Wednesday, 4 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Discrimination Against Women To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State', and whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the 'Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women', would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the ' Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women', believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3, Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3, Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mr Millar,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of effective Federal environmental protection legislation and urge that suitable legislation be enacted immediately. Your petitioners are concerned that National Estate areas such as South West Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef and the Western Australian Jarrah Forests cannot be fully protected until adequate legislation exists and is enforced. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the House of Representatives to ensure that all provisions of the Heritage Act and the Environment Impact of Proposals Act are fully complied with in respect of National Estate Areas. In particular your petitioners call upon you to adopt the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment on South West Tasmania. Your petitioners believe that this is a national issue and must be resolved by the action of the Federal Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned young citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia knowing it is the young people of Tasmania and Australia who will be most affected by any decision concerning the future of South West Tasmania, are concerned that young people have not been consulted on the issue at all. Research has consistently shown that young Australians overwhelmingly oppose the building of a dam on the Franklin River, but this voice of a significant sector of the Australian community has been totally ignored. We have considered the immediate economic arguments supporting the dam that have been put forward, but believe that the flooding of the South West Tasmanian wilderness area cannot be justified on economic, employment, or conservation grounds. Consequently, we petition the Federal Government to take immediate action to protect the wilderness area of South West Tasmania from destruction, and ensure that it will be afforded protection from future destructive exploitation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: 1. That Australia as a sparsely populated continent requires the maintenance of a high quality postal service as a vital means of communication. 2. That the Australian postal service meets the needs of all Australians. 3. That any reduction in Australia Post's monopoly power to carry letters for reward will destroy the concept of the national postal service and result in: increased rates for mail carried outside the capital cities; a reduction in mail delivery and collection frequencies in non-profitable areas ; the closure of post offices. Your petitioners therefore pray that the powers of the Postal Commission to carry letters for reward should be strengthened to ensure that the national postal service is retained in the interests of all Australians. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in view of the recent standardisation of insulin and insulin syringes, having the effect of increasing the cost of both items to the Diabetic in general, and as every insulin-dependent diabetic must use the same, daily or twice daily according to medication. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that syringes be made available on the NHS and that insulin prescriptions revert to 10 bottles as previously supplied. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care card holders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will immediately abolish the requirement that a Declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care card holder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they are horrified at the hideous practice of harp seal hunters in Canada where thousands upon thousands of seal pups are clubbed to death-these pups to enjoy not more than three weeks of life. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will immediately call upon the Australian Government to make the strongest protest to the Canadian Government and endeavour to force it to abolish this hideous practice and ask other nations to join Australia to bring international pressure upon the Canadian Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that the taxes of all Australians will be used to finance a dam that would flood the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers in South-West Tasmania. Your petitioners declare that the intrinsic values of this area, and the provision of funds from the taxes of all Australians, for the destruction of this area of the National Estate and of world heritage value, does make this a national issue. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take all possible steps, including financial and legal steps and fulfil its responsibilities under the Australian Heritage Act to prevent the destruction of this area of the National Estate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cook respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: 1. planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin 2. closing country telegraph offices, 3. increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service, 4. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices, 5. generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff, will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Gwydir respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: (1) planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin, (2) closing country telegraph offices, (3) increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service, (4) withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices, (5) generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff, will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in terms of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs' pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth we object to C.R.A. using cyanide in solution mining at Eastville. We feel that it is against the health and welfare of both human and animal well-being in our area and elsewhere in Victoria. Above and below ground pollution caused by human error, breakages, vandals, fire, flood, faults in the rock formations, mixing salty water, loss of cyanide solution upwards and downwards-are the reasons for opposition to cyanide in solution mining at Eastville or any other water bearing deep lead in Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray and request that this method of cyanide solution mining shall not in any way be allowed to go ahead. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Henty respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposal to charge local telephone calls on a time basis will increase telephone bills, thereby disadvantaging those people who could least afford it, such as pensioners and other low-income earners. 2. That the proposal to change Telecom into a company would be the first step towards selling Telecom to private enterprise. 3. That the proposal to sell parts of Telecom's more profitable operations can only lead to increased charges, particularly for domestic and country services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government guarantees: (1) That local telephone calls will continue to be charged on a per call basis. (2) That Telecom will remain a Statutory Authority. (3) That no part of Telecom will be sold, and that Telecom's more profitable operations must continue to subsidise domestic and country services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully showeth: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: ''The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) left Australia today to attend ministerial discussions in Paris, Brussels and Vienna. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Hayden returns. I also inform the House that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) left Australia today to attend the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Manila, representing the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Minister for Housing and Construction until Mr Hurford returns. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon a delegation from the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter- Parliamentary Organisation led by the Chairman, the Honourable Querube Makalintal, Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa, the National Assembly of the Philippines. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the Government's decision to disband the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm which has a most distinguished record of service to Australia and calls on the Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that there will be no reduction in rotary wing activity by the Royal Australian Navy or in manning levels at HMAS Albatross. Mr McVeigh proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr Holding-Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I desire to draw your attention to rulings of your predecessor on the question of notices of this kind. He expressly forbade the use of argument to support a general principle. Mr SPEAKER —The point of order raised by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is pertinent. I suggest that the honourable member for Darling Downs should rephrase the notice of motion bearing in mind that argument should not be included. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government to introduce legislation to exempt from taxation certain benefits that accrue to employees under approved employee share acquisition schemes. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (i) expresses its displeasure at the Minister for Tourism's denigration of the koala; and (ii) his reference to the Premier of Queensland as an old goat, and is therefore of the view that the Minister should politely scratch and butt out. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its concern that the Government has not been able to have the ACTU endorse the accord and Summit communique to the extent of enforcing restraint on the claims of the building, oil, metal and transport unions; criticises the Government for its naivety in not having all sections of the industrial unions endorse the accord and Summit results in writing and by substantial commitment; and calls on the Government to proceed immediately to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (i) notes the 90,000 megalitre loss of water each year in the northern Mallee region of Victoria through evaporation and seepage and calls upon the Government to provide funds immediately for stage 1 of the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline promised by the previous Government and which has the full support of the Victorian State Government and, (ii) outlines its proposal for similar water resource projects previously agreed to and which are now under review. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and seeks details of a consensus. Was there any communication between the Premier of New South Wales and himself about last Saturday night's Australian Broadcasting Commission Four Corners program prior to its screening? Mr HAWKE —The answer is no. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of the announcement yesterday concerning the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing component at HMAS Albatross, can the Minister give any assurances concerning the future of Royal Australian Navy personnel and the future of HMAS Albatross? Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 145 and ask you to seek an assurance from the Minister that in his answer to this question he will not mislead the House as he did yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is an improper statement. Mr Scholes —I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has asked that that statement be withdrawn. I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to withdraw the statement as it is offensive to the Minister. Mr McVeigh —I seek to debate that with you. Mr SPEAKER —No. You will withdraw as instructed. I require you to withdraw. Mr McVeigh —At least you can hear the argument-- Mr SPEAKER —I require you to withdraw. Mr McVeigh —At least you can hear the argument-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVeigh —The Minister came into the House yesterday-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVeigh —I withdraw. Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his question and acknowledge his continuing interest in and concern about this matter. As a consequence of the decision not to proceed with the acquisition of a carrier-a decision, incidentally, which was a continuation of a recommendation before the previous Cabinet and one which the previous Government could not bring itself to consider-it is obvious that fixed wing aircraft, especially those which require a carrier base for their operations, are not able to be usefully maintained in service, given the resources available to defence. Therefore, as a consequence of the decision not to continue with the carrier, the decision to discontinue fixed wing aircraft was made. On my visit to HMAS Albatross some time ago I gave an assurance to the personnel on that base and to the local community that if a decision of that nature were taken-at that stage the matter was under consideration-the naval personnel who were involved in fixed wing operations and associated occupations would be guaranteed continued service in the Australian defence forces. I also directed that the restriction on re-enlistment which had been imposed previously by the former Minister and which allowed those personnel only a one-year re- enlistment period be removed. Mr Sinclair —Two years. Mr SCHOLES —One year. I directed that that restriction was to be removed and, subject to normal re-enlistment requirements, those personnel were to be allowed to re-enlist on the same basis as other personnel. I repeat the assurance that all personnel who are affected will be given the opportunity to transfer to other sections of the Defence Force where they will not lose seniority, standing or rank. We have also given the local community a guarantee that the Albatross base will continue to operate at a level comparable with that which now exists. Mr HICKS —I ask the Minister for Communications what action he has taken relevant to the Australian Broadcasting Commission's program alleging political interference by the Premier of New South Wales in the course of justice in that State, since he learnt of that program and its content. Mr DUFFY —Mr Speaker- Mr McVeigh —It is good to see you standing up today. Mr DUFFY —If I need any advice from the honourable member on how to conduct myself, I will ask for it. The ABC has been requested to supply a transcript of the program. Other than that, I have not taken any action. The question of the programming of the ABC is a matter for it, and we on this side of the House respect totally its independence in that regard. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Opposition has claimed that a 3 or 4 per cent wage increase late this year and indexation next year, which the Prime Minister has said would be acceptable to the Government, represents an irresponsible wages policy which would increase unemployment. How would these levels of wage increases compare with those under the previous Government? How would growth in employment and unemployment expected under these policies compare with performance under the previous Government? Mr HAWKE —I wish to make it clear that there is a very considerable difference between what one can expect in terms of the benefit to the Australian economy under this Government's policies and what happened under the previous Government . Let me make the position clear. The vast explosion in wages which occurred under the previous Government resulted from the actions of the then Prime Minister and Government in initiating expectations in the trade union movement, and in the community generally, for electoral purposes at the end of 1980. As a result of the action which that Government took and other action which occurred in the industrial community, the system of centralised wage fixation and wage indexation was abandoned in July 1981. That was a position which led in the year following, from the September quarter 1981 to the September quarter 1982, to a wages explosion of a 16.4 per cent increase in average weekly earnings. That was associated with a massive increase in unemployment of 115,000 in the same period-an acceleration in unemployment which strengthened in the next period so that, in the 12 months up to March 1983, we witnessed in this country an increase in unemployment of the order of 272,000 and a fall in full time employment of 221,000. This was the state of affairs which led the honourable member for Kooyong, who as a result of his challenge to the then Prime Minister held no other position at that time, to make a comment in respect of what the problem was, which is relevant to the answer to the honourable member for Canning. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1982, in regard to the situation which I have just described, he said: In industrial relations, the most critical element is wages policy; regrettably , there has not been a wages policy. When indexation was knocked out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, no long-term plan was put down and no interim policy was put down while you were working to a long-term plan. What the now Leader of the Opposition then said was absolutely right. What happened under the previous Government was that it absolutely declined to have any wages policy at all and gave effect to its general philosophy that the way in which this economy should operate would be according to the free play of market forces-in other words, those with market power should go out and use it- and, naturally enough, the trade union movement embraced the then Prime Minister 's philosophy, with the result that we had that massive explosion in wages and the massive increase in unemployment. Against that situation, we came into office and we found this important point: It was the expectation of the official advisers to the Fraser Government-they are now our advisers-that, under a continuation of those policies of that Government and that Prime Minister and the present Leader of the Opposition as a member of the then Cabinet, the increase in wages in this country in this year, 1983, and in 1984, would be significantly higher than the increases which can now be expected under an increase in 1983 of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent and indexation in 1984. So the facts that we have are: A massive increase was to occur in the non-policy situation of the previous Government with the expectation that, if its policies had been continued, a higher rate of wage increase would take place than will now occur under the policies of this Government. Finally, let me say in response to this very important question that what will happen under the wages policy of this Government is that we will get, as we go through 1983 and into 1984, a responsible level of wage movement which will be consistent with a situation in which we will arrest the massive acceleration and explosion of unemployment that operated under the previous Government. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: Does the Government's commitment not to reduce protection during the period of current economic difficulty also apply to industries for which phase-down protection had already been announced? If not, and if all the previous Government's programs are to be continued, what does the commitment mean? Does it, for example, mean that on new references the Industries Assistance Commission will be instructed not to recommend any reduction in assistance? Mr HAWKE —In regard to the part of the question from the Leader of the Opposition which refers to the existing programs, in particular to the FTC area and the motor vehicle industry area, we made our position quite clear during the campaign, and we have made it clear since. I point out also that, as distinct from the previous Government, when we talk about industry we recognise that industry includes capital and labour. On the basis that people in those industries have made their plans into the future for the continued operation of those industries and for the proposition that employment will be able to be maintained according to those policies, we have made it clear that we will not be interfering with those policies and those programs. Mr GORMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. What progress has been made in the evaluation of possible sites for the location of Sydney's second airport? What plans does the Minister have to ensure full consultation with representatives of the areas likely to be considered? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. He has, in fact, raised this subject with me on a number of occasions, as indeed have his colleagues, the honourable member for Macquarie and the honourable member for Prospect, and the honourable member for Mitchell. Basically the situation is that the Prime Minister has written to the Premier of New South Wales seeking the co-operation of the New South Wales Government in a joint review to select a site for Sydney's second airport. A great deal of work has been done on the site selection, as honourable members will understand, such as surveys of potential areas under previous studies associated with the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee. When we receive a response from the New South Wales Government I expect that we will be able to draw deliberations to a reasonably rapid conclusion. In keeping with the policy of this Government on all matters related to airports, we intend to have a process of consultation with communities already affected and likely to be affected. In fact, I am going to meet with some of the representatives of the local authorities in the Sydney area in the not too distant future. As well as that on-going process of consultation, once a site is selected there will also be an opportunity for public consultation in association with the preparation of an environmental impact statement. One thing I would like to say about that is this: Some honourable members on the other side of the House have affected a degree of surprise that decisions should have been made to proceed with the selection of a site for a second Sydney airport. That ought not to have been a surprise to them if they had looked at statements of the previous Minister for Aviation when he announced an intention to proceed-- Mr Cadman —With Mascot. Mr BEAZLEY —With the construction of a second parallel runway. He also said, quite rightly, that he would be approaching the New South Wales Government to select a site for a second Sydney airport. He would have proceeded to acquire that site. The decision of this Government to proceed with a second airport site selection is a continuation of previous policy. So, I thought that would have been well discussed during the election campaign. I draw the attention of the honourable member who interjected to the Press release by the former Minister for Aviation on 7 October, if he wishes verification of that fact. I assume that he would have fully discussed that announcement with the constituents in his electorate during the election campaign. We are concerned, on all matters of airport development, that the communities that will be affected have their views considered. They will be considered in the planning stage; they will also be considered once airports are constructed and operating. We believe that airports ought to be useful servants not only of the community as a whole but also of the local communities in which the airports are located. I offer reassurance on one other matter which has been raised with me, and that is on the question of air services to New South Wales country areas. I am absolutely determined that both at the existing site at Mascot and at the new site the needs of New South Wales country people will be fully taken into account and fully served. We have that determination. Unnecessary restrictions on movements of aircraft from the New South Wales country into Mascot and at a subsequent time into the second airport will not be imposed. The interests of New South Wales country people will be well protected. I conclude by assuring the honourable member for Chifley that I have appreciated the points that he has made to me in his representations. He has proved himself to be an extremely effective local member on this matter. I look forward to meeting with him and the local authorities in a week or so. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister a further question, supplementary to the matter I raised in my previous question. The Prime Minister in his brief response in not answering the question referred to two sectoral programs. One he called the FCT, which I assume was meant to be the TCF-the textile, clothing and footwear industry-and the other referred to the motor vehicle industry. I ask the Prime Minister: What of the other 21 areas for which phase-down protection had been announced? Is there to be no change there? If there is not to be a change, I ask him again: What does the commitment mean? Mr HAWKE —I thought the Leader of the Opposition would be capable of understanding that the answer was in terms of giving a couple of examples of-- Mr Holding —You are too generous. Mr HAWKE —I am generous by nature. I gave-- Mr Shipton —He does not know the answer. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member will just contain himself he will hear it. I was giving examples. I will repeat myself so that those who are rather slow- witted may be able to understand what we are saying. Where a clear program has been negotiated and agreed to and where under that program there are in place investment programs and decisions in regard to a whole range of other matters based upon that program, as this Government made clear during the election campaign-and this has remained the position since-that program will not be interfered with. That is understood most particularly by the people concerned. I would hope that, it being understood by the people directly concerned, it would, however slowly, be understood by the few remaining people on the other side of the Parliament. The extent of their numbers on the other side is a reflection of the fact that not only that policy but also the whole range of the policies and programs that were put to the people on 5 March was clearly understood and welcomed by them. So that there still will be no misunderstanding on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his few followers, let me make clear what the position of this Government is on the issue of protection. We believe and have said that there is nothing immutable over time about an existing structure of protection for our industries in this country. Over time circumstances will demand and require, in the interests of the people in those industries and outside them, that there be changes in protection, and generally over time that move would be downwards. But we say that it would be an act of gross economic irresponsibility , at a time of high unemployment produced by the policies of the previous Government, to bring in new reductions in protection which could have the effect of adding to the unused resources of this country resulting from the policies of the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member. We will not autonomously now take action to reduce further protection, which reduction would have the result of adding to the misery of this country which resulted from the policies of him and his predecessor. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I draw the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to a joint Press release authorised by him in conjunction with the Minister for Communications and issued on 1 May. In the release it was announced that citizenship interviews will be conducted at selected post offices throughout Australia. I ask: Firstly, will the postmaster conduct the interviews ? Secondly, what qualifications will the postmaster require to do this job? Thirdly, will a training course be required? Fourthly, will departmental officers visit the post office if required for interviews? Fifthly, will further regional offices be established in the near future? Mr WEST —There are currently about 1.2 million people in Australia who are eligible for Australian citizenship and who have not yet applied. This Government wishes to increase the rate at which people apply for citizenship. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has 17 regional centres throughout Australia. Quite frankly, in the present Budget situation we do not see ourselves in a position to establish more regional centres immediately. Given the long distances that people who are interested in applying for citizenship have to travel, recently the Minister for Communications and I announced a program in which a significant number of selected post offices were designated as points at which people could be interviewed for citizenship. This does not mean that anyone other than the Department will accept the initial applications or make the final decisions. We will allow only grade 4 officers and above to conduct the interviews and they will be fully briefed as to the procedures to apply, and the proprieties that must be adopted, by the Department . The training and instruction will be provided through the normal Australia Post channels, using information supplied by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Where significant numbers of applications are made, departmental officers will be available, to visit the regional post offices. Finally, I will be continually reviewing the need for new regional offices within the annual budgetary context year by year. Mr RUDDOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Was the transfer of the permanent head of his Department made with his knowledge and consent? Mr UREN —The first I knew of the transfer was when the Prime Minister requested me to ring him; that was at 12.30 on Monday. I did that and he suggested that I co-operate and agree to transfer Tony Blunn to the important office of Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction. I immediately agreed because I know that Tony Blunn is a man of great ability. He is a sensitive man and I knew that he would feel the compassion of our Government's housing policies. I knew about the housing situation. I knew that this year there will be only 106,000 home commencements-the lowest for 20 years. I knew that the capacity of the housing industry was something like 150,000 homes. I knew of the unused capacity in the industry. I knew that if the Australian Labor Party's policy was carried out in the coming year the housing industry would employ another 25,000 people. I also knew that Tony Blunn would be of great support to the Minister for Housing and Construction carrying out Labor's policy. The housing industry sector can be used to help us to rebuild the economy which the Opposition helped to destroy. Our policies will help to build confidence and to give faith to young people that they will be able to buy a home. Therefore I was in full agreement with the Prime Minister in appointing Mr Tony Blunn to the position of Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment inform the House of the Government's attitude to using the external affairs powers contained in section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution to protect the world heritage property in South West Tasmania? Further, is the Government's attitude similar to the position of former Opposition spokesmen on the environment and conservation? Is the Government trying to achieve bipartisan support for the preservation-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. Today's blue sheet suggests that there will be a debate on this matter. Does this question not anticipate that debate? Mr SPEAKER —The question is asking for information on Government action. It is in order. Mr CHYNOWETH —Is the Government trying to achieve bipartisan support for the preservation of areas of Australia's natural heritage such as the South West Tasmania wilderness, or is the Government aware of a divergence in views on environmental positions? Mr COHEN —The Government has no choice but to use the external affairs provisions of the Constitution so that our international treaty obligations can be met. To do anything less than that would be an abrogation of our responsibility. Frankly , I am perplexed about the exact policy of the Opposition. In a statement to the Melbourne Age on 11 December 1975 the then Government spokesman on the environment, Mr Hunt, said: We will not hesitate to invoke, where appropriate, the powers vested in the Commonwealth under Section 51 of the Constitution in order to protect the environment or to preserve the national estate. That is precisely the attitude of the Labor Government. Not only did the former Minister say that, but people including the honourable member for Bass drew up Liberal Party policies which also sought to give effect to Australia's international treaty obligations. The Liberal Party policy statement of 1975 reads: In relation to our international obligations, we are pledged to: Sign and ratify appropriate international agreements, and fulfil our obligations under those agreements having regard to the role of the States. The Liberal Party environment and conservation policy was even more specific. It said that a Liberal government would: Assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a National Park of world significance in South West Tasmania to include a substantial wilderness area. Interestingly enough, the same question was asked in the other place today and the Government pointed out that the Opposition's policy was the same as ours. A number of senators, particularly Senator Missen, jumped up and down and said it was, and it still is. Mr MacKELLAR —Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to an allegation in today's Bulletin that a first secretary of the Russian Embassy, Mr Koshliakov, is the KGB's No. 1 man in Australia? The article also contains the suggestion that there may be a mole inside the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. In view of the Government's recent and vigorous action to expel another Soviet first secretary with KGB connections, what will the Government do to deal with these serious allegations? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is that my Government has already demonstrated not merely a verbal commitment to ensuring the security of this country but, when faced with appropriate evidence, its commitment to take decisive action. We have done that. The third point I make is that I intend to continue what I believe has been a sensible and, as I had understood it to this point, bipartisan approach on these matters. The security interests of this country demand that there shall not be an unnecessary exposure, either in this Parliament or elsewhere, of matters between the Government and relevant organisations which are concerned with the security of this country. I can simply assure the honourable member that the evidence already available to him and to the Australian public reflects both our intention to adhere to that commitment and overwhelmingly our intention to ensure that no action is taken by the representatives of any country which would be detrimental to the security of this country. The determination which we have shown is merely an indication of our continuing intention in this matter. I doubt very much-I certainly hope it is not the case-whether either the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member who asked the question, or anyone else on the other side of the House, would seriously be suggesting, as is implied by the question, that I should say something now, in answer to that question or any other from the other side of the House, which would or could be detrimental to the activities of our organisations which are concerned with detecting these matters. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Prime Minister to inform the House of the Government's attitude to recent events in Poland. Mr HAWKE —It is a matter of great regret to me personally and to all members of the Government that the actions of 1 May and 3 May show that what must now be regarded as only the nominal lifting of martial law in Poland last December has not operated in a way which has restored the capacity of the Polish people to act with freedom and in a way which gives them the opportunity of realising their legitimate aspirations. Particularly disturbing in this respect, I suggest , are the obviously correct reports of unprovoked attacks upon people exercising what one would imagine should be a right of peaceful demonstration. I believe, and I am sure that I can speak for all members of the House in this respect, that we have a sense of tragedy for the people of Poland. I am sure that I can speak for all honourable members in saying that it will be our hope that events will move in such a way that the people of Poland will be free from the imposition upon them of restraints imposed by their own authorities or by forces from outside their country which will continue to prevent the people of Poland from having the capacity to exercise what should be regarded as normal and unchallengeable freedoms. May I say in this respect, if the House will excuse me, that I have been given the honour of being invited to speak on 10 June to the general conference of the International Labour Organisation. I can assure the House at this stage that, in the course of the opportunity that will be provided to speak to that great organisation, which has an historical concern with matters of freedom of association, I will be addressing myself to this matter. I feel that I can be sure that in expressing those sentiments I will be speaking on behalf of all members of the House. It is my hope that the proposed visit of Pope John Paul II to his native land will operate in such a way as to start the healing processes within that country and that the authorities within Poland will give effect to the request that has been made by His Holiness that there be a general amnesty for political detainees. As far as my Government is concerned, all members of this House can rest assured that our concern will not be restricted to statements in this House but in all avenues and forums available to us we will continue to press the concern of the Australian people over the tragedy which has occurred and which obviously is continuing in Poland. Mr TUCKEY —I preface my question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, by referring to page 321 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 18 February 1982, which records the circumstances of the then honourable member for Wills expressing his total distrust of the then Government, when he called the then Prime Minister a liar. I also refer the Prime Minister to page 1703 of the House of Representatives Hansard dated 22 September 1982, which evidenced the bringing to the Parliament by the honourable member for Wills of a copy of a telex from the Department of Aviation addressed to a private American citizen and confirming the private details of his appointment as an employee of that Department. I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of this documented evidence of his distrust of the previous Government and his undoubted ability to obtain even the most mundane information from the Canberra bureaucracy, will he advise the House how he was lulled into a sense of false security and consequently failed to utilise his established fifth column to obtain the forward Budget estimates which he now claims are the reason for denying my constituents tax cuts which they need and are expecting in the light of his election promises? Mr HAWKE —As always, I must confess to an incapacity, which I believe is shared by the overwhelming majority of members of this House, in following the convolutions of what passes for the mind of the honourable member. However, I do want to display my charity of spirit by thanking him for his consideration in attending-albeit without invitation-the recent National Economic Summit Conference. If the honourable member would display a real concern in respect of that matter rather than the theatrics with which he went on then and if he would apply himself to studying the contents of that document which are now available he would understand what is the answer to his purported question. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I draw his attention to a report of the Auditor-General and an article which appeared in today's Australian to the effect that the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which was established to provide funds to encourage greater Australian ownership of innovative companies, had spent $360,000 to purchase a Sydney apartment to be used by its executives and directors for business talks, official entertainment and living accommodation. I ask the Minister: Where is the apartment located? What is the annual upkeep cost of the apartment? By whom have the premises been used? Were any previous Ministers of the Crown ensconced in this apartment? Was this disgraceful purchase made at the expense of providing assistance to Australian industries as provided by the AIDC 's charter? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that outrageous purchases such as this are taken into account by the Government before future purchases are made? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will answer this question wearing both caps-firstly, as Minister for Administrative Services and, secondly, as Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has direct responsibility for the AIDC. This purchase was made during the time when those people sitting on the other side of the House were in charge of the AIDC. The premises are situated at the York, in York Street, which I may say is a very prestigious address. Mr Leo McLeay —The most expensive in Sydney. Mr JOHN BROWN —It might well be; it is certainly very prestigious. Members of this House may rest assured-I have discussed this matter over lunch with the Minister responsible for the AIDC-that under our control this sort of procedure will not take place. That is the first point. I cannot give all the pertinent details requested in the honourable member's question, but I assure the honourable member that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be having discussions with the AIDC. When that information is available I will pass it on to him. As far as the Department of Administrative Services is concerned, it is true that organisations such as the AIDC, Trans Australia Airlines and various other non-government, semi-statutory authorities can bypass the Lands Acquisition Act by virtue of establishing subsidiary companies. In this case the AIDC did just that. I will suggest to the Minister and my Department that steps be taken to tighten that Act to make sure that organisations such as the AIDC which want to be involved in a purchase of this kind will not be able to do so in future without reference to the Department of Administrative Services. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I ask the Prime Minister: Is a 20 per cent sales tax on retreaded motor tyres to be introduced, despite a pre-election promise of the recognition of the disruptive potential of such a tax on the economy of the road transport industry? Was an undertaking given that legislation would be forthcoming to prevent the imposition of such a tax? Will the Prime Minister now indicate to the House the intentions of the Government regarding this huge slug on the transport industry and the motorists of Australia? Mr HAWKE —I remind the honourable member that I am not an authority on huge slugs . I ask him to address his mind to the facts of this situation. They are very simple. He may not be aware of them. We will enlighten him. The Commissioner of Taxation made a finding that the operation of retreading was, in fact, a manufacturing operation. That was the finding of the Commissioner of Taxation, made well back in the life of the previous Government, of which the honourable member was a supporter. Faced with that decision of the Commissioner of Taxation , the previous Government took no action to upset his finding, and in the absence of action the finding would have continued to have the effect which we are to continue to allow it to have. When members of the previous Government got towards an election, they said something like: 'We may not allow the finding of the Commissioner of Taxation to operate'. I acknowledge that there was an indication by one of the members of the then Opposition that, if we became the government, we may take steps to reverse that decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. I simply say to the honourable member and to the House that in government we have had the responsibility-- Mr Ruddock —The word 'may' was never used. It was a categorical assurance. