficulty in assimilating into Western society. But the Eurasian examples, of whatever intermixes, always suffered difficulties, often rejection. In most cases both their dual cultures remain viable and not vitally different from each other; but by contrast, the Aboriginal lifestyle and purpose have largely gone. Again, most Eurasians look towards their Asian parentage as part of an active and respective national and religious community. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, for example, are vital motivations. The Aboriginals do not have such active groupings to turn to for the maintenance of their values. What then, in the light of this background, is our future duty? Surely it is not a string of platitudes, pretences and simplistic solutions, and not merely an injection of more social security props or other financial supports-although, of course, they are necessary. First and foremost, there is a genuine need for recognition of the sense of alienation and the loss and relevance of their culture, and the feeling that they are regarded as inferior citizens. There is clearly a very great need to inform and educate other Australians of the facts, to give an insight into the depth of Aboriginal culture and the great achievements of Aboriginals in living with and understanding one of the harshest environments in the world. We clearly must press on with full recording and documentation of Aboriginal heritage in terms of its music, art, dancing, rituals, religions, languages and cultures. Aboriginals, very clearly, deserve to feel proud of their beginnings and achievements. We must make sure they are not lost to future generations of Australia. There must be a total preservation of genuine sacred sites and a public understanding of the significance of those sites. In many cases, special resources need to be directed towards Aboriginal health facilities, whether in the cities or elsewhere. Efforts should be exerted to train an adequate number of Aboriginal teachers, nurses, lawyers and doctors. It may be that special courses should be provided to train Aboriginals in the business and civic management of their communities. Aboriginals must be given the skills to manage their own affairs. Where possible, trained Aboriginals should be called upon to advise and administer Aboriginal undertakings. Perhaps a special drug advisory unit, including Aboriginal staff and consultants, should be established to confront the special problems among Aboriginals of drugs and alcohol. The question we face tonight in particular is whether this Bill addresses those problems. We are looking at a Bill which sets up a mammoth bureaucracy to control Aboriginal and Islander affairs, with a budget of $500m per annum and a bureaucracy of some 1,200 elected members-elected, however, apparently without the formation of an electoral role. Quite clearly after the fiascos of the past, which have harmed not only Aboriginal people but also, and in many ways more importantly, the perception that the rest of Australia has of its Aboriginals, it is absolutely essential to get this right this time. Another failure would be enormously disruptive, particularly to the Aboriginal people. I am afraid I do not believe this legislation has been examined carefully enough. The input of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has, I understand, been minimal. I further understand that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs had not been able to examine the final legislation prior to its tabling in Parliament. It is unbelievable, and it is a damning indictment of the relations between a Minister and his Department. I understand that the legislation was basically formed by the same activists that were mentioned by my colleague earlier. Clearly this needs further examination. For this legislation to be in front of us for a week is totally unacceptable. It is completely inadequate for any sensible, thorough examination of the situation. I entirely support the amendment that has been put forward so that the Aborigines may be cared for, not in a patronising sense but as independent people, as an independent group, and indeed a very underprivileged group-equally, not as a separate nation or state but as part of one Australia. The potential for misuse in this Bill of the proposals for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is enormous. It has a budget which is beyond the wildest dreams of most of us and a bureaucracy of 1,200 members plus their staff, plus the extra staff who have not been defined in this Bill. Where are the safeguards? What about the understanding of the Aboriginal peoples of this Bill? Unfortunately, there seems to have been very little. Quite clearly, our information indicates that the consultations were at best superficial. The understanding extends mainly to the boundaries involved rather than the nub of the problem, which is how the Commission will actually work. I think the consultation has been superficial and I think it is not unfair to describe it as a gesture. I entirely support the amendment, which allows for this Bill to be examined by the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. This is too important a matter to get wrong. We have to get it right this time. There is no rush which cannot be postponed by a few weeks. To have this in front of us for only one week is absolutely absurd for a matter of this enormous importance. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.22) —I support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) Bill, and oppose the amendment. Before I get into the substantive matter that I want to address the House on, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) on his contribution. I think it demonstrated a depth of understanding and knowledge that is yet to be shown by any member of the Opposition. I think the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) in his contribution showed some respect for Aboriginal people: a sensitivity towards their needs and concerns. I would invite him to become a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs so that he can develop further the knowledge and interest that he no doubt possesses. Unfortunately, I have to say, however, that he shows no understanding of this legislation. The only thing I can say about the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), is that it was pathetic. It was marked by unsubstantiated assertions, baseless claims, and innuendo, deriding Aboriginal people and their capacity to understand this legislation-shameful accusations about Aboriginal peoples' capacity to understand and to negotiate their own affairs. He even accused some people in the Aboriginal community of standover tactics. He has not named one person. He has derided Aboriginal people for being activists, no doubt because they have the gumption and the gall, according to him, to stand up and disagree with him and his Party. Let us find out something about this bloke. Who is this shadow Minister who has this enormous capacity for misleading the Parliament with untruths? Honourable members heard what he said. It was an indication not only that he does not understand the legislation but that he has not got one iota of understanding of what Aboriginal people want. What has he been circulating around the community? It is a document, an Aboriginal treaty, an information guide. What does that document say? It says in part: The NCAO requested, considered and endorsed the Draft Treaty. For the Minister to claim that this document is not indicative of the direction of Treaty claims is misleading. The only person who is misleading us and the Australian community and telling untruths about Aboriginal aspirations is that person sitting over there, the shadow Minister. He has been well supported by, and is no doubt taking a lead from, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and Senator Stone. He has been allowed to do it by the spineless individual who leads his Party in this House. To demonstrate how false his accusations are about Aboriginal people, Kevin Tory, a spokesperson for the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations, said about his accusations: Now what has happened is that the Government is making resources available to allow the process to happen and that we're not pre-empting anything what would be in the Treaty, it is up to Aboriginal people themselves to decide what they want in the treaty. After the discussions that will go on in the next couple of years they might not even want the treaty. For Mr Miles and Mr Howard to keep flogging the poor old tired horse about the Treaty is completely wrong because there's nothing happened as yet to what Aboriginal people want in the Treaty and of course there's going to be lot of documents circulated and there's going to be a lot of papers but the National coalition of Aboriginal Organisations has not endorsed any at all as yet. That is the truth of the situation. The honourable member has the gumption to stand up here and say that he understands and knows what Aboriginal people want. No doubt he would have the gall to accuse this person of being an activist, of not being fit to represent Aboriginal people's interests. He would not know what an Aboriginal person wanted because he does not know Aboriginal people. He has not made the effort to find out, and he has visited only a small number of select Aboriginal communities. There are a number of matters in this Bill that I want to address. I will highlight the histrionics of the Opposition and what its policy of one Australia means. This Bill embodies a unique proposal. Its fundamental purpose is to give Aboriginal people more control over their lives, to enable them, within the framework of the Government's financial processes, to develop policies and priorities and administer their own affairs in a way which hitherto has never been attempted in this country. It is a bit too difficult for the Opposition to understand. It reflects a belief in the need to recognise the legitimate objectives of Aboriginal people for self-determination and self-management, works which have been in the lexicon of Aboriginal affairs since the Whitlam Government and which unfortunately until this time have been given little but lip service. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), his staff, advisers and departmental officials, contrary to the honourable member's information, are to be commended for the way in which they have developed this proposal in close consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I believe that never before has there been such a concerted process of consultation with a group within our community over legislation dealing with their concerns and aspirations. I challenge the shadow Minister to give me one example of where there has been more democratic open consultation with any section of our community. He cannot. The ideas forming the basis for this legislation were not dreamt up in the last minutes before the legislation was drafted. The bases for many of these proposals in the legislation were the inquiries commissioned by the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding): firstly, the inquiry into the role of the National Aboriginal Conference, headed by my good friend, colleague and teacher Dr H. C. `Nugget' Coombs, as well as Miss Lois O'Donoghue's report on an Aboriginal and Islander consultative organisation. Aspects of both of these reports are clearly evident in the body of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill. For example, the Bill clearly reflects the suggestions put forward in Dr Coombs's report that any organisation designed to give Aborigines an effective influence on government policies at the national level should-the shadow Minister might listen to this; he might learn something-firstly, be firmly based on, derive its Aboriginal authority from and be accountable to local groups and communities and their organisations; secondly, integrate with itself, but without impairing their essential autonomy, Aboriginal controlled organisations through which Aboriginal political initiative is already being significantly exercised; thirdly, have access to expertise necessary for the formulation of policy on matters of concern to Aborigines; and, fourthly, be given and accept significant responsibility for decisions about the total and the allocation of funding of expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. This Bill reflects the idea that the national body be based upon local communities, that its members be elected and accountable to those communities. The concept of regions and regional councils picked up in the Bill draws from both reports. For example, the O'Donoghue report recommended that any new national body should have the following features: incorporation under its own Act of Parliament; regional assemblies; selection of national representatives by popular elections with electoral boundaries-regional assembly areas being drawn up having taken into account Aboriginal people's tribal, cultural and language affiliations and population, transport and communication patterns. While the new Commission is not a replacement body for the National Aboriginal Conference, it can arguably be seen to fulfil many of the functions envisaged for such a body. Certainly, it has far wider and more comprehensive powers and responsibilities in relation to policy formulation, priority setting and administration of Aboriginal affairs. It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that it is opposed to this legislation. Its failure to give bipartisan support to the historical resolution moved in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calling for the recognition of the prior occupation of this country by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their subsequent dispossession and denial of rights, the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage, and a recognition of their entitlement to self-management and self-determination is, with its refusal to join with Government on this legislation, a clear indication that it is unwilling and unable to rid itself of the shibboleths of the past. This is epitomised by its call for one Australia, which is nothing more than a return to the previously discarded assimilationist policies of past generations. I remind the House of what this assimilation policy meant. I ask the honourable member for Braddon whether he has ever read anything about the assimilation policy. Does he know the history of Australian Aboriginal affairs administration in this country? I am sure he does not, although I think he is nodding his head. He might go to sleep. The assimilation policy was clearly defined by a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held on 26 and 27 January 1961 in terms which I will read to the House. I ask honourable members to listen to it because it states very clearly what their one Australia policy is: The policy of assimilation means in the view of all Australian Governments that all Aborigines and part-Aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians. And further on its states: The Governments, with the help of Christian Missions, various welfare organisations, and many individuals of good will, are directing their efforts towards the development of one Australian people; that is, a community with no isolated, unbelonging minorities based on race or colour. That is what the Opposition's one Australia policy is. It is clearly written out in this document which, significantly enough, is entitled One people. Does it strike a chord with honourable members opposite? That is the way it was written-one people, one Australia, assimilation. The Opposition targeted not only the Aboriginal people but also the migrant community in Australia. This was the view in 1937 of a conference on Federal and State administration of Aboriginal affairs. At that conference they talked about the absorption of people by colour. They adopted an approach which divided the Aboriginal community on purpose. Up until the 1960s, the assimilation policy was strong and was being followed. There are Opposition members in this House today who were members of the Administration that administered the Northern Territory welfare ordinance under which this assimilation policy was being carried out. We have killed them and taken them away from their parents. That is the logical extension of the Opposition's one Australia policy. Honourable members opposite say, `I don't like the colour of your skin so I'll stop you breeding'. That is exactly what happened under the assimilationist policy of the past. It is about time honourable members opposite understand-- Mr Pratt —In 1937? Mr SNOWDON —It was not 1937. The ignorant person sitting on the other side of the House ought to learn a little about Australian history because this was happening until the 1960s. There are people in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia who still do not know their parents because of those policies. One Australia means assimilation by dividing off the Aboriginal people. It was said: `We don't like the colour of your hair and the shape of your face so we'll divide you off. We don't like the way you live in this street; you might disrupt our social cohesion. We won't allow you to live together'. That is one Australia! That is what the Opposition has been promoting in this country. The one Australia policy is clearly a regurgitation of the misanthropic claptrap that drove our policies on Aboriginal affairs until at least the 1967 referendum. The Opposition's idea of one Australia is clearly a discarded retreat. How can the Opposition defend its position? What possible reason can there be for its failure to support the resolution put to this House by the Prime Minister and this Bill other than for some perfidious political purpose? There is no logic in its position other than the cynical political objective of creating division within our community. In this regard, its rancour in relation to this Bill is really about the Bill giving Aboriginal people some, albeit limited, control over their lives. The structure which this legislation will put in place will end the days of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders being the passive recipients of bureaucratic and government largess. The formulation of the Commission of regional councils set up under this legislation will ensure that Aboriginal people have primary responsibility for setting funding priorities. This is nowhere more evident than in clause 78 of the Bill, which I am sure honourable members opposite have yet to read. The most important way the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders will be able to influence programs affecting them will be through these regional councils, which were based on the recommendations of Lois O'Donoghue and Nugget Coombs. Each year the Commission will tell each regional council how much money ATSIC thinks will be available to be spent in the next year in each council area. The regional council will then have to prepare a budget and set out how it thinks that money should be spent to meet the needs and priorities of the region, giving details of programs and who will conduct them. ATSIC will then put its total budget, along with regional council budgets, to the Minister for his approval. The Minister can approve these budgets but, if the Minister approves budgets that are different from those put forward by a regional council, the Minister will have to table in Parliament the reason for approving a different budget. That is a very significant change from the present arrangement. It is clearly a major step in giving Aboriginal people power, self-determination and self-management. It is worth pointing out that the attitude of the Opposition, its adherence to a moribund assimilationist policy that has as its bottom line division rather than cohesion, is a clear indication of its unwillingness to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people any measure of self-determination and self-management. This, along with the Opposition's refusal to support the Prime Minister's bipartisan approach and his resolution, its concern about the preamble to this legislation, and its scurrilous attempts at sabotaging any prospect of a treaty with Aboriginal and Islander people, as demonstrated by the actions of the shadow Minister, show not only a fundamental racist arrogance but also a complete disdain for Australia's international obligations. Professor Erica Irena A Daes, the Chairman and Rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations correctly pointed this out after her visit to Australia in December of last year and January of this year. Australia having voted in favour of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 40 years ago and having subsequently ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1975, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1980 and the International Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1975, it is bound to fulfil those international obligations. Professor Daes comments: To me, this would also seem to be strongly in Australia's own interests in order to prevent social disorder . . . I will remind the Opposition of what some of these international obligations are. For example, part I, article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights says: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The petulance and arrogance of the Opposition in this matter are nothing short of scandalous. It has chosen an unfortunate route which can lead only to division and which clearly abdicates any moral or legal obligation to recognise the fundamental rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As Professor Daes said in an address at a reception at the New South Wales Premier's Department on 14 December last year: It is an imperative need that we must allow Indigenous, including of course Aboriginal, peoples to govern their own affairs. We call it internal self-determination, self-government, self-management autonomy or whatever else we want, but it must mean effective control by the Indigenous People over their own destiny as it relates to their survival and identity. Professor Daes is a very important person in the United Nations as Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. She said of the proposals that we are discussing here tonight: I found new legislative proposals being drawn up under the direction and guidance of . . . the Aboriginal Affairs Minister Gerry Hand in many ways promising for the future. It is not only that his knowledge, sincerity and understanding impressed me as displayed during a long and frank discussion; rather, it is the language employed in the proposed preamble to the `Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill' which foresees a strengthened indigenous base in Australia. What is wrong with the aspirations Aboriginal people have for self-determination or self-management which, as Nugget Coombs pointed out in his report on the NAC, are primarily local in their form and purposes, involving the asserted power to create and control their own institutions, to manage their own domestic affairs, to hold accountable those who exercise power among them and, finally, to receive and administer resources necessary for these purposes? In this regard, the Bill encapsulates many of the findings of Dr Coombs and, although it may not be perfect and may not please everyone, it is to be applauded. Finally, in the hope that the Opposition will recant, I ask it to heed the words of the late W. E. H. Stanner, whose life was spent working with Aboriginal people. He remarks in his collection of essays White Man Got No Dreaming: To impose our notion of Aboriginal needs on their felt and expressed wants is to mortify their self-respect, and thus to worsen our joint difficulties. They are rightly angered by our posture that we know better than they do what they `really' need; by our implicit demand that they should trust us to decide for them what is appropriate for them to have; and by our assumption that what they themselves say they need or want must always be subject to our approval. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.42) —We have just listened to a diatribe of the most remarkable nonsense and sour comments that we could expect to come only from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). What we are here tonight to discuss is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) Bill, which is concerned with the amalgamation of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC)-as well as incorporating Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. The purpose of the Bill, if passed, is to set up 60 regional councils, with 20 members on each council, and 12 zone councils. I note that two of the regional councils will be in my electorate-situated in Bourke and in Dubbo. So the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, if it is set up, will become, in a sense, a type of black parliament within Australia. The Commission will have 12 members. The Chairman at the top will be appointed by the Minister and there will be 14 part time commissioners or directors, or whatever one would like to call them, under the Chairman. The aim of the Commission is to form policy, to administer the budget, to advise the Minister and to act on the views of the 60 regional councils. The coalition has some concerns about what is proposed. I can understand the sincerity of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in setting up this Commission. I think there is some logic in moving towards amalgamating the many different departments into one. But it is the way this has been gone about that gives us some concern. The Commission will deliver to Aborigines both welfare and economic services. I am sorry to see that there will be perhaps more emphasis on welfare and less on economic services, because we have to work towards getting the Aboriginal people away from the handout mentality and more towards self-reliance. There has been little or no consultation with the main bodies that will be affected by this measure around Australia, such as the Northern Territory Government, the State governments and even, regrettably, the Aboriginal people themselves, as far as the detail of the legislation goes. The Minister has been running around the country but much more still needs to be done. I know the Aborigines in my area say that they did not have a chance to question the Minister when he came on his whistle-stop tour through the area. I appreciate that the Minister has only so much time and there are so many people to see. But this illustrates the need to take more time before bringing the Bills into the House. Let us be honest about it: most Aboriginal people do not have the faintest idea what is in this Bill that we are supposed to be voting on later tonight. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that they be given more time to study the legislation and its ramifications, because this is the sort of Bill that, if passed, will affect their lives substantially. I note that there will need to be 1,200 members of the 60 regional councils elected and in place by the end of next year. I doubt whether that can be done properly within that time frame because I can foresee lots of practical considerations that will cause difficulties. Regrettably, in some cases, the land councils presently in Australia have become power bases for the political ambitions of those amongst them. To some extent they have become alienated from the traditional owners and they have become bureaucratic. If these new regional councils are put in place in haste I would hate to see this sort of thing occur again. There is also an imbalance of representation on the Commission; we have only to look at the part time commissioners. I see, for example, there is one from Tasmania and there is to be one from the Northern Territory. So much for the principle of one man one vote. There are about 7,000 Aborigines, or thereabouts, in Tasmania and 35,000, or thereabouts, in the Northern Territory-a ratio of 5 : 1-yet they have equal representation. In some sense I understand that the Aborigines in the north of Australia feel that the Commission is stacked in favour not only of the south of Australia but of the radicals from the south. There is also concern in the Aboriginal community as to who will be sacked in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, who will be appointed to ATSIC, the new Commission, and how they will be appointed. We hope very much that there will not be political manipulation and that there will be no leaning towards the radical Aboriginal activists in this area. We hear so much these days in the news about Michael Mansell who I think, regrettably, gives the Aboriginal people a very bad name, but he is funded by the Government to the tune of $65,000 a year. It would be regrettable if he ended up as one of the Tasmanian representatives. I think the selection should be strictly on merit and ability rather than ideology and Aboriginality. I say this because the Minister has even leaned in this direction. I well remember earlier this year, on Australia Day, when the Minister boycotted the bicentennial celebrations. No doubt he did it with sincerity and good reason but, on reflection, I think to some extent it destroyed confidence amongst the people of Australia in what he was achieving in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. I note one area in the Bill where the Commission, if set up, will not pay any tax whatsoever. It will not pay Commonwealth tax, including the Federal debits tax; it will not pay any State tax, including stamp duty taxes and so on. I just wonder what the purpose of that is. It seems to remove the Commission even further from the commercial realities that are placed on many other bodies in this country today. The coalition, after all, is only moving an amendment to this Bill calling for a Senate committee to look at the Bill, to consult the Aboriginal people themselves, to consult the States and the Northern Territory, which are involved, and also to consult the community at large and to report back, I believe, within a time span of about six months. It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request. I do not believe that we should be hasty with this Bill, because such a major change is being proposed. That is all we are asking for-more time so that we can get it right for the Aboriginal people and the taxpayers of Australia, who will fund the Commission. I regret that the Bill is to be rammed through the House tonight so that the Minister can say that he has established the Commission in the bicentennial year. I can understand him wanting to have something on the ground before the end of the year, but I think that it would be better if we took a little time to get it right and if we had the confidence and support of everyone in this vital area. Most of what Ministers of both political persuasions have done in the past has largely failed the Aboriginal people. The white rulers of this country, of which I, as a member of this Parliament, am one, think they can solve everything by making decisions after just superficial consultations and by throwing money at the problem. In last year's Budget we allocated about $671m, but that did not include welfare for Aboriginal people; it goes on top of that. This year, according to my figures-it is very hard to work it out from the Budget Papers-about $808m is to be spent, which is a lift of something like 20 per cent. People around the country are asking, `Are Aboriginals going forward?' Many people would say that they are going backwards. When I move around the towns in my electorate I get very disappointed when I see what is happening. There was another riot in Bourke the other night, involving 150 people. All the police could do was shut off the street until those involved had expended their energies. When one walks through there in the daytime one sees many of them lying drunk in the gutters. It is a tragedy to see it. There was even a riot in the little town of Gulargambone the other night involving a couple of hundred people and, of course, there was the much publicised riot in Redfern recently. We have had the ugly scar in our history in recent years of 100 or so having hanged or otherwise disposed of themselves while in custody in police cells. There are many things wrong in this area. People ask: `Why is there all this misery, confusion and aimlessness taking place among the Aboriginal community? Is it because, originally, the whites destroyed the Aboriginal culture and took away their land, as some believe, or are there other reasons?'. Another question being asked is: Do Aborigines have the same opportunity as any other Australian to educate and better themselves? Some believe that that is so; some believe that they have even more opportunity; and, of course, some believe that they have less opportunity. The Australian Labor Party's platform on Aborigines states: With the coming of white people, traditional land was stolen, spiritual links shattered, the tribal economy broken, ritual life was disrupted and, in places, ceased. In many cases Aborigines and islanders were murdered and tribes separated. Leadership and kinship structures and culture were often devastated and many Aborigines and Islanders became dependent on white people. Perhaps that overemphasises the negative aspects of our history, but it illustrates the degree of emotionalism that can be injected into party platforms. Mr Hand —It is all true, though. Mr COBB —I say to the Minister that the community is puzzled. Millions of new settlers from Europe and Asia have settled into our society; yet, in many cases, Aborigines continue to live on the fringes of our society. Is it that Aboriginal people are different from us, or is it that we treat them differently? Many other Australians have struggled from poverty and lack of opportunity and have ended up successful. I guess a classic example would be the Chinese on the goldfields of Australia. Perhaps no group was more impoverished and persecuted than they were; they were entitled to have a chip on their shoulder and to ask for restitution for what happened. However, they did not get special treatment. They have risen above that and have made very fine citizens in our community. I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions-some of them are rhetorical-any more so than the Minister himself. These are the sorts of things that have to be discussed. It is becoming apparent that handouts based on colour, however well-intentioned-and I acknowledge that-are failing. There are more Aborigines in my electorate than in any other electorate in New South Wales. I believe that if we treat people differently they will end up acting differently. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) acknowledges that thought. They will not only act differently but they will end up actually different sorts of people. As I say, the Australian people are puzzled. We are spending billions of dollars on little more than one per cent of the population, yet this section, which I believe is the ninth smallest ethnic group in our community, is still lagging behind in health, housing and education. The money that we have put into this area has changed nothing. In fact, many would say that it has made things worse. One has only to travel around my electorate to see that houses that have been given to them have either been burned down or smashed. Other Australians who are poor and in the same position do not have access to this sort of help, yet they seem to be rising above it. I think it is time that we pulled back a little and reflected on what we are doing in this country. I say that in a bipartisan sense; I am not necessarily blaming the Government. There is fault, and perhaps well intentioned actions on both sides have not come off as we would have hoped. Perhaps the solution is not just in providing more money. I know that it is not popular to adopt this stance. One is easily called a racist in this country if one adopts this stance; and, if one presents it a second time, one is confirmed racist, and so on. That stops people from debating this issue, but I believe that it needs to be debated. I believe that more time should be spent on this and that there should be more emphasis on talking about treating Aboriginal people the same as we treat other people in society. We must show more confidence in Aboriginal people, give them responsibilities and have confidence that they will use them, and not confuse those responsibilities with the rights that are talked about so much. A sentence in the Melbourne Herald of 29 August written by Sir Paul Hasluck, caught my eye : Having a right is an incomplete benefit. The value of a right depends on the way it is used. I think that we could well dwell on that thought. I believe that we must let Aborigines accept the consequences of their actions more than we have, whether the consequences be successful of whether they be failures, because people need to both succeed and fail. If we deny them that, it is very difficult for them to learn that what they do has certain consequences. It is hard for them to then progress, develop and get away from this chip on the shoulder mentality that, regrettably, a minority of them have. I think another question that should be addressed is: Who is an Aborigine? I agree with the Government's definition, which has been the same definition on both sides of the House, irrespective of which party is in government. It is not just a person of 100 per cent Aboriginal blood or any particular percentage. One cannot define a percentage, as Australians seem to think; it is impossible to do that. In fact, quite a few Aborigines, for example, would not know their Aboriginal blood percentage. It is a rather objectionable thing to think about in those terms. But most of the 150,000 to 200,000 Aborigines in this country would certainly have less than 100 per cent Aboriginal blood. In fact, it could be that most Aborigines have less than 50 per cent Aboriginal blood. It always intrigues me that a person who has, say, 49 per cent Aboriginal blood and 51 per cent Chinese blood-which is not an unusual mix in my electorate-always calls himself an Aborigine. Why does he not sometimes call himself a Chinese ethnic or whatever? So many people see this as becoming farcical. If we are all equal, why cannot a person with, say, one per cent Aboriginal blood be Aboriginal on an average of only one per cent of the time? Why must he be an Aborigine 100 per cent of the time? If we are all equal, there seems to be no logic in what is happening here. So throwing more money at these people is not the answer. We have been able to do that in this country only because they make up little more than one per cent of the population. If it was, say, South Africa, which is always vilified in this chamber and where 80 per cent of the population is black, we would not be able to assist them to this extent. That is something to reflect on. I think that people are becoming cynical about the political grandstanding that has occurred in the Aboriginal area. We saw a classic example not so long ago with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), about which even the Aborigines became upset, when he was at the Burunga cultural festival in the Northern Territory in June. The Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, presented the Prime Minister with a bark petition, which broke the law on ceremonial secrets and grossly offended the traditional cultural leaders. I think that it was done for little more nor less than political advantage. No doubt, the Prime Minister was probably an innocent bystander to what went on, but the Aboriginal law leaders present called on the Government to conduct a special meeting to investigate this religious infringement. It was ignored. This demonstrates the lack of understanding about Aborigines that white people sometimes have. In some ways I think that has been reflected in the way this Bill has been drawn up. In conclusion, there are elements in this Bill that will create confusion. I think that there are things in this Bill that the average Aboriginal person will feel distant from. To some extent I think that this Bill has raised an expectation that will go unrealised. In many senses it will change nothing. I think that one year, five years, even 10 years down the track, the position of the Aboriginal people, regrettably, may not be much changed. Perhaps, in some ways, it will be worse, because that would seem to be inevitable if we keep going with the policies that the Government is implementing. The Bill has many deficiencies in its drafting. I think it suffers from a lack of consultation. I think that there should have been more consultation with Aboriginal groups and other people around Australia. We are calling for more time so that there can be a further examination in order that legislation that has the support of all groups can go ahead. Until that is done, I think the Bill will not have full support. I strongly urge honourable members to vote for the amendment. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(10.02) —Unlike honourable members opposite, I intend to address my remarks to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill. However, before I do so I wish to comment on contributions to the debate from the other side of the House. I do not think that there is much to say. Unfortunately, they have been very long on rhetoric and very short on substance. In fact, it saddens me to have to sit here during debates on Aboriginal affairs and time after time to have minimal or negligible contributions from those opposite. It is sad that, although this is the second debate on Aboriginal matters since the new Parliament House was opened, we still find that those opposite are prepared to divide the community on matters Aboriginal. I must say, however, that there was one ray of hope and sunshine this evening. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). I thought his was a positive contribution which clearly illustrated that he has a knowledge of and a feeling and sensitivity for the Aboriginal people of our nation. Therefore, I think it would be in his best interests, after giving such a knowledgeable and sensitive dissertation on Aboriginal matters, for him to speak to some of his colleagues on that side of the House. I think that he must be almost totally disillusioned with his side of politics, because he has a feeling, a sensitivity, for Aboriginal affairs-a feeling which I believe is genuine. I have no reason to think otherwise. How disillusioned he must be to have to sit in the same party room with the likes of Sheil, Stone and others. He must have to leave to go to the gentlemen's when he is listening to the debate and discussion in his own party room. Although I pay tribute to the contribution of the honourable member for Lowe, I must also say that I do not agree with everything that he suggested this evening. Firstly, he spoke of too large a budget for Aboriginal affairs. Obviously, he is being led by his shadow spokesman for Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). However, I will refer the honourable member to the comments of his leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), on the allocation for Aboriginal affairs in the Budget. In fact, that allocation was commended by his leader. Obviously, the honourable member for Lowe is being misled in other areas as well, because he has been told that there has been no consultation. In fact, he referred to `superficial' consultation. No doubt once again he is being misled by his colleagues. Consultation has been extensive. For those opposite to suggest otherwise is not being truthful about the issue of consultation. Speaking not only as the member for Leichhardt but also as Chairman of the Caucus committee on Aboriginal matters, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on what I believe to be a most significant piece of legislation relating to Aboriginal affairs. I believe that it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be introduced into Federal Parliament for more than a decade. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), in introducing the Bill, indicated the extensive consultations that took place with the Aboriginal and Islander people of our nation. When the Minister spoke in the House on 10 December last about the foundations for the future, he spoke of the Aboriginal occupation of this nation for more than 40,000 years and their prior ownership of this land. In light of this history the Government also acknowledges that Aboriginals and Islanders have maintained their pride, dignity and integrity despite the impact of European settlement just 200 years ago. The impact of this settlement is still being felt by Aboriginal and Islander people today. For Aboriginals and Islanders to retain their integrity and self-respect, it is important that policies relating to Aboriginal affairs enshrine the right of self-determination. It has always been the policy of the Labor Party to support such a right, the right of self-determination, as a cornerstone of Aboriginal policy. While self-determination has become a catchcry for both Aboriginals and Islanders and governments of the day, the term `self-determination' has generally remained vague and undefined. However, I turn to article 2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. I believe it provides perhaps the clearest intention of the meaning of the phrase. I should like to read that definition into the record: All people have the right to self-determination: By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural developments. It is my belief that this Government through its actions has shown a clear understanding of that definition of self-determination and is aware of its importance for the future of our Aboriginal and Islander population. When the Australian Labor Party Government was elected on 5 March 1983, some 5 1/2 years ago, it had already foreshadowed an inquiry into the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), the then national body which had been established to advise the Government. At that time Labor policy on Aboriginal affairs included a clear commitment to Aboriginal self-determination. It was also our policy that the NAC have a structure which was effective in developing such self-determination. It was important, too, that the structure of the NAC and procedures were acceptable to the Aboriginal and Islander communities of our nation. With this in mind the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), commissioned a report on the structure, functions and operations of the NAC in July 1983, well over five years ago. That inquiry, headed by Dr `Nugget' Coombs, aimed at streamlining the operations of the NAC. This action was taken within the short period of four months after the election of the Labor Government. I well remember that extensive consultations took place at that time. I recall being on Thursday Island, in my constituency, when `Nugget' Coombs was there speaking to the Torres Strait Islanders of this nation about the NAC and the need for a national body to advise the Government. In between that inquiry by Dr Coombs and the discussions this year between Aboriginals and the Government on the document Foundations for the Future, the Government invited Miss Lois O'Donoghue to advise on an appropriate replacement organisation for the NAC. Once again, extensive consultation took place with the Aboriginal and Islander population of our nation. To wrap it all up as far as consultation is concerned, I make the point that never in the history of this nation has such a concentrated effort been made by a government for consultation in relation to the present legislation. I say that first hand. I say that after having travelled around different areas of this nation speaking to the Aboriginal people and Aboriginal representatives in different areas. I can recall travelling on at least four occasions to the Torres Strait Islands, where I took part in lengthy discussions in workshops. Time and time again we went back to the people of the Torres Strait so that at the end we were certain that we had it right. Mr Hand —We got it right. Mr GAYLER —Yes, we have got it right. The Minister is to be commended for the effort that he has put in not only for the Torres Strait region of this nation but for all the regions where Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal people took place in that consultation. Mr Lindsay —Particularly Palm Island and Townsville. Mr GAYLER —Yes. I know that the Minister was in Townsville in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). He went to Mount Isa. He went to the Torres Strait, as I said, and to Brisbane. That is just in the State of Queensland, and we have those opposite suggesting that there was no consultation. Mr Hand —Rockhampton, Roma-- Mr GAYLER —As the Minister has said, it just went on and on. It seems strange to me that we have those opposite talking about stalling and putting off once again the introduction of this legislation. They give no reason for this. They keep saying, `Let's just put it off again'. They are fast becoming well known for their consternation, for their stalling of any policy. Today at Question Time we heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talking about the delay of the Opposition's economic policy. So it is not unusual. But we must realise in this situation that the detriment of any further delay is only directed towards the Aboriginal and Islander people. I could speak further of the consultation process but I do not think that is necessary. It is unfortunate that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon, is prepared to misinform his own colleagues as to the lack of consultation. I find that most appalling. I would like to wrap up my comments with some reference to the Bill. When looking at a Bill or an Act of Parliament I always thought one looked at the reason for the introduction of the legislation. On page 3 of the Bill-I do not know whether the shadow Minister has got that far into the Bill yet-the purpose for the introduction of this legislation is spelt out. I want to put it clearly on the record. The objects of the Act are set out in three simple paragraphs. The reason we are bringing this legislation into this place is: (a) to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them; (b) to further the economic, social and cultural development of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders; (c) to ensure co-ordination in the formulation and implementation of policies affecting Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders by the Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments, without detracting from the responsibilities of State, Territory and local governments to provide services to their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents. Those are the objects of this commendable piece of legislation. I think it is despicable for those opposite to oppose it. I conclude by directing some remarks to the honourable member for Lowe. I do not want to disillusion him after he has made his first contribution in this place on Aboriginal matters. However, I draw to the attention not only of the honourable member for Lowe but of the rest of the Australian population the fact that, when delaying tactics were introduced in the Senate, by way of a motion to set up a Senate select committee, the mover of that motion was a senator from the Northern Territory. Senator Tambling has refused to become involved in that select committee's investigations into this piece of legislation. The motion was seconded by none other than Senator Coulter from South Australia. He, at least, had the minimal decency to become a member of the committee. But he has not even bothered to turn up to the first three or four meetings of that committee. What we have is a pathetic effort by those opposite to further delay this legislation. The saddest thing is that that delay is not accompanied by any reasoned approach to this matter in a bipartisan manner. Let the people-not just the Aboriginal people but all Australians-condemn them for their actions. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.17) —It has been most interesting to listen to a number of the contributions that have been made tonight. I think it is rather a pity that a number of our friends on the Government benches have allowed themselves to fall into the position of abusing and attacking members on this side of the House. We are debating a very important question. I support the amendment that has been moved to the motion for the second reading of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill 1988 by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). I believe quite wholeheartedly that there is a definite need for more time, more consideration and more consultation. We have a very long history in this country of land rights agitation which has been followed by some legislation and, indeed, by some litigation. For a start, one can go back some little time to the Milirrpum v. Nabalco case before the Northern Territory court, which clearly indicated that the concept of native title was not valid in this country, although Mr Justice Blackburn certainly expressed his acceptance of the concept of Aboriginal land-holding prior to British settlement. However, common law recognition of the concept of Aboriginal land with earlier title would lend itself to monumental litigation before the High Court. It should be pointed out-and it is a very important point-that Australia was a settled colony, not one created by trade or war with another government. Frankly, any discussion of Australia's future should be based on the premise of one Australia. I cannot accept for one moment any suggestion that we should draw distinctions between Australians because of race or for any other reason. I am dedicated to the concept of equality for all Australians. I really cannot understand the proposition that we should put people aside in ghettos. I do not believe that we should encourage this feeling of trying to get a separate country within Australia. A concept which has gained some popularity in other parts of the world is one of a `Fourth World'. We have got the Third World countries. The Fourth World countries are the countries within a country. I cannot see this in the vision I have for the future of Australia. I believe that we, as Australians, have a great future. We have a marvellous country, but our potential will not be realised unless we can work together as one people. I believe that the policy of the Government and its attitudes and actions are pushing parts of the Australian community away from each other. The Government is creating a divided Australia. We should not and cannot have ghettos in Australia on ethnic background, race, religion or any other reason. We cannot and we must not permit any apartheid in Australia. Yet the seeds of it are there already, they really are. It seems to me that the Government is hell bent on going ahead and creating separate development for one section of the Australian people. We have had the migration debate in recent weeks. What in a very positive sense comes out of that is that we do have a marvellously diverse people in this country. This country, Australia, has had great benefit from migration over not just hundreds of years, but thousands of years. We are all migrants in one way or another and this country has benefited amazingly from it. I think that is vitally important when considering this question because it is not simply a matter of setting up this local government structure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We know that by 1 January 1989 there are going to be elections to elect 1,200 people in 60 regions, but it is not just a question of setting up those local government bodies. I believe it is vitally important that we, as Australian people-by that I refer to all the people of Australia-should take off the blinkers of prejudice and look clearly at our future, because there is no future for Australia if we go ahead with separate development and say, `Those people are there and these people are here, and never the twain must meet.' It is vital to this total concept of having-I am using the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-one Australia. I can seize on that and accept it very easily because I want one Australia. I want my brothers, whatever their skin colour, to be at one with me in this marvellous country. Having said that, I have to make the point that it is very important that we reject totally any suggestion-and this has been suggested-that there was an Aboriginal war or a white invasion resulting in the cession of territory. I say that in spite of the increasing body of task-orientated left wing academic research which promulgates the fiction of black and white warfare. One thing is certain: the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 23 August this year will end up in the High Court of Australia. It is as plain as the freckles on our faces that that resolution will end up in the High Court. Mr Hand —Why? Mr NEHL —Because it will be necessary to determine whether Australia is a settled land or a ceded conquest. This Bill is a direct reflection of Mr Hawke's resolution. All Australians should be concerned about the precise meaning of the terms employed. We are asking in this amendment for more time. We are asking for more time for the Aboriginal people of Australia to consider the implications of the Bill. We are also asking for more time for the other people of Australia-not just the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders-right throughout this broad land to consider its implications not just for Aboriginal and Islander people, but for all Australians. I made some reference a little while ago to the need for a more precise and specific interpretation because, looking at some of the words, I see there is the term `occupied by Aborigines'. Does it mean owned by Aborigines? It is not spelt out but I can tell honourable members that it will go to the High Court. There is nothing more certain. Does the word `dispossession' open the way for massive compensation payments? It is already being talked about. More time is needed to discuss that. Will this resolution-that is, the Prime Minister's resolution-cost the Australian taxpayers millions of dollars in constitutional litigation, as it has already in the case of Mabo v. the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, in an attempt to interpret the resolution as a preamble to massive and disruptive land claims throughout the Commonwealth? What is meant by self-determination? Why has the Minister not spelt out these very important words? Simple perhaps: self-determination. What does it mean? Well, India had self-determination in 1947. Is that what the Minister means? Kenya has had self-determination. Does the Minister mean the same sort of thing that happened in Kenya? I would also like to know whether the Minister has obtained a legal opinion on the preamble to this Bill and, if not, why not. If he has not, why does he not do so, because it is going to be important that he does get that legal interpretation? Still on self-determination, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) referred to self-determination and self-management for Aboriginal people. I wonder what he meant. How is it that some Australians will have a separate self-determination from the rest of Australia? How will that function; how will it work? Later he used the phrase `self-government'. I wonder what he means by self-government in the context of self-determination for one group of Australians living within Australia. I would like to refer to the Minister's second reading speech, particularly page 5, where he said: During the consultations some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups expressed concern about the Government's original formulation of recital three. They feared that it could lead to certain Aboriginal and Islander groups being disadvantaged in current litigation. I would like to ask the Minister: Where is the original formulation? Why has that not been made available? He went on to say: The Government's intention has, by contrast, always been that the language of the Preamble would be neutral and have no legal consequences for present or future litigation in relation to land claims. I stress the words `the government's intention'. I would just like to remind the Minister that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the road to the High Court of this country is paved with the good intentions of earlier legislation. He went on to say: The language was, and is, in no way intended to recognise land rights claimed to exist, to create new rights for land or compensation or to remove or qualify rights under existing law. Nor was it, or is it, intended to restrict any future developments in the law. Accordingly, the Government was prepared to agree to amend the original language of recital three to meet the perception by some groups of a possible negative impact upon current litigation. I ask the Minister: What about a possible positive impact on current litigation? He went on to say: Madam Speaker, I emphasise the neutrality of recital three conscious of the fact that courts can, in certain circumstances, have regard to Second Reading Speeches and other extrinsic material to assist in ascertaining the Parliament's intention with regard to relevant legislation. Recital three, as now written, is intended simply to record the historical fact that up to the present time the Australian courts have not recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander property rights in land except in relation to title granted by Federal, State and Territory Governments. There is nothing simple about this. The Minister has said that recital three is intended simply to record the historical fact that there has not been recognition `up to the present time'. Again, those are significant words. What the Minister has said about the courts paying attention to second reading speeches, and to other speeches made in Parliament, is right. The Minister has said `up to the present time', and that is a qualification. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —I want to conclude the quotation from the Minister's speech with part of the last paragraph on page 5: When endorsed by the Parliament in the name of the Australian people, the Preamble will stand as an historical expression of philosophy and principle. I point out to the Minister that it certainly will. The Minister says: The intention that the Preamble has no legal consequences in no way detracts from its importance as a statement of those facts. The Minister is quite right; but again I come back to the use of the word `intention'. As I have said before, the road to the High Court of Australia is paved with good intentions of governments. I refer again to the need for proper understanding of the words being used in this debate. The words `dispossession' and `dispersal' need definition. I invite the Minister to expand on what he means and on what the Prime Minister meant by `dispossession' and `dispersal'. In particular, what is the relevance of `dispossession' and `dispersal' to land rights? I believe that the Minister has an obligation to tell Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Island Australians what significance `dispossession' and `dispersal' have in relation to land rights for them. They have some interest in that. Also, the Minister should tell other Australians who are not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders what the import of this is in relation to land rights, as they have some interest in that too. I totally accept the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and heritage. I am very much aware of their value. I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of Aboriginal and Island communities at Yarrabah, Rockhampton, Mackay, Mossman, Iron Range, Umagico, Cowal Creek, Bamaga, New Mappoon, Red Island Point, Thursday Island, Prince of Wales Island, Badu and Yorke islands, Darnley, and Yam and Sue islands. I have great sympathy for the situation of these, my fellow Australians. That is how I see every inhabitant and citizen of this country-as my fellow Australian. I have enormous respect for the large number of people whom I have met-people like George Mye, Getano Lui, the Mosbys of Yorke and the Nonas of Badu. I was interested in the quotation given by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) of the United Nations definition under the decolonisation provisions, which provides that all people have the right to self-determination. He also used the words `self-government'. Again, I say to the Minister that when he responds to this debate he must spell out for the people of Australia, for all Australians, for those who live in Sydney as well as those who live on Thursday Island, just what is meant by `self-government', `self-determination', `dispersal' and `dispossession'. In conclusion, I feel that I must ask: Why is it that this Government gives the impression that it wants to divide Australia? Why cannot the Government accept the proposition that all Australians really are equal? Underprivileged Australians should be helped-but not on the basis of race. Any fellow Australians who are undereducated should be helped-but not on the basis of race. Any groups of our fellow Australians who are underemployed should be helped-but not on the basis of race. Any fellow Australians suffering from inadequate health care should be helped-but not on the basis of race. The only way that Australia can realise its potential is for all Australians to be equal and, to use the Minister's word `simply', for all Australians to be simply Australians. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.35) —This is perhaps a somewhat different contribution to debate from those I have made on other occasions. That will be so for a number of reasons. First of all, as I have said before, it is a great privilege to serve in the national Parliament. Secondly, it is an even greater privilege to have one's mother present to hear a speech in the new Parliament-and I pay tribute to her. Having started off on that note, let me move to address the terms of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, because people who are listening to the broadcast tonight might not understand the substance of what is being proposed in the legislation before the House. The primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies which affect them. I would have thought that to be a laudable objective and one which would find common ground across the Parliament. The central part of the proposals under the Bill includes the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Commission would be established as a body corporate with responsibilities across the whole spectrum of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. There will be 15 commissioners in the Commission. They will all be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Twelve will be elected representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Special provision will be made to protect the position of Torres Strait Islander people-and I will address that question in the course of my remarks. Importantly, the Commission will supersede the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission. What this Bill is about is empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have some control over the forces which shape their destinies. The great tragedy of so much of the legislation that has come out of this Parliament has been that we have been setting up white organisations in order to be able to administer Aboriginal affairs. This Bill is about redressing the balance and conferring some real power on Aboriginal communities. There have been exhaustive consultations. I must say that I have been disappointed that some of the contributions by the Opposition in the course of this debate have sought to reject those extensive consultations. We in this Parliament all know that if there is one thing that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has, it is integrity. Having that integrity he ranks with some of the giants of the Liberal Party who have occupied that position in the past, people with real commitment and real heart and soul, determined to effect some lasting improvements in the conditions of Aboriginal and Islander people. The tragedy for the Opposition is that there are not people on the front bench who are prepared to mirror that commitment and to share that wish and striving for bipartisan support for reform that the Minister has committed himself to. People forget just how recent the initiatives for Aboriginal advancement are in this country. It was only in 1967 that the referendum was passed to give the national Parliament power to pass laws on Aboriginal affairs. Before that there was no power. To the everlasting credit of the whole Government and all those who supported the referendum-and because of the Opposition's stand at that time-the referendum passed with a record 92 per cent of the Australian population supporting that reform. What hope, what promise that vote held for Aboriginal people. The tragedy is, given the first enthusiasm that was manifested in both the Government and the Opposition, that so much of that bipartisan support has been shattered by the regression of the Opposition in relation to Aboriginal affairs. I will have something to say about that during my remarks. I believe that this Bill is unobjectionable. No legislation has gone through a more rigorous public consultation process than the Bill before the House. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has talked about that repeatedly both inside and outside the Parliament. This Bill provides a real test of the extent to which the Opposition is prepared to stand up for Aboriginal rights. The issue is whether or not we have the Liberal Party calling the shots for Opposition policy on Aboriginal affairs or whether it is a very small minority in the National Party, such as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and Senator Stone, which is dictating policy. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) has said, in a very real sense the eyes of the world are on Australia. I have just come back from a delegation representing this Parliament to Singapore, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. When in Singapore and Malaysia I said that, when we argue that those countries must respect human rights, we do so on a basis of consistency, because we acknowledge that the world is watching us, the world is judging how we treat Aboriginal and Islander Australians. Senator Coulter is a friend of mine. He is someone I have known for a long time before he came to Parliament. But I ask him to think again because, if he backs the Liberal-National Party proposition to defer this Bill, what he is really doing is dancing to the tune of Senator Stone and all those who want to thwart real progress in Aboriginal affairs in this country. I want to say this in response to this phoney, morally, bankrupt call for one Australia: how dare the Opposition issue a call for one Australia. If we look at the figures in relation to Aboriginal health in every State, including the Labor States, we will see they are at the bottom of the heap; they are the worst off. They are dying 20 years younger on average than white Australians. If we look at educational standards, we will see they are at the bottom of the heap. If we look at housing standards right across the country, in Labor States and Liberal States, we will see that the Aborigines have the worst possible deal. How dare the Opposition come into this House and issue a call for one Australia. What moral bankruptcy! What has it done for those great principles that the Liberal Party once stood for, those principles of justice and fairness? I am going to have something to say in my remarks about some of those past statements. What this country calls out for is moral leadership, not just in the Parliament but outside it. This country desperately needs moral leadership. To the everlasting credit of the Christian churches in this country, they are providing some moral leadership which the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), would do well to follow. It was only in January of this year that the 14 major leaders of the Christian churches in this country issued a call to this nation to fulfil its obligations to Aboriginal Australia. It was not some fringe group, some left group, as the shadow Minister purported to say in his remarks. These are the mainstream Christian churches, the leaders, the people that the Opposition purports to have some faith in: people such as Archbishop Edward Clancy, Archbishop John Grindrod, the senior representatives of the Society of Friends, the Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church, the Salvation Army, the Uniting Church, and the Australian Council of Churches. They issued a call, and that call was directed, more than to anyone else, to the Opposition, to the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and to the Leader of the Opposition, who fails to have the moral courage to bring the likes of Senator Stone to account. The Liberal Party has a proud tradition. It should get back to it. It is on the wrong track. The Christian leaders said that this country should live up to four important propositions: Firstly, that we should do something about `a secure land base for Aboriginal Australians'; secondly, that there should be a just process for the resolution of conflicting claims to land; thirdly, that there should be `an assured place for powerless Aborigines in our political processes with provision of Aboriginal councils at local, state and federal levels'. That is what this Bill is about; that is what we are debating. Fourthly, they called for a guaranteed future for Aboriginal culture. I have become passionate in this debate-unashamedly passionate-because I believe in these principles. I believe in what those Christian leaders are trying to tell the Opposition. I ask the Opposition to think back over its traditions. They are proud traditions. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is not an Act or an initiative of the Australian Labor Party; it was Malcolm Fraser who introduced that Act of Parliament. Honourable members opposite should look at the speeches made in that debate by some of the people I have referred to, people who in those days stood for principles-people such as Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, a friend of mine and a fine parliamentarian. She said: . . . the passage of legislation to grant land rights to Aborigines in the Northern Territory will be a most significant and progressive step in the social and political history in this country. Look at what was said by Senator Peter Baume. I refer honourable members opposite to the Senate Hansard of 7 December 1976, page 2734. It is rivetting stuff. It is inspiring. It is what the Liberal Party once stood for. Again I refer honourable members opposite to the Senate Hansard of 7 December 1976, page 2762, and to Senator Chaney's speech. What has happened to Senator Chaney? What has the Opposition done to shatter the bipartisan commitment to justice in this country? I say this with more conviction than anything I have ever said in my life: it is not too late. All of us here, including the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), are committed to bridging this chasm between us in the Parliament. We can do things. We can unite. We might have disagreements about the legislation but we can unite around the main principles. We have not moved. We are where we were in 1976. We are with the Christian churches. We are with the political and moral leadership. It is the Opposition which has moved. I urge it to come back to that bipartisan policy. Mr HAND(Victoria-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.48) —in reply-In December when I first announced our proposals we made a commitment to Aboriginal people that we would seek their views, we would change the legislation and we would get it right. We have travelled the length and breadth of the country. I suppose that one can always come into this place, like some people on the other side have done, and say `But you did not talk to everybody' or `But there is some person somewhere who does not fully understand the complexity of the legislation'. Why is it that in this legislation such a passion has arisen over our level of understanding in this matter? Why is this passion not applied to every other piece of legislation? Why is it that Opposition members come in here tonight and say, `More time'. Last year the Opposition said it wanted six more months. That was the catchcry. The people who wrote their speeches for them tonight said they needed twelve months. There was a reference in the speech of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), to 1 July 1989. We went out and talked to people. We wanted to go for 1 July this year, but the Aboriginal community said to us, `No, we need some answers. You have to come back to us. You have to get a commitment out of the Government that you are going to change the concept to fit our demands'. So we said, `Righto. We will put off 1 July and we will go for 1 January'. We met with people. We went back and talked to people, as the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) said. We made three or four trips to Torres Strait to talk to the people there. It is not easy for people up there to come in from the islands and have these sorts of meetings. We have talked to them about the legislation, yet the Opposition says that they cannot have the legislation which Getano Lui has told me he wants to support. Aboriginal people have said that they want the legislation but the Opposition says that they cannot have it. That is the situation. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) mentioned Getano Lui's name. Getano Lui has told me that the legislation is better than he thought we would ever deliver. That is what he said on behalf of his community as chairman of the Islanders Coordinating Council. But the Aboriginals cannot have the legislation. Now the Opposition is talking about referring it to a committee. That proposal to refer the Bill to a Senate committee is a plot to make sure it never comes into operation. The people that were behind the concept having it referred to a Senate committee make no apology for that. Senator Tambling from the Northern Territory is on the record as being totally opposed to this Bill. He puts up a proposition to send it to a Senate committee but will not go on it-his own committee! It is a cheap, low stunt and honourable members opposite know it is. Why do they not come in here like any decent person would and vote against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill? They are opposed to it. They should let the people in the galleries and out in the community see what they are made of. They should put it down-but they should not come in here with a shonky exercise to shove it off to some Senate committee. What is wrong with the House of Representatives? Do we not have the ability, here in this chamber, to make a decision about what we believe? No, honourable members opposite shuffle it off to the Senate and let the Senate investigate. What a farce! Honourable members opposite raise the question of Aboriginal elders. There are some in the gallery tonight from my own State. I have never claimed that everybody in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities supports this. I said earlier that I have never claimed that everybody has seen the Bill; that everybody saw the 20,000 copies of Foundations for the Future that we sent out; that 14,500 people in the community attended the lead up meetings, some of which went for three days. We talked to people as best we could and delegates were brought in. We made the effort. We have never claimed we are perfect. But, by God, we went out and talked to everybody who wanted to talk to us. There are some people who may have missed out on that process and I apologise to them. But never before has such a degree of consultation over a concept taken place. I really find it very difficult. I try to understand what honourable members opposite are saying. I cannot understand for the life of me what they are on about. One minute they say `consult', and we go out and consult like no-one's ever done. We then come back with the Bill after consultation and after changing it in the way people want to change it. Honourable members opposite then say, `Not good enough'. If they were consistent I would not mind. If this same passionate demand was made in respect of every bit of legislation, every client group and every group in the community I would not mind. But, by God, if there is a quid involved they ram it through as quickly as they can. If there is a subsidy or something involved for some interest group, their atittude is `Get the Bill in and get it over as quickly as you can'. Tonight some pretty extraordinary statements were made, some of which I find pretty offensive. The honourable member for Cowper asked a series of questions which I will answer as best I can later. I am not now referring to him or to the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). I refer to the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon. One thing I object to in life is a bully. I do not like bullies. The cheapest, lowest trick one can play in this place is to have a go at someone who cannot defend himself. That is as low as one can go. One does not even have to open the door for such people; they just slide out underneath. I am getting a bit fed up with the attacks on members of my staff by the honourable member for Braddon and other people. If the honourable member had done for Aboriginal people one-hundredth of what one member of my staff has done, he would be able to hold his head up. I am speaking of Rob Riley. The honourable member's snide comments in Adelaide, in this place and in the documents he has put out are low. And they are wrong. It is cheap to have a go at him as an `Aboriginal activist'. What does the honourable member mean by that? Is it a denigration of him to call him an Aboriginal activist? He says it with a snarl on his face. There are other people in my office who have been subject to abuse by members of the honourable member's party too, and I am getting a bit sick of them. They do not have a go at me; they pick these people off in the corridors and have a swipe at them. That is not what it is about. If the honourable member for Braddon has something to say he should come to see me. The honourable member for Braddon made accusations of an extraordinary nature in his speech about standover tactics and about all the representations he has made. Since the honourable member for Braddon became the shadow Minister he has made 17 approaches to me. He made 10 of them in one day. They dealt with things like the mailing list of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs-he wanted some people added to it. He wanted to know a bit about public relations, how much we spent on advertising, the production of journals, digests et cetera. He wanted to know about the purpose of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act, the election dates of the National Aboriginal Council, the working definition of `Aboriginals', about the Queensland prisons review et cetera. He wanted to know something about the treaty and he had a freedom of information request or two. But honourable members heard him say that he has had hundreds of people approach him. Yet he has not approached me on their complaints about one damned thing. What sort of a man is he? He comes in here having a cheap swipe at the Aboriginal people-that is what he is doing-and saying that standover tactics are being used. He says that all these people are approaching him but he does not follow it up. He swans around the country saying: `I am the shadow Minister. Here I am. Have a look at me. Are there any complaints? You can always rely on me to follow them up'. The honourable member for Braddon has not done that on one damn thing-not one. I have offered to meet with him, I have approached him and I have told him time and again that the door is open. But he has not been to see me. Some of his colleagues come around. I think they will agree that they get fair treatment. I do not play the party game. If someone comes to see me, he always has and always will get treated in the proper way. But that is not for the honourable member for Braddon; he is too busy posting out documents pretending that they do not come from him! The question of arm twisting was raised. We have to go into these sorts of accusations when they are made. I resent them. I am not a hero; I am only 9 1/2 stone. The honourable member for Braddon has accused me of going around the country and at Wingellina in particular of sitting around a river bank with 300 or 400 people-there were not too many of my mob there-twisting their arms up their back saying, `Vote for me'. Have honourable members ever heard of anything so stupid in their lives? I do not go in for arm twisting. We put up a proposition which the speakers in this chamber have talked about. For the first time we went out and talked about a concept. We did not go out with a Bill and say, `Here, cop that'. We took out a concept and said, `This has been developed out of reports by Nugget Coombs, by Lois O'Donoghue and Seaman in Western Australia and from comments out of parliamentary committee reports. It would do the honourable member good to take more interest in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He will note that the Chairman of that Committee is here. Those sorts of reports have always been bipartisan. One thing is missing in all of those reports. Aboriginal people say: `Look, we are consulted and we are consulted and we are consulted. We are sick of it. Why don't you let us have a bit of a say? That is what we are asking for-a bit of a say; to become part of the process'. That is what we have attempted here today with this legislation. The honourable member for Braddon did not address the Bill really. He made a couple of references to it, and they were wrong. He was factually wrong in what he said. One of the other thrusts of a number of speakers of the Opposition was that the Government should not be mixing up the financial aspects of Aboriginal affairs and welfare. In other words, the Opposition is saying, `Let them have a bit of a say about welfare but, by God, don't let them have a say about finance'. That is what it is about. What nonsense! It is just unreal and untrue to suggest that people cannot handle it. They will. The necessary protections for the individual are there; the necessary protections for government are there; the necessary protections for the Aboriginal community are in the legislation. Honourable members opposite only need read the legislation and the explanatory notes to see that this is so. If honourable members opposite are genuine and want to know more about the legislation, I will provide people to come to their offices and tell them about it. The legislation will work. The programs will work better, because any program in which people have the ability to be part of the process will normally work better. The secret of this proposal is involvement in the decision making processes, protection of the individual, protection of the cultural rights of the elders et cetera. All of those things are built into this legislation. The legislation extends beyond what honourable members opposite did with the ADC. It applies to people who are elected. It takes away the Minister's ability to sack, as honourable members opposite referred to it. I do not want to go into that matter tonight. Honourable members opposite know a lot of the reasons for that; they know how it occurred. It would not serve any great purpose tonight for me to score a few points at the Opposition's expense over that issue. But I am happy at any time to talk through that matter with honourable members opposite in my office. It has been before the courts and the courts upheld what I did. I did not do anything wrong. Honourable members opposite have to begin to understand that what we are trying to do here is to rectify, as can be seen in the preamble. Comments have been made about the preamble. Every question asked by the honourable member for Cowper is really referred to in the second reading speech. It is all there, and it is all put there for a purpose. Honourable members opposite should read it a couple of times. They have read it once tonight, but they should read it again tonight before they turn the light off. After a while they will begin to understand why the words are there. They are in everybody's interests. I do not wish to go on and on for the sake of using words that have been said over and over again. But we have to understand that the claims that Aboriginal people make and the comments made by speakers here tonight are very real. We on this side of the House are desperately trying, as did Senator Chaney, Senator Peter Baume and Mr Viner. It is not a very simple task to grapple with the magnitude of the problems that exist. But who brought about these problems which have developed in the last 200 years? It is really only since 1967 that we have been seriously addressing them. So in that 200 years they have had 180 years start on us-there is a bit of catching up to do. I think it is fair to say that there really is not equality-things are not equal. What we are trying to do here is further the economic, social and cultural development of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders. I went up to the Torres Strait on 23 and 24 January. While many people were fussing about how they were going to get down to Sydney Harbour and all that sort of jazz, I went up to the Torres Strait Islands and we had the first meeting. I can tell honourable members that it was a pretty interesting meeting for a couple of days. It was a lot more fun than it was down at Sydney Harbour. We started to talk matters through. After some time the Torres Strait Islanders talked about their own commission. They talked about having different variations. But we talked it through, we got agreement and we put it in the Bill. We in this Government can cope with that, and they can cope with it. We then went to various centres around Australia. I went along to a meeting attended by 14,500 delegates. There were quetions, some of which were typed, all around the walls on butcher's paper. Some said, `Answer these questions or we won't agree with you'. Others said, `All right. We will agree with you in principle on this concept as long as you make the changes we have asked for'. I can give honourable members opposite a list of where I went, and they can go back and see whether I did what I said I would. I will give honourable members opposite the whole list-and these things have been done. We can all live with that. The Government can govern. But the most important thing is that the community will in fact be involved in the decision making process. There has been a lot of talk about division. As Nugget Coombs said: It's never divisive to correct injustice. The fact of injustice is divisive and will continue to be until we correct it and learn to live with it. People who benefit from injustice will oppose this, but you don't stop working for justice simply because people around you don't like it. We will proceed with this legislation. It will go through this House, it will go to the Senate and it will go through the Senate. Once people have said that they want to hear what Aboriginal people have to say about this and they are fully abreast of what Aboriginal people think, they will pass it. So members of the Opposition had better get used to it. It will operate for the betterment of Aboriginal people and that is something which we have been striving for. I do not want to address the other points that were raised about the treaty, et cetera, because there will be plenty of time for that and we will win on that too. We will win because people are beginning to support us in droves. I warn members of the Opposition that, when organisations in any struggle, such as the churches and those types of community groups, swing in behind an issue, the opponents of that issue go under. We can trace back through history the success of struggle over issues. We are mounting a campaign around these issues, particularly the issue of the treaty, and we will win. The Aboriginal people and the Australian people will win against the Opposition. I say to members of the Opposition as genuinely as I can: together we can make this a better country for everybody. One way in which we can do that is by involving people in the decision-making processes. As I have said, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) will work as more and more Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people understand fully what this is about, get more involved in the process, become part of it and support it. Honourable members opposite will see the sort of support it can muster. We might have to refer members of the Opposition to those people to advise them on how ATSIC really works and how successful it will be. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Miles's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. 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.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Burr, M. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Donald Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.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.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.McArthur, F. S. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. In division- Mr Hollis-I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two days ago in this House your attention was drawn to a member on this side reading a newspaper during a division. I draw your attention to a member of the Opposition front bench reading a newspaper during a division. Madam SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member has explained to me that he has left his glasses behind: he is just looking at the pictures. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. 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.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. 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 (Teller) Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.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.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.McArthur, F. S. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hand) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.23 p.m. until Tuesday, 27 September 1988, at 2.00 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notice was given: Mr Downer to move- That this House congratulates President Reagan on his contribution to world peace and economic prosperity during his 2 terms as President of the United States of America. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 648) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) What are the details of all Government grants made to the Australian Conservation Foundation, including the Departments making each grant. (2) What was the purpose of each grant. (3) What is the total sum granted since March 1983. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is a non-government association and as such I am unable to provide details of all Government grants made to that body. The following response relates only to the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Should the honourable member wish to address his question to all other Ministers I am sure those Ministers would be happy to provide him with the relevant information. (1) Funds have been allocated to the ACF from the Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations scheme which is administered by my Department. These are as follows: 1983-84 ... $120,000 1984-85 ... $144,050 1985-86 ... $140,000 1986-87 ... $145,000 1987-88 ... $149,300 Total ... $698,350 In addition: (a) $500 was paid to the ACF in 1985-86 to assist with the publication of the proceedings of an ACF conference on Antarctica. (b) $200,000 was also provided in 1987-88 to assist conservation groups (including the ACF and Wilderness Society) to collectively present material to and appear before the Commission of Inquiry in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. (2) The purpose of the grants is to provide administrative support for the ACF. (3) $698,850 (excluding the $200,000 referred to in (1) (b), above). (Question No. 771) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) During the 1987 general election, which booths in each division were unable to reconcile the number of ballot papers (a) received with the number of ballot papers issued and (b) issued with the number of votes cast. (2) Will the Minister provide details of the discrepancies. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) A separate tally of ballot papers is not kept as they are issued. Therefore, no independently determined figure for ballot papers issued is available for reconciliation purposes. Instead of reconciling numbers of votes cast with numbers of ballot papers issued, as assumed by the question, officers in charge (OICs) of counting centres are required to reconcile the number of ballot papers they have at the conclusion of polling with the number they had at the commencement of polling. At the beginning of the day, OICs count the ballot papers received from the Divisional Returning Officer and record the figure in the OICs General Return. During the day, if emergency supplies of ballot papers are received by the polling place or sent to another polling place, OICs adjust the figures in the Returns. Thus the OICs calculate the number of ballot papers to be accounted for. At the conclusion of the scrutiny OICs complete another section in the Return detailing the numbers of ballot papers in the ballot boxes and declaration envelopes, and the numbers of ballot papers spoilt, discarded and unused. The total of these five categories is then compared to the number of ballot papers to be accounted for. Any differences between the figures are noted. The difference figure is attributable to a small number of electors not returning their ballot papers to the ballot box. Efforts are made by polling officials to prevent this happening; a guard is permanently assigned to the ballot box, which is positioned near the exit door, to ensure that each elector does deposit his or her papers in the ballot box. Unfortunately however, the minor occurrence of `missing' ballot papers is not preventable and has been characteristic of elections since 1901. Because there were some 8,100 static polling places operating at the 1987 elections, it is not practical to list in detail the small number of ballot papers per polling place not returned by electors. However, a survey of ten randomly selected Divisions, representing each State, shows that ballot papers went missing in less than half of all static polling places. The largest loss was 20 ballot papers (out of a total of 3,850) from one polling place. The average loss, calculated from only those polling places where losses occurred, was 2.75 ballot papers. Copies of the House of Representatives returns from all Divisions showing the reconciliation of ballot papers have been forwarded to the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members and senators. (Question No. 849) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) Is the Mutual Weapons Development Program Agreement between Australia and the US, dated 23 August 1960, still in effect? (2) Has the agreement been amended, if so, what are the details? (3) If the agreement is not in effect (a) when was it terminated and (b) was it replaced or superseded by another agreement; if so, what are the details? (4) What type of defence equipment has been exchanged under the agreement and, if the agreement is still in force, what type of defence equipment is planned for exchange between Australia and the US? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The US negotiated a series of Mutual Weapons Development Program (MWDP) Agreements with NATO and non-NATO countries as one of their initiatives to establish a network of cooperative programs in defence research and development with their allies. The US Congress allocated limited MWDP funds and countries needed to have signed an MWDP Agreement with the US to be able to bid for those funds. Under the MWDP Agreement, the US and Australia have the ability to set up: a. Project Arrangements, defining the scope of any cooperative R& project and its financial arrangements; and b. Data Exchange Agreements (DEAs) which permit scientific and technical information exchange on agreed subjects. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) The MWDP Agreement has been used, as now, only in association with the establishment of Data Exchange Agreements covering information exchange only. I am advised that there is no evidence of any equipment exchange ever taking place under the MWDP Agreement and the Department of Defence has no plans to use this Agreement to effect any equipment exchange. (Question No. 968) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: Was there any significant difference in alleged multiple voting during the 1987 general election between divisions considered to be safe or marginal. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following table designed to show the difference between marginal and non-marginal seats in the average number of possible multiple voters in each Division by State/Territory and for Australia as a whole at the 1987 election is based on the number of cases investigated by Divisional Returning Officers (DROs) after obvious errors (matching of non-voters and apparent multiple voters and scanning errors e.g. accidental marks on the page) had been deleted from lists of Apparent Multiple Voters supplied to DROs by the electronic scanning centres. [At the Commission's electronic scanning centres in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, the original certified lists of voters used at polling places were electronically scanned and apparent multiple voter reports were produced for each Division.] The figures shown in the table do not represent deliberate multiple voters-cases of deliberate multiple voting are very rare. More often than not DROs conclude after their investigations that no further action is necessary. Such cases may include elderly and confused people, people of unsound mind, people of ethnic origin with communication difficulties, and people who inadvertently voted both postal and ordinary. Cases where investigation suggests further action is warranted are referred to the Australian Federal Police or to the Director of Public Prosecutions. NATIONAL SUMMARY APPARENT MULTIPLE VOTERS 1987 State/ Territory Marginal seats average (1) Non- marginal seats average (2) N.S.W. ... 39 47 Vic. ... 26 40 Qld ... 30 18 W.A. ... 16 41 S.A. ... 11 15 Tas. ... 13 - A.C.T. ... - 17 N.T. ... 125 - Australia ... 29 38 Notes: 1. A marginal seat is one which requires a swing of 5.9% or less for the incumbent to lose based on the 2-party preferred vote i.e. a seat is marginal if the incumbent obtained less than 56% of the vote at the last election. 2. A non-marginal seat (a `fairly-safe' or `safe' seat) is one which requires a swing of more than 6% for the incumbent to lose based on the 2-party preferred vote i.e. a seat is non-marginal if the incumbent obtained more than 56% of the vote at the last election. (Question No. 983) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: (1) During what hours are offices of the Minister's Department open for business. (2) Does the switchboard remain open through these hours. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Offices of the Minister's Department are open during the normal business hours of 8.30 am to 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm to 4.51 pm. Flextime provisions generally mean that offices are attended from 8.00 am until 6.00 pm. ACT hospitals and emergency services such as the Fire Brigade and Ambulance Services operate 24 hours per day. (2) Yes, switchboards remain open during normal business hours. When unattended over the lunch break answering services are provided. (Question No. 1051) Mr Prosser asked the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) What is the official purpose of the signs erected at various roadworks which refer to the Federal Government as ``Building Better Roads''. (2) What is the average cost of each of those signs and how many have been erected to date. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The erection of signs is a requirement under the Australian Bicentennial Roads Development Trust Fund Act 1982 and the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. The signs are designed to raise public awareness of the National Highway system and the Federal Government's role in road funding. The Federal Government has provided $4.58 billion since 1983-84 for the construction and maintenance of roads. (2) The State Road Authorities have estimated that there are some 800 such signs on National Highways around Australia. The cost of signs for each project is treated as an integral part of the total project cost, and no detailed records are kept by the Federal Government of the cost of signs. Based on information provided by State Road Authorities, the average cost is about $550 per sign.