Thursday, 5 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 parential 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 Adermann,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Drummond,Mr Groom,Mr Millar and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 R.A.A.F. 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 Australian 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. 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 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 N .H.S. 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 the 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 Fry. 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 US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; 2. many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; 3. Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and 4. the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 petition of certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory shows: That the exclusion of Taxis from the Civic Passenger Transport Interchange is an unjust decision and places hardship on the sick, elderly, disabled and the public in general. Your petitioners therefore pray that immediate action be taken to permit Taxis to use the Civic Public Transport Interchange. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: (1) that a clear majority of the electors of Tasmania have indicated by their votes on 5 March, 1983 that they believe the Parliament of that State should be permitted to retain the power to make decisions fundamental to the future of Tasmania. (2) that such matters as infrastructure development have under the Constitution , been matters for decision by State Parliaments since Federation. (3) Therefore, that the State Government should be allowed to construct the Gordon-below-Franklin dam without interference or obstruction from the Federal Government or Federal Parliament. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled take no action to remove or lessen this power of the Parliament of the State of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the exportation of live animals for slaughter to overseas. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to ban the export of live animals for slaughter overseas. 2. That the export of live horses to Japan for slaughter for human consumption be banned on the grounds that it is cruel and unnecessary. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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 house-bound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. 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 show: 1. That the management of General Motor-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 disclocation, 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 BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Federal Government to maintain the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House strongly supports moves for multilateral and verifiable disarmament. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House commends the Federal Government for its assurance to country air transport users in New South Wales that they will not be disadvantaged by the Government's decision not to proceed with a close-space parallel runway at Sydney Airport. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its concern at the current level of air fares being charged to passengers between Western Australia and other Australian States with their consequent damaging effects on business, tourism and family reunions. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the apparent hypocrisy of the Opposition in attacking the Government's wages policy when the Opposition itself does not have a wages policy; and, further, calls on the shadow Treasurer and shadow employment spokesmen to reconcile their reported differences on this issue and establish a consistent policy so that they might make a worthwhile contribution to the House . Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates Mr Cliff Young, a 61-year old farmer who amazed the world with his performance in the Sydney to Melbourne marathon run; commends the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Hon. John Brown, for extending the Government's congratulations to this amazing man personally today; and calls on the Government to encourage and support efforts by people like Mr Young who by their example show what Australians of all ages can achieve. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I wonder whether the Leader of the House (Mr Young) might accept that that motion be put so that we could pass on to Mr Young the compliments of this House. I am sure we would all be delighted to share in endorsing the motion. Mr SPEAKER —I have allowed the Deputy Leader of the National Party indulgence. Does the Leader of the House wish to respond? Mr Young —At an appropriate time. Mr Snow proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- 1. Expresses its concern about the developments in the field of genetic engineering and related medical research; 2. Deplores the fact that experimentation and research have been allowed to continue without sufficient community debate about the ethical, legal, social and moral ramifications, both for those subjects involved in the experimentation and society as a whole; 3. Believes that the National Health and Medical Research Council should report to Parliament about these issues rather than compiling reports without prior consultation with the community; and 4. Supports the case by concerned people for proper debate on the multifarious legal, ethical, social and moral problems which have arisen from this research. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Speaker, my notice of motion arises from a decision which you gave only a minute ago. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That this House congratulates Mr Speaker on reversing the decision of the previous Speaker that the words 'hypocrisy' and 'hypocritical' were unparliamentary terms. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House requests the Government to proceed forthwith with the erection of an international airport in the Queanbeyan-Goulburn region. Mr SPEAKER —I have been approached by a couple of honourable members who have sought to establish when they could make a personal explanation. For today at any rate I propose to allow honourable members to make personal explanations at this stage. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Speaker, I would like your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I have. In this morning's edition of the Launceston Examiner- Government members interjecting- Mr NEWMAN —Mr Speaker, this is a very important and very influential paper. It does not have much respect for certain honourable members opposite. In this morning's edition of the Launceston Examiner there is a report which carries an assertion by Senator Jean Hearn that I am advocating secession and that I am supporting the Tasmanian Autonomy Society. That assertion by Senator Hearn is totally false. I am not a member of the Tasmanian Autonomy Society. I have had no discussions with the Tasmanian Autonomy Society. I know nothing about the aims and objectives of the Tasmanian Autonomy Society and I know nothing about the personalities in the Tasmanian Autonomy Society. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence as I have been personally misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOLDING —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HOLDING —My notice has been drawn to an allegation attributed to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in a radio broadcast. I have a report which states: A Federal Government Minister allegedly accused Tasmanians of being inbred. The member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, said the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, had said he (Goodluck) was inbred like all Tasmanians. Mr Goodluck said that, because of the commotion in Parliament at the time, he did not hear the exact words of the interjection and it had not been reported in Hansard. He had called for the logging tapes of Hansard to check Mr Holding's exact words. I did not use the terms attributed to me by the honourable member. I have taken the matter up with him and indicated to him that I feel that propriety would require him, as he made this statement, to take some action as what he alleges was not recorded in Hansard. He has chosen not to do so. I assure the honourable gentleman that I have absolutely no concern at all about either his paternity or his heredity. What I did say, when the honourable member and some of his colleagues were acting in grievous breach of Standing Orders and challenging your authority, Mr Speaker, was: 'Stop acting as if you are inbred'. Such is the paranoia of honourable gentlemen opposite that they are unable to distinguish between-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now going beyond the correction of a misrepresentation. Mr McVeigh —Sit down, you galah. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I ask the honourable gentleman opposite to withdraw that statement. Mr SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not hear the remark. Mr Holding —The remark was: 'Sit down, you galah'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I request the honourable gentleman to withdraw the remark, as the Minister finds it offensive. Mr McVeigh —I have difficultly in understanding how he-- Mr Holding —You know nothing about koalas and you know less about galahs. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr McVeigh —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I do not wish to make a personal explanation but may I ask for your assurance that, should honourable members be misrepresented during Question Time, adequate opportunity will be provided to them after questions without notice to make personal explanations. Mr SPEAKER —Of course that facility will be offered. I indicated that because of the changed program I had made a decision in running to call on personal explanations when I did, but no honourable member will be deprived of his rights in that respect. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —I would be the first person in this House to apologise if I misinterpreted something that was said. But the statement attributed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), which I think is very appropriate on this occasion, was said. It was heard by many honourable members on my side of the House. It was suggested to me at the time that I take a point of order but I did not. The Minister did say it and I ask him to withdraw it. It is a reflection on not only me but every Tasmanian. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now starting to debate the matter. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The grave community disquiet created by the allegations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce against the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.15) —More than ever before Australia needs an independent, fearless, professional Australian Broadcasting Commission. I would have thought that at the very least that is an issue on which this Parliament might be able to achieve a bipartisan attitude. Perhaps that is an issue on which the much sought after consensus between the Government and the Opposition might be achievable. When the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) earlier this week introduced the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill he said: Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent Australian Broadcasting Corporation, able to meet the broadcasting needs of the Australian people. He went on to say: The Government is committed to maintaining the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's independent news service. All I can say at this stage on behalf of the Opposition is that they are sentiments with which we totally agree. It is because of our concern to achieve those objectives and give effect to those sentiments that this matter of public importance is brought forward today. The remarks of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) would have been extraordinary in any circumstances but because of some other events that I will come to in a moment they have been given an added significance. They do represent a matter of very grave concern not only to the Opposition but also, I believe, to many people in the community. In another place yesterday, in answer to a question dealing with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Senator Button said that he would hope that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation acted in these matters without fear or favour. He continued: That is an appropriate position for the chairman of a body such as the ABC to adopt. My only regret is that the present Chairman of the ABC did not, in my view, always adopt that attitude in the past. What has Senator Button done since making that extraordinary statement to explain what he meant? He has refused to be interviewed on the matter. He has refused to make any public statements about the matter other than to say that he would write to the Chairman of the ABC about it. What has the Chairman of the ABC, Professor Kramer, said about the matter? Interviewed last night on the ABC program Nationwide she was asked whether she had any idea as to what the honourable senator was talking about. A portion of the transcript of the program reads as follows: Q. No idea about maybe problems that occurred during the campaign between the ABC and the Labor Party; . . . A. Well, my understanding is that both major parties felt that our election coverage had been very fair and very reasonable and there has been no complaint of any kind from either party since the coverage. Q. Are there any stories which have been referred to you or to the Commission that have been rejected which might somehow explain his concern that the Four Corners story was allowed to be passed. A. No. No. None at all. No. Q. No stories referred up that you may have expressed dis-satisfaction with that could have filtered back to the Labor Party in any shape or form. A. Nothing; nothing of any kind. I mean I am absolutely mystified as to what is in his mind, and I do wish he would say what it is because you can't respond to a general accusation that is unsubstantiated. The Chairman of the ABC is a highly respected public figure of a reputable national broadcaster, the independence of which is an article of faith not only of our parties but also of the Australian Labor Party. Yet one of the most senior Ministers in the Government, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a person who is a close confidant not only of the present Leader of the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but also of the former Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and a person who played a major role in writing the media policy of the Labor Party when it was in opposition, makes this extraordinary statement about Professor Kramer. In isolation, those circumstances would be remarkable-even sinister-in themselves. But when we put them into the context of two other events which have occurred in the past seven days they assume an even greater significance. Everyone knows that last weekend the ABC program Four Corners broadcast what many people regard as a very professional, painstaking and well researched program, one which vindicates the high regard that many people in the Australian community have towards the ABC. It is a matter of notoriety now that that program raised very serious questions about the conduct of the Premier of New South Wales, the National President of the Australian Labor Party, in relation to the administration of justice in New South Wales. If those allegations were true they would go to the very heart of the integrity of the administration of justice in New South Wales. They would call into question the integrity of the administration of justice in New South Wales and, therefore, the good order and government of New South Wales under its present administration. As a consequence of those allegations there has been a chorus of calls, not just from the Liberal Opposition here and in New South Wales but also from a wide cross section of commentators and the community, for a full judicial inquiry into those allegations. As the Premier of New South Wales knows, as I know and as many other people know, the defamation proceedings which the Premier has decided to use in respect of those allegations are manifestly inadequate to the task of establishing the truth or otherwise of the allegations that were made in that program. Indeed, it is a matter of great disquiet that the Premier of New South Wales should have rejected the calls for an independent judicial inquiry. In relation to the course chosen by the Premier of New South Wales, the Sydney Morning Herald, in its editorial of 3 May, said: But the libel court, at least in the first instance, does not seem to be the proper venue to have the whole of the Four Corners material adequately ventilated and investigated. The laws of evidence and the special rules relating to libel mean that issues to be argued in a libel court can be drawn quite narrowly. I remind the House that the Four Corners presentation was no ordinary presentation. It was not a run-of-the-mill journalistic effort that had been put together in a few hours without adequate research. The research into it had gone on for months. As the transcript shows, statements had been collected from many people, including senior and experienced magistrates, whose office and stature made them especially credible witnesses. The transcript went on to say that each of the people who provided statements was willing to give evidence on oath before a properly constituted inquiry as to the truth of the statements they had made. In other words, we have a program which says that it has statements from, amongst other people, magistrates who are prepared to give evidence on oath before a properly constituted inquiry. That was no ordinary program. The allegations were no ordinary allegations. They imply that the Premier of New South Wales had asked the Chairman of Stipendiary