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, will you shut this fellow up? Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Interjections are becoming far too frequent. Mr HAWKE —I am really operating in the interests of Opposition members. I want them to have as much opportunity as possible to ask their questions. While they are making inane interjections they will not have that opportunity. What I am saying is that, faced with the situation with which we were faced when we assumed office, and faced with the deliberate misrepresentation to the tune of $ 3.6 billion-deliberate misrepresentations by key members of the previous Government as to the economic situation that the present Government would inherit-we have had to look at every situation as astringently as we possibly could. The decision that we made was that we would adhere to what had been the position of the previous Government, that is, that it would not upset the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. Let me say this in respect of the effect of the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation: As I am informed, what is happening under the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation, which we do not intend to upset, is that the sales tax operates in respect of the retreading operation and not the materials that are used. As an example, a standard Falcon tyre, which currently sells, as I recall it, for approximately $45.60, will have added to its present wholesale price of $26 about $3.60 following the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. So, if honourable members do their calculations-- Mr Ian Robinson —What about a 20-wheeled semi-trailer? Let us have a calculation on that. Mr HAWKE —If honourable members do their calculations, they will find that the retreading industry in Australia will not be placed in a situation in which it will not continue to be cheaper to have retreaded tyres rather than new tyres. May I make the situation quite clear, not only as it relates to this question, the details of which I have passed on to the House via my answer to the honourable member's question, but also generally. May I state the general position, and let it be understood, as it applies not only to this question but also to a whole range of economic questions that may be directed to us. We do not flinch from the fact that, as a result of the situation in which the people of Australia have found themselves and in respect of which we as a Government have a responsibility to take action, some hard decisions will have to be taken if we are to be able to undertake stimulatory economic action which will generate activity and generate jobs but still do it in a way which, in respect of the mess that we inherited, will still leave a deficit situation which will not impose undue pressure upon inflation and upon interest rates. In every decision we take, whether it be in respect of the Commissioner of Taxation's decision which the previous Government did not upset or in any other area, this Government will be guided by the need to take decisions which on the expenditure and revenue sides will enable us to pursue the objectives of stimulating economic activity and creating more jobs so that we can arrest this massive explosion of unemployment in respect of which the Opposition is guilty. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that this is the Parliament, not the National Economic Summit Conference. I do not intend to be preached to by this gentleman. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr Peacock-Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking my indulgence to make a statement? Mr Peacock-Yes, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr Speaker, are you going to allow personal explanations to run on much later in the day? Mr SPEAKER —I was going to allow personal explanations to be made later in the day. Several honourable members have approached me. The honourable member will appreciate that in the past it has been the custom to allow Ministers to present their papers and statements before the making of personal explanations. I think that is a fair system. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1982. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications fourteenth report, December 1982. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947, I present the Australian Egg Board final annual report for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962, I present the final annual report of the Australian Honey Board for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the 1981-82 annual report on the operations of the Act. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the Fishing Industry Research Committee annual report for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation annual report for 1981-82. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, I present the Dried Fruits Research Committee annual report for 1981-82. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present the annual report of the Council for 1981. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967, I present the annual report of the Council for 1981. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the 1981-82 annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission program guidelines for 1983. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission recommendations for 1984. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930, I present a statement of receipts and expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1982. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board annual report for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on Australian Capital Territory activities during the 1981 International Year of Disabled Persons. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —In answer to a question from the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Robinson) on retreaded tyres and the sales tax that would apply, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) implied that former Ministers associated with the former Government had misled the people in regard to this matter. The fact is- Mr Holding —Were you a Minister at that time? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, I was Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the then Treasurer and I discussed this matter shortly after I became Minister for Industry and Commerce. As a consequence of a Cabinet decision that was announced , the Government indicated-before the election campaign; not during the election campaign as was implied by the Prime Minister-that it would not accept the interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation; we would define the retreading of tyres as a repair rather than manufacture and therefore the sales tax would not apply. We adhere to that decision today and would treat retreading as a repair. As the Prime Minister used the term 'deliberately misled', I will read a letter dated 23 February from Mr Ralph Willis, then the Australian Labor Party spokesman on economic development and taxation, to the Executive Director of the Commercial Vehicle Industry Association of Australia. The letter stated: Dear Mr Woodward, Sales Tax on Retreaded Tyres In response to your telephone inquiry to my Canberra office on 18.2.83, I can provide you with the following information on the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. The first point is that the ALP has consistently opposed- Mr Young —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a letter- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House is raising a point of order. He is entitled to make the point of order. Mr Young —Mr Speaker, not in the widest interpretation could a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand, as he then was, to any commercial organisation be included as part of a personal explanation. It has nothing to do with the Minister. Mr SPEAKER —So far the Leader of the Opposition is indicating where he has been misrepresented. I invite him not to debate the matter. Mr PEACOCK —I will not debate the matter, Mr Speaker. It goes directly to the allegations made against Opposition members, particularly the former Treasurer and myself. I want to read the four paragraphs and that will be it. There will be no debating the question. The letter stated: I can provide you with the following information on the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. The first point is that the ALP has consistently opposed greater reliance on indirect taxes, including sales taxes. An incoming Labor government will overhaul the system of indirect taxes including a comprehensive review of the rate structure and classification of goods for sales tax purposes. Consistent with this policy, and recognising the disruptive potential of a sales tax on retreaded tyres, the ALP would support appropriate legislative action to restore the previous taxation position for retreaded tyres. In the interim, we would continue to require that the Commissioner of Taxation takes no action to enforce payment of increased sales tax on retreaded tyres. I hope the above information is to your members' satisfaction. Of course the consequence of the action has been that it would not be to their satisfaction. The Labor Party has broken another promise and is breaking another industry. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now going beyond the personal explanation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, in the same answer, the Prime Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —Are you seeking to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During the course of the same answer the Prime Minister accused senior members of the former Government, and of course by implication myself, of deliberately misleading his party and the Australian people about the size of the Budget deficit for 1983-84. In so doing he repeated a familiar refrain of the new Government that its inability to meet election commitments, even ones related to retreaded tyres, was due to the fact that it made its election promises on the basis-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should proceed to where he was misrepresented. It is not a matter of what the Government is doing. Mr HOWARD —That is very clear, Mr Speaker. The misrepresentation of the Prime Minister was to assert falsely-he knows it to be false-that the previous Government engaged in deliberate deception about the size of the deficit. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. When a group of people is referred to by a speaker, is it possible for someone who decides to identify himself or herself with that group to claim to have been misrepresented when he or she was not specifically identified? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has stated that by implication he was misrepresented. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, the misrepresentation by the Prime Minister, one that he has repeated inside this place and outside, is one that I totally reject. The fact is that the Government made all of its promises without any public reference by the former Government to the size of the deficit and it will not in a month of Sundays convince me or the Australian public otherwise. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would remind honourable members that, when they seek to make a personal explanation on the grounds of being misrepresented, they are given the indulgence to explain the misrepresentation, not to debate the matter. I would remind Ministers that they do not assist the Chair by encouraging debate on those matters. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —Mr Speaker, I also wish to make a personal explanation . Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been personally misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, in an unrecorded aside-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! A Minister is waiting to make a statement. If honourable members co-operate he might be given a chance to do that earlier than if they do not. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, in an aside, which was not recorded in Hansard but which was taken up by the newspapers this morning, there is an allegation about my alleged travel during last year. I have no idea over what period. Apparently there were some comments made in Caucus as a result of which in the newspapers this morning there is an assertion that that travel has been, in some way, not in accordance with the exercise of my ministerial duties. I can assure this House that whenever I travel, if I can travel commercially I do so. I did travel regularly by light aircraft. I do not know the cost of that travel, but on no occasion did I travel other than in accordance with the exercise of my ministerial responsibilities. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence for a minute to speak on the same subject. I assure the House that I did not, as may be read into the article, talk to the Press about the alleged statement. I am surprised that matters such as this which are discussed in our Caucus get out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would invite the Leader of the House not to stretch the indulgence too far. Mr YOUNG —I do not know whether the figure is totally accurate. It seems rather surprising. I will try my best to declassify the material so that we can see how much it cost Australia to have that last Government. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr NEWMAN —Mr Speaker, this morning on the AM program on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) said: I deplore the irresponsible claim that the SAS was operating in Tasmania. He attributed that claim to me. That is not true. On the weekend of 9-10 April, reports were given to me that there were various Defence Force units operating in Tasmania to collect information about the construction of the South West Tasmanian dam. When I got those reports, I immediately sent a telegram to the Chief of the Defence Force Staff-a telegram that was later repeated in letter form and a copy of which was sent to the Minister for Defence. I can only presume that these are the basis of the claim that I said that the SAS was operating in Tasmania. What I actually asked in that telegram was this: Were sorties flown by fighter aircraft as reported? Who requested that these operations be flown? Which Commander authorised these missions? On the subject of the SAS, I asked: Was is true that SAS reconnaissance patrols had also been deployed into South West Tasmania to gather intelligence? Lastly, I asked: Had any other military operations been planned or authorised against Tasmania? That is the sum total of the questions I posed. Mr Speaker, I might add that I have still not had a proper answer from the Minister for Defence. Mr SPEAKER —I will now call on ministerial statements by leave. I thank the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for his co-operation with the personal explanations. Ministerial Statement Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-I am concerned that under the previous Government inconsistencies became apparent in the determination of criminal deportations. I propose therefore to inform the House of policy which, under this Australian Labor Party Government, will guide my decisions under the Migration Act when considering the possible deportation of non-Australians convicted of specified criminal conduct. At the outset I shall make it clear that I refer to the deportation liability of people who are not Australian citizens but are permanent residents of Australia. My remarks do not apply to people who are in Australia temporarily or illegally when they commit criminal offences; their possible deportation would be considered under policies and legislative provisions for expelling illegal immigrants. I should also make it clear that deportation is not imposed as a punishment and must not in any sense be regarded as a punishment. It is not for me, as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, or anybody else to form opinions as to the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed by the courts for the offences committed. I accept that expulsion from Australia can produce one degree or another of hardship. Nevertheless, although the Government's policy is humane and compassionate, I emphasise that individual deportees should bear responsibility for the consequences of their own criminal conduct. As I will discuss later, the purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community and to exercise a choice on behalf of the community. This is not to say that all non-Australians convicted of particular types of crimes will automatically be deported. Sections 12 and 13 of the Migration Act discriminate against persons of non- Commonwealth status. They are always liable to criminal deportation until Australian citizenship is acquired, in contrast to persons of Commonwealth nations who are subject to deportation only in respect of crimes committed within five years after any entry to Australia. Clearly this is inconsistent with the Government's policy of removing discrimination between different foreign nationals. It is also inconsistent with the Government's policy that all non-Australian citizens permanently resident in Australia should cease to be liable to deportation after a specified period of residence. The Government will later be introducing amendments to the Migration Act to give effect to these policies. I now detail the Government's criminal deportation policy to the House after foreshadowing some necessary amendments to the Migration Act. POLICY ON CRIMINAL DEPORTATION Introduction The Australian Government, on behalf of the Australian community, has the right to decide who will be accepted for permanent residence in Australia and, ultimately, for absorption into full membership of the community by way of Australian citizenship. Parliament vests in the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the discretion to determine whether resident non-Australian citizens who have been convicted in Australia of certain major criminal conduct are to be removed from Australia by deportation. In exercising that discretion the Minister is exercising the right of the Australian community to be protected and to choose who will be permitted to remain a permanent resident. A person who has come within the criminal deportation liability has a right to a decision on his or her case as soon as possible after sentencing and a right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against a decision that he or she be deported. It is the policy of the Australian Labor Government that recommendations of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be overturned by the Minister only in exceptional circumstances and only when strong evidence is produced to justify the decision. Furthermore, it is the policy of the Government that, when the Minister decides to deport a person contrary to a recommendation of the Tribunal, the Minister will table in the Parliament at the first opportunity a statement of his reasons for doing so. The Government recognises Australia's obligations under international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It has taken into consideration views expressed by the Human Rights Commission. However , the Government is mindful of the need to balance a number of very important factors, especially: the need for community protection against criminal behaviour; the requirement to take into consideration the legitimate human rights of an individual; the need to protect the rights of other persons, including the family of the person concerned; and the need to avoid discrimination when making deportation decisions. GUIDELINES FOR DEPORTATION The purpose of deporting a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community and to exercise a choice on behalf of the community that the benefit accruing to the community as a whole by his or her removal outweighs the hardship to the persons concerned and his or her family. The greater the potential effect on the community or the greater the potential damage to the community the lower is the acceptable level of risk that the person concerned will commit further offences. Deportation of a person convicted of crime may be appropriate when a person: constitutes a threat because there is a risk he or she will commit further offences if allowed to remain; or has committed a crime so offensive to Australian community standards that the community rebels against having within it a person who has committed such an offence; or has not established sufficient ties with Australia to have become a full member of the community and, by reason of his or her conduct, is unsuitable for permanent residence in Australia. Examples of serious offences which may render non-Australian citizens liable to deportation include: production, importation, distribution, trafficking or commercial dealing in heroin or other hard addictive drugs or involvement in other illicit drugs on a significantly large scale-persons who embark upon drug-related crime for financial gain show a callous disregard for insidious effects on the health and welfare of Australia's young people; this does not necessarily apply to persons who use hard drugs for their own consumption and who were not involved in the above illegal actions; organised criminal activity, whether within Australia only or internationally; serious sexual assaults, whether or not accompanied by other violence, especially where there has been more than one sexual offence; armed robbery; violence against the person; terrorist activity and assassination; kidnapping; blackmail; extortion. Crimes against children, because of their vulnerability, take on a special significance, especially inducement to drugs, sexual assaults, violence, kidnapping and crimes taking unfair advantage of children. Social ties developed after the liability for deportation arose, especially after the liability had been brought to the notice of the offender, can be discounted according to circumstances-for instance, marriage or the immigration to Australia of further family members. Australia does not have an obligation to provide sanctuary for people who have broken the laws of another country. In any case, it is neither feasible nor proper for the Australian Government to consider the propriety of the operation of criminal codes in other countries nor, even if it had the resources to obtain sufficient information, to attempt to anticipate the likely outcome of any charges overseas. Thus the possibility of further criminal sanctions in the country in which a potential deportee expects to live if deported are generally not relevant to the main issue of protecting the Australian community and may not be persuasive when making a decision on deportation, but the option will be there. Civil or military hostilities are more likely to affect the timing of a deportation than to constitute reason that the offender should continue to live permanently in Australia. Judgments that job opportunities and the overall environment of the country to which a person would be deported are not as favourable to them as in Australia, however compassionately viewed, would not be persuasive against the removal of a person who is a risk to the Australian community. Cogent and substantiated evidence of any claim of likely persecution in the country to which a person is to be deported would need to be produced. In the absence of such evidence it is very difficult to give any weight to the unsubstantiated claim. I turn now to the broad criteria under which deportation cases will eventually be considered, most certainly with respect to final decisions after perhaps appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The most important broad criteria on which judgments will be based are the nature of the crime; the possibility of recidivism; the contribution that the person has made to the community or may reasonably be expected to make in the future and the family and/or social ties that already exist. In particular the following factors will be taken into account when making a decision on whether a deportation order should be issued: the nature of the offence as outlined in paragraph 9 and the length of sentence imposed by the court; the person's previous general record and conduct; the risk of further offences; the extent of rehabilitation already achieved, the prospect of further rehabilitation and positive contribution to the community the person may reasonably be expected to make; the length of lawful residence in Australia, the strength of family, social, business and other ties in Australia; the degree of hardship which would be caused to lawful residents of Australia, especially Australian citizens, known to be affected adversely by deportation or conversely the extent of support for deportation from persons directly affected; any unreasonable hardship the offender would suffer; ties with other countries; the relevant obligations of the Commonwealth of Australia under international treaties ratified by the Australian Government; the likelihood that deportation of the offender would prevent or inhibit the commission of like offences by other persons. This list is not exhaustive; if relevant, other factors that come to notice will be taken into account in individual cases. CLAIMS FOR REFUGEE STATUS The cases of persons who seek recognition as 'Convention' refugees pursuant to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are considered individually by the Minister. Advice in these cases is usually drawn from the Determination of Refugee Status-DORS-Committee. The Committee investigates and recommends to the Minister whether the person concerned should be recognised as a refugee for the purpose of the Convention and Protocol and whether he or she is entitled to the protection of the Convention. DEPORTATION ACTION It is for the appropriate State authorities, or in the case of Commonwealth prisoners, the Governor-General, to decide such questions as the conditions under which a prisoner is to serve a sentence, the extent of remission of any part of a sentence or the release of a potential deportee on licence or on parole or for the purpose of deportation. Whenever possible, departure from Australia will be arranged to coincide with a deportee's release from prison. A deportee may be held in custody pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 pending finalisation of the deportation arrangements. I conclude by saying that I hope these arrangements will be mutually acceptable to the Opposition and that we can have at least some degree of bipartisanship in these important matters. But I assure the House that under that policy and under the changes that I intend to make to the Migration Act we hope to develop a package of policy and legislation under which criminal deportation policy will emerge as humane, just and compassionate but still firm. I thank the House. I present the following statement: Criminal Deportation Policy-Ministerial Statement, 4 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.41) —When I was the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) was the shadow Minister we had a bipartisan approach to matters concerning that portfolio. Certainly, in Opposition now, we hope that that will continue to be the case. We therefore welcome this statement. I indicate my strong support for it with a couple of minor observations. As a matter of fact, this practice and procedure outlined in the statement was that which was followed by the previous Government once the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were to be reviewed by the Minister and, in some cases, overruled by him. As my memory serves me, statements in this document are consistent with those which I made to the AAT as Minister and which my predecessor, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar) made. I would like to point out a couple of things. In his statement the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) refers to his concern that: . . . under the previous Government inconsistencies became apparent in the determination of criminal deportations. I make the observation to the House that to some extent that is inevitable. Circumstances will vary, often quite considerably, from case to case even where the offence is the same. The ethnic group might be similar, the conduct of the individual might be similar, but the view taken by the court might be quite different. Of course, the judgment of particular Ministers will vary as well. But I suggest that very often when detailed examination takes place there will be reasons for these apparent inconsistencies. In many cases analysis will show them to be much more consistent than they might at first appear even if the ultimate treatment of them by the Minister appears to be quite different. I think that I was the first Minister to overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On that occasion I brought the matter up in the Parliament and did precisely what this statement calls for. I believe that is the proper thing. The former member for Hindmarsh, when he was the Minister, insisted, as I understand it, that the previous Labor Government not take away the power which the Parliament had vested in the Minister for Immigration and hand it over to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I believe that was a very wise decision. Ultimately, the Minister and the Parliament must be accountable. With great respect to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal members, it is ultimately a Minister who is better qualified to make exceedingly difficult individual decisions. As my statement in the famous Pochi and Barbaro cases said, and as the Minister's statement says now, only rare cases ought to be departures from the recommendations to the Minister from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Having mentioned those two cases, I say parenthetically that whilst my successor overruled my decision overruling the AAT's recommendation-therefore, under this statement and under the practice that I started he was not obliged to speak to this Parliament about it-I stand by my decision. I understand that the honourable member for Warringah, my predecessor, also stands by his decision which led to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings. In the same vein, I resent very strongly statements made by a judge in proceedings begun under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act seeking to appeal from my decision to deport Mr Pochi and Mr Barbaro. That is important because it is relevant to a statement in the Minister's speech about sections 12 and 13 of the Migration Act. I agree with him in that regard. It was the intention of the previous Government to remove the discrimination against persons of non-Commonwealth status. We most wholeheartedly support that proposal . It was one of the anachronisms that needed cleaning up. I would be concerned-the Minister's statement is not specific on the matter- about the period of residence required for a person to avoid deportation. I put it to him as a purely personal view, from my experience-it certainly is not an Opposition policy; we have not had time to consider it-that I would not want to be bound by the five years which applied to Commonwealth people. In cases such as those of Pochi and Barbaro it might not be apparent within that five-year period that they had engaged upon a personal course of conduct which offended the criteria set out in the Minister's statement-criteria which guided me and my predecessor. It might not be apparent until much, much later, as happened in both of those cases. They had spent the better part of 20 years in Australia as permanent residents when they were found guilty of some of the offences listed in the criteria. There are often many reasons why people are denied citizenship. In their case it was a language problem. In other cases, for various emotional reasons, people do not apply. I suggest that it would be unwise for the Minister to preclude himself or his successors from having the right to deport someone merely because the fact that he had contravened a set of criteria, amounting to a code of conduct which all Australians regard as appropriate for citizens and permanent residents of this country, was not detected within the five-year period. In fact, as I recall the High Court's statements on the matter, it was concerned that people should not be deported if they had become constituent members of the Australian community; that is, if they had been absorbed into it. I put it to the Parliament that people who have engaged in the kind of conduct that is referred to in the Minister's statement, and in some statements which I made to this House, have not been absorbed into the community because they have contravened a fundamental code of conduct which members of this community regard as appropriate. Therefore, they have not become constituent members in that sense of the term-the sense of the term that I think would commend itself to the House and the High Court as well. Therefore, I am pleased to see that this statement has now been formalised in the way in which it has and that the Parliament will have an opportunity to debate future ministerial decisions when they overrule recommendations of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; moreover, that the decisions will be debated on these criteria, with which I do not cavil but, on the contrary, strongly support. I would say, for example, that the reference to serious offences is consistent with the policy and practice administered by the previous Government. I must admit that just as the problem arose and just as the Administrative Appeals mechanisms arose, there was an evolution of that policy in practice and I believe that this statement and the one that I made in the Pochi case embody that practice. I believe that it is sound and bipartisan. I assume that the offence of violence against the person incorporates murder and manslaughter. I thought it worth the observation that otherwise it would be an odd omission from the list. Having said that, I point out that there are several aspects of the statement with which I particularly agree. It is stated in paragraph 19 of the distributed copy of the Minister's speech: Whenever possible, departure from Australia will be arranged to coincide with a deportee's release from prison. That was not so necessary-in fact it was normally done-prior to all these Administrative Appeals provisions, but we have the odd situation now in which people are released from prison, the Minister then makes a decision and they can be here for many years waiting for that cloud to be lifted from their future. As a matter of humanity and to avoid a sense of double punishment, they are entitled to know as soon as possible. For that reason also, I support the earlier statement in the Minister's speech about the desirability of making the decision to deport or not to deport as soon as possible after a person has been convicted of one or other of these offences. The Opposition welcomes the statement. Debate (on motion by Mr John Brown) adjourned. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Balaclava ( Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious threat posed to the spirit and principles embraced by the recent National Economic Summit by the Prime Minister's willingness to distinguish allowances from wages in the building industry. 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 MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.50) —This significant matter of public importance arises from an answer given yesterday to the House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), wherein he quite specifically exempted allowances from his concern about increases in wages and claims for reduced working hours in the building industry . I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as the Prime Minister would know, for the purpose of calculating pay rates for annual leave and overtime in the building industry the most substantial allowances are regarded as wages. When it is recognised that for individual employees these allowances are of the order of $50 a week it will be clear to everyone that it is a nonsense to talk of regarding allowances as being other than wages. Moreover, it is not for this or any other government to judge what the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ought to do. It should concern most people that increasingly we are hearing the Prime Minister and others talk of a 3 per cent or 4 per cent increase in wages later this year, plus full indexation next year, plus what are called allowances in the building industry but, as I say, amount to $50 a week, and other fiddles here and there according to special or so-called particular circumstances. These can only raise unreal expectations in an economic sense. They can only add to people's frustrations and disappointments if they are not awarded by the appropriate tribunal. It can only make the task of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission much harder and is hardly consistent with the statements made by all parties to the National Economic Summit Conference about the state of the economy, the need for restraint in various areas, including wages, allowances, hours of work reduction, and the like and also the statements of support for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. So I would urge the Government to desist from the temptation to try to give people palliatives by building up expectations that the Commission will be able to judge the economy as being able to afford increases of this kind. Let us look at the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday in regard to the Summit. Referring to what had emerged from it, he stated: Fourth, in paragraph 20, consensus on a return to a centralised approach to wage fixation and recognition that a suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances. In fact, paragraph 20 of the communique went on to specify that this all had to be proved before the centralised wage fixing authority. So it is not, as the Prime Minister appeared to indicate, the case that it might be acceptable to the employer and the union to do a deal on allowances which, as I have already pointed out, are wages by another name. In any event, it had to be subject to ratification by the tribunal. Statements like that made yesterday build up a head of steam and make it very hard for the tribunal when it meets on 28 June and hard for the Government itself to argue that such special deals ought not to be made, with consequent pressure in other industries also. One must ask: What is so special about the building industry? What distinguishes it from other industries? I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, to tell this House of any industry which could not in some semi-plausible way assert that it had special circumstances which justified some sort of fiddle that would be outside the letter and spirit of the Summit communique. Moreover, I ask the Minister to consider whether or not this is outside the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions prices and incomes accord. I will concentrate more for the moment on the communique because that is something to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave credence yesterday. I put it to the House that the communique is in breach of the judgment of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the wages pause . The criteria which the Commission adopted spoke of not making grants except in unforeseen circumstances. As I read the judgment of the Commission in introducing the wages pause, there is no way that one could have said that the so-called special circumstances about allowance in the building industry could possibly have fitted within the criteria of the Commission as being unforeseen circumstances. If in fact the industry has been encouraged to think that on 1 July it can go to the Commission with some special deal, I think it is misreading the state of the economy, the Summit and the views of the State governments which joined in the application for the wages pause, and the tribunals which introduced it. There is a great significance about the building and construction industry at any time and particularly now at a time when job creation is needed. The previous Government, with an array of programs for airport upgrading, road building, welfare housing, capital works programs and the like, was stimulating the building industry and stimulating employment in the building industry. By distributing the money gained as a result of the wages pause we set out to try to expand employment opportunities in that area. As I understand it, the new Government intends to do the same regarding community works programs. We know how capital intensive the capital works programs are. We know that much of the money that will be allocated by this or any other government will be taken up with materials and existing wage levels. If we are to have increased allowances for those who are in a job now, it can be only at the expense of those who do not have a job. It is extremely important that those who do have a job in the building industry make the same sacrifices, which is being asked of everyone in every other industry, in the spirit of wage restraint which was the essence of the wages pause and the essence of the Summit consensus. Does the Minister believe the Builders Labourers Federation has shown a care for other people? Has it shown a care for the unemployed or a concern for people who might be employed as a result of extra capital works in this industry? What is the record of thuggery of the BLF? Does the Government really believe that even this sop regarding allowances-that is, wage increases by another name-will buy peace in the building industry? Let us look at page one of today's Age and see what Mr Gallagher has said about the Prime Minister. Mr Gallagher made a most disparaging comment. The article states: All it does is show people where Hawke stands-right alongside the employers. No one should be surprised at that. Mr Gallagher described Mr Hawke as 'like a kid playing with matches' and said his comments would not thwart the shorter hours campaign in the long run. 'I notice he never said that prior to the election, and that even now he only says it in the cowards' castle'. Apparently that was a reference to this place. The importance of that is that the Prime Minister and his Ministers are on notice that Mr Gallagher and the BLF are not going to be impressed by apparent concessions on allowances and wage increases by another name even if they are in fact quite lucrative. It is also clear that Mr McDonald of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, while expressing disappointment about the hours and wages reference, has read into it that there is room for them to move on the question of allowances. There is a quote from him in the same article in the Age. One has to ask: Is the Government really serious about the spirit and substance of the Summit if it is prepared to give a wink on allowances which are wages by another name? What is the Government's policy regarding the BLF and its deregistration? What will happen if the BLF disaffiliates from the Australian Council of Trade Unions ? What is the policy of the ACTU? Will it allow other affiliated unions in the building industry to poach the BLF or will the BLF remain in being, disaffiliated, presumably outside the prices and incomes accord, beyond the reach of the ACTU or the Australian Labor Party, and then allowed to go on with unbridled action such as pouring concrete and walking off the job? What then of the special relationship between the Government and the trade union movement? What then of its effectiveness? What protection will the Government give to employers facing concrete pours and other thug tactics of the BLF in the course of seeking wage increases outside the Commission or pursuing reduced working hours, as Mr Gallagher seems determined to do? What will be done to support the tribunals which try to protect the employers and which, as we know, have a limited range of weapons with which to do that? I ask the House: What good is a return to centralised wage fixing if there is to be movement outside it? We are told now about crane drivers on the new Parliament House site getting a massive increase. I ask the Minister how this has come about and how compatible that is with the spirit of restraint which was discussed at the Summit and prior to it. Will the Minister tell the employers and the unions on Friday that they can have their allowances increased or that they cannot? We read in various papers, such as yesterday's Australian Financial Review, that the employers' spokesman, Mr Lovell, said that he would seek from the Minister an interpretation of key sections of the Economic Summit Communique on whether sectional pay increases are permissible in the light of the ACTU's bid to return to a centralised wage fixing system. It is very important, in the light of the BLF's attitude, that employers in that industry and in other industries know, because again we read statements that many other industries which are about to face another set of wage demands are looking to the building industry as the key and the test of the communique and the resolve of the Government. It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that a story in today's Sydney Morning Herald leads off as follows: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday gave a sanction to building unions to seek back door pay rises outside the Arbitration Commission. The article quotes the Prime Minister as saying that 'something may occur' in the non-wage area because of 'the particular circumstances of the industry and because there could emerge agreement between employers and unions in respect of allowances which are specific to that industry'. The reality is that the employers not only believe that they cannot afford any further increases, allowances or wages but also they certainly could not incorporate them in the award. They will not be able to incorporate them in the award unless this Government asks the tribunal to reverse its approach as exemplified in the wages pause. In the light of the Summit material one would have thought the Government could do nothing else but ask the tribunal to continue the wages pause. They cannot get the allowances by way of an award variation and they cannot build them into their rise and fall clause. What then does the Government do, having aroused the expectation that there might be an increase in allowances? Having had that expectation dashed by the inability of the employers to give and the unwillingness of the tribunal to ratify anything, on that basis what does the Government then do to resolve what Mr Gallagher regards as a likely melee in the industrial relations world? The Commission has felt obliged to introduce a bans clause because of repeated breaches of undertakings by the BLF. We all know that its undertakings are not worth the uttering. What support for the Commission will the Government give for the collection of fines arising from breaches of the bans clause? We know that the building workers have staged this week walk-offs in pursuit of a 36-hour working week. That is not only a defiance of the spirit and the substance of the Summit but also it is madness in the light of the agreed description of the state of the economy. In yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald a very respected industrial reporter, Jack Taylor, raised a number of very serious questions. I believe the public is entitled to an answer from the Minister. Mr Taylor said: The building industry unions are expected tomorrow-- That is, today-- to turn down the opportunity to participate in a test case to examine simultaneously the merit of their wage claim and the worth of the economic summit communique. That hearing, of course, is before the Arbitration Commission today. There is no way in the world that the unions wish to test the validity of that Summit communique but I am sure that everyone else in Australia does. They want to know where the Government stands on the matter. Mr Taylor reported: The building unions say they are interested only in the terms of the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the ACTU agreed last February. They are not interested in the communique which came from the Summit. They say it has nothing to do with them. He further reported: Wage negotiations are proceeding in several other industries, especially oil, pulp and paper and aviation. He indicated that those industries are awaiting the outcome of the building industry case before they decide on further action. The reality is that the employers cannot afford to pay allowances outside those set down by the Commission because they are not covered by rise and fall clauses. Therefore, will the Government assist the employers, the Commission and the economy by curbing this greedy and rebellious element which is represented by the Builders Labourers Federation? Can anyone trust the word of a man such as Mr Gallagher and his supporters who are hell-bent on higher wages and shorter hours being bludgeoned out of employers regardless of the state of the economy and regardless of the jobless? As was said by the shadow Treasurer yesterday, and as was said often by him and by others, including myself, when we were in government, and as was said by Mr Bob Carr, who now writes for the Bulletin and was previously with the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, what Australian employees and Australians generally have to face up to is that we need a reduction in our standards of living in order to get our economy back on the rails, to get it competitive and to enable us all subsequently to retrieve the situation and gradually return to a steady rate of economic growth and a steady improvement in our economic situation and our personal standards of living. Our national income has fallen; our individual incomes must fall correspondingly. So, if paragraph 20 of the communique is to be given its ordinary literal meaning, the Builders Labourers Federation claims must fail. What, then, is the Government's response to action on the job? Will the Summit falter because of it? Does the accord override the Summit? Is industrial and economic reality to be ignored? These are the questions which the Minister must answer. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.5) — The matter of public importance that is now before the House is supplementary to yesterday's MPI. Quite a bit of what I said yesterday is just as relevant to the speech which has been delivered today by the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), in particular those statements which I made yesterday about the effrontery of Opposition members in seeking to lecture us on how to run a wages policy when, as I demonstrated fully yesterday, they showed conclusively in their period of office that they had no idea how to operate a wages policy. Indeed, right up until their last days in office they had no agreement between them as to what an appropriate wages policy would be, or as to whether one should have a centralised wages system after the wage freeze or a decentralised system. That confusion which marked their wages policy at the end of their period in office was just the logical extension of what had happened right through their period in office, when they had shown themselves remarkably ill-equipped to develop an appropriate policy in this area, except, as I said yesterday, to develop a policy of creating more and more unemployment as a means of trying to restrain wage claims. That was the degree of sophistication of their wages policy. Given the crudity and the appalling social and economic costs which came from that kind of wages policy, it is inappropriate in the extreme for the Opposition to lecture us now on what appropriate wages policy we should be pursuing. The lack of a wages policy by the previous Government is something which has created considerable problems for the economy at present. As I said in the debate on the previous MPI, we acknowledge that the wage increase which resulted in 1982 following the destruction of wage indexation led to economic problems in this country which the present Government has the duty of trying to rectify. We realised, of course, well before becoming the Government, that that was the situation, and that we would face horrendous problems in government in trying to get the economy moving again. We realised that central to an appropriate policy for getting the economy moving again was the development of a wages policy and an incomes policy overall which would be compatible with economic growth, employment growth and the restoration of something like normality in the Australian economy. So we set about achieving that situation by negotiating with the trade union movement on a prices and incomes accord. That accord was developed over a long period and confirmed before we got into office. Now that we are in office it remains a central peg on which the Government bases its economic policy. It is a central policy because, without a wages policy which is compatible with economic growth, there can be no economic growth and no economic recovery. We should all understand that under the previous Government there was no possibility of economic recovery occurring to any substantial degree. That was because that Government had no policy which would enable economic recovery to occur, since it had no policy to contain income claims to the economy's capacity to pay. The only way in which the previous Government contained income claims was through the use of budgetary and monetary policies, which created unemployment and therefore restricted the ability of trade unions and other groups in the community to make their income claims. Had some economic recovery occurred and the degree of unemployment constraint on the making of income claims been lifted, of course the previous Government would have faced an increase in inflation, and, in those circumstances, it would have had to reimpose the tough policy which brought about the unemployment. That would have meant an end to economic recovery, an end to employment growth, and the creation of even more unemployment. So under the previous Government we had no possibility of economic growth, economic expansion or economic recovery. The realisation of that was the basic motivation for the Australian Labor Party in opposition developing a wages policy. We have a wages policy which is unique in this country. It is one which has overwhelming agreement of the trade union movement. At the Australian Council of Trade Unions' Federal Conference when the policy was put to the delegates, it was almost unanimously accepted; only one delegate expressed any opposition. So we have a policy which is overwhelmingly endorsed by the trade union movement. That policy involves the trade union movement in making substantial concessions, but they are concessions which are in its interests, and which, provided that they are matched by other sections of the community, are equitable and fair. The trade union movement realises the sense of that policy. It is a policy which, as I say, is very much in its interests. The shadow Minister who raised this MPI seeks to say that we as a government are now seeking to undo our own policy by taking various actions, particularly in regard to the building industry. I suggest that, on the face of it, it is rather absurd to say that having spent years developing a unique policy in this country and having had that policy endorsed in large measure at the National Economic Summit Conference in this chamber just two or three weeks ago, with all the key elements of that prices and incomes accord being endorsed in the Summit Conference communique, we would be seeking now, just a cuple of weeks later, to take any action which would undo that communique or that accord. The sheer absurdity of that suggestion is obvious on the face of it. I suggest that the shadow Minister should appreciate now just what a ridiculous kind of MPI he is putting up. There is absolutely no way in which we will take action which undoes our own initiative. I stress that the spirit and principles of the communique, which are mentioned in the terms of the MPI, are the spirit and principles which were developed by the Government in negotiations with the trade union movement and in consultation with business. That spirit and those principles were developed by us. For goodness sake, we will not be taking action which undermines the spirit and principles of our own policies. This MPI, on the face of it, is patently absurd. Let us look at the achievements of the Summit, since they are being put in question in the MPI. The Summit, of course, accepted that there were very many elements of the accord which were capable of agreement by all the parties. Paragraph 2 of the communique, referring to recovery, states: . . . will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community, except the impoverished. Paragraph 8 states: . . . legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity. That was reasonable. Of course, I hasten to say that there is no productivity increase at present and that there should be no real wage increases in the foreseeable future. Paragraph 12 states: An effective incomes and prices policy is essential if an expansionary fiscal policy is to be pursued without adverse consequences for inflation. That is a very important section of the communique, endorsed by all sections of the Conference. Paragraph 14 states: The Conference was never intended as a forum to negotiate the timing or quantum of wage increases. It is accepted that this is a matter for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So there the unions were agreeing that wages were a matter to be negotiated and increased through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rather than in a sectional way. That is endorsed further on, when the communique states : All parties believe that the principles of wage fixation should be such as to provide wage justice to employees while seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. It is endorsed also in paragraph 20, which states: A centralised approach to wage fixation is the most equitable means by which the objectives can be met. A suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances proved before the centralised wage fixing authority. They were the key elements on the wages front in regard to the spirit and principle of the communique. I believe that they are very important. They were endorsed by all parties and certainly getting that expression of unanimity of view on such important issues represents a major achievement by this Government. I will read to the House a couple of quotations from speeches made by members of the trade union movement. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said: We recognise in advocating a centralised system that if the essential conditions of such a system are met in practice, then there should be no extra claims unless special and extraordinary circumstances exist. That was said in this chamber by the President of the ACTU just a couple of weeks ago. The secretary of the ACTU also said: If such a system- That is, a prices and incomes policy- is to work then it will require a suppression of sectional interests. As such, the trade union movement has collectively determined that if the essential conditions of a prices and incomes approach are met then we will for our part agree to no extra claims unless there are special and extraordinary conditions. We accept that if a centralised system is to be implemented then there must be a suppression of sectional interests. They are very strong, clear statements by the key officials of the ACTU and I believe that they were very sincerely made. There has been no suggestion by anyone who was at the Conference, or by anyone since the Conference, that the statements by those people were anything other than totally honest and sincerely made. I believe that they were very responsible statements, and those officials were commended for them at the time. They remain statements for which those people should be commended because they show a very appropriate sense of responsibility about what is a suitable wages policy for this country. It was a major achievement for this Government to get those kinds of statements made by such people. The previous Government, with its simple policy of a wage freeze and nothing to follow, could not possibly have developed an agreed wages policy after the wage freeze. As I mentioned in Question Time yesterday and as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, our wages policy is that a system of wage indexation should be developed but that now is not the appropriate time. We expect that later this year the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will bring in a centralised wage fixation system which we will advocate should involve real wage maintenance. That system should be adhered to fully by the trade union movement and should not allow sectional wage claims. The shadow Minister raised the question of allowances in his matter of public importance and sought to say that allowances are undermining the whole principle and that they are just wages by another name. He should know that, in the case of the building industry the national building industry agreement ran out in February and is up for negotiation. That agreement covers a lot of things apart from wages. In the normal course of events, that agreement would be the subject of discussion and negotiation-and perhaps some dispute-between the parties. That is the situation at present. It is true that various claims were made initially by the building unions in respect of $40 wage rises and so on. That claim has been buried and the claim now concerns the application of an indexation system. We have made it clear to the building unions that our view is that any such system should not be introduced in a sectional way but through a national system of wage fixation as part of a centralised wage fixation approach. Such a system- it should not be brought in on a one-off basis-would be acceptable to the building unions. I say also in regard to building industry allowances that it must be recalled that allowances are not subject, under such a wage fixing system, to periodic adjustment. Normally, allowances would be set at the start of an agreement and would remain at that level for the course of the agreement. That is the normal way in which an agreement would be negotiated. So allowances are different from wages; they are not simply wages by another name. Some are for all purposes; some are not. There are varying types of allowances. The situation with all of them is that they are subject to negotiation and establishment at the start of an agreement and then they apply for the duration of that agreement. That is the normal way allowances are determined in agreements of this kind. They are different. If they were simply to be changed with wage adjustments, that would be a different situation but that is not the case. Since allowances are different from wages-- Mr Carlton —Oh! Mr WILLIS —Clearly they are different, for the reasons I have given. Therefore there is some scope for negotiation for increased allowances at the beginning of an agreement. That is in no way a contradiction of the prices and incomes accord or the spirit and principles of the communique. Indeed, if there were to be no increase in allowances at all that would mean that only wages could be adjusted for the course of the agreement. That would simply be unfair and not an appropriate system to try to impose on the unions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.21) —The speech we have just heard from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is notable for its general statements and its motherhood approach to wage fixing. But we are not talking about the general principles of wage fixing; we are talking about a matter of public importance brought forward for discussion by the Opposition, which states : The serious threat posed to the spirit and principles embraced by the recent National Economic Summit by the Prime Minister's willingness to distinguish allowances from wages in the building industry. We are not discussing a wages policy; we are discussing statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this House yesterday, indicating special support for the Builders Labourers Federation. There has been a lot of talk since this Government came to power about increasing employment opportunities. All I can say is that if the Government is to encourage the BLF and its special demands-a union, I might add, which is notorious for having decreased employment opportunities throughout this country for years-it can expect more of the same thing. How members of the Government can say that they are trying to increase employment opportunities but at the same time encourage the BLF is beyond me. There has been much talk in the last few minutes about accord at the National Economic Summit Conference and about the stand taken by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is all quite true; no one is disputing it . However, again, that is not what we are talking about this afternoon. We are talking about a statement made in this House yesterday by the Prime Minister in relation to the BLF. To say that allowances are special is something that I find very difficult to understand. They are part of the total package; they are part of the take-home pay and they are certainly part of what the employers understand will be taken to a central wage fixing organisation if they are to be increased. In order to get the debate back of the tracks I wish to read from the Summit communique. Paragraph 20 of the Summit communique states: It is recognised that if a centralised system is to work effectively as the only way in which wage increases are generated, a suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances proved before the centralised wage fixing authority. The communique is saying clearly that there should be no sweetheart deals; these matters should be taken to a centralised wage fixing authority to see what happens. Yet, in this House yesterday the Prime Minister is recorded in Hansard as having said: I say, in regard to the question of wage movements, that there should be no increases in normal wages in the building sector which go beyond increases which will flow from national wage case decisions. Because of the particular circumstances of the industry and because there could emerge agreement between the employers and the unions in respect of allowances which are specific to that industry and not capable of generation beyond that industry anywhere else, something may occur in the non-wage area. If that is not encouragement of the BLF to pursue its claims outside the Summit accord, I do not know what is. It is a complete turnabout from the Summit accord , and that is the way it is perceived by the people of Australia. I think the perception is probably best summed up outside this place by a short quotation from an article by Deborah Hope in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 May, which starts: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday gave a sanction to building unions to seek backdoor pay rises outside the Arbitration Commission. The Government is bending backwards to try to placate the BLF. It is encouraging back door deals. They are fine words to say: 'We will not allow them to have a 36-hour week, or a $40 increase but we will encourage them to seek other allowances as part of a total wage deal.' What does it matter how the BLF gets the extra money. The fact is that the Government is saying 'No' on the one hand and 'Get into it' on the other. Not a month ago the Summit agreed to abide by a centralised wage fixing procedure. The Summit also emphasised, quite rightly- this concerns us all on both sides of the House-the creation of jobs. It also emphasised-I think it is worth noting as a general principle-that all sections of the community should moderate their self interest in difficult economic times . But the Prime Minister, by his statement yesterday, is now putting that all to one side and encouraging a section of the building industry. Some employers will make deals. They have done so in the past. Some organisations and employers will be blackmailed; they will capitulate and will make deals in line with what the BLF proposes. They are being encouraged by the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday. They will take page 87 of yesterday's Hansard, from which I have just quoted and in which the Prime Minister made his statement, and will go to all the major building organisations when an agreement comes up for renewal and say: 'Here it is. The Prime Minister is encouraging us to seek extra allowances. What are you going to do about it?' By yesterday's unfortunate statement the Prime Minister has encouraged blackmail and thuggery by the unions. I hope building organisations will hold very firm because, if one or two of them capitulate here, the rest will get picked off as they have in the past. They have no hope unless they hold firm in this matter. We have to ask why the Prime Minister made this statement. Why did he encourage the BLF yesterday in the way he did? Why is the Government trying to placate this particular union? It is not because special circumstances exist in the building industry. Any industry can claim special circumstances. There is nothing particular about the building industry. Its employees are reasonably well paid and they should expect to show the degree of moderation that other unions and the rest of the community are showing. The reason the Government is trying to placate them is simply that they are causing the Government one hell of a lot of trouble. They are making too many waves for comfort. I quote from the Age of 4 May which states: The BLF said Mr Hawke's statement could only worsen industrial problems in the industry. . . . Mr Norm Gallagher, said: 'All it does is show people where Hawke stands- right alongside the employers. That is a joke- No one should be suprised at that.' Mr Gallagher described Mr Hawke as 'like a kid playing with matches' and said his comments would not thwart the shorter hours campaign in the long run. 'I notice he never said that prior to the election, and that even now he only says it in the cowards' castle . . . That has been quoted before by a colleague, but it is worth repeating. The reason the BLF is being placated is that it is causing so much trouble for this Government. Mr Gallagher, by his outspoken comments, is seriously denting the Prime Minister's ego, and that is a very dangerous thing, as we know, to this Prime Minister. It is symptomatic of what will happen to this Government in the long run. The combination of unions and big egos that have to be massaged all the time will bring down this Government. Mr Gallagher does not remember anything about the Summit. What he remembers is the accord-that cosy little agreement between the unions and the Australian Labor Party-before the election. The statement will destroy further the Summit, which is already in tatters and which was attended by well meaning people who came away believing what was written in the communique. It will encourage blackmail in the building industry. It will encourage other unions without a doubt to make unproven sectional claims and it will actively create unemployment by increasing cost pressures in the building industry. It is pressure on the Government in its most blatant form. I say to the Government: 'Have the guts to hold firm. If you give in to the BLF, it will want more and more.' The Government wanted direction from the Summit. In this House yesterday the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said: 'We were directed by the Summit'. The Government was directed by the Summit and, if that is the way it wants to govern this country, it should seek increases from a centralised wage fixing authority, and I urge it to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(4.32) —In this debate on a matter of public importance it will be of interest to those who will read Hansard to see that the two speakers from the Opposition side today have taken completely different positions. I listened carefully to what the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) had to say, and he was very careful; he just rambled on on a few issues and avoided any attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We have just now heard from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) who said that we had to get back to the issue of the matter of public importance. He wanted to discuss the wording of it as it was put forward. He read it out. It needs repeating because the basis of the matter of public importance, if we take the approach of the honourable member for McPherson, is that the Prime Minister is doing something to pose a serious threat to the spirit of the principles embraced by the recent National Economic Summit Conference. I do not think one could find anywhere any person who would be silly enough to come forward and, in a debate in this House just a few weeks after the Summit Conference was held, make such claims about the very man who for many years called for a summit conference. When he was leading the trade union movement and as a member of the Opposition he claimed that we should have an economic summit conference, that Australians should come together and discuss the problems to work out a system whereby we could have a sensible approach to the economic problems of this country. Here, the Opposition has come forward with this matter of public importance which is virtually an attack on the Prime Minister. There is no way that anybody of any common sense would believe that the Prime Minister would try to make statements in this House designed to bring down the very structure and the very thing on which he has based his whole policy of getting this country going again . The honourable member for McPherson, in his attack on the Government, has said that the Prime Minister made a statement in this House to support the Builders Labourers Federation. Strangely, both Opposition members in their speeches quoted today's Age and quoted the BLF spokesman, Norm Gallagher. From my reading of it, and from listening to the quotation from the honourable member for McPherson, I cannot see that a man who describes Mr Hawke as 'like a kid playing with matches' is somebody who is supporting the view that the Prime Minister is going out of his way to encourage the BLF. That is not the reading that I get from today's newspapers. It is not the reading that I think the general public would get from today's newspapers, in particular the quotation from the newspaper that the honourable member for McPherson mentioned. We need to have a good look at the Prime Minister's approach in calling the Summit Conference. He was the architect of the Summit Conference and it is agreed by the majority of Australians that it was a resounding success. The only people who seem to be of the opinion that the Economic Summit was not a success are those people who are speaking from the Opposition benches today. If they listened clearly to what the public was saying prior to the election, perhaps they would have performed a little better. To put into perspective what some of the people at the Summit Conference had to say and what they felt about this approach to the economy and to the adjustment of wages, I quote from what Sir James Foots, Chairman of MIM Holdings Limited said when he returned to Brisbane. An article in the Sunday Mail stated: 'I would be reflecting the views of the businessmen present in saying the business community achieved quite a lot during the week'. Sir James said he went to the Summit with 'some reservations about the likely outcome'. 'But it was a very good dialogue between government, unions, employers and the various interest groups,' he said. 'There was no screaming and shouting, and people really did attend, only being absent if they were called from the room or preparing for other sessions.' That is the common consensus that was coming out after the Summit Conference. The Opposition is trying to tell us today that we have a Prime Minister who, by coming into the Parliament and making the statement that he made yesterday, is out to break the very thing that he set out to do. I turn now to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in relation to a question referring to the pay claims by the Builders Labourers Federation. I quote from Hansard only part of the Prime Minister's answer. In his opening remarks, he reminded the House of a statement made by the present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, Mr Peacock, in 1982 in which he said: Unless the Government adopts a coherent wages policy, unless it delivers its promise of tax cuts, unless it develops a working relationship between government, employers and employees in industrial relations, there is little hope that inflation can be contained and the conditions set for growth in our economy. The Prime Minister went on to say this: . . . what we are aiming to do in conjunction with the trade union movement and with the support of other elements in our society is to get the position where the wage increases that occur through time reflect the capacity of the economy as a whole and where there are not sectional wage increases reflecting some perceived particular capacity in those areas. He further said: I believe, on the basis of the discussions which are taking place, that there will emerge in the building industry a situation not of a pressing first of all of the claim for the reduction for the working week to 36 hours. I say on behalf of the Government that that claim in the current and immediately foreseeable circumstances is not on. Secondly, I say, in regard to the question of wage movements, that there should be no increases in normal wages in the building sector which go beyond increases which will flow from national wage case decisions. Mr White —What about allowances? Mr CUNNINGHAM —The Prime Minister continued: Because of the particular circumstances of the industry and because there could emerge agreement between the employers and the unions in respect of allowances which are specific to that industry and not capable of generation beyond that industry anywhere else, something may occur in the non-wage area. He said: I repeat, on behalf of the Government, that in accordance with the prices and incomes accord and the communique of the Summit, which communique reflects that prices and incomes accord, there cannot be in the building industry wage increases relating to the capacity of that industry beyond what may come out later this year in any national wage case decision. The honourable member for McPherson interjected: 'What about allowances'. The previous speaker on behalf of the Government, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), clearly outlined to this House that allowances are set at the start of an agreement, an agreement which, of course, in the building industry ceased in February. Any allowances that are in process of agreement at the present time must be negotiated. They cannot be left in abeyance. The agreement is finished and it must be renegotiated and we must realise that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will have to ratify any agreement on allowances as formulated. What we have to ask in this debate is: What is the Opposition trying to do in attacking the Prime Minister and saying that what he had to say in this House is an attack on the Summit Conference and the principles embraced in that Summit Conference? In conclusion, I should like to quote a few responses from other members of the union movement to what Mr Hawke had to say yesterday. I quote from the Australian of 4 May. We have had quotes by Opposition members from the Age and now I think it is time to give the Australian a go. The article reads: Significantly, Mr Hawke's statement was well received by key building union negotiators last night. The assistant federal secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union and the building unions' chief negotiator, Mr Tom McDonald, said the unions did not want any 'double counting' on wages increases and would 'moderate' their claims in exchange for increases in allowances specific to the industry's conditions and an undertaking to introduce full wages indexation. There is no doubt that the negotiations that have taken place with the Australian Labor Party as expressed by the Minister, with the accord that has been set up prior to the Government being elected, with the understandings and spirit and principles which have been embraced by the recent National Economic Summit, will enable us to come to a situation whereby Australia and its economy can get back to a centralised wage fixing system, a system in which everybody in the community will be able to understand what is the capacity of the country. Those sorts of agreements have been discussed widely by government, by unions, by employers, by employees-people in all sectors. The only people who do not seem to understand the importance of this type of negotiation are those who were running this country over the last seven years, who spent that seven years destroying central wage-- Mr John Brown —Running? Do you spell 'running' r-u-i-n-i-n-g? Mr CUNNINGHAM —That is right, ruining the country. We will put an 'i' in place of the first 'n' in 'running' and describe it as ruining the country. They destroyed the central wage fixing system. We intend to restore it. We have the agreement of not only the unions but also the employers and other small groups within the community and it is nearly time that the now Opposition learned the lessons that it did not learn over the seven years when it was in government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Schedule 1 of the Bill operates from 1 January 1983 and enacts tariff changes which in the main were introduced into the Parliament during the 1982 Budget sittings as Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 16-26 (1982). The amendments initially introduced by these proposals gave effect to decisions taken in respect of reports by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. The proposals were not embodied in the Customs Tariff Act 1966 and have since been translated into a simplified format to meet the requirements of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 which has operated since 1 January 1983. To give legal effect to Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 16-26 (1982) from their date of operation to 31 December 1982 an amendment is included in this Bill to deem the repealed Customs Tariff Act 1966 as having been amended in accordance with the proposals. Schedule 1 to the Bill also includes a number of changes to ensure the correctness of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Schedule 2 of the Bill operates from 1 January 1983 and sets out the rates of duty applying to New Zealand goods as a result of the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement with that country. New Zealand goods not included in this Schedule are accorded duty free entry into Australia. Schedule 3 of the Bill operates from 19 January 1983 and contains a further change to correct the Customs Tariff Act 1982. A summary of amendments contained in the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Table Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to enact four excise tariff alterations that affected the rates of excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil, naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas, beer, certain manufactured tobacco products and certain petroleum products. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1982) were introduced into the House on 17 August 1982 as a Budget measure. They increased, from 8 p.m. on that date, the excise duty on beer by 8c per litre, certain refined petroleum products by 1c per litre and certain manufactured tobacco products by between $2.48 and $4.95 per kilogram. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1983) were introduced into the House on 24 August 1982. They increased the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $186.26 per kilolitre to $205.97 per kilolitre and the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $20.46 per kilolitre to $25.93 per kilolitre with effect from 1 July 1982. Excise Notice No. 2 (1982) was published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 30 December 1982. That notice further increased the excise duty on crude petroleum oil from $205.97 per kilolitre to $227.13 per kilolitre and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $25.93 per kilolitre to $36.63 per kilolitre with effect from 1 January 1983. Those three alterations were made in accordance with the policies of the previous Government. While the double dissolution terminated the effect of those instruments, measures were taken to ensure the continued collection of the duties at the increased rates. However, consistent with statements made during the March election campaign the Government reduced the price of Australian produced crude oil by $1.79 per barrel with effect from 1 April 1983. This reduction recognised the cut in the official Saudi Arabian price for the marker crude Arab light of $US5 per barrel. The devaluation of the Australian dollar forced on the Government in the wake of the election campaign reduced the impact of the Saudi Arabian price cut on Australian prices. Nevertheless, a significant reduction was possible to the Australian price of crude oil. Consistent with this change in the import parity price it is necessary to set new rates of excise on crude oil effective from 1 April 1983. This alteration was effected by Excise Notice No. 2 (1983) which reduced the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $227.13 per kilolitre to $216.11 per kilolitre. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Coal export duty was introduced in the 1975-76 Budget with effect from 19 August 1975. The then Treasurer, Mr Hayden, indicated that coal prices and especially prices for high quality coking coal had risen dramatically in the two previous years and that very large windfall profits were being earned by the export sector of the coal industry and that the Government considered it reasonable that part of the increased profits should be channelled to the community by means of an export duty. The level of duty was set at $6 per tonne on high quality coking coal with a carbon content above 85 per cent on a dry ash free basis and $2 per tonne in other cases. Amendments introduced between October 1975 and August 1981 exempted certain types of coal from duty and varied the rate of duty for other types. The purpose of this Bill is to ratify the exemption from coal export duty of all coals then dutiable at $1 per tonne effective from 29 July 1982 as notified in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 29 July 1982. As a consequence, the only coals that are still dutiable are high quality coking coals mined from open-cuts in production before 1 July 1980 and from depths not greater than 60 metres. These are dutiable at $3.50 per tonne. The exemption of 29 July followed consultation between the former Minister for Trade and Resources, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland, the Australian Coal Association and the union movement. The exemption was part of a series of decisions reached by the then Government and the governments of Queensland and New South Wales in July 1982 aimed at assisting the industry at a time when it was facing difficult marketing conditions with escalating cost pressures. At that time a clear need was seen to reinforce Australia's international reputation as a supplier of coal. While the exemption gave an immediate benefit to established exporters, in the longer term the bulk of the benefits will accrue to new projects. This Government proposes to review the range of taxes and related charges currently imposed on the coal industry. The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) has already initiated action to convene a joint meeting with relevant Ministers from the exporting States and the Australian Coal Association at which proposals aimed at rationalising industry taxation may be put by all parties. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legislative machinery to give effect to the decision in 1977 by the Australian people to amend the Constitution so that electors in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, which includes the Jervis Bay territory, would in future have the right to vote at referendums. Members will be aware that prior to 1977 for a referendum amending the Constitution to be carried not only were a majority of the States required to be in favour of the question but also a majority of the electors on a national basis. Prior to the 1977 referendum, however, the national elector population was held to be comprised only of electors of the six States. The effect of this of course was to deprive tens of thousands of otherwise eligible Territory electors of the franchise insofar as referendums were concerned. The unreasonableness of this situation was recognised and in 1977, with the blessing of both sides of this chamber, it was decided that one of the proposals which should be put before the Australian people at that time was that the electors of the Territories should have a vote in future referendums. The proposal was that their votes should be counted only as part of the national vote-that is to say, they would not be regarded as being part of any of the States or of determining the majority view of the States but they would contribute to the determination of the majority view of the nation. Although this is essentially a machinery Bill and although the question of the rights of Territory electors has already been decided, this nevertheless is an important franchise measure in itself. The Bill provides that the legislation governing the conduct of referendums in the State will, with certain modifications which reflect the different electoral circumstances of the Territories, apply to the conduct of referendums in the Territories. The Bill provides for the appointment of electoral officers for the Territories who will have powers and duties similar to those exercised and performed by the Australian electoral officers in the States. The Bill also recognises the independent status of the Northern Territory and makes provision for the forwarding of a copy of the writ for a referendum and the statement of results to the Administrator. As is the case in the States, the Bill also provides that the Northern Territory may, through its Attorney-General , challenge the results of a referendum by petition to the High Court. The legislation governing the conduct of referendums is, like the legislation governing the conduct of elections, in need of drastic reform and amendments will be brought forward in the context of the electoral reforms that the Parliament will be asked to consider. In the interim these machinery amendments are designed to ensure that Territory electors are not disenfranchised should Parliament approve a proposal to amend the Constitution being submitted to the people. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for bounty assistance to the manufacturer in Australia of certain refrigerated room air conditioners. Kelvinator Australia Ltd, South Australia, is the manufacturer concerned. The bounty assistance was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report No. 56 of 1 October 1982 entitled 'Certain Room Air Conditioning Machines and Parts'. The bounty recommended by the TAA was accepted by the previous Government and this decision was announced on 27 October 1982. This Government endorses the decision . The Bill provides for bounty payments on locally produced room air conditioning machines of a portable or fixed window type, designed primarily for use without ducting and having a nominally rated cooling capacity of 5.4 kilowatts or less. The bounty rates are $60 each for smaller units not exceeding 3.528 kilowatts cooling capacity, and $90 for larger units. The bounty will apply to locally produced room air conditioners sold for use in Australia during the period 27 October 1982 to 30 June 1983, with the total bounty payable being limited to $1. 5m. In its report of October 1982 the TAA found that urgent assistance was necessary to protect Kelvinator against import competition. The TAA concluded that bounty was the most appropriate means of assisting Kelvinator as most of the imports for the 1982-83 summer selling season were already in the country. While the bounty scheme provides some incentive for Kelvinator to continue production, it does not insulate the company entirely from normal market forces. The company has advised that without temporary assistance, desirable investment to improve its competitiveness would be unlikely to proceed. The local industry is still facing difficulties and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) sent a further reference to the TAA on 21 April on the question of the continuation of temporary assistance after 30 June 1983. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.0) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes short term bounty assistance to the industry producing certain high alloy steel products. The goods proposed to be eligible for bounty include a range of high alloy bar products and stainless steel flat products. These steels are used in applications where strength, corrosion resistance, resistance to chemical attack or other special attributes are required. In addition, these steels are essential for a very wide range of direct defence applications and also underpin general support capabilities for defence activities. The bounty was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report No. 57 of 23 December 1982 entitled 'Certain High Alloy Steel Products'. The previous Government announced on 1 February 1983 that it had accepted the Authority's recommendation and this Government, having reviewed the circumstances, agrees that the assistance should be granted. The TAA found that imports had secured an increasing proportion of the declining market for these goods, such that the market share held by the local industry had declined from about 80 per cent in 1979-80 to less than 50 per cent at the time of the TAA's inquiry. The particular form of assistance chosen-that is, bounty-was appropriate in the circumstances in which it was estimated that imported stocks that had already entered the country represented at least six months sales. Thus, tariff-associated measures would have been ineffective for some considerable time and would have provided little short term relief. The Bill provides for the bounty to be paid at the rate of 5 per cent of the price paid or payable for bountiable products produced and sold for use in Australia to a maximum limit of $3m. The Bill further proposes that the bounty be applicable to manufacturers engaged in the production of eligible goods as at 7 February 1983 and be payable on such goods from 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983 or the date of implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the iron and steel industry, whichever occurs first. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.5) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the normal Additional Estimates for 1982-83. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1982-83, the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Act 1982-83, and the Appropriation Acts (Nos 3 and 4) 1982-83 which Parliament passed at the recent special sittings to provide funds for certain urgent purposes which could not reasonably await the passage of these Additional Estimates. Cost and price increases since the Budget was prepared are principal factors underlying the Additional Estimates. Firstly, although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriate, and funds are now required to meet the costs of awards and determinations made before the introduction of the wages pause in December 1982, and because of other factors such as staff increases. Funding is also needed in respect of commitments approved by the previous Government after introduction of the Budget, and some urgent initiatives of the Labor Government since taking up office. I will outline some of the more significant of these requirements later in this speech and in that relating to Appropriation Bill (No . 6). The additional appropriations in the three Additional Estimates Bills total $1, 047.8m. Of this, $640.0m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 5), $407.4m in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) and $0.3m in Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments ) Bill (No. 2). These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1982-83 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1982-83, resulting partly from the Government's determined efforts to achieve savings in expenditure for ongoing programs wherever possible . These savings, amounting to $168.6m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document, 'Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations', which has been distributed to honourable members. The appropriations now sought, together with those made in Appropriation Acts ( Nos 3 and 4) 1982-83, and after allowing for prospective savings, represent a net increase of $1,286.5m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. This increase represents approximately 2 1/2 per cent of aggregate Budget outlays for the fiscal year. The Government considers this increase unavoidable in view of the need to maintain essential services, to continue at existing levels programs of the previous Government pending their review-where appropriate-and to fund certain requirements that have had to be met by the Government since the election. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. An estimated $275m is for wages and salaries, $208m being for non-defence and $ 67m for defence purposes, to meet increases in award rates and other wage and salary costs including costs in respect of increased staff ceilings approved by the previous Government for the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. The amounts include the wage and salary component of additional funds being provided to statutory authorities funded under one line appropriations. An amount of $17.5m is included under the Department of Communications for the Australian Broadcasting Commission primarily to meet salary and rent increases and thus enable the Commission to maintain its domestic services. Under the Department of Defence, provisions totalling some $129.1m are to meet price and exchange rate effects on the costs of new and replacement equipment and stores including programs for the FA18, Orion and F111 aircraft, the FFG frigates and trucks for the Army. A further $11.9m is included under the Department for the repair and overhaul of equipment and stores. An amount of $10.4m is sought for the Department of Defence Support for production assistance in respect of the Nomad aircraft and covers increased subsidy and development costs caused by price increases, production overruns and cancellation costs. A further $4.3m is sought by way of additional working capital advances to various Government defence factories. An amount of $10m is sought under the Department of Foreign Affairs for the provision of the special grant to Papua New Guinea announced recently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Additional provision of $8.8m is made for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, primarily to meet the cost of wage and salary increases. An additional $5.0m has been provided for grants under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, and a like amount is sought for payments under the Export Expansion Grants Act. Supplementation has also been sought for a number of welfare related programs funded from annual appropriations, including: The sum of $2m in respect of grants administered by the Social Security Department for community welfare agencies; The sum of $3.3m for payments in respect of accommodation for migrants and refugees; and Support for employment related schemes administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, including $3m for special training for Aboriginals, $2m in respect of the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full time training, $1.5m for community-based youth support schemes and $1.5m for youth training. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 in which appropriations totalling $ 407.4m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1982-83 and Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1982-83-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditure for which provision was not made in those Acts. The Additional Appropriations sought in this Bill reflect, in part, cost and price increases which have occurred since the time of the Budget; together with post-Budget decisions of the previous Government; certain unavoidable increases related to the depressed level of economic activity; and other smaller additional requirements which the Government has considered appropriate to meet this financial year. I now mention some of the major items in respect of which additional appropriations are sought. Under the Department of Administrative Services $10m is sought for the purchase from the Australian Telecommunications Commission of the exchange building at Deakin in the Australian Capital Territory to accommodate computer facilities for various Government departments. An amount of $7.7m is also sought to purchase additional motor vehicles to meet increased requirements as a result of post-Budget decisions of the previous Government substantially to increase staff ceilings of certain departments and in respect of an increase in the departmental vehicle replacement program. An amount of $175m is sought under the Department of Aviation for additional capital injections to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, reflecting the deteriorating profitability and liquidity positions of the airlines due to the downturn in the airline industry. Part of the increase for TAA was approved by the previous Government in December 1982; since that time it has become necessary to approve an additional $90m injection of capital for TAA and $60m for Qantas. The sum of $25.5m is included under the Department of Communications representing a further payment on the 75 million part-paid shares in Aussat Pty Ltd now held by the Commonwealth. An amount of $3.2m is provided to the Australian Taxation Office for the purchase of facilities for a national integrated computer system, a second computer site and equipment to assist the Office in the implementation and administration of the proposed labour and services withholding tax legislation. A sum of $2.1m is provided under the Department of Home Affairs and Environment for additional housing costs associated with the recruitment of additional staff by the Supervising Scientist and the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute. The additional costs will be offset by an increase in revenues of the Department of Administrative Services. An amount of $7.2m is included under the Department of Housing and Construction for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's buildings and works program. Included under the Department of Primary Industry for payment to South Australia is $11m in respect of concessional loans for reconstruction of the forestry industry in the wake of the recent bushfires in that State; and $4.1m is sought for payment to New South Wales as a concessional loan to assist the Letona Co-op Ltd. An amount of $7.4m is provided under the Department of Resources and Energy in respect of an advance to the Pipeline Authority to cover costs resulting from a blow-out in the Moomba to Sydney pipeline and to meet a shortfall in estimated revenue. Included under the Department of Territories and Local Government is provision of $8m for the National Capital Development Commission, primarily to meet cost escalation provisions in contracts and the better-than-expected progress on construction works in the Australian Capital Territory due to prolonged favourable weather conditions. A further $10m is sought to meet the favourable progress on the construction of the new Parliament House. Due also to the favourable weather conditions prevailing in the Territory. I add that the conditions are favourable for the building industry, not necessarily for everyone else. An amount of $90m is included under the Department of Transport to meet an urgent need to increase the capital of the Australian Shipping Commission resulting from liquidity difficulties. The amount comprises a direct capital injection of $30m, and $60m to enable the immediate conversion of that amount of outstanding government loans to equity capital. The provision of additional equity to the Commission is subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed with the unions on reductions in manning levels across the Australian National Line fleet. Finally, $15m of additional capital is sought for the Defence Service Homes Corporation to meet its approved loans program which has been affected by a higher than expected number of loan settlements and a shortfall in the availability of recycled funds for relending. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Pursuant to the arrangement arising out of the previous Government's consideration of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing, I present the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 which seeks appropriation of $288,000 in addition to the appropriation made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1982-83. The additional appropriation is sought mainly to provide for increased salary costs in respect of staff employed in this House. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of the unfinished taxation legislation of the former Government and is one of the measures which I announced on 30 March 1983 would be proceeded with by this Government in these sittings. The Bill will provide legislative authority for the Commissioner of Taxation to pay interest on certain refunds of tax made as a result of a successful objection or appeal by a taxpayer against an assessment or other specified decision of the Commissioner. Interest is to be payable in respect of those taxes which are, under existing law, exposed to an additional penalty tax of 20 per cent per annum, if they are not paid by the due date for payment. Taxes in this category are income tax, including provisional tax, ascertained by assessment or similar procedure, recoupment tax payable under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act and the bank account debits tax. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 6) 1982 which was passed last year with the support of the then Opposition Labor Party increased with effect from 14 February 1983 the rate of penalty tax for late payment of income tax and related amounts. The rise was from 10 per cent per annum to 20 per cent per annum. The Act also restricted the power of the Commissioner of Taxation to remit that penalty tax to cases involving specified or special circumstances. These amendments mean that disputed income tax will have to be paid by the due date or run the risk of additional penalty tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. Similarly, under legislation establishing liability to recoupment tax and bank account debits tax, any amounts not paid by the due date for payment will, subject to remission in specified or special circumstances, incur additional penalty tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. This Government supports the concept, as we did in Opposition, that interest should be paid where tax is refunded to a taxpayer as a result of a successful objection or appeal against an assessment or other decision of the Commissioner. This Bill will achieve that aim. Interest will also be payable where tax is, instead of being refunded to a taxpayer, applied by the Commissioner of Taxation against any other tax liability. The House will note that the rate at which interest is to be calculated is initially to be set in the Bill at 14.026 per cent per annum. This rate is the weighted average of yields of the longest term Treasury bonds contracted for in the most recent Treasury bond tender, the results of which were announced on 19 April 1983. The Bill provides that subsequent variations in the rate of interest to reflect changes in the benchmark rate are to be made by regulation. Interest will accrue for the period during which tax was, by reason of the decision on the objection or appeal, found to have been overpaid. Typically, this will mean that interest will accrue from the later of the date on which the tax was paid, or the date of the disputed assessment or other decision, to the date the overpaid amount is refunded to, or applied against another tax liability of, the taxpayer. Interest will not accrue, however, in respect of periods before 14 February 1983, which is the date on which the increased rate of 20 per cent per annum for late payment of income tax commenced to apply. The Bill provides that interest is not to be paid to taxpayers who, in accordance with the administrative procedures commonly known as the '50/50 rule' in operation prior to the commencement of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 6) 1982 on 13 December 1982, made an arrangement with the Commissioner of Taxation for the remission of additional penalty tax accruing in respect of part of outstanding income tax pending resolution of a dispute, provided the remaining tax was paid. I mention that, as was indicated by the previous government last year, interest paid on overpaid tax will form part of the assessable income of the recipient in the year of receipt and will be subject to income tax. An explanatory memorandum providing detailed explanations of the provisions of the Bill is being made available to honourable members and I do not think it necessary to say more at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dobie) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill into the Parliament. The report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission-known as the Dix report-which was tabled in Parliament on 29 May 1981 , has generated a great deal of enthusiasm for the modernisation of the ABC. In its 273 recommendations, the Dix Committee examined all facets of the ABC's structure and operations and identified many areas requiring change. Many recommendations relate to programming and the internal administration of the ABC and will require urgent attention by the Board of the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Accordingly, one of the early priorities of this Government is to reintroduce legislation to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation so that the important work of reconstruction and modernisation of Australia's national broadcaster can proceed. It is now two years since the Dix Committee reported to the Government. Unless immediate action is taken to proceed with the restructuring of the ABC and the implementation of the Dix report, the enthusiasm for change generated by that report will inevitably wane. Until new ABC legislation is passed there can be no effective implementation of the Dix Committee's recommendations. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent ABC, able to meet the broadcasting needs of the Australian people. This Government believes that as Australia's only national broadcaster the ABC has served and must be able to continue to serve in the forefront of Australian broadcasting. This Bill and its companion Bill, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ( Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983, establish the legislative basis for the new Corporation. They are largely based on the Bills introduced last year by the former Government. However, a number of changes have been made to reflect Government policy and I shall draw attention to these as I outline the major features of the legislation. The provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 covering the ABC were drafted many years ago and are now largely outmoded. This Bill modernises the legislative base for the ABC. An important innovation is to establish the ABC under its own Act of Parliament. This will help make the ABC's legislation more accessible to the public at large. Mr Deputy Speaker, for years the ABC has suffered from the lack of an adequate definition of the role it should play in the Australian broadcasting system. Over the years, this has led to uncertainty in the organisation about which direction it should take-whether to concentrate on wider appeal programming or whether to provide that sort of specialist programming not available on commercial stations. It is appropriate that Parliament should take this opportunity to provide that direction. This Bill gives the ABC a charter which clearly sets out its functions and obligations. The charter, included in clause 6 of the Bill, requires the Corporation to provide innovative and comprehensive radio and television services of a high standard-to provide programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and which inform, entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. The charter makes it clear that there will need to be a balance between programs of wide appeal and more specialised programs. It also acknowledges the ABC's role as an international broadcaster and as a provider of educational progams and reaffirms the ABC's role in encouraging and promoting the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia. The Dix Committee criticised the ABC for failing to take account of changes in the composition of the Australian community. The charter has been expanded to include a provision requiring the Corporation to recognise the multicultural character of today's Australian society. In addition to spelling out the functions of the Corporation, the Bill places certain statutory responsibilities on the Board and prescribes the role of the Corporation's managing director. The responsibilities of the Board will include: (1) ensuring that the Corporation's functions are performed efficiently and to the maximum benefit of the Australian people; (2) maintaining the independence and integrity of the Corporation; (3) ensuring that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism; and (4) ensuring the ABC's compliance with the Act and other relevant legislation. The Managing Director will be responsible for managing the affairs of the Corporation and will exercise significant administrative powers in his own right . In exercising those powers, the Managing Director will be required, by clause 10, to act in accordance with any policies determined, or any directions given, by the Board. Clause 12 of the Bill provides that the new Board will consist of the Managing Director and from six to eight non-executive Directors. The Managing Director will be appointed by the Board on a full-time basis for a period of five years, and will be eligible for re-appointment for a period not exceeding five years. He will be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Non-executive Directors, including a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman, will be appointed on a part-time basis by the Governor-General for terms of up to five years. Non-executive Directors must have experience in either radio, television, communications, management, a financial or technical field, or must possess cultural or other interests relevant to the operation of a public organisation providing radio and television services. The Government has decided that one of these Directors should be a staff-elected Director. The Government will be considering how consultations can be held with other political parties regarding nominations to the new Board. To assist in programming matters, clause 11 of the Bill makes provision for an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. The Bill also allows the Board to establish advisory councils in relation to any State, Territory or region of Australia. These advisory councils will consist of such persons as the Board from time to time appoints. The Board may also appoint advisory committees to furnish advice on matters relating to the Corporation's functions. Under clause 25 the Corporation will be given broad powers which are consistent with the powers provided to other comparable statutory authorities. It will be able to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of real and personal property, erect buildings and structures, appoint agents and attorneys, act as an agent, and engage persons to perform services for the Corporation. It will be able to accept gifts, devises and bequests made to the Corporation. However, it will not have power to borrow money, and it will not be permitted to broadcast or televise advertisements, or to engage in corporate underwriting. The Bill closes a major loop-hole in the 1982 legislation in relation to corporate underwriting. Sub-clause 25 (3) will now expressly prohibit the Corporation from accepting any payment or other consideration for the broadcasting or televising of any announcement, program or other matter. The only exceptions to this will be in relation to payments received from Commonwealth, State or Territory Governments or authorities, or from bona fide producers or publishers who have entered into specified co-operative arrangements with the ABC. The 1982 legislation would have virtually prevented the Corporation from accepting services, facilities, gifts, devises or bequests, except in relation to its concert or merchandising activities, whether or not there was any risk to the independence or integrity of the Corporation. This provision has been modified to allow the Corporation to accept such assistance where there is no such risk. The Government is committed to maintaining the ABC's independent news service. The provisions of section 66 of the Broadcasting and Television Act covering the ABC's radio news service have been incorporated in clause 27 of the Bill but have been extended to cover television. This will, for the first time, provide statutory recognition of an independent ABC news service for television. In addition, the provision has been amended to make it clear that allowing the Corporation to procure news and information from international or domestic news agencies does not affect the statutory obligation placed on the Managing Director to employ an adequate number of persons for the collection of ABC news and information. The legislation will thereby ensure that the Corporation does not reduce its own news staff by relying, for example, on news and information procured from a domestic news agency. Clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill make provision for the ABC's use of orchestras and bands, for ABC concerts and other entertainments and for the ABC's merchandising activities. In line with the proposal in the Dix report, clause 30 enables the Corporation, if it thinks fit, to submit children's television programs to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for classification. In an important change to the 1982 legislation the Government has decided not to proceed with a commissioner for complaints. The establishment of such a statutory position outside the ABC with broad powers to investigate a wide range of complaints smacks of political censorship. However, the Government does accept that there should be some mechanism within the ABC to investigate complaints regarding errors of fact or invasion of privacy. The Bill therefore provides for the Corporation to establish community affairs officers to deal with such complaints. Under clause 82, a national community affairs officer appointed by the Managing Director will co-ordinate the work of community affairs officers in each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. If a complaint is found to be justified the Managing Director will be notified and will be required to arrange for a prompt apology or retraction to be broadcast. The ABC will also be required to include a summary of the activities of these officers in its annual report to the Parliament. The Bill extensively updates provisions relating to the administration of the ABC. Part V of the Bill deals with staffing matters. A key change to the current provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act is the severance of all statutory links with the Public Service Board. The ABC will be free to set salary levels and terms and conditions of appointment for all ABC officers and temporary employees. It will, however, continue to participate in existing arrangements administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the co-ordination of industrial relations policy and practice in Australian Government employment. Other changes include deletion of the so-called 'no work as directed-no pay' provisions; deletion of seniority as a criterion for promotion; and provision for appeals against temporary promotions and for more than one Promotions Appeal Board. The Bill also updates provisions relating to disciplinary matters and the redeployment and retirement of ABC staff. In regard to the latter, ABC employees will be able to retire at 55 years and there will be a Tenure Appeal Board to hear appeals relating to redeployment action. The Promotions Appeal Boards, the Tenure Appeal Board and the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall each be composed of a Chairman appointed by the Governor-General, and members nominated by management and by the relevant staff association or union. Clause 48 of the Bill contains provisions for redeployment of staff on the grounds of excess numbers, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or loss of an essential qualification. The Government is to reassess redeployment provisions applying to the public sector generally as part of its review of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. The redeployment provisions in the Bill will be reconsidered as soon as that general review has been completed. I would draw honourable members' attention to sub-clause 62 (4) of the Bill. This relates to the payment of a pension benefit to any ABC employee who has been retired because he could not be redeployed within the ABC. The provision would enable such a benefit to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as if it were a benefit payable under the Superannuation Act 1976. Part VI of the Bill contains the financial provisions applying to the Corporation. These are similar to those applying to the Australian Broadcasting Commission except that the ceiling on contracts for which ministerial approval is required has been lifted from $250,000 to $500,000. There is also an express provision preventing the ABC from entering into any lease-back agreements unless the approval of the Minister has been obtained. Part VII of the Bill relates to technical services for the Corporation. This part of the Bill has been re-drafted to remove a number of anomalies in the 1982 legislation and to simplify the provisions covering transmission facilities. Under current arrangements in the Broadcasting and Television Act the Minister is generally responsible for the provision and operation of transmission facilities for ABC services. By administrative arrangement Telecom Australia operates and maintains national transmitting stations on the Minister's behalf. Because many other broadcasters share the facilities of national transmitting stations-including sites, roads, buildings, masts, aerials and so on-it is not appropriate that the stations as such should be controlled by one of their competitors, the ABC. The Bill therefore allows for the continued provision and operation of national transmitting stations by the Minister. However, it also recognises the ABC's need to control its transmitters if it is to be seen to be independent of the Minister. It therefore provides for all ABC transmitters to be transferred to the Corporation and establishes a mechanism allowing the Minister to transfer complete transmitting stations to ownership of the Corporation if he so decides. The results will be that the ABC will have the same control of its transmissions as commercial and public broadcasters sharing national transmitting stations. No transfer of Telecom staff to the ABC will result from these new arrangements. Part VIII of the Bill incorporates provisions covering the broadcasting or televising of matters in the national interest along the lines of section 64 and 77 of the Broadcasting and Television Act. It also includes provisions covering annual reporting requirements; the establishment of a joint consultative committee of management, staff and staff associations; and the making of regulations and rules. The Bill empowers the Corporation to make rules, particularly in relation to matters of administration. This will obviate the need to prescribe regulations to cover what are essentially administrative matters. Any rules made by the Corporation will be tabled in the Parliament in accordance with relevant sections of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The above is only a brief general outline of the major features of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983. For more details I would refer honourable members to the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. If the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to continue its historic role as the pacesetter in Australian broadcasting, it is essential that its legislation be modernised and improved as proposed in this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a companion measure to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983. It provides for certain transitional arrangements associated with the replacement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and makes consequential amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and a number of other Acts. This Bill is substantially consistent with the transitional Bill introduced last year by the former Government. However, the Government has decided not to proceed with provisions covering the transfer of Telecom staff to the ABC. In addition, a saving provision relating to 'No work as directed-no pay ' has been deleted as there are now no such provisions in the Austrlian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. Part II of the Bill includes all the transitional provisions required because of the establishment of the Corporation. It provides for the cessation of the terms of ABC commissioners, and includes saving provisions in relation to contracts, awards and other instruments to which the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a party. It makes clear that the alteration in the name and constitution of the Commission does not affect any property, power, rights, liabilities or obligations of the ABC. There are also provisions covering legal or other proceedings involving the ABC, ongoing investigations by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and any provisional promotions or disciplinary actions outstanding as of the commencing day. The Bill makes clear that officers and temporary employees of the Commission continue as officers and temporary employees of the Corporation. All positions established in the service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be continued, with the exception of the position of General Manager, which will be abolished. There are also a number of transitional provisions in relation to payment of moneys, estimates, bank accounts and the auditing of the accounts and financial records of the Commission. If the Commission is unable to finalise its annual report prior to commencing day, the Bill provides for that report to be finalised by the Corporation. Part III of the Bill relates to amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Most of the amendments omit provisions in that Act relating to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or replace references to the Commission with references to the Corporation. Other provisions preserve the application of certain sections of the Broadcasting and Television Act to the Special Broadcasting Service. An important change to the transitional Bill is included in clause 24, which amends section 31 of the Broadcasting and Television Act relating to the composition of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government intends to establish the new Corporation as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed by the Parliament. However, five ABC commissioners are due to retire during or at the end of June. Because the provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act were drafted many years ago, they do not include any provision allowing for the continued operation of the Commission if for some reason and for some limited period of time, the number of commissioners falls below the prescribed minimum number. Clause 24, which comes into effect on royal assent, inserts such a provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 along the lines of equivalent provisions relating to the composition of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Special Broadcasting Service. This will avoid the need to replace ABC commissioners in the few weeks prior to the establishment of the Corporation. Parts IV to VII of the Bill make consequential amendments to the Copyright Act 1968, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946 and the Telecommuncations Act 1975 by replacing references to the Commission with references to the Corporation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted- Committee of Privileges Standing order 26 be amended to read- 26. A Commitee of Privileges, to consist of the Leader of the House or his nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and 9 other Members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege which may be referred to it by the House under standing order 95 or by the Speaker under standing order 97A; when considering any complaint referred to it, the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. Privilege matter raised when House not sitting New standing order 97A be inserted- 97A. During a period when the house is not sitting and it is not expected to meet for a further period of at least 2 weeks, a Member may bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter of privilege which has arisen since the House last met and which he proposes should be referred to the Committee of Privileges . If the Speaker is satisfied that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out and the matter is one upon which urgent action should be taken, he shall refer it forthwith to the Committee of Privileges: Provided that any referral by the Speaker in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this standing order shall be reported to the House by the Speaker at its next sitting whereupon the member who raised the matter shall be required to move forthwith, without notice, that such referral be endorsed by the House; if the motion is negatived, the Committee of Privileges shall take no further action in respect of the matter. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.51) —The Opposition concurs with the motion proposed by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). However, it is worth commenting that over the last few years a good deal of consideration has been given to privileges. Another committee is to be constituted to look at the whole matter of privileges . I think that we need to recognise that, although we are accepting this motion now, it could well be that, out of that joint committee examining the matter of privileges, further recommendations come forward to the House at a later stage. There have been changes in the House of Commons as a result of a committee recommendation affecting privilege in that place, and I think here we would do well to look at the application of privilege and see whether modifications need to follow. However, the Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.52) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session- Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on each Tuesday at 2.15 p.m., and on each Wednesday and Thursday at 10 a.m. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 6 p.m. on each Tuesday and at 10.30 p.m. on Each Wednesday and Thursday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (c) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 6.30 p.m. on a Tuesday or at 11 p.m. on a Wednesday or Thursday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 6.40 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 6.40 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine: 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Questions without notice. 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day: Provided that on a Wednesday and Thursday '6. Matter of public importance.' and '7. Notices and orders of the day.' shall precede '3. Questions without notice.' which shall be called on at or about 12 noon. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At 12 noon on each Wednesday and Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and call on questions without notice; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (b) subject to the exception in standing order 106, the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business until 12 noon. 'Grievance' debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding order 105, the first order of the day, government business , on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker'' That grievances be noted'' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. If consideration of this question has not been concluded at 12 noon, the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put the question. Discussion of matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ''one hour'' and substituting ''2 hours''. The subject of the proposed sessional orders, the times of the sitting of the House, is one of great controversy among members of the Parliament. These proposals do not come forward with the unanimous support of members of the Government party. There are members on this side of the House who take the view that the times of sitting should be other than those set out in the proposed sessional orders. Let me put at rest the minds of Opposition members, and those of members on this side of the House who do not see them as being the ideal for the meeting of Parliament, by saying that they are sessional orders for this four-week sitting and that we will look at their impact on the health of members at the conclusion of that period. Many proposals are put forward every time these matters come under review. The previous Government, apart from chopping half an hour off the lunch time-a very radical and revolutionary idea to come from that Government-refused to look at any other changes. It took a ballot under the auspices of the former Speaker, the upholder of the Westminster system, Sir Billy Snedden, and the majority of the Government members then decided that they would rather have time off than meet in the House. There is one thing that we have all learnt about the Parliament: The business of Parliament requires that there has to be a fair sitting of the Parliament. We cannot conduct the business of government by having off every evening that we are in Canberra, or by reducing the hours we sit each day. That has not been our intention. Because of the very cavalier manner in which the former Government approached the government of this country, we are faced with having to deal with a great deal of business in this four-week sitting. As I say, we have looked at a number of proposals which have been put before us, the strongest being that at least one of the evenings on which the members are in Canberra should be free, whether they want to meet in their various party committees or do other things in Canberra. We have tried to make our sitting hours coincide with the hours of the Senate inasmuch as the Parliament will be free on Tuesday evenings. It is difficult to frame the sitting time of the House of Representatives not knowing the decisions that the Senate will make. Irrespective of the views of the former Government about the role that the Senate plays, I do not think that our decision should be completely conditional upon its decision. Rather, I think we are the A grade and they are the B grade and they should follow the lead that we give. If we keep telling members of the Opposition that, perhaps they will understand that the Senate ought to fit in with the House of Representatives. It is not desirable to have the Houses meeting at different times. If it is possible during the winter break for us to meet with our Senate colleagues from the various parties to try to see that both Houses meet at similar times, then we will do that. It is necessary to understand, as some honourable members opposite do, the responsibilities of Cabinet and of the Ministry, and the conduct of government which takes place outside the Parliament. Times have to be made available for the various party meetings, Caucus meetings, parliamentary committees and so forth, a lot of which is not understood by the public but which nevertheless is understood only too clearly by the people who have to participate in this Parliament and carry out their responsibilities. The load will fall on the shoulders of fewer honourable members on the opposite side of the House, who will take part in many of the parliamentary committees as well as their own party committees. They will find themselves with very little free time . As I have said, the times that we have set aside for the meeting of Parliament are new. Some honourable members, particularly if they are members of the Liberal and National parties, will find it difficult to adjust to the fact that they have to get out of bed by half past nine to be here by 10 o'clock in the morning. Mr Fisher —We are always here early; we have to milk the cows. Mr YOUNG —It is a long time since the honourable member milked a cow. He is like Peter Nixon; it is a long time since he saw one. We think honourable members opposite will be able to overcome that. We think that the challenge is not beyond the potential capabilities of even members of the Liberal and National parties. We will even give them a couple of hours to think up their questions because Question Time will not commence until midday. They will be able to come here refreshed, after a nice long breakfast in the parliamentary dining room, have a couple of hours to talk to their leaders about the questions they want asked and then at midday we will call on Question Time. They will have Tuesday night off. Those honourable members interested in parliamentary proceedings can meet with their committees. Those who are not-members of the National Party-can go off to eat straw, go to the pictures, or to do whatever they do. Seriously, there has to be some re-examination of the way in which this Parliament is conducted in terms of sitting hours. Several honourable members on our side of the House wanted Parliament to sit for a four-day week and to have a two-week session with two weeks off. It is not possible for us to embrace that idea at the moment because of the parliamentary business load we have. It may be that at the conclusion of this four-week period we can look at another experimental period in which Parliament will sit for a four-day week. We looked at having the Thursday evening off but it was suggested that a lot of Opposition members would whizz off on Thursday afternoon instead of waiting for the adjournment at 6.30 p.m. We did not decide to turn the Parliamentary week into a two-day week. It has been a three-day week and we require honourable members to be here for the period which has been set down in the Sessional Orders to conduct the business. We will not meet past four weeks in this sitting; I can assure honourable members of that. The business we have set ourselves to deal with in the four-week period will be completed irrespective of the rather outlandish views of some honourable members from Tasmania. We will complete the business. I do not think honourable members will find the hours too onerous. If they do, I will be pleased to talk to them during the winter break. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.0) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting, honourable members will recall, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) told us that there were to be alterations to the sitting hours. I guess there is no more hoary chestnut than the hours of sitting of this place. I commend the honourable gentleman for at least having been able to achieve a compromise within his own ranks which gives him a chance to present to the House what looks like yet another innovative approach to the subject. But, like many members, I am delighted to know that it will not necessarily be forever. There are a few problems in it. Mr Young —Nothing is forever. Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member is so right, including his position. However, be that as it may, a number of aspects of the changes worry us on this side of the House, and it is those that I wish to canvass. Perhaps it is best to say first that on this side of the House we are worried about the reconciliation of sitting hours between the other place and the House. In particular this applies to the commencement time on the Wednesday morning. The Senate will sit at 11.30; there would be problems in trying to get the Senate to sit at the time that we will sit, 10 a.m. However, many members in this place, because of the problems of travelling around Australia and back to here, will find it difficult to accommodate all the business that they need to do in Canberra in the hours not allocated for Parliament. As I understand the original proposition that was broached by Caucus, the sitting hours were to have commenced at 9.30 a.m. To start at 9.30 would certainly mean that if Government Business as provided for in the amended Standing Order 104 does not commence until 12 noon, there would be an opportunity for General Business. If honourable members care to turn to the Notice Paper and look at those notices which have already been listed as General Business, they will see that, although the House has been sitting for only a day and a half, already a significant list of notices appears under 'Orders of the Day'. Notices under private members' business begin with a notice from the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and already go down to notice No. 11. Several others were given today. Under the amendments we are now about to adopt none of those notices will ever be debated in this place. In the past, under Standing Orders, we had until 12.15 p.m. to consider the notices that were set down for a particular day of sitting. At 12.15 there is a procedure which enables the Orders of the Day to be called on. Orders of the Day, under the way in which our system works, are in fact those other notices. While in practice that may not have happened very often, it does mean that the change that we are now about to consider will preclude any consideration of those notices that are put down for the next day of sitting. Honourable members from both sides of the House need to be aware of that fact. I point out that if we had a 9.30 a.m. start there would be some time for those notices to be debated. The second part of my concern is that, although I understand the honourable gentleman's belief that it would be appropriate for committees to meet on the Tuesday evening, I really believe, and I think most of us on this side accept, that the Parliament is more important than committees. I would far prefer Parliament to sit on Tuesday night and that we be able to accommodate more hours of debate. Indeed, when he was sitting on this side of the House, the honourable member told us a great deal about how long he believed the Parliament should sit . Somehow he seems to have gone through a remarkable transformation-- Mr Young —Haven't we all? Mr SINCLAIR —I do not know that the honourable member will wear his well for long. But there is a difficulty, and that is that the sittings through May are totally inadequate for the important business that this nation needs to consider , and I find it most regrettable that the honourable member for Port Adelaide, as one who for so long has been an upholder of the system of Parliament, comes now as Leader of the House and tells us that debate is to be circumscribed because we can sit only for the month of May. I do not accept that as any reason for our adjusting our sitting hours. I certainly do not accept that it should be done because of the needs, the cares and the concerns of those who, temporarily though it be, are Ministers in this place. They should not have to go off in little confines to debate matters that they think are important and where, I understand at the moment, they have considerable differences. I believe that we ought to be sitting longer and I do not think we ought to have our hours adjusted simply to meet their convenience. The next point that worries me about these proposed changes is the concept that at 12 noon we should have Questions without Notice. I think it is an interesting idea and I wish it well. But I am not too sure that the procedure on Wednesday and Thursday mornings to have a 12 noon start for Questions without Notice is necessarily a satisfactory way by which we can give what we see in the parliamentary sense as prime time to the most important part of Parliament-the questioning of the Government. We all accept that the Executive is in a position where it has a great number of onerous duties to perform. But I think it is tremendously important that Parliament is given an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the decisions, actions, thoughts and behaviour of Ministers. Setting down a fixed time for questions might well meet the convenience of Ministers but I wonder whether it gives to Question Time the pre-eminence in the sitting hours of the day that it used to attract when it was at the beginning of the day. While on our side of the House we are prepared to accept this procedure as a trial, I question whether that 12 noon commencement is necessarily altogether a good thing. I am attracted by the fact that the honourable gentleman has preserved the grievance debate. I think that part of the tragedy of this place in the divisions between the parties is that the individual member, who for all that he has a party affiliation, still needs to retain his representational responsibility and has too few opportunities in which to speak on that count. There is little doubt that the grievance debate is one of those few opportunities. As I read the Standing Order, we are now to go back to 10-minute speeches. I think that is a pity. If we are now to have 10 minute speeches in the grievance debate, in a 30-minute period there will be only three speakers followed by a 10-minute right of reply from a Minister. I do not believe that that is something which members of this place should accept. I do not approve of that. The previous system was very attractive and gave many members an opportunity to speak. There are very few opportunities for the individual member who represents his electorate to speak apart from as a party member. For all that-and from time to time there have been heated interchanges-the grievance debate has been a very important part of the private member's representation. Indeed, Mr Speaker, as you would recall so well, yesterday morning at the beginning of this week's session a condolence motion was expressed for the late Dan Minogue, a wonderful member, a man who sat so long in a corner of this place and who told us repeatedly how necessary it was that the Sydney General Post Office clock tower be restored. As a result of his efforts, it was restored. The point I make is that within five minutes that sort of representation can be made effectively and repeatedly. Mr Young —It is still five. Mr SINCLAIR —No, it is 10 minutes as it stands now, is it not? I am advised that it is five minutes. I take all of my comments back. I am delighted to know that it is five minutes because I think we have been very necessarily- Mr Young —It was one of your better speeches, too. Mr SINCLAIR —You are right, Mick. I thought I was going well, actually. I am delighted to know it is to be five minutes because under the Standing Orders it is 10 minutes. As I said, I looked to the Minister but he was busily involved in trying to catch up on the Standing Orders. I can understand that. Perhaps I ought to do it a little more often too. I am delighted to know that there will be five- minute speeches. I commend the honourable gentleman, for I think it is necessary that honourable members have the maximum possible opportunity to speak during the adjournment debate. As to the grievance debate, the only concern that I have about that is that we are still restricted by the Standing Orders. I direct the attention of honourable members to Standing Order 106 on page 13 of the Notice Paper which states: . . . the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply-- is presented- 'That grievances be noted' I think that is a pity. I know it is one of those heritages which continue in practice. It is a pity that we do not have a grievance debate before the conclusion of the Address-in-Reply debate. I suggest to the Leader of the House that perhaps that is something that he might look at when, after this trial period, we discuss this matter again. But, having been through those matters, in a spirit of friendliness rather than otherwise, I make a suggestion to the honourable gentleman in relation to the discussion of matters of public importance. I accept completely that Standing Order 107 should be amended by omitting 'one hour' and substituting 'two hours' as that is practical on most days of the week. But I think there are problems in finding anybody in this place at 8 a.m. when those of us in the National Party are inevitably at our desks and most members of the Australian Labor Party are still thinking of the cows that deliver their milk in cartons instead of from the teat. I am just a bit concerned that substituting two hours for one hour is really not terribly convenient for people who normally get here about 9 o'clock in the morning. I would suggest that in respect of discussions of matters of public importance on those mornings when the House sits at 10 a.m., which of course henceforth will be Wednesday and Thursday, it would have been far better if that one hour notification deadline had been retained. The reason for its introduction, as some honourable members will recall, was that during the lunch hour break it was not terribly convenient for the notice to be given by 1.15 p.m. when inevitably it was hard to find members in order to arrange speakers and to get the matters of public importance prepared. I do commend the Leader of the House for being prepared to embark on yet another experiment in changed sitting hours. I was interested that he, like honourable members on this side of the House, had looked at the two weeks on two weeks off procedure. That does have considerable attraction for members from the more isolated and remote areas, particularly those who come from Western Australia and Northern Australia. In that respect I am worried about the commencement on the Tuesday and the fact that there will be no time for Caucus or the joint party meetings on the Wednesday morning. It means that members will necessarily have to leave their homes, if they are involved in committees or whatever, quite often at the very beginning of business on Monday morning and for many of them it means that they will really not be available in their electorates at all in sitting weeks throughout the Monday to Friday period. I think that is a pity. Having said those things, I think that from our side of the House we are prepared to accept that this move will introduce some interesting changes to our parliamentary sitting hours and to the routine of business. We are prepared to accept those as being worthy of experimentation and we will be very interested to see, at the end of the period, whether they accord with the convenience of members. One final matter that I should like to stress, though, is that, if we can ever persuade the Senate that it would be convenient for us all if we sat at the same time, it will be, I think, of considerable benefit. It does seem to me, for example, to be ridiculous that on the Wednesday it is an 11.30 a.m. start in that chamber whereas we are henceforth to begin at 10 a.m. That additional one and a half hours would be extraordinarily convenient for party meetings, for committee meetings and other procedures that are so important in the conduct of most members' daily business in this place. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot get a coincidence of business, perhaps sit in this chamber on a Tuesday night and sit a little later on Wednesday morning. If that were to happen, I think honourable members on this side of the House would be a lot happier with the proposals that the honourable gentleman has suggested. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.15) —I move: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as are referred to it by- (a) resolution of the House, or (b) the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. I will be very brief in relation to what I say about the establishment of the various committees in respect of which I will move motions. I know that some honourable members opposite want to make some remarks on a committee that I will propose later. I do not think that there is very much controversy in the proposed policy committees which are merely a re-establishment of the committees which existed in the last Parliament. We have always said, both in Opposition and in the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others in government, that we place great store on the work that can be done by parliamentary committees. We think that the previous Government was a little too frightened to undertake experimentation in the field of committees. My personal view supported by my experience in parliament is that some of the best work done in parliament is at the committee level, where some members of parliament, outside the glare of television lights perhaps, are prepared to work a little harder to reach agreement on what is best in terms of the recommendations that are to be contained in their reports to the parliament. That has been my experience on committees and I know, from talking to honourable members from both sides of the House, that that has been their experience too. It was hoped when we were elected in March that we would have the opportunity of completely revamping the way in which the policy committees of the House of Representatives, together with the joint committees, are structured, to attack the work that ought to be undertaken by members of parliament so that perhaps the level of debate and understanding of some of the enormous problems with which we are confronted in Australia could be better aired in the House of Representatives. We have had the experience in the past few years, of course, of the other chamber taking upon its shoulders the opportunity to establish many committees, looking into areas that have been totally ignored by the committee system in the House of Representatives. In some cases now, of course, we have committees that clash. We have a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and a Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. In that area, the other chamber has sped off to do its own thing. Since being elected on 5 March and being confronted with so many other problems in the economic area, it is true to say that unfortunately the Ministry has not had sufficient time to give expression to the sentiments that we advanced in Opposition about the use of the committee systems in the Parliament. What I put forward now in terms of the establishment of these committees are very much the views of the individual ministers. The former Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs had a reference regarding Aboriginal education. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) wants that reference concluded; otherwise the work of that Committee will be wasted. So it is with the Standing Committee on Road Safety and the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. They have work before them which they can complete. Of course we will establish the electoral reform committee. I must give warning to the House that it is our hope that, during the winter recess, much more thought will be given to the way in which the House of Representatives will play a part in the committee system. It may be that many other ideas that have come forward to us, including your own ideas, Mr Speaker, as a former prominent member of a committee on the committee system some years ago, will be considered and it is hoped that the House of Representatives can play a much more influential part in reports before this House for the advancement of debate and proper decision making by Government in this House. I just make those few remarks. It is unfortunate, as I say, that we did not have the time that we would have liked to give vent to all the ideas that exist in the Australian Labor Party about the committee system in the House of Representatives. But it is something that we hope to be able to initiate in the Budget session. In the meantime, it is our intention that the committees that existed in the previous Parliament should be re-established to continue to carry out and finalise the work that was before them. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.20) —The Opposition accepts the general objectives laid down by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I was quite interested to hear of his continued intent to move into a wider embrace of policy committees by this Parliament. The Opposition parties will be very prepared to accept and to consider them when they are submitted to us. However, one thing he did say that I would like to place emphasis on is that we, from this side of the chamber, have always believed that the Parliament as a whole is more important than the committees of it. While I acknowledge that many honourable members have been able to participate within the committee system without the glare of publicity and the floodlights of television or whatever that this place seems to attract, it is true that it is the Parliament that must really survive. I would be concerned if we went too far down the track followed by the Senate and sought to establish committees which would largely take over from the chamber-in-plenary the opportunity to deliberate on matters that are of tremendous importance to this nation. I think there are difficulties in ensuring the status of Parliament, in trying to ensure that the community at large recognises the forum that it represents. If we deny the popular electorate the chance, through their representatives here , to have their voices heard, I rather doubt the degree to which we can retain the status that we all believe is necessarily part of this place. There is little doubt that the matters to be considered by the proposed standing committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people relate to some of the more difficult areas which we all face. It is a field in which I believe a committee certainly can continue to perform a very effective task. Were the honourable gentleman to consider proposing amendments as to the committees of Parliament I hope that this would be one committee that would always survive. It seems to me to be one that has a particular responsibility and one where there is a remarkable measure of bipartisanship in spite of the politics that occasionally might intrude into the debates in this place. We therefore support the honourable gentleman's motion but recommend that he proceed in his next track with a little caution and not necessarily destroy those elements that have certainly made a positive contribution in the past. If he intends to move an amendment in the future, we ask that he consider those elements as ones that we would certainly embrace as long as matters that should more correctly be deliberated upon by the Parliament as a whole are in fact considered by it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia's natural resources, and (b) such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia's natural resources as are referred to it by- (i) resolution of the House, or (ii) the Minister responsible for those matters. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.21) —The Opposition accepts this proposal and supports it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to- (a) consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine; (b) consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically; (c) examine the relationship betwen the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and (d) inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by resolution of the House. (2) That the committee consist of 12 members, 6 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 3 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, and the chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (8) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (9) That the quorum of a sub-committee be 2 members. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-commmittee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Expenditure appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.22) —Again the Opposition agrees with the proposal. It might be noted, though, that in some of the State parliaments this sort of committee really is given very little opportunity to exist. I commend to those parliaments the forum that these committees and particularly that on public expenditure represent. The Standing Committee on Expenditure has performed a very worthwhile function in this place. I trust that not only will it survive within this chamber, but also will be duplicated in State parliaments. The Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) the main causes of the high level of the road toll in Australia; (b) the most effective means of achieving greater road safety in Australia; (c) the particular aspects of the problem to which those concerned with road safety could be most advantageously direct their efforts, and (d) the economic cost to the community of road accidents in Australia in terms of- (i) material damage; (ii) loss of manhours and earning capacity, and (iii) cost of treatment of accident victims. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub- committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have the power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid dupliaction. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed in the 28th Parliament and the Standing Committee on Road Safety appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.23) —The Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for Territories and Local Government, and (b) such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by- (i) resolution of either House of the Parliament, or (ii) the Minister for Territories and Local Government. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (8) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (9) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.24) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you-this is the first time I have had occasion to speak in this chamber when you have been in the Chair-on your appointment to that high and elevated office. I wish you well in it. The Opposition supports this motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I thank the honourable member. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.25) —I move: (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on- (a) foreign affairs and defence generally, and (b) such matters as may be referred to the committee by- (i) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (ii) the Minister for Defence, or (iii) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (2) That the committee consist of 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dessolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its Chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (8) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (7), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex-officio members of each sub- committee appointed. (9) That the members of a sub-committee elect one of the members of the sub- committee to be the chairman of that sub-committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (12) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committe have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (13) That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (14) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (15) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matter on which those committees had not completed consideration. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee. (18) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Briefly, this was one committee about which there was some debate on the Government side as to whether it ought to be a joint or House committee. Honourable members who served previously on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence speak highly of the work that it did. They believed that it can service the Parliament better by remaining a joint Committee rather than by being turned into a House committee. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.26) —The Opposition supports the motion. We believe that the appointment of a joint committee does offer certain advantages. However , we also noted that there has been some debate within the Government parties on this issue even in regard to the results of the elections. We will be very interested to see the extent to which the new representation of the Government parties performs in this forum. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building, which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or (b) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives ; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and (d) 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate , and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (7) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (8) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament. (11) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. (12) That 7 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (13) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairmen whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberate vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote. (14) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House . (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.27) —I think we should all commend the previous Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House on the work it did in ensuring that the design and construction standards of the New Parliament House were maintained. There is little doubt that we have been very fortunate in the thoroughness of the endeavours of those who, in the past, represented the Parliament on that committee and, indeed as members of the Parliament House Construction Authority. The progress that has been achieved is of considerable credit to those concerned. However, as my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) mentioned this afternoon, we have been concerned about some of the industrial agreements that have been entered into by the Parliament House Construction Authority and, in particular, that which at the moment seems to be putting the Builders Labourers Federation in breach of that consensus that was apparently concluded at the National Economic Summit Conference. We believe that the proposed joint standing committee should, amongst its responsibilities, look very carefully at industrial agreements that move outside that normal bound . In supporting the motion I suggest that the members of the proposed committee turn their attention to such breaches which, as a result of actions of the Authority, are likely to create very real problems for the community. Apart from making those comments the Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.28) —I move: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to review, and report whether any changes are desirable in respect of- (a) The law and practice of parliamentary privilege as they affect the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Members and the committees of each House; (b) the procedures by which cases of alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege may be raised, investigated and determined, and (c) the penalties that may be imposed for breach of parliamentary privilege. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That, in addition to electing a chairman, the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at anytime when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (5) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (6) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (7) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege appointed during the previous Parliament. (8) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (9) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (11) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Honourable members who were also members of the last Parliament are aware of the problems that were confronted by the Parliament in relation to parliamentary privilege. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has done a great deal of work. It is very close to concluding its report and recommendations on the matter. It is the Government's purpose to see that the work is completed by this Committee. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.29) —The Opposition supports this motion. However, in so doing I would like to commend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who, I know, was Chairman of the Committee for the work that he and the Committee of the preceding Parliament did in this very difficult and important area relating to the functioning of the Parliament. I believe that it is imperative that we review the law of privilege as it applies to this place. As I mentioned earlier in relation to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege this is a difficult area. Other parliaments in the Westminster system, far more than we have in this place, have examined the processes and practices of privilege. I believe that all of us will be very interested indeed to see what recommendations the proposed committee brings forward. We support the motion and look forward to a consideration of the Committee's report when it is presented. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: After paragraph (10) insert the following new paragraph: '(10A) That the Committee have power to consider and make use of submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System.'. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.31) —I move: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including- (a) public funding and disclosure of funds; (b) franchise and registration of voters; (c) voting systems; (d) polling procedures; (e) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Office; (f) ballot paper format, and (g) electoral distribution, procedures and systems. (2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader fo the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub -committee. (9) That members of the committee, not being members of the sub-committee, may participate at the discretion of the chairman of that sub-committee in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (10A) That the Committee have power to consider and make use of submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (12) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee report by 31 August 1983. (15) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (16) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. I thank the Opposition for granting leave to include the additional paragraph, which will allow the proposed Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to have access to all the submissions that were made in answer to an earlier advertisement placed by the Senate in relation to a committee of this nature. It may be this action will save some people from having to put in another submission. This is a new committee. Its establishment has been applauded as a constructive move in the best interests not only of this Parliament but also of all Australians. It is appropriate that we should throw open the doors to see what views exist about the electoral laws in Australia. I am told by the professionals, of course, that the Electoral Act itself has not been overhauled completely since 1918, and that is a long time ago. Many different practices have grown up since that time. One of the more significant amendments that were made more recently by the former Government was, of course, the removal of any reference to the ceiling or expenditure in elections. This change was made by the Fraser Government early in its term of office. I have said publicly outside-I do not wish to debate the points here; there will be plenty of opportunity to debate this matter both when the report is presented and when the legislation is introduced into the Parliament-that we should not hide the fact that the Australian Labor Party has a certain policy in relation to electoral laws. We have said for some years, for instance, that there ought to be public funding of political parties. Of course, we are not going to deviate from that view. However, we have no view as to how that ought to apply. The Committee will have the very important job of sorting that out. We also have a policy of optional preferential voting. That has been in our policy for some years. Policies go before the people at election time and the party that is elected has a mandate to put those policies into operation. But there are many other areas of the electoral laws of this country that are light years behind some of the laws that already apply in the various States. In some ways all we will be doing will be bringing ourselves into line with the reforms that have already been adopted by some of the States and the Northern Territory, where some of the arrangements for making available voting opportunities for people are far in advance of the facilities which are made available under Commonwealth electoral laws. It is our intention to ensure that the Committee does not sit around for any period that suits it. It will have to do its job as quickly as it possibly can within the terms of reference that have been given to it by the Parliament. I know that nothing makes honourable members opposite, especially the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony), shudder more than the thought of electoral reform. But the Leader of the National Party has been here for a long time and he is growing accustomed to it. Mr Ian Cameron —What are you going to do about Maranoa, Mick? Mr YOUNG —I am not going to do anything with Maranoa. That will be up to the Distribution Commissioners. As I have said publicly, the laws that will be brought to this Parliament and approved by this Government will mean that if conservative parties of this country get 50 per cent of the vote plus one they will be the government but if the Labor Party gets 50 per cent plus one it will be the government. That is the way it ought to be. I was asked what I was going to do about a redistribution. I would have thought that the conservative parties had sufficient experience to know that Ministers should not interfere in a redistribution. If they think Ministers should interfere I would advise them to have a talk to Senator Withers, because he has had some experience in that regard. We see the appointment of this Committee as a vitally important exercise for all Australians-academics and members of organisations and political parties who want to put forward their views. Every political party that is in the Parliament will be represented on the Committee. They can put their views to the Committee, which will then report back to this Parliament. That report will then be debated and subsequently legislation will come before this Parliament. Until then it seems to me-- Mr Ian Cameron —What happens then? Mr YOUNG —Then we will debate it. If the numbers change the Opposition will win; if they do not, we will win. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.36) —by leave-I move: (1) Paragraph (1), omit sub-paragraph (g), substitute the following sub- paragraph: '(g) electoral distribution and numbers of Members of Parliament, procedures and systems.'. (2) Paragraph (1), at the end of the paragraph, add the following sub-paragraph : '(h) any other matters which are contained in or are affected by the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.'. (3) Omit paragraph (2), substitute the following paragraph: '(2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.'. (4) At the end of paragraph (4) add 'who shall have both a deliberative and casting vote'. (5) Paragraph (14), omit '31 August', substitute '30 November'. This is a most important move to set up, as has been designated, a committee with a short life, in that it will be a select committee, to follow through and study one of the very bases of this Parliament and of democracy and to recommend on a wide range of issues which are defined in the motion moved by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I must say that the importance that the Committee will give to the issue and the importance of its findings will depend very much on the Government's attitude to it. The Minister made some very partisan statements prior to announcing his detailed intentions about this Committee. It has not been easy to find a record of his statements although one had heard them over the radio and read a few snatches of them in various papers and journals. I hope he puts aside his partisan view so that the Committee can proceed in a useful way. It is important that the Committee should proceed with the view that it has to assist people and not parties. As I said, I had some reservations because of the Minister's previous expressions on this matter. But this Committee is of great importance to the whole Australian population. It is a part of the evolutionary process of electoral change which has taken place slowly but steadily across Australia. It is hoped that as a result of the Committee's report the Government 's legislation will be drafted more impartially than might otherwise have been the case. The public will be given a great opportunity to put its views before the Committee and finally, through it, to the Government. I must say, though, that there are some limitations on the motion put forward by the Minister that I seek to remedy by the amendments which I have moved. The first amendment seeks to add to paragraph (1) (g) of the motion the words 'and numbers of Members of Parliament'. I have included this as an additional point of study and recommendation for the Minister's consideration because the number of members of parliament is a very important aspect. It is a subject of great concern to some people. If this is included in the terms agreed to by the Minister it would allow members of the public to give their views as to whether there should be more members of parliament, whether the status quo should be retained or whether there should be fewer members of parliament. Every member of this House in moving around his electorate would have heard views one way or the other on this issue. I recommend to the Minister for his consideration, and I hope acceptance, this addition to paragraph (1) (g). Because of the obvious value it would be to the community I hope that he can see his way clear to express an opinion on this quite important matter of the numbers of representatives in this House and the other House. My second amendment seeks to add to the end of paragraph (1) a sub-paragraph (h ) in the following terms: 'any other matters which are contained in or are affected by the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.' I do not propose that new sub-paragraph as a critical assessment of the paragraphs in the Minister's motion up to paragraph (g), but it could be that some limitation might exist, that the number of references we have here is not sufficient to cover every eventuality of members of the public who might want to present a case to the Committee. It might be that the Committee members themselves will find something in between those existing sub-paragraphs which limits their deliberations. I put it to the Minister that I can see nothing which should limit the Committee reference to the Commonwealth Electoral Act as a base for study. My amendment simply brings before the Committee a far more open view of what can be placed before it. My third amendment deals with the representatives who are to be appointed from the Senate to the Select Committee. As proposed by the Minister, the Select Committee will have nine members. There is one deficiency which stands out; that is, that the National Party has no representative from the Senate. It seems a reasonable proposition that the major parties from both Houses should be represented on the Committee. If the Minister reads this amendment he will find that it in no way tries to take from the Government the dominance it has of the Committee. My amendment proposes one additional member, increasing the numbers from nine to 10. However, the Minister will find that my subsequent amendment (4) proposes to add to the rights of the Chairman a deliberative and casting vote. It restores the Government's domination of the Committee in a vote. I believe that shows the good faith of my amendment. In no way are we endeavouring to take the matter out of the hands of the Government. We are simply trying to widen and broaden the basis of representation on this Committee. If the Minister wants to establish some form of consensus-such an in word with members of the Government today-he will find a much better approach to the work of the Committee if all parties represented in this Parliament are properly represented on the Committee according to their presence in the two Houses. I put as strongly as I can to the Minister the need to establish a fairer base for the operation of this Committee than presently exists. Amendment (5) simply intends to extend the reporting date of this Committee. The Minister has indicated that it is a very important Committee, that it has a great amount of work to do and a great number of submissions to consider. It seems to me that inevitably he will have to come back to this House asking for an extension of time for the Committee to report. It seems sensible at this stage to allow the Committee another two months to report. Therefore I suggest in amendment (5) that the date for reporting be extended from 31 August to 30 November. Given that the Opposition is supporting this motion, I hope that the Minister will take these amendments seriously and consider them on their merits. They are intended to assist the work of the Committee and in no way to restrict it. Quite the opposite; they will assist to widen the work of the Committee, to give the members of the public a full appreciation of it and a full capacity to submit their views, and in every way to assist the Government to allow this Committee to come forth with worthwhile recommendations. If the Minister rejects the amendments, of course the Committee obviously will proceed anyway. It will be hampered to the degree that these measures will not be allowed to work for the Committee. I also say to the Minister again: There will not be a full representation on the Committee of the political parties represented in the Senate. The Opposition supports the motion in the hope that the Minister will look favourably on these most helpful amendments. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(8.44) —I second the amendment. I want to dwell on only one aspect of the amendment to the motion for the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Amendment (3) seeks the Government's support for the concept of the National Party having a representative from the Senate on this all party Committee. According to the motion before the House as the Committee is presently structured it has nine members. Insofar as the Senate is concerned, two honourable senators are to come from the Australian Labor Party, one from the Liberal Party and, of course, one is to be nominated by the five Australian Democrat senators, the four National Party senators and the one Independent senator. In no way does the amendment take away the control of the Government Chairman because he will have a deliberative and casting vote. I think the amendment achieves another objective; that is, it ensures there is equal representation from the House of Representatives and the Senate. I believe that in the course of the examination of submissions which will come to that Committee it will be necessary to deal not just with electoral redistribution and issues that might affect the fortunes of those in the House of Representatives but also matters affecting the Senate. I think that in the interests of consensus, equity and co-operation, it would be very wise for the Government to look seriously at these very sensible amendments that have been put forward in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill. I assure honourable members that we are looking forward to working on this Committee and to making a contribution towards a long overdue review of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and matters pertaining to it. As the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) indicated a moment ago, I think there is some considerable value in looking at the number of members who should be elected to the Parliament in years to come, particularly in view of the fact that we will have a new and permanent Parliament House by 1988. I gladly support the amendment. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party)(8.47) —I support the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I believe there are very comprehensive criteria laid down in this motion. It can do only good to have a thorough examination and report on the many aspects that have been brought forward by the Government. However, I recommend to the Government the five amendments that have been moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). They are all worthy of consideration by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I believe they are all recommendations that could be accepted by the Government. They are presented in good faith so that there can be equitable representation of the parties, at the same time ensuring that the Government maintains control of the operation of the Select Committee. I would find a grave deficiency in this Select Committee if the National Party were not to be included in the group of senators to look at electoral reform. The Senate is a very different place from the House of Representatives. I believe that my party is deserving of some input into these considerations. I therefore request the Government to consider extending the size of the Committee to 10 while at the same time maintaining control by giving the casting vote to the Chairman, who would be appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In looking at the criteria, one glaring deficiency that appeared to me related to the size of the Parliament. I believe this ought to be examined to see whether consideration should be given to increasing the size of the Parliament. I say that in good faith. I know some people might want to use it as an excuse to say we want more members of parliament, but if ever there was an occasion for a thorough examination of this question, it is now. With the new Parliament House ready in five years it would be very wise to consider this issue so that if there is to be any extension of the size of Parliament we could make preliminary arrangements. It is not a new suggestion to this chamber. In 1966 when we looked at the continual growth of electorates we decided that the size of this chamber should be increased. Every party supported a move to try to bring that about. We had a referendum to try to break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was rejected because of the opposition that emanated from some of the senators from the small States who believed that it would be breaking the balance of representation between the two Houses and would unfairly react against the small States because the majority increase in members would come from the most populous States, namely, the eastern States of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Those senators generated an emotive atmosphere about the issue of more members of parliament and the matter was rejected in the referendum. Whenever we spoke to an audience calmly and rationally we were able to put a very strong argument. It is now well over 30 years since the Parliament was last increased in size. The last increase was in 1949. Even in my time here, 27 years, there have been changes in the size of electorates. When I first stood in my electorate there were 41,000 electors. There are now 85,000 electors. The number of people in the electorate has almost doubled to 160,000. It is a big job for members to be able to maintain and look after their electors. I am not advocating an increase in the size of Parliament, but I am saying that this is the ideal committee to look at the long term justification for any change. I suggest to the Minister that he give consideration to this matter being included so that a report can come back to the Parliament for consideration. It is an important issue. The other point that has been mentioned by the honourable member for Boothby ( Mr Steele Hall) is that the reporting date ought to be extended by three months to 30 November. I believe that there is a big work load in front of the Committee. If the job is to be done well-I think everybody wants to see a good job done-we must not compress the time so that the Committee finds it is unable to make the report as complete as it might. August is not very far away from us now and I believe the extra three months would make an enormous difference to the workings of that Committee. But we enter this with a spirit of support and co-operation. That support and co-operation along with a sense of consensus would be much more forthcoming from my party if we felt we were being treated fairly in the Senate by having a spokesman on the Committee. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.54) —in reply-I just want to make a few remarks to close off the debate. I appreciate the vein in which comments have been expressed by honourable members opposite. I will not deal with the amendments in the order in which they were moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). The first thing I must say about increasing the numbers is that when we first looked at how many people would be on the Committee we did so from our experience of having an even number from the Government and the Opposition. In 1974 we set up a committee such as this, which was forced upon us by the Senate. The committee could not elect a chairman so it had to come back to the Parliament for the Government to legislate to give itself an extra member so that the committee could proceed with its business. I do not think that anyone would argue that the ratio of 5 : 4 that now exists between the House of Representatives and the Senate truly reflects the total Government and Opposition membership of both Houses. In relation to the total number of members of parliament I could not agree more with what has been said. Every one of us has had that experience. But we would really be drawing the crabs to this Committee if tomorrow morning the headlines were: 'Committee to look at more members of parliament'. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that that would be the sort of publicity that would be attracted if we added to the terms of reference the power to look at the possibility of having additional members of parliament. I do not altogether reject the idea. I reject it in terms of the work that has to be done by this Committee, but it seems to me that a Committee of this nature might almost become a standing committee in terms of what it has to look at. If there is to be an exercise undertaken by this Parliament to look at the make -up of the Parliament with a consideration of 1988 and the new Parliament House, that issue should be isolated because if the Committee set out to do its work tomorrow and included in its terms of reference the possibility of additional members of parliament it would be bombarded with submissions on one issue only. The people of Australia would say that they did not want any more parliamentarians. They would not be prepared to listen to the arguments or what might be involved in them. That exercise would be better undertaken in isolation from the work that is to be done by this Committee. Although the Committee has a timetable, we are not prepared to present to this Parliament a half-baked report. If the Committee has not completed its work by the time set it will obviously come back to the Parliament and say that more time is needed. In terms of the work of parliamentary committees, I think the tighter the timetable the better the report. I seems to me that the Committee knows we want the work done quickly. In these sorts of exercises the Parliament can do a lot more. I understand as well as anybody opposite the nature of the work that has to be undertaken by this Committee and the immense number of views that will be put before it from a wide number of people and organisations in Australia. Many such views have already been put in this Parliament before previous committees. Many will be reiterated in terms of what this Committee has to look at. But if the Committee comes to the Government and says that it cannot complete its work by 31 August and needs another month or six weeks it will be granted extra time. We have said that in terms of the legislative program of this Government for 1983 we would like this Committee to report back by a set date. In his outline of the other things that may be affected by the Commonwealth Electoral Act the honourable member for Boothby may have been gilding the lily a little. I think that the terms of reference that already exists in the motion that I have moved would give any sophisticated member of parliament the opportunity of looking at anything in the Electoral Act. I do not think that if the honourable member for Boothby is on the Committee he will be intimidated by the restriction in the terms of reference if he wants to ask something about that Act. Knowing his history and his interest in eletoral reform I hope he takes a place on the Committee and that he is one of the signatories to a unanimous report that comes back to this Parliament on 31 August. Amendments negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That, in relation to the proceedings on any Sales Tax Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the presentation and the first readings of the Bills together; (b) one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and (c) the consideration of all the Bills as a whole together in a committee of the whole. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(8.59) —While the Opposition does not oppose the motion , I think it is again opportune that I refer to the correspondence from Mr Ralph Willis, when he was the shadow Minister for economic development and taxation, to the tyre distributors on 23 February 1983. He spoke on behalf of the then Opposition-the now Australian Labor Party Government. He said that the Labor Party was opposed to increases in sales tax. I am quite prepared to accept that this motion which is submitted to us for the suspension of the Standing Orders regarding sales tax is a procedural motion. It is one which the present Opposition presented when in government and indeed it is identical in form. But I think the people of Australia need to recognise the hypocrisy of a party which says it is opposed to sales tax legislation but introduces this proposition into this House tonight. It is a proposition which cannot be sustained if Mr Willis's letter is to be accepted as representing the views of the Australian Labor Party . While we in the Opposition accept this as the procedural motion which it is, it is very regrettable that, so early in the Government's life, it should find itself rejecting the very firm advice by one of its then shadow Ministers which was submitted only a few months ago to an unsuspecting electorate which regrettably a few weeks later decided to elect it to government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.1) —The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is an attempt by the Government to bypass totally the Australian Constitutional Convention or the referendum process as a means of changing the Australian Constitution. Whatever the merits may be of the Tasmanian dams issue, the four heads of power which the Commonwealth is claiming as support for the constitutional validity of this Bill would, if confirmed, radically alter the nature of the Australian Federation and the meaning of the Constitution. Yet it seems that at no time did the Commonwealth even consider submitting this Bill to the Constitutional Convention, which took place only last week, for consideration. I quote these words to the House: The Australian electorate, and the smaller States, have a right to be suspicious of constitutional change embarked upon with haste and without adequate public discussion. It is not enough to say that there is continual public discussion on constitutional change. While it is true that this does not cover actual changes proposed for referendum, usually there is far from adequate time for public debate on such proposals. What I have just said is a quotation from the editorial of the Australian Financial Review of 2 May this year. It reflects the views of the Opposition because we are gravely concerned that the Government, by going down this course at this time, is launching Australia on a course of action which is quite contrary to the best interests of the Australian people. It is no secret in this Parliament that the Bill we are debating tonight was destined to be introduced into the Senate as part of the weaponry of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to bolster up a less than satisfactory case which he presented recently to the High Court of Australia in the form of regulations under the World Heritage Act, in a vain attempt to prevent the construction of the Gordon below Franklin River Dam. It was only because of differences which apparently took place between the Government and the Australian Democrats that at the last moment the Australian Labor Party, in great haste, introduced this legislation into this House on the first day of its sittings. It is a matter of great concern to the Opposition that a government which claims to have been elected on a platform of conciliation should have taken every possible step open to it to maintain a constant barrage against the smallest State of the Commonwealth. The issue in this Bill is not just whether the Gordon below Franklin Dam should be built. In fact, Tasmania and the dam do not even receive a mention in the text. Quite simply, the issue is whether this Government has a mandate from the Australian people to alter fundamentally the Constitution and the division of powers which has been at the basis of the traditional relationship between the Commonwealth and the respective States ever since Federation. This legislation contains proposals emanating from the four heads of power under the Constitution . That is the basis of the claim of the Labor Government to try to achieve the fundamental changes which it wants to see, not just on the question of the powers over heritage, not just the powers over whether areas of Australia should be put on the World Heritage List, but as the first step forward to a fundamental realignment of the Australian Constitution and the power balance which has existed between the Commonwealth and the States for over 80 years. The four heads of power which are the basis of this legislation are the external affairs power, the national power, the corporate power and the racial power. This represents a further seeking of power, by any definition of the term , by this Government. It demonstrates quite clearly, with chilling clarity, the extent to which this Labor Government of alleged conciliation is prepared to go to achieve its most base ends. All members of this House know that this is not just a Bill relating to the World Heritage Convention. It is in fact the golden key which the Labor Party for many years has sought to find to open to itself the Pandora's box of oppressive and unrepresentative centralist government. The Government did not refer this question to the people at the last Federal election which occurred a mere two months ago. It did not refer it to the Constitutional Convention which was held in Adelaide last week. It did not include it in the referendum proposals for next July. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Government: Why is it so afraid to put these issues to the people? Labor, by using this Bill, is attempting simply to bypass the normal constitutional processes by which the Constitution can be and has been legitimately changed over the years. The issues which have been raised in this legislation are of profound importance, not just because they are related to questions of world heritage but because we would be placing on the statute books, if endorsed by the High Court, a set of principles which would erode the basis of the structure of continuing Federal-State relationships. The coalition parties do not stand in the way of constitutional change. What we do stand in the way of is a naked grab for power and constitutional change through the back door by the use of this kind of legislation. The coalition parties are not against constitutional change nor have we ever been anti-conservation. The Federal policy of the Liberal Party clearly enunciates that the preservation of our heritage and a strong commitment to conservation and the environment enriches the quality of life of all Australians and is vital to future generations. Our record in government stands second to none. It must be remembered that all listings on the World Heritage List to this day were placed there by Liberal-National Party governments. We supported the banning of the slaughter of whales. Through our efforts and those of other nations we have almost reached the stage where whaling is no longer an international industry. We established the Kakadu and the Uluru national parks. We successfully negotiated with the Queensland Government on the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The cessation of sand mining on Fraser Island and the establishment of Lord Howe Island on the World Heritage List, along with the Willandra national parks, are outstanding examples of our accomplishments in government. In December 1982, the Fraser Government proceeded with the nomination of South West Tasmania on the World Heritage List. In January 1983, the then Prime Minister offered the Tasmanian Government $500m to pay for the cost of extra coal for a fire heated generator to replace the dam as Tasmania's next power scheme and to subsidise it for a period of 25 years. It is a matter of record that this offer was rejected. But the Fraser Government also offered to co- operate with the Tasmanian Government in the preparation of a management plan for the South West wilderness area and the buffer regions. This would have included all necessary archaeological work, et cetera. We wait to see what the present Government is prepared to offer in this area as a demonstration of its concern not only for the wilderness of Tasmania but also for the people of Tasmania. We would rather see their offer than see a consistent and continuous attempt to denigrate and to attack at every possible opportunity. We implicitly declined in government to support the damming by offering an alternative proposal. However, the Fraser Government continued to assert that Tasmania had the right to decide how best to solve its future power needs. The Commonwealth rejected the proposition that we should hold back payments to Tasmania under Federal-State financial arrangements or use our power to acquire the wilderness area to prevent the construction of the dam. But we see in the legislation before the House tonight the first clear steps in that direction except, as I shall demonstrate later this evening, that even there the Government, in the formulation of its Bill, was less than honest with this Parliament. The World Heritage Convention recognises quite clearly that under a federal system of government the national government may not have full powers. We still do not believe that Australia's accession to international treaties should be used as a device to alter the powers of the States under the convention and that such decisions rest with the people through a referendum. I come back to that once again. If one wishes to change the Constitution in a democratic society, let the people be the final arbiters of what one proposes to do. No one would dispute that the Tasmanian dam issue has raised high emotions both in Tasmania and throughout Australia, but I am certain that many people, when presented with the facts as to the dangers to the Australian Federation of proceeding along the track clearly defined by the Hawke Government in this Bill, would probably accept our view that the definition of powers under the Constitution is one of the basic tenets for the independence and protection of the rights of the individual Australian. There is one overriding principle that these coalition parties are not prepared to ignore. That is the basic interests of the Australian people, whose predecessors entered into a federation because they believed in their right to be different while gaining strength from a closer association and a common sharing of the beliefs in Australian nationality . Much reference has been made to the question of the external affairs power. I think that members may well be interested to learn that since Federation this country has signed approximately 16,039 bilateral and multilateral agreements. If, as the present Government would believe, our inability to live by the spirit and the letter of those agreements were to raise international concern as to our activities, I venture to suggest that we would find Australia placed in the quaint position of being the first country on earth to embrace world government. The decisions which would be made concerning the lives of the Australian people would be established by overseas international entities over which we would have little, if any, real influence, and yet on that theory we would remain subject to their determinations. I have no doubt that the Australian people would be unwilling to place their future and that of their children in the hands of international bodies over which they know they have little influence. For that sound reason, therefore, the determination of the influence of the external affairs power must be considered in the context of the traditional view -that the Commonwealth has certain powers ceded to it by the respective States, while they in their turn maintain the right to determine policies in those areas of administration over which they have had traditional exclusive responsibility. The principle of co-operative federalism which the coalition parties have supported over the years not only must require this but also must take into account and-most importantly, we believe-must be based on the principle that we must achieve a degree of co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth working together, where necessary, for common ends. We are debating this Bill in view of the impending High Court consideration of these matters, but we are doing so in an environment poisoned by the gross unwillingness of the Hawke Government to accept even the lowest level of consultation and negotiation with the Government of Tasmania. All that the Hawke Government has given that island since 5 March has been about two letters, dipped in the ink of confrontation, and the vapour trails of at least three spy planes-and we do not know how many others-trails which, incidentally, are about as ephemeral in the air as the inconsistent policies which we have seen presented by this Government in this area. Notwithstanding our individual views on the rights or wrongs of the dam's construction, the history of the Labor Party's involvement in this matter needs to be told to the Australian people to demonstrate the extreme flexibility with which it uses principles when it suits that party to do so. It is not unique, however, to the problem of Tasmania to see the Labor Party operating in this particular field. As to my own State of New South Wales, I ask the Minister one simple question about a matter of which he is well aware. Is this Government prepared to place on the national heritage list Parramatta Park, a park which the State Government has shown its willingness to destroy. The State member for Fairfield, some time ago, cited it as the birthplace of our nation. The park belongs not only to the people of Parramatta and New South Wales; it belongs also to the people of Australia. The Labor proposals for that park have resulted in its encroachment and gradual whittling away in favour of a level of development which would obviously help some but certainly would not help most Australians, who are losing a priceless heritage. I simply ask that question of the Minister, because it concerns the principle that is at stake. We have seen a situation in which a judge of the Planning and Environment Court, a man who was previously a Minister in the Whitlam Government , said that the Wran Government was here creating an arena in which the cherished democratic principle of the independence of the judiciary may well face one of its sternest tests. He made that observation for the simple reason that, having put on the statute books environmental protection legislation, the same government was only too happy, as honourable members opposite recall only too well, to amend the Bill because of embarrassment concerning Rugby League interests in relation to a section of Parrammatta Park. The simple point of the matter is that if one is honest and earnest in pursuing one's principles, one must apply them in the States as well as in the Commonwealth. Since Labor members have not had the fortune to be the government of this country in recent years, we have every reason to look at the record of the Labor Party, in both Tasmania and New South Wales, to see how well it has performed in that situation. It seemed that at least in Tasmania for a few years the ALP too understood the basic facts of federalism. After the aberrations of the Whitlam Government and before the fall of the Lowe Labor Government, the Federal Labor Party supported the right of the Tasmanian Labor Party, while in government, to make its own decisions. Between April 1974 and November 1982, the Federal Labor Party's policy on hydro-electric generation in Tasmania was one of clear non-intervention. All the decisions taken by the State Labor Government concerning Lake Pedder, the Gordon stage one power scheme, and later the Gordon stage two power scheme, were the product of Labor's acknowledgment of the realities of the existing federal system. The Whitlam Administration was asked at that time by the environmental groups in Tasmania to stop the flooding of Lake Pedder. Its grand gesture was to estabish a parliamentary inquiry, an inquiry which reported 10 months after the lake was already well and truly being flooded. Even a Labor-dominated parliamentary inquiry, as that one was, said: Land management, land use, resource development and environmental management is not- I repeat, 'not' a direct Federal responsibility. Six years later, on 6 July 1981, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Hayden, wrote in a letter: we would support a Parliamentary Inquiry into how best we could help the State Government preserve the South-West, but not as to interfere with the Tasmanian Government's efforts to produce power for its people which may involve some construction in that area. Mr Hayden went on to say: The more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. Mr Groom —Who said that? Mr CONNOLLY —Mr Hayden, the then Leader of the Opposition. He also went on to say: further negotiations will have to proceed- These are the key words- with the responsible authority, and that is the Tasmanian Government. I have given this House some background on the events in Tasmania relating to the construction of the dam simply to demonstrate that the Australian Labor Party throughout this period supported a continuation of hydro-electric development and in particular the building of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. The Labor Party agreed with the coalition parties that conservation was a State issue. Only recently did it change its mind. One could well ask why it did so. It did so simply because it has now returned to being a centralist government. The Hawke Government does not understand that the political system that Australians have chosen for themselves and which has been in place for 80-odd years is based on the principle of unity and diversity. What Australians wanted was a federation; what they still want is a federation and the right to be different and, if they want and choose to do so, to belong to a particular State with local interests and local perceptions. Since when are we to work on the premise that only the Commonwealth can do right and only the States can always do wrong? We should have been prepared for this frontal attack on the federal system of government by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We had been warned. He told us in his Boyer lectures that federalism was anachronistic lunacy and a dangerous anachronism, and advocated the abolition of the States on the specious grounds that they act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our community. Who is he, one man representing a political party, to say that the people who represent the rest of Australia-some 15 million Australians in all- are to be seen as people who necessarily stand to impede the progress of good government? Good government in such terminology means socialist government. Regrettably, we were incredulous and foolish enough to think that what the Prime Minister said was a mere rhetorical flourish. Not a bit of it. He meant every word that he said. I have often wondered what 'bring Australia together' really means. We know now what it means-the destruction of the system of the States, the division of power and the placement in Canberra of the ultimate control of the destiny of the Australian people. Whether those people be in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, a small island State like Tasmania or a big State like Western Australia, they all on occasions see themselves as having different interests. There is no way that any form of unitary government will ever be able to change that fundamental geographical, historical and social reality. Our federal system is based on the right of our people to see themselves as belonging to a particular nation, and if the Prime Minister wants to undermine the federal constitutional government of Australia, let him do it by correct constitutional means. He should go to the people and not hide behind environmental issues and try to change the fundamental background of the Constitution through such means. It is entirely appropriate to seek to change the Constitution, as I have said, through accepted practice-that is, consideration by constitutional conventions and subsequent submissions to the Australian people by referenda. It is entirely inappropriate to adopt devious methods such as those in this legislation; methods which seek to subvert our federal system of government without the subtlety of having the honesty and the courage to say that under the guise or protecting world heritage property it is seeking something entirely different and wider. The Federal platform of the Liberal Party makes some observations about the Australian federal system which I would like to quote into Hansard. The platform states: A responsible and balanced Federal system suits Australia because of the nation 's size and geiographic diversity, and because of our traditions. Federalism aims to share power and responsibility among the Commonwealth, State and local governments so as to bring government as close as possible to the people. the essence of a successful federation is the recognition that there are some responsibilities which should be exercised exclusively by each spheres of government, while there are others which require mutual co-operation among the various spheres of government for their successful execution. We are debating tonight the second reading of a most significant piece of legislation, a Bill for an Act relating to the protection and conservation of certain property and for related purposes. It intrigues me to see that the title of the Bill specifically relates to world heritage properties conservation. There are a number of matters in the legislation to which the Opposition, at the appropriate time, will be moving a range of amendments. We will do this for the principal reason that we are as concerned about the overall environment of Australia as is any person in this Parliament, and certainly any Minister. In saying that, it is important to make a number of specific observations about the legislation. Firstly, there is some concern about the fact that although world heritage properties is one aspect of the power sought in this legislation it also seeks power in relation to cultural heritage or natural heritage, both of which are specifically related to Australian determinants, not foreign determinants as we find in world heritage properties conservation. We do not object to the principle of legislation which covers world heritage properties or to their adequate and proper protection. However, what we question in this legislation is whether the means adopted by the Government are necessarily in the interests of Australia. We have concluded quite definitely that that is not the case. Our view also is that, if an Act is to be directed at world heritage properties, let it be directed at that area principally and not cover questions of a domestic nature such as cultural or natural heritage as well. If there is a need for legislation related to those two areas, by all means let this Parliament have a new piece of legislation and let it be debated in this House. The important point of world heritage properties is simply this: The five heritages which have already been covered by the previous Government have one thing in common, and that is that they are extremely diverse. They cover not only wilderness at one extreme but also islands such as Lord Howe Island at the other and the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu National Park, the Willandra areas and the deserts of central New South Wales. Because they are so different there is, in the view of the Opposition, a strong case to be made for the principle that, while there is a case to have overriding legislation which sets definitions in place, which covers questions such as compensation, there is equally a very strong case to be made for each of those respective areas on world heritage listing being of such importance that they should have their own independent and specific piece of legislation. There are precedents for this. On many occasions over the years we have supported through regulation 96 grants the funding or purchase by the States of additional areas for State national parks. That type of legislation gives us the basis upon which we can work in this particular area. The other important consideration which I must emphasise is that we would prefer to see legislation which has as its principal purpose the introduction of the concept that before items are put on the World Heritage List they must be passed through the parliaments of the State and the Commonwealth. Let both the State and Commonwealth parliaments be involved; let there be no more questions of who spoke to whom and whether the appropriate arrangements were made, as perhaps would have been the case in past situations. These are important matters . We are talking about the history of Australia, about the heritage of Australia , and it is therefore fundamental that for the future protection of those areas we should make sure that this Parliament gives its support as well as the Parliament of the State in whose territory one would find these for world heritage listing. The other major area of concern for the Opposition relates specifically to compensation. The legislation, to put it mildly, is a hotch potch. There is a fundamental difficulty and one could perhaps believe that it is deliberate. It is that the Government may well believe in the likelihood of the High Court judgment being in its favour to the extent that an attempt may be made to stop construction of the dam on the basis of Tasmania's receiving significant compensation. But a reasonable reading of this legislation leads one to believe that on the basis of the compensation provisions contained therein, one would be lucky to get compensation in under five or six years. That may have been all right at the turn of the century when we had low rates of interest but in the situation today of 15 per cent plus interest rates, the reality of the situation simply is that the rights of the individual, the rights of the corporation and the rights of the State in regard to this legislation all can be intimately involved in the provision of land which can be virtually appropriated by the Commonwealth. It is vital that the question of compensation be adequately covered. We have made extensive amendments in that area. In due course we will debate the matter. Accordingly, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) while recognising the need for adequate protection of areas placed on the World Heritage List, urges the Government to amend the Bill to take account of the need for individual listings to be the subject of a joint request by both the Parliament of the State which has made the application and of the Commonwealth, and (2) is concerned that the Government has failed to develop adequate procedures for the provision of fair and reasonable compensation to States, corporations or individuals whose property may be the subject of proclamation under the Act'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.32) —This is the first occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have received the call when you have been in the chair and I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your attaining your high office. Speaking in support of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, I would first like to express my opposition to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfied (Mr Connolly) to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I want to say only that the proposal that joint listings be the subject of a joint request by the Parliament of the State which has made the application and the Commonwealth would legitimise the unlawful and immoral acts which the Tasmanian State Government has been perpetrating in the South West of that State. It is with much pleasure that I speak in support of the Bill which is before the House. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the protection of property in Australia which is part of our natural and cultural heritage. In all the rhetoric and verbal diarrhoea in which the Opposition members have indulged in opposing this Bill, there is virtually no acceptance or realisation of the fundamental aims of the Bill. The provisions contained in this Bill are intended to prohibit any acts that might damage or destroy the property which has been identified as part of Australia's natural and cultural heritage. There are some clauses in the Bill which require strengthening in my view but it is appreciated that some amendments have been moved by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) which will provide additional safeguards to prevent the kind of wanton destruction which is at present occurring in the South West Tasmanian wilderness area. The schedule to the Act contains full details of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It is within the terms of that Convention that the five sites in Australia have been included in the World Heritage List, namely, the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes, Lord Howe Island and the Western Tasmanian Wilderness. It is important to remember when debating this Bill that by their strident outpourings, the members representing Tasmanian electorates in this House not only seek to destroy areas of great beauty in their State but also, whether unwittingly or otherwise, lend support to the Premier of Queensland who has indicated his wish to drill for oil in the Great Barrier Reef. The recent gas-well blow-out off the coast of Papua New Guinea was a graphic example which many Australians saw on television of the catatrosphic damage that can occur to the local environment when mineral development occurs in such areas. At this stage I will concentrate my remarks on the South West Tasmanian wilderness, but I ask honourable members to bear in mind that much of what I have to say has direct relevance to the other areas contained in the World Heritage List. In the first place, there appears to be a great deal of ignorance regarding the definition of a wilderness. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke- Petersen, displayed just such a crass ignorance when, during his recent visit to Tasmania, he stated that the work on the proposed Gordon below Franklin Dam would damage only a very small part of the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks. I will quote from an excellent book, published by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the South West Book, in relation to the definition of a wilderness. It states: A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man is himself a visitor who does not remain. There are four points which must be added to the above definition to give it clarity and substance. Firstly, a wilderness must be undeveloped land, retaining its primeval character with human habitation or the work of man being substantially unnoticeable. Secondly, a wilderness must have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primative and unconfined type of recreation, being at least half a day's journey from a road or navigable river. Thirdly, it must be of sufficient size so as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. Finally, it may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. Those are the four points that must be borne in mind when one considers a wilderness. I am indebted to Mr Paul Smith, an experienced forester and a Tasmanian, for his description of a wilderness. Mr Goodluck —What's his name? Mr MILTON —Paul Smith. Mr Goodluck —I don't know him. Mr MILTON —I am not surprised at that. A wilderness is a place of solitude and mystery, a place of beauty and magnificence, where forests, mountains, rivers and deserts become part of a grand design of nature, where humans are completely subordinate to the natural elements. It is only in such surroundings, and there are very few wilderness areas left in the world, that human beings can escape the stifling influence of the mechanistic world of motor vehicles, towering city buildings and computerised production methods of the late twentieth century. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, when enacted, will ensure that the Tasmanian South West wilderness of Australia is protected from the vandals who are represented by members of the Opposition who are opposing this Bill, and people like the Premier of Queensland with his homespun, simplistic but totally uninformed remarks about the rights of the Hydro-Electric Commission and the Tasmanian State Government to desecrate this most beautiful place for a mess of pottage. I have been to the wilderness area on three occasions-once in mid-1981 when I flew over the area in a light plane for about two hours. I must say it was a most harrowing but exciting experience. The second time was in January 1982 when I travelled by road over the whole of Tasmania, talking to as many Tasmanians as possible about the South West of their State. Finally, I visited the area in February of this year with members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation of the previous Parliament. On the latter occasion I was able to travel by boat up the Franklin and Gordon Rivers and camp some miles south of the proposed dam site on the banks of the Franklin River. Time does not permit me to describe the rugged splendour and the sheer beauty of the Franklin and Gordon Rivers and the surrounding countryside. It is quite beyond me that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who makes so many emotional outbursts in this House about Tasmania, is so oblivious to the great crime he is committing in advocating the building of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. This dam will create a huge water storage lake, entirely flooding a vast stretch of the Franklin River to a depth of 300 metres. The area where I was camping will be completely covered by 300 metres of water. Flora and fauna of inestimable replacement value will die and some species will become extinct. The magnificent ravines, rapids and caves which abound in the area and which I, at least, have had the good fortune to visit, will disappear for ever. I could go on with my description and my horror at the completely Philistine character which some of the members of the Opposition have displayed on this issue. I wonder how many of the Opposition members who camped with me on the banks of the Franklin River will react to this debate. I notice that none of them is here in the House tonight. Does that mean in fact that they are not supporting the honourable members of this House who are trying to oppose this Bill? I challenge them to cross the floor. At the time, they indicated their considerable concern at the possible destruction of such a beautiful place. Will they voice those same sentiments now we are back in the political limelight? It appears not. Some of them, of course, are no longer with us, having been decisively rejected by the electors because of their support for a government which considered that the aggrandisement of the wealthy was more important than the welfare of the people of Australia. I wonder how long it will take the Tasmanians to find that they have been duped by the Hydro-Electric Commission and its parliamentary yes men. It was quite clear to me on my visit to Tasmania that the Tasmanian people hold the Hydro- Electric Commission in high regard. It is regard for a public corporation which has provided Tasmania with jobs and has spawned a powerful empire in the process . It has supplied cheap energy for 80 years. But, like all such empires, it has become corrupted by its power to command government. It is a false god and I found that to be the case when I participated in the discussions between the Hydro-Electric Commission commissioners and members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. We were given projections of the future demand for electricity by domestic and bulk consumers. I found these projections to be highly suspect for a number of reasons. In the case of the domestic consumers, I found little evidence to show that the insulation of buildings had any priority or indeed that the commissioners envisaged a need to preserve electricity. In this respect, the projected future demand based on present consumption patterns seemed at the least unrealistic or, at the worst, irresponsible. In the case of the bulk consumers, the commissioners had sought their views with regard to future consumption needs. Again, such a projection of future electricity needs is highly suspect when one considers the gross overestimate made by manufacturers all over the world regarding future production outputs and the fact that the consumers would be aware that the HEC required high estimates to justify its claim that additional hydro-electric power would be required by the year 2000 and beyond. Challenges to the projections have been made by a number of experts but I am putting the facts to this House as I see them. I am not relying on the comments of others, whether expert or otherwise. For the Tasmanians, the Hydro-Electric Commission is God, but it is a god with feet of clay. In my talks with Tasmanians, it was very clear that many of them have not given the issue very much thought. All that the recent Federal elections proved was that a majority of Tasmanians accept the arguments of the Hydro-Electric Commission. It thus becomes even more important for those federal members of parliament who represent the five seats in Tasmania to examine the issue in an objective manner. It is clear from their speeches in this House that they have no intention of examining the real issues behind the building of the proposed Franklin Dam. They babble about States' rights and about parliamentary democracy but they are totally unwilling to accept the plain fact that the Hydro -Electric Commission has a vested interest in building more and more dams because it can see no other future for itself or its work force. It is just a short-sighted interest, borne out of a fear for survival. It has not looked at a possible diversification of its engineering and planning skills into other areas of activity. What about the work force? Unfortunately, I met few of the workers at Warners Landing but my impression is that they are mainly interested in jobs and the building of the dam is a secondary matter to them. Many members of the work force would be itinerant workers and would far sooner have permanent jobs near their own homes. If work could be found for them elsewhere, their interests in the dam would evaporate overnight. The same fact applies to the people of Tasmania as a whole. If they could be sure that employment would be generated as an alternative to the job creation aspect of the Franklin Dam, their support for the dam would also evaporate overnight. Unfortunately, Tasmanians have an unhealthy suspicion of mainlanders and Federal governments. When it is appreciated that throughout the history of Federation they have had to put up with the posturing and the bribery of conservative Liberal governments for most of this period one can understand their suspicions. However, I call upon them to put their suspicions aside. The present Federal Government has their interests at heart and will not let them down when the work on the dam has ceased, as inevitably it must. In the meantime , the distressing news has been received that the HEC is redoubling its efforts to create as much change as possible in the area in order to frustrate the wishes of the Australian people, including a sizable minority of Tasmanians who are actively opposed to the building of the Franklin Dam. The desecration of the virgin forests which has occurred in the few short months since I visited the area is almost unbelievable. I have the photographs here before me. I wish everybody in this House could see the scarred hillside and the treadmarks of the bulldozers. I should like to table these photographs, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I seek approval of the House to do so. Leave granted. Mr MILTON —The Tasmanian members of the Opposition who have been grandstanding for newspaper headlines and who have attempted to interrupt the normal proceedings of this House are as responsible for this desecration as if they were sitting in the driving seat of the bulldozers. It is their antics which are encouraging one of the most Philistine acts in the whole of Federation. It is an act of treachery and they have, in my view, abrogated their right to sit in the Federal Parliament of this nation. I should like to proceed to more positive matters in supporting this Bill. I refer to the great tourist potential that South West Tasmania possesses as an area containing one of the last great remaining temperate wildernesses of the world. Officials of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service have advised me that it will be necessary to appoint some 30 or more additional rangers to help in the maintenance and upkeep of the three national parks in the South West. Thus more permanent work will be created for rangers and that work, incidentally, will be more permanent than the work for the Hydro-Electric Commission workers in the long term. In the short term, much work is required on the perimeters of the wilderness to provide the necessary tourist facilities for those people intending to enjoy a holiday in the forests and river areas adjacent to the proclaimed wilderness or who wish to use the tourist facilities as a base camp for canoeing or bush walking under the strict planning regulations which would be required to protect such a valuable area. As the Tasmanian Director of Tourism, Mr J. B. Holton, said in 1979: Within the bounds of flexible planning (including reasonable access) and strict management, the South West could become one of the great visitor destinations of the world. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, there are some additional amendments which I would like to see incorporated in this Bill at a later stage. I do not see the need, for example, to proclaim an area as endangered before it requires the protection afforded by the Act. I am also worried about proposed new section 13, which gives the Minister discretion to consent to an act which might otherwise be described as unlawful under the proposed new section 9. I am well satisfied that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would exercise his discretion so that our cultural and natural heritage is properly protected. With those final comments, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.49) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my congratulations to you, sir. As you are well aware, and as some other honourable members are aware, I am a Western Australian. I am not here to put the Tasmanian case; I am here to put the case for small States against what we regard as a very cynical Bill. I think it is a great pity that some of the new members of this place will not have the privilege that I had in the last Parliament of criticising the Government when it was anti my State or my electorate. This cynical exercise in parliamentary drafting before us today disguised in the sheep's clothing of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 represents, in fact, the introduction of the jackboot into the Federal system of government that has survived in Australia since Federation. Through this Bill, the Commonwealth intends to impose its will on State affairs with or without the co-operation of the States. It is a great pity that the responsibility of introducing this blueprint for the gas oven that will destroy Australia's federalist democratic system has been given to a Minister who, above all, should realise the rights of minority interests to co-exist within a society of generally differing philosophy. Honourable members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —Why do we not just decide that personal abuse is the lowest form of wit? The Australian Federal system which grants substantial autonomy to State governments guarantees the rights of smaller community groups to select the places in which they live and, to a large degree, have neighbours of a similar philosophy even if that means moving from State to State as has occurred in the migration of people from New South Wales and Victoria to Queensland. The Federal system was no fluke. It was created by a group of hard-headed politicians, many of whom had direct contact with the abuse of blatant centralised power. Many were related to people who became citizens of this country through no choice of their own and frequently because their political views differed from those of the centralist majority or minority governments of their homelands. More importantly and more often forgotten was that the Constitution that was prepared was a ceding of power from sovereign States to the new Federation or the Commonwealth Government. I raise this point specifically because many people today see States' powers as limited to what the Commonwealth is prepared to give, not what the Commonwealth originally received. The structure of the Australian Consititution was intended by its authors to resolve doubts in favour of the States. This Bill seeks to reverse that intention. As the people of Western Australia learnt many years ago to their chagrin, the agreement for federation like a nomination from a State to the Federal Government of a heritage listing mentioned in this Bill is one way traffic-easy to do, impossible for the State to undo. This circumstance is best exampled by the South West Tasmanian wilderness where a discredited Premier, who was soon to be dismissed by his colleagues who were soon to be dismissed by an angry populous because of the actions of that Premier, was able personally to seek a World Heritage listing contrary to the public opinion of that State. Such listing was found to be irreversible by the newly-elected Premier when he attempted to undertake his mandate. Furthermore, this Bill is specifically designed to reinforce that disgraceful set of circumstances. I remind honourable gentlemen who are trying to interject that personal abuse is the lowest form of wit. I say to them: Lift your game; you are in government now. You are supposed to show a bit of intelligence. You never showed it on this side of the chamber. Although I support the proposed amendments to clause 6 (2) (a) to be moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I feel that these circumstances are sufficient reason to take the power of such a decision from the State Parliament and place it by way of referendum directly in the hands of the population of that State. It is the future of those people which is at risk. I support fully the call to delete all other provisions affecting that aspect. I oppose any Bill that seeks to alter the balance of responsibility between State and Federal Governments unless the people of the State or States concerned concede the power directly. Every part of clause 6 (2) with the exception of clause 6 (2) (a) as we would amend it is aimed directly at a transfer of powers, not only from State government to Federal government, but also in many instances to some unspecified overseas interest whose real reasons for its so-called environmental concern could be in fact, of a commercial nature. There was, for instance, considerable debate as to the role of the manufactured pet food industry in the funding of the kangaroo lobby. These arguments are history now, but the fact remains that, when overseas interests first launched their tinned pet food in Australia, there was considerable buyer resistence in favour of kangaroo meat. This resistance was overcome by the severe shortage of kangaroo meat that was created by the culling controls imposed by import bans on kangaroo products to the home of canned pet foods, the United States of America. Whilst Australia agonises over the development of its most pollution free and renewable energy resource, other international providers of energy and its resultant manufacturers who conveniently disposed of their wilderness areas some centuries ago quietly chuckle as they get the markets and grant Australia World Heritage listing in exchange. This Bill must nevertheless not be considered in the light of its prime purpose -as simply demonstrated by the last speaker who did not speak about the Bill but who spoke only about the Tasmanian dam-which is to assist the Government to overcome its problems in Tasmania. It must be considered with a maximum of suspicion as to how it will affect Australia, Australians and, in particular, the future of the Australian Constitution. This Bill is a direct attack on all that the Constitution, written with such care, means for the Australian individual. It is totally insidious in its intention, hiding, as it does, behind an emotional issue. That is not surprising considering its author. That author is neither the Minister who is sitting at the table, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), nor the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) who introduced the legislation. They were selected to do the bidding of their leader. The author of this Bill is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We must judge the intention of this Bill on our judgment of his personal integrity. We must ask ourselves to what extent he would misuse the wide powers of intrusion that this Bill provides. Might I example my distrust by reference to a syndicated cartoon strip called 'Rome rules OK'. This cartoon includes a likeness of the Prime Minister and names him Spartacus. I find the Roman analogy most interesting. But I believe the cartoonist got his names wrong. Spartacus was a slave whereas our Prime Minister never followed a vocation that got his nails dirty. In fact, he has consistently lived and moved amongst the 'senators' . Further, by his recent activities among his fellows he quite clearly should have the name of a senator; I suggest 'Brutus'. Consequently, with that thought in mind, the Australian public must exercise greater caution in watching their backs than did a recent Julius Caesar who believed a promise that there would be no more ambushes. Once blood is on your hands, additional blood does not show. The Australian public should therefore ask itself whether it is prepared to hand the unlimited powers in this Bill to Brutus. The result is as certain as baring one's neck to an executioner. The Australian public has valued the wisdom of the authors of our Constitution. Successive governments have found their proposed constitutional changes thwarted at the ballot box by a public who saw those proposals as being of more value to politicians than to themselves. On one occasion the electorate concurred with the proposal of government. In 1967, it agreed to changes to the Constitution which gave the Commonwealth powers to make laws regarding Aboriginals. The document circulated at that time and the political statements which came from both sides of the Parliament were, in the light of the legislation before us today, deficient to say the least. Only a case for a yes vote was prepared and circulated. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ABORIGINALS) 1967 Argument in favour of the proposed law The Case for YES The purposes of these proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution are to remove any ground for the belief that, as at present worded, the Constitution discriminates in some ways against people of the Aboriginal race, and, at the same time, to make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Commonwealth Parliament considers this desirable or necessary. To achieve this purpose, we propose that two provisions of the Constitution be altered which make explicit references to people of the Aboriginal race. The first proposed alteration is to remove the words ''other than the Aboriginal race in any State'' from paragraph (xxvi.) of Section 51. Section 51 (xxvi.) reads: ''The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi.) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.'' The proposed alteration of this section will do two things. First, it will remove words from our Constitution that many people think are discriminatory against the Aboriginal people. Second, it will make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Parliament considers it necessary. This cannot be done at present because, as the Constitution stands, the Commonwealth Parliament has no power, except in the Territories, to make laws with respect to people of the Aboriginal race as such. This would not mean that the States would automatically lose their existing powers. What is intended is that the National Parliament could make laws, if it thought fit, relating to Aboriginals-as it can about many other matters on which the States also have power to legislate. The Commonwealth's object will be to co -operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia. The second proposed alteration is the repeal of Section 127 of the Constitution . That section reads: ''In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.'' Why was this provision included in the Constitution in 1900? Well, there were serious practical difficulties in counting the Aboriginals in those days. They were dispersed, and nomadic. Communications in inland Australia were poor, and frequently non-existent. Today the situation is very different and counting is practicable. Our personal sense of justice, our commonsense, and our international reputation in a world in which racial issues are being highlighted every day, require that we get rid of this out-moded provision. Its modern absurdity is made clear when we point out that for some years now Aboriginals have been entitled to enrol for, and vote at, Federal Elections. Yet Section 127 prevents them from being reckoned as ''people'' for the purpose of calculating our population, even for electoral purposes! The simple truth is that Section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age. All political parties represented in the Commonwealth Parliament support these proposals. The legislation proposing these Constitutional amendments was, in fact, adopted unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We have yet to learn of any opposition being voiced to them from any quarter. Just as every available Member of the Commonwealth Parliament voted for the proposals outlined above, we believe that the Australian electorate as a whole will give strong support and endorsement to them. We urge you to vote YES to both our proposals as to Aboriginals by writing the word YES in the square on the ballot-paper, thus: YES This case has been authorised by the majority of those Members of both Houses of the Parliament who voted for the proposed law and was prepared by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Harold Holt, Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party; by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. John McEwen, Leader of the Australian Country Party; and by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Gough Whitlam, Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Mr TUCKEY —I thank the Minister and I thank the House. Statements in that document such as 'The Commonwealth's object will be to co-operate with the States to ensure we act together' could be termed downright misleading in the light of this legislation and its attempt to subvert the Constitution by use of that granted Aboriginal power. One can only wonder at the response of the Australian people had this document included a statement to the effect- Mr Scott —You hold him and I will bash him. Mr TUCKEY —That was in 1967 when you were just a boy. The document included a statement to the effect that once in possession of this power the Commonwealth would use it to frustrate the public works program of a sovereign State. I doubt that the constitutional change would have been passed if those words had been included. The Australian public passed a referendum proposal to allow the Commonwealth to co-operate with State governments on matters relating to Aboriginals and, in the words of a noted unionist at the National Economic Summit Conference 'No more, no less'. The Bill flies in the face of that understanding and should such powers be used in that fashion quite clearly the matter should go back to the people so that they may reconsider their position. In fact, this whole issue of the respective rights of State and Federal parliaments is not one for the High Court but for the people of Australia to decide. If this opportunistic Government, which quite readily will trample over the rights and future opportunities of selected Australian citizens in the search for swinging seats, is confident that it has the support of the majority of Australians on this issue, let it include this Bill with the referendum proposals that have already been announced. The cost would be very small and, considering the hold the Labor Party has over State governments it should have little difficulty in quelling public opposition. Nevertheless, if the Government does that, I ask it to please give the public the entire story. The Government might start by telling the Australian taxpayer of his responsibility under this Bill to pay compensation. During the last Parliament I had reason to complain to the then Prime Minister as to his generosity with my constituents' money when he promised to Tasmania some $500m in compensation. The ultimate test of public support for such action would be to send each Australian man, woman and child an account for, say, $40 and ask them to return the money as evidence of their support for such conservation projects. Irrespective of the present-day power of the Labor Party in State and Federal Governments, I am confident that any referendum seeking public support for this Bill in its present form would be soundly defeated by a majority of the people and by a majority of States. Let me now address the Bill in detail. Mr Deputy Speaker, how do you think the Australian public, given the chance, would react to the provisions of clause 6 ( 2) (c) when told that this provision would allow the Federal Government to take unilateral action by invoking any one of the 16,000 plus international conventions to which Australia is a party? How would they react to clause 6 (2) (d), which seeks to allow a Federal government to respond to the pressure of a foreign lobby group on an issue for which there is no domestic support whatsoever? That is what is proposed in the Bill. The very existence of the Bill in this place today denies the suggestion that no government would act in total contradiction to the will of the people. This is a Bill specifically designed to subvert the Constitution, which is the basic right of all Australians. It is a Bill which subverts every principle of natural justice and the intention of the legislators who prepared the Constitution. The intention of the legislators is reinforced by the specific inclusion of section 100 of the Constitution, which is specifically concerned with surreptitious intent, such as there is in this Bill. Let me just touch briefly on the philosophy behind this debate. There is little doubt that there exists within Australia a great concern for the environment. The concern is strongest in our cities where the actions of the citizens and their ancestors have completely and utterly destroyed the natural environment. Their environment has been destroyed and they have no experience of the battle that must be fought if one is to earn a living from one's environment. These people have no difficulty in opposing the development of our natural areas. Their food and clothing arrives pre-packaged from some obscure origin. They know little about how the money with which they are paid is generated, nor do they consider that it derives from trees. It is good to talk about the environment from the security of one's brick and tile home, shaded by imported trees and with one's environment destroying cat on one's lap. It is even nice to visit that environment, as we call it at times, but only during the best season. For the rest of the year we like to get back to the brick and tiles in our total environmental wasteland. The time might come when some hungry Australians will look on these areas as a source of survival, let alone a reason for maintaining the living standard we enjoy today-almost entirely because of the development to the production stage of certain areas of our environment. I feel as much for the mulga scrub as I do for the Huon pine or the lantana vine when they feel the bulldozer's blade. I have publicly agonised in this place over the salt patches and wind erosion that have occurred in my electorate through over-zealous clearing and the over-use of farm land. I have also pointed out that farmers overuse their land because of the greedy secondary industry sector in which the people on the other side of the House are so interested. I urge in this Parliament its regeneration to production. Nevertheless I do not expect my family to forgo the benefits that development has brought any more than a suburban resident would knock down his house, put down his cat and replant his block with eucalyptus. One might ask what might be the attitude of this Parliament today to the announcement of an intention on the part of the New South Wales Government to build the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Some honourable members sitting on the other side of the House might comment on that. I say that they would be against such a proposal. This Bill has only one intention-to commence the march to centralist government. Such a form of government is of little concern to the residents of New South Wales and Victoria. They are the geographic neighbours of that government. They have 76 of the 125 seats in that central government. My State has 11 representatives and should recently elected Labor Party members of the State place their responsibility to their own constituents ahead of party loyalties, and vote against this legislation, there would still be insufficient votes to defeat this Bill. Only two States have no need to fear the power of centralist government in Australia, as they control that government. All other States, irrespective of their politics, should oppose this Bill in the interest of the future of the people of their electorates. It is people that we are talking about tonight. This Bill is anti-people. Let us forget about dams; let us forget about trees. This Bill is anti-people. It is anti the Australian Federal system. It denies people in some parts of Australia the right to be different. This time it is Tasmania's turn; next time it could be the turn of one of us. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(10.8) —Since the introduction of the Bill a number of persons and organisations have taken advantage of the opportunity given by the Government for suggestions and constructive criticism to be made of its provisions. As a result of these representations, the Government has decided that the Bill could be improved in certain respects. Accordingly, appropriate amendments will be introduced at the Committee stage. The main amendments relate to the standing of interested persons and organisations to apply for injunctions and to challenge decisions of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), and to the circumstances in which proclamations made under clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill may be revoked. The States rights argument so crudely advanced by the Tasmanian Government in support of its plans to dam the Franklin River and the temperate wilderness of western Tasmania is simply an assertion that a State must have the right to go to hell in a way of its own choosing without any regard to the broad issues of rational resource use or long term planning for future needs, and without any comprehensive discussion of the economic, social, employment and environmental implications. The quality of the debate on the Franklin Dam in Tasmania itself-if, indeed, it can be dignified with the word 'debate' at all-has been so appalling as to constitute a travesty of the democratic process. There is a complete confusion, as illustrated by the antics of a majority of Tasmania's Federal members, between democracy and populism. The Tasmanian members have based their campaign entirely on appeals to the lowest common denominator-to fear. Premier Gray, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) are simply appealing to fear over and over again-fear of the dark, fear of cold, fear of strangers, fear of the mainland, fear of the unknown. This crude appeal demeans the intelligence of the people they purport to represent. They treat Tasmanians as if they are children, but are not Tasmanians Australians as well? Mr Goodluck —We don't know. Mr BARRY JONES —'I don't know' says the honourable member for Franklin, and that absolutely represents his attitude. Premier Gray, the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Franklin stand for the politics of Tiny Town, the world of Noddy and Constable Plod, where politicians are re-elected because of the number of egg and spoon races they have entered or the number of games of football they have played. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have never participated in an egg and spoon race and I would like that comment removed from Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BARRY JONES —They stand for the world in which appeals to larger long term issues are regarded as a form of political death. In Tasmania hydrophilia has become a State religion with the Hydro-Electric Commission as an established church. The issue can no longer be discussed rationally-it is a matter of faith, not susceptible to rational analysis. In Tasmania the HEC is bigger than God. I am particularly concerned about the way in which the HEC has debased the political debate in Tasmania. There has been a grotesque oversimplification of the Franklin row as if it were merely an issue of development versus conservation, developers versus greenies. The question of rational economic analysis, of the most rational use of resources, has never been debated, certainly not in the Tasmanian Parliament. The referendum of December 1981 was a complete perversion of the democratic process-a plebiscite along lines familiar in Eastern Europe, where voters are offered the choice of yes and yes. The option of saying no was simply not to be allowed. The Tasmanian Premier's purported defence of the dam has shifted significantly since December 1982. At first he was saying: 'We need more power for industry' until he was challenged to name any likely users-perhaps the steel industry from Wollongong or Alcoa of Australia Ltd from Portland. Then the argument was that Tasmania needed the power for home heating, until it was pointed out that Hobart has the same latitude in the Southern Hemisphere as Rome has in the Northern Hemisphere and that Finland, a third of which is within the Arctic Circle, spends only one-third of Tasmania's power bills because of sensible energy saving practices. One does not find the snow two metres deep in Hobart. Finally he resorted to the Bjelke-Petersen strategy: 'States rights and damn the national interest'. In effect he says: 'We demand the right to dam the Franklin irrespective of any elements of economic rationality involved'. The HEC dominates Tasmanian public life in a way that has no parallel in any other State-the role of the State Electricity Commission in Victoria-- Mr Groom —Where are your Tasmanian members? There is not one Tasmanian member over there. Mr BARRY JONES —That is right, and no Tasmanian politician ever lost any votes by appealing to the lowest common denominator, which is what the Opposition does all the time. Mr Goodluck —Don't lecture to us, Barry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Franklin will remain silent. Mr BARRY JONES —This may be the only place where honourable members will hear the truth told to them. If the members of the Opposition would only open up their tiny minds they might learn something. There are things in life other than winning preselections and adopting all the Tiny Town standover tactics that they are so used to in Tasmania. I doubt whether there is a single family in Tasmania without at least one relative working for the HEC. Such outspoken members as the honourable member for Denison have worked for the HEC professionally before entering Parliament. I do not hold that against him. I simply say that it means that the HEC exercises a direct influence within the whole Tasmanian infrastructure that is not found in any power generating instrumentality throughout the rest of Australia. There is a distinct Tasmanian mythology about the HEC. It must be conceded that it has made a very great contribution to Tasmania's economy in the past. In school text books Tasmanian children are taught that the HEC saved Tasmania in the Great Depression-and that is true enough. The view, of course, is always held that the HEC uniquely will save Tasmania in the future. In fact many Tasmanians have a deep-seated pessimism about the future of the State and its economy and are inclined to believe that the HEC is the only thing they have going for them. It is not too much of an oversimplification to say that many Tasmanians have come to think of the Hydro as their only hope and that to diminish its dam building capacity is in effect to deprive them of hope-that is, that 'No dams' is virtually to say 'No hope' for Tasmania. I believe that view is profoundly wrong. But because I say it is wrong it does not mean one derides it or that one has to understate it. People have to be taught. There has to be a long term educative process to explain that there are other ways in which Tasmania could and should be developed. Mr Groom —This is a university lecture. Mr BARRY JONES —No, it is something called the truth, something that the honourable member would not necessarily be familiar with. He plays the crude role of populism. He does not do it very effectively, that is true, but that is all he knows how to do. He does not rationalise; he merely reacts. The HEC is the only electricity authority I know of with a large built-in construction force. This construction force does not merely respond to need. In a sense it creates its own need. On that basis the HEC must expand, because if it stays still it will start to decay and its role as the major determinant of Tasmania's economic strategy will come to an end. So far as the HEC is concerned , this is a fight to the death, and it does not care who is sacrificed. It has sacrificed other Tasmanian Premiers. It is quite prepared to sacrifice Robin Gray and it is quite prepared to sacrifice its vocal supporters here if they do not do their job. As one of its senior officers told Dr Bob Brown, if the HEC succeeds in building the Franklin Dam it will then go on to build more dams-lots of them. Honourable members all know quite well that five dam plans in addition to the Franklin have been prepared by the HEC. Mr Barry Cohen —It will be one bloody big lake. Mr BARRY JONES —The whole island will simply be awash. That is why it is so important to persuade Tasmanians to move in a different economic direction, to persuade them that putting all their eggs in the Hydro's basket will not bring about the desired result. The hydro-industrialisation strategy of the Tasmanian HEC and its Government is based on an economic fallacy which is about thirty years out of date-that is that vast increases in electric power will automatically generate more industrial employment. Between 1947 and 1979 electrical generating capacity in Tasmania increased by 1,032 per cent while employment and manufacturing actually fell from 20.5 per cent in 1947 to 16.1 per cent in 1979. By 1982 it was 14.8 per cent. If the hydro-electrification system were correct, Tasmania would be the most industrialised part of Australia , not the least. It would have the highest employment figure, not the worst unemployment figures. Tasmanians have to ask themselves why it is that the vast amounts of electricity that are generated have not produced the economic benefits they attribute to hydro-electrification. The high point in manufacturing employment was in 1966, when it reached 23 per cent of the labour force. By then there had been a 468 per cent increase in generating capacity since 1947. In a sense, one might say that there was a large increase in generating capacity and a small increase in employment, but since 1966 it has been downhill all the way. From 1966 to 1979 electrical generating capacity increased by 564 per cent while manufacturing employment declined, a sectoral decline of 35 per cent. Tasmania, like Ghana, illustrates the dangers of relying on natural resources and resource enhancement to the virtual exclusion of all other factors. The result is that Tasmania has hawked itself around purely as a supplier of cheap electricity and nothing else. Tasmania already generates more electricity per capita than any other place on earth, with Labrador a close second. Neither could be regarded as industrial El Dorados. The point is that at the moment 60 per cent of Tasmania's electrical generating capacity sustains three huge companies-Comalco Ltd, the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd and Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, which between them account for less than 2 per cent of Tasmania's jobs. On a State comparison, Tasmanians use electricity at a per capita rate which is three times that of New South Wales, four times that of Victoria-- Mr Groom —What about gas? Mr BARRY JONES —I will mention that. Tasmania has a per capita electricity consumption rate which is four times that of Victoria, the mainland State with the heaviest concentration of manufacturing industry, and five times that of Western Australia, a huge area undergoing massive development. Its closest Australian rival is the Australian Capital Territory which is not heavily industrialised, but where waste seems to be built into the system. On an international comparison, Tasmanian electricity usage per capita, from whatever source it is generated, is twice that of the United States of America, three and a half times that of West Germany and five times that of France. It is true that it must be conceded that Tasmania has no natural gas although a contribution is made by honourable members from that State. This certainly has to be taken into account in considering proportionality. Even if Tasmania's consumption were only twice that of Victoria, taking natural gas into account, rather than four times its consumption it would still require some explanation. I am talking in this case about electricity generating capacity. Mr Newman —All energy consumption. Mr BARRY JONES —All right, if we take all energy consumption into consideration we still have a much higher per capita-- Mr Newman —You are talking rubbish. Mr BARRY JONES —No, it diminishes to a ratio of about 2:1 so far as Victoria is concerned. The figures are there. All three commodities produced by hyper hydro industrialisation in Tasmania have very dubious futures. Zinc-- Mr Tuckey —That is your opinion. Mr BARRY JONES —It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of sober fact. Zinc is at its lowest price for many years and the cost of processing in Tasmania is far more than the selling price on world markets, even ignoring freight considerations. Paper manufacturing faces a long term contraction as we move to the paperless office, electronic mail, electronic banking, facsimile newspapers, and through the microfiche revolution. What was originally regarded as a sure formula for success now looks like a recipe for disaster. The most significant contraction is in aluminium. All the indicators are that aluminium will be significantly displaced by some of the epoxies. The resin epoxies are replacing it. For example, the new Boeing 767 contains only about 10 per cent of aluminium whereas earlier 747 and 757 aircraft had about 80 per cent of aluminium. Mr Cohen —Congealed electricity. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, it is so absurd that these Tasmanians see their future as the providers of congealed electricity, as the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment helpfully pointed out. The point is that the demand for aluminium is certain to fall and is in the process of falling between now and the end of the century. The result is that the fundamental strategy that the Tasmanian Government has tried to pursue is based on an utter fallacy. There are many Tasmanians who regard it as absolutely axiomatic that more power means more jobs. But this is a dangerous delusion. The saddest thing about the dispute is that it is proposed to inflict irreparable, irreversible damage on a uniquely beautiful area of world-wide cultural and environmental significance in order to provide a small additional amount of electricity for very dubious economic advantages. The revolutionary new technologies of the 1980s are extremely parsimonious in their use of resources, both raw materials and energy. I illustrate this with a couple of examples. The first computers used as much electricity as a locomotive. Now we have computers with comparable capacity which can be run on a torch battery. I imagine that if a computer factory were set up in Tasmania under the present Government it would follow the locomotive example because the Government would say: 'We have the electricity; there must be a use for it'. I will give another illustration. In communications technologies, optical fibres represent the alternative to coaxial copper cables. The difference is that it requires 300 times as much energy to produce coaxial copper cable as it does to produce the optical fibre. No service provider in his right mind will go the coaxial copper cable route. The result is that in areas like these very sensitive new technologies, the fact that huge amounts of cheap electricity can be provided is not the great natural comparative advantage that it seemed to be. Skill is the important factor. It is a case of skill, skill, skill. All the other factors we grew up with as part of the mythology will be much less significant. Lasers can be-- Mr Fisher —You are getting a bit wide of the Bill. Mr BARRY JONES —No. I think it is absolutely fundamental. The honourable member was not here and did not have the benefit of my earlier remarks. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr BARRY JONES —I will repeat my remarks to the honourable member later because I think he can do with some help. Lasers can cut through metal with only a fraction of the power of electric drilling. If we are to have highly sophisticated, high yield, value added economy we would not go in a direction that demanded very high resource use; we would go towards the area that demanded small resource use but a heavy investment in skills. Heat exchanges, for example , are much more efficient in providing heat for houses than space heaters. I make the point that to base Tasmania's economic future on 1950s style industries which are based on a prodigal use of resources simply makes the State 30 years behind the times and cuts it off from the development that the Labor Party, with the sunrise industries concept, would like to see it have. Some months ago-- Mr Newman —Name one. Mr BARRY JONES —We have 16. I am quite happy to table them. There are a whole number of areas which are absolutely appropriate. I will be making a ministerial statement in a couple of weeks in which I can talk about them. Mr Newman —Name them. Mr BARRY JONES —All right; biotechnology. Tasmania could move very quickly into the supply of custom designed computer chips. It is probably the best single prospect with the greatest potential for wealth generation for Tasmania. If the honourable member were not so blind he would grab the opportunity. Some months ago the Tasmanian Minister for Industrial Development, Mr Neil Robson, visited London and New York after having advertised that Tasmania expected to offer more power to high energy industrial users. There was only one tentative expression of interest-in London-from a firm of bookbinders. I doubt that the biggest bookbinder would need 200 megawatts of power. I suggest-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.28) —Mr Speaker, as this is the first occasion that I have received the call since your election as Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to your high office. Having discharged that duty with pleasure, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Department of Territories and Local Government: Transfer of Departmental Permanent Head-Drought Relief-Tourism: Adelaide-Second Sydney Airport-Australian Wool Industry-National Economic Summit Conference: Premier of Queensland- Appointment of Australian Ambassador to UNESCO Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.29) —Mr Speaker, I also take this opportunity of extending to you on a personal basis my congratulations on your election as Speaker. I extend my congratulations to your colleague, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. This morning I asked a question in Question Time of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) concerning the appointment of his permanent head as the new permanent head of the Department of Housing and Construction. I asked whether that announcement was made with the Minister's knowledge and consent. The Minister responded by saying: The first I knew of the transfer was when the Prime Minister requested me to ring him; that was 12.30 yesterday. I think he said 12.30 a.m. but on the Hansard greens the a.m. has been crossed out. Mr Uren —It was 12.30, Monday. Mr RUDDOCK —It was 12.30 on Monday. I was about to say, Minister, that I assumed it was 12.30 Monday and not Tuesday because the announcement had already been made at that time. The reason I wanted to speak on this matter was that whilst the Minister first learnt of that transfer at that time, strangely enough I heard rumours that this was in prospect last week. Mrs Kelly —I didn't, and I live here. Mr RUDDOCK —I am surprised that the honourable member did not hear. Perhaps she talks to different people from those I talk to. I did hear that rumour. Mr Leo McLeay —You talk to yourself in the mirror. Mr RUDDOCK —I did not think I could be so imaginative as to speculate-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member address the Chair and ignore these disorderly interjections. Mr RUDDOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Strangely enough, when these rumours reached me they did so along with other information; that is, there were quite unusual suggestions around as to the nature of Mr Blunn's successor. That was also the view of the person who wrote an article in the Canberra Times on Tuesday morning . He commented in these terms: It was expected that the successor would not come from within the current staff of the department, nor necessarily from within the Commonwealth Public Service, but was possibly someone who had been involved in working towards the further development of self-government in the ACT. Mrs Kelly —You don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Mr RUDDOCK —I would like to think I did not have to believe information of that sort. I hope the suggestions I make will be proved wrong. When I commented on this matter, as I did in a Press statement yesterday, I said-as the Minister said today-that Mr Blunn was a very highly regarded public servant and that he had given very dedicated service to Canberra. For those reasons I was somewhat surprised at his movement. I think I expressed it in stronger terms than that. I also picked up from the same article in the Canberra Times that Mr Blunn, travelling back to Australia, as was the Minister, was also surprised to learn of the transfer. The same newspaper article-presumably after the interview had been held with Mr Blunn-went on to say: Mr Blunn's new appointment is, on the scale of relative departmental importance , a promotion, but last night he was reluctant to describe it as such. According to the article Mr Blunn said: I love Canberra. I cannot imagine anywhere better to live. The article continued: He came to his then new position described by colleagues as a man ''brimming with ideas and with a tremendous drive to carry them through''. Last night he said that the timing of his transfer to Housing and Construction would not have been that of his own choosing. It was surprising, I observed when I commented on this, that there was concern at suggestions that his successor would not come from within the Department or the Public Service and that perhaps this transfer was designed in the way in which it was only to soften up the people of Canberra for an outside appointment in the Wilenski-Spigelman-Menadue mould. Comments have suggested that the Minister and the Department have in mind names such as Pat Troy and John Mant, although I understand that he has denied the suggestion that he might be appointed. I hope the procedures that have been developed for the appointment of permanent heads of departments will be followed, that lists will be prepared by the Public Service Board and an appointment will come from a senior level of the Public Service and that somebody as dedicated and as well prepared as Mr Blunn will be chosen. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.33) —Tonight I wish to address a few remarks to the plight in which the farming community of Australia is finding itself. I think the plight will increase next year. Australia is recovering from a very serious drought. I think everyone was very gratified that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, was able to arrange such beneficial rains. It is fortunate for the farmers who live in the eastern States that they do live there because droughts of a similar intensity in the West have never elicited the same sorts of material expressions of concern. It may have been that the election which was in the air had something to do with it. One cannot be cynical enough about the previous Government which ran this country into such devastating economic troubles. Drought relief assistance, which gives farmers a maximum loan of $40,000 with a low interest rate over a limited period, is not really the answer to the problem. Low interest rate loans which are payable over a short period are quite hard to repay. Many farmers in Australia have now reached the situation in which, while they have the equity in their land, they do not have the ability to service the very high debt structure. The only way out of this is to make some form of orderly long term loans available to the farming community. Without a revival in the rural sector there will be no major recovery in the Australian economy. In my opinion the commercial banks have a responsibility to provide funds to farmers. They gave an understanding to the previous Minister for Primary Industry and to the previous Prime Minister. They have given similar undertakings to this Government. But in many areas farmers simply are not being provided with the necessary money to put into crops. It may be that a farmer's long term serviceability is not good, but he is a darned sight better off if he puts in a crop than if he does not. The nation is much better off if a farmer puts in a crop. I believe this question must be looked at very closely. The commercial banks in this country must take a more positive stance on this matter . It is simply not good enough for them to say: 'Your loan is not serviceable, therefore, we will not be responsible for sending you broke'. They must be prepared to leave the choice to the farmer of whether to extend credit to the extent of the asset backing. I believe that in this way farmers will be better served by the banking community. The alternative is to look at other forms of finance. I am sure that when the banking community of this country understands the advantage that has been bestowed on it it will realise that it is in its interest to be a little more generous and a little more aware of the plights of the rural sector. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.38) —Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your election to the high office of Speaker of this House. I wish you well for a successful term of office. I know that you will distinguish the Chair. I also wish your family the same good wishes during your term of office. Tonight I wish to raise the question of a reported statement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is present in the House. His reported statement was: Who would want to fly to Adelaide? This is a remarkable question from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. A man who should be promoting international and domestic tourism has chosen deliberately to denigrate Adelaide which is one of Australia's great cities. I call on the Minister to withdraw this comment and apologise unreservedly to the citizens of Adelaide and South Australia. The Minister should know that Adelaide is the city of the Adelaide Festival and the gateway to the Barossa Valley as well as providing ready access to outback Australia. It is a great city. I point out to the Minister that an international visitor survey for 1979 and 1981, which was conducted by the Australian Tourist Commission, showed that between 1973 and 1981 the number of international visitors to South Australia grew at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. South Australia consistently exceeded national trends in international tourism over that period. The international visitor's impact on Adelaide and South Australia is substantial. The 125,000 international visitors to the State in 1981 had a marked impact on the tourist industry. The average visitor stayed in the State for almost 18 nights, generating a total of 2,207,000 international visitor nights in South Australia. It is estimated that during their stay they spent a total of $72.5m. Obviously the Minister is unaware of these facts. International visitors not only want to come to Adelaide and other parts of South Australia but also they choose to stay there for quite long periods. Adelaide has one of the best accesses to the outback for the visitor with limited time in Australia. The Flinders Ranges and the far north can be visited in four hours' driving time from Adelaide. Mrs Kelly —Haven't you any members from South Australia? Mr SHIPTON —I wish the honourable member would listen. The city is an excellent jumping off point for the visitor to Ayers Rock and the Centre. It offers excellent air connections to Alice Springs. There are many attractive outback packages embracing the Flinders, the opal mining centre of Coober Pedy and Alice Springs. I point out to the Minister that Adelaide provides excellent opportunities for visitors to see unique Australian wildlife at the Cleland Park wildlife reserve in the Adelaide Hills, just half an hour from the city. The reserve is developed in a natural environment and has been constantly praised by visitors. I suggest that the Minister visit the reserve to see for himself its unique facilities. Whilst there he might wish to handle a koala, so that he can see that his denigrating remarks about that animal are wrong. A koala does not have fleas; it does not smell other than by a faint eucalyptus leaf odour, and it is a docile wild animal. I also say to the Minister that the New Yorker magazine has described Adelaide as: possibly the most well planned, well governed and moderately contented metropolis on earth. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SHIPTON —Honourable members should just listen, because I hope that we shall have their support. The Minister should make special funds available to South Australia for a promotion campaign to undo the damage he has done. I call on the Minister to withdraw unreservedly his derogatory remarks about Adelaide and South Australia and to apologise to the people of that State. I also call upon him actively to promote Adelaide as a domestic and international tourist destination. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.41) —I was sorely tempted to utilise this opportunity in the adjournment debate to complete my maiden speech from yesterday, but I have been dissuaded from adopting that course of action. I should like to refer to a matter which has a specific relevance to my electorate of Sydney, and that is the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the fact that this Government has announced that it will not be proceeding with the third runway and will expedite moves to seek to locate a site for a second airport. I congratulate the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and the Government on that measure, which was reaffirmed on 29 March of this year in a Press release. It was very pleasing to see that the spurious types of rationales that have been advanced in support of building a third runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport have finally been rejected. They are arguments which, even in the most narrow economic terms, are at best spurious. If one goes beyond the narrow economic terms and looks at the broad range of social consequences that flow from having an airport located where the flight path goes over some of the most densely populated areas of the city, and if one considers the social consequences and health consequences which flow from that and which do not really enter into the technocratic cost-benefit analyses which have been performed, and takes those factors into account one realises that the decision to abandon that course of action is truly worthy of praise. I congratulate the Government on its course of action. I take this opportunity to urge that the question of detecting a second airport site be expedited. My main reason is the simple fact that establishing a second airport is the logical concomitant of abandoning the third runway proposal. At present, the figures for the rate of growth of aircraft movements through Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport indicate that as a result of the recession we have experienced something of a respite. The figures that I have obtained show that in 1979 there were 186,000 aircraft movements at Kingsford-Smith. The provisional figure for the number of aircraft movements in 1982 is 181,000. In other words, throughout that period there has been a declining trend as a direct result of economic conditions and that is directly contrary to what was predicted by the Major Airports Needs of Sydney study which has provided the basis for those who advocate proceeding with the third runway. In other words, what we have now is a breathing space in which the problems of congestion are, for the time being, not as severe as they had originally been expected to be. The other factor in this matter is that the longer the location of an airport site is delayed, the more urbanisation and other developments will take place near the location of any potential future site, with the obvious problems that arise as a result of the need to acquire land and to proceed with the airport once further urbanisation has taken place in those areas. So, for those two reasons, it is clearly desirable that the Government expedite the process of detection and location of a new airport site. As the Minister pointed out in his statement, we have had plenty of studies of the whole question. Every conceivable econometric or cost benefit analysis and every kind of technocratic exercise that could be gone through has been gone through, and we have reached the stage at which there is really no justification for not proceeding swiftly. As I understand it, the Government corresponded last month with the New South Wales Government on this very matter. It is obviously a matter that cannot be acted upon unilaterally by the Commonealth Government; it requires a co-operative attitude and co-operative actions by the State Government, which I have every reason to expect. The sooner a new airport is developed, the sooner the people of my electorate- the working class people and the migrant people who reside in Marrickville and who are subject to intense noise and the severe disturbance of sleep and of recreation time that results-will have some alleviation of that problem. I conclude by urging the swiftest possible action on this question. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(10.45) —In the brief time available to me tonight I wish to raise a matter of great importance concerning the Australian wool industry. At present it is being held to ransom by the shearers strike. Wool is our most valuable commodity. It is our biggest export earner. The strike is causing economic problems right across Australia. It is a strange thing that it has not been mentioned in the House during this week. Of course, the situation has arisen by reason of the wide comb being introduced into Australia; but that should not cause a strike by the shearers, because they can use the normal comb without worrying about the wide comb at all. The stoppage has dragged on into its fifth week, with meetings of striking shearers in five States rejecting mounting pressure on them to return to work. The farmers have been through a devastating drought. Their incomes have been greatly reduced and, if they cannot get the wool off the sheeps backs and get it to market, they will be in great trouble-as indeed they are. In Dubbo 136 delegates representing 68 shearing areas unanimously rejected a recommendation from the federal executive of the Australian Workers Union to return to work. How does one overcome this problem? The AWU has asked them to return to work and they have just rejected this request. Meetings in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia have also voted to remain on strike. In the Riverina, where a rebel shearers meeting gained wide support earlier in the month, shearing is reported to be in progress on some properties under police and vigilante guard. What a situation, where a farmer wants to take off his wool and yet is prevented from doing so by shearers being on strike and causing problems! In South Australia recently a confrontation with shearers going on to a shed occurred and fisticuffs and a real melee took place. Rather than lose sheep, other wool growers have decided that they will shear despite the strike. Farmers have experienced a devastating drought over the past two years, with no income, and now being held to ransom by shearers is causing great personal loss. The nation's economy is being very severely affected. Boat sheep contracts have been lost because producers have not been able to provide sheep with the required two months or less wool. This is a valuable export for Australia to the Middle East and countries elsewhere which purchase our live sheep. Those purchasers like to have two months or less wool on the backs of sheep before they can be shipped. These shearers have ignored the call to return to work from their own union. The Wool Council of Australia has called on woolgrowers to proceed with shearing and to notify their employees of the return to work recommendations of the AWU federal executive. The Shearers Contractors Association has requested that work be resumed with the narrow comb pending negotiations. That is a fair request-that the shearers return and use the normal shearing comb. This may not settle the dispute immediately but it will allow the industry to resume operations. The Livestock and Grain Producers Association, a farmer organisation, advised growers to commence shearing at many sheds over a wide area. The National Farmers Federation has telexed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) warning of violence accompanying the dispute and of the danger of confrontation taking place. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) have been telexed not only by these farmer organisations but also by many people throughout Australia to intervene in an endeavour to settle this problem which is causing great economic chaos not only to the farmers but also to the economy of the nation. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(10.51) —As this is my first opportunity to speak in this Parliament I want to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to the high office of Speaker. I was delighted to be here and participate in your election. In fact, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this place for some seven years. I hope I will have many more such opportunities in the next seven and more years that I intend to be here as part of a Labor Government. Mr SPEAKER —I still cannot allow you on this occasion the privileges which go with a maiden speech. Mr KEOGH —Thank you, Mr Speaker, I accept the fact that some honourable members opposite might not be too happy with some of the things I will say in the few moments available to me. I take this first opportunity to speak on behalf of the silent majority of Queenslanders, I speak of the majority of Queenslanders-at least the percentage that supported the Australian Labor Party on 5 March and probably a far greater percentage by now-which does not support the Premier of Queensland and certainly did not support the Premier's remarks in the course of the disgraceful episode which took place at the National Economic Summit Conference. The Deputy Premier of Queensland was also involved; we all know that he goes along with the Premier in anything he wants to do or say. They demonstrated their attitude to the success of the Summit Conference by their failure to support the resolution at the end of that Conference. Mr Bjelke-Petersen said on that occasion that Queensland would not accept the ' blank cheque' final communique. I remind Mr Bjelke-Petersen that he speaks no longer for the majority of Queenslanders and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Queensland people here or in Queensland. I reiterate on behalf of the majority of Queenslanders who supported the Labor Party on 5 March that we support the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in calling the Summit Conference and we congratulate him and the Labor Government upon its success. We look forward to the resolutions of the Conference being put into effect in the months to come. Let the Premier of Queensland realise that no longer can he go on in the way that he has in the past, purporting to speak for Queenslanders because now in the Federal Parliament there is a big number of Queenslanders who will in the months to come speak out on behalf of the Queensland people. In a Press report following the Conference the Premier is reported to have said: Queensland is not prepared to put its foot on the sticky paper and be stuck with it. I tell the Premier of Queensland that the people of that State already have their feet on the sticky paper-that of their National and Liberal Party Government in Queensland. That situation is fast coming to an end. Before long the people of Queensland will lift their feet from the sticky paper. Later this year they will take the opportunity to elect Keith Wright and a Labor Government in Queensland. Already the public opinion polls in Queensland show clearly that the climbing popularity of Keith Wright and the Labor Party will inevitably bring to an end the reign of the Queensland Premier. It is the last of the mainland States to take such an opportunity. At the first available chance it has, which will be presented to it later this year, it will rid itself of the dead hand of the ultra-conservative, right wing government that it has had for so many years. It will elect a Labor Government that will join this Government in Canberra in bringing progress and prosperity to the people of the State. The Premier of Queensland has criticised this Government on a wide range of issues. His own fear of electoral defeat has forced him to bring back a campaign program on which he ran a number of years ago. It is to go to air in Queensland and he will be spending $12,000 a week of Queensland taxpayers' money on it. He will spend over $600,000 between now and the election campaign in an endeavour to sell and save his Government. I might as well tell him here and now that that effort will be of no avail because I am sure that the people of Queensland have already made up their minds that they will, on the occasion of the election towards the end of this year, support Queensland Labor candidates to the same extent as they did on 5 March. Certainly we will see what we are now looking forward to-the election in Queensland of a progressive Labor Government that will join this Government in Canberra in bringing about the sort of prosperity that the people of Queensland have been long denied under the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GROOM(Braddon (10.56) —At the outset, I add my congratulations to those offered by other honourable members upon your election, sir, as Speaker of this House. I am sure that you will be a most distinguished and able Speaker. I assure you of the confidence and support of honourable members on this side of the House. In particular, you certainly have the respect of honourable members from Tasmania. I refer briefly tonight to a report that I heard on the radio this evening. It concerned an appointment by the new Hawke Government. This is the first job for the boys of the new Hawke Government. I was not surprised that the man to receive this first plum job was the former Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam. What did amaze and dismay me was the fact that this first appointment was to the position of Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. This is an appointment lathered in cynicism and hypocrisy because we will recall that in 1978 Sir John Kerr, the former Governor -General, was appointed to that position. Mrs Kelly —He did not last long. Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Canberra says that he did not last very long . Honourable members will recall the very bitter and vindictive debate that took place in this Parliament, in this very chamber. Honourable members who now sit on the Government side made very cowardly attacks on Sir John Kerr and on his credibility. Some of them, who had a little more guts, even said it outside the Parliament. This is an hypocritical and cynical appointment by the Government. I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Whitlam would realise that Mr Whitlam is taking the position that the Australian Labor Party forced Sir John Kerr out of. Mr Goodluck —What is his salary? Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Franklin raises the question of his salary. I hope that the Government will look very carefully at that issue. I am sure, from the promises that have been made, that it will. Its supporters certainly attacked Sir John Kerr in relation to the salary that he was to receive in that position. Rumours have been circulating in Canberra and other places that the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, will eventually become the Governor-General of Australia. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr GROOM —We hear support for that suggestion from honourable members on the Government side. I think I even heard someone clapping. Is this the first step along the way for Mr Whitlam, who is an ambitious man? Does he want to become the Governor-General of this country by the bicentenary year of 1988? I believe this cynical and hypocritical appointment confirms the rumours that Mr Whitlam has his eyes on Yarralumla and that if this Government remains in office he will be there by 1988. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr UREN —I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(11.02) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) tonight raised a matter about which he asked a question during Question Time. All I can say is that the honourable member is a glutton for punishment. He suggests that there is something irregular about the appointment of Tony Blunn as Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction. I reiterate that at 12.30 p.m. on Monday I was requested to ring the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who asked me whether I would be happy to co-operate in the transfer of Tony Blunn to that Department and I co- operatively agreed. Tony Blunn has spoken to me. He did not know about the transfer until 8 o'clock on Monday morning, when he saw the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and the suggestion was made to him. That is the record and I do not care what anybody says. Having lost a permanent head one has to go through the normal processes to select a new one and I have gone through the normal processes in the proper manner. I have selected my permanent head, a recommendation has been made and in due course the Cabinet will make the decision, not me. We on this side of the House are committed to the Australian Labor Party's policy on housing. Tony Blunn, as Secretary, will have the opportunity to put that policy into place. I said this morning that he is a man of compassion, with a commitment to people, and therefore I think he would be a good man to assist the Minister and the Government to carry out that policy. I said this morning that there were to be 106,000 housing commencements this year-a 20-year low. The housing industry has a capacity of 150,000. It is our policy in our first year to build an extra 18,000 homes. I said that in the second year we will build 145,000 and in the third year 160,000. This is our commitment. Mr MacKellar —Where is Chris Hurford? Mr UREN —The arrogance of the honourable member for Warringah! He lives in a silvertail electorate. There are over 300,000 people in Australia who are homeless or living in appalling conditions. That is confirmed by the Housing Industry Association. They are appalling conditions which the previous Government allowed. Over 100,000 families are waiting for housing commission homes. For some reason or other, the Opposition seems to be confused because a man has been elevated to the position of Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction to carry out the Labor Party's policy. That policy is one of the major thrusts of the Australian Labor Government under Bob Hawke and yet Opposition members seem to be confused and think the appointment is a demotion. What is wrong with them? Are they so dull and so stupid that they do not understand that? That is the situation. We intend to use the housing industry as a building brick to help to rebuild the Australian economy. In building the homes envisaged for the first year we will employ, directly and indirectly, at least 25,000 people. By the third year we believe we will be employing, directly and indirectly, in the housing industry over 100,000 people. Yet the honourable member for Dundas seems confused. I hope that the few remarks that I have made tonight will have penetrated his comprehension so that he can understand the importance of the new position of the Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction. Honourable members on this side of the House congratulate the Government on its decision because Tony Blunn is a fine public servant. I believe he will give good service to this Government and to Australia. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.5) —I rise to say a few words in response to that trivialising-need I say piddling- effort of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who attempted to take me to task about my statements on tourism. I am glad that he has because it has given me an opportunity to put a few things straight and in context. In Brisbane last week I delivered a 45-minute speech on the tourism industry. According to the description of my illustrious friend the honourable member for Moreton, (Sir James Killen), one of the Opposition's better members, it was an excellent speech. He said that it was the best speech on tourism that he had heard in years. The pity of it was that the Press, with its feeble little minds, could find only two little 10-second grabs to sensationalise; the first, my remark about koalas-I do not want to get into that issue-and the second, my statements on Adelaide. I shall put what I said in context for honourable members. All I said was that to build international airports all around Australia was economic madness. Adelaide is a pretty good example of that. What I did was ask: 'Who would want to fly to Adelaide on an international flight?' If the Press had had the decency to put that comment into context that would be one thing, but to cut three words off the end of it is another. Let me tell honourable members something else about tourism. The previous Government left us with a legacy of 800,000 people unemployed. Mr Wilson —You wanted the South Australian Government to subsidise- Mr JOHN BROWN —You be quiet, you goat. It also left a deficit of $10 billion. While all this was happening, do honourable members opposite know what the previous Government was doing to the greatest opportunity it had to deliver to the Australian people a growth industry that could employ people? It sent tourism back into a time warp, by many calculated examples. For instance, the previous Government managed to increase air fares by 27 1/2 per cent in the last 12 months and it caused the domestic market to decline by 9 per cent. These are examples of deliberate actions of stupidity by the previous Government. At least in 1980 it applied a 2 1/2 per cent depreciation rate to buildings for accommodation. But by 1983 this had been taken away by applying it to every industrial building. The previous Government took away the exemption from diesel excise that the tourism industry traditionally had. It added $1m to the cost of running the off-shore island resorts in Queensland this year. Nothing was done in seven years to promote tourism; it was sent backwards. The previous Government removed the department that Frank Stewart set up. In the Department of Industry and Commerce 25 people were handling tourism, Australia's biggest industry. It employs 375,000 people, has a turnover of $10,000m-double the turnover of either the mining industry or the motor car industry. The previous Government did not have the intelligence to realise that here was an opportunity to develop an industry. Australia has crept to the position of having one per cent of the world's tourism dollar when we are the world's most fascinating and attractive tourism destination. That has happened simply because the Government of seven years did not know what to do about exploiting it. We are not happy with one per cent of the world's tourism dollar. We will make it a lot more. We will double the number of international visitors who come to Australia. It is now a measly million; Australia has a population of 15 million. Poor little Hungary, sitting up in the north of Europe, with 11 million residents, has 15 million visitors a year. We have one million visitors and have a population of 15 million. By doubling the number of international visitors to Australia we will create 100, 000 jobs and add an extra $3.5 billion to gross domestic product. We will not sit on our hands for seven years, as the previous Government did. I am indebted to the Press that it trivialised my speech about koalas and Adelaide and took everything out of context because it has given me an opportunity to let the nation know how big tourism can be. It has got on the front pages of the Press for the first time quite by accident and I am not going to miss the opportunity to keep it there. I will not do it by bagging koalas. Do the poor feeble minded little individuals opposite who are wandering around with koalas badges on their lapels know what they are doing? They are just reinforcing the fact that they know nothing whatsoever about the tourism industry. We do. By the time we have left office at the end of this century honourable members opposite will know that Australia has reached its potential as the world's most attractive tourism destination. This will occur because this Labor Government has understood the total ramifications of tourism, its contribution to the Australian economy and its capacity to employ people. Because of that we will make it go. We will not be like Opposition members who, sat on their hands for seven years and did nothing about it. No one knew who the Minister for Tourism was in its seven years of government. They know who I am and they will not forget it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11.10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Sinclair to move- That this House deplores the Government's decision to disband the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm which has a most distinguished record of service to Australia and calls on the Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that there will be no reduction in rotary wing activity nor manning levels at HMAS Albatross. Mr Burr to move- That this House urges the Government to introduce legislation to exempt from taxation certain benefits that accrue to employers under approved employee share acquisition schemes. Mr Cadman to move- This House- (1) expresses its concern that the Government has not been able to have the A.C .T.U. endorse the accord and summit communique to the extent of enforcing restraint on the claims of building, oil, metal and transport unions; (2) criticises the Government for its naivety in not having all sections of industrial unions endorse the accord and summit results in writing and by substantial commitment, and (3) calls on the Government to immediately proceed to de-register the Builders Labourers Federation. Mr Fisher to move- That this House, noting the 90,000 megalitre loss of water each year in the Northern Mallee region of Victoria, through evaporation and seepage calls upon the Government to- (1) provide immediate funds for stage 1 of the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline, which was promised by the previous Government, and which has the full support of the Victorian State Government, and (2) outline its proposals for similar water resource projects previously agreed to, and which are now under review. Mr McVeigh to move- That this House- (1) expresses its disapproval of the denigration by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism of an Australian national symbol, the Koala, and his reference to the Premier of Queensland as an 'old goat', and (2) calls on the Minister to withdraw those remarks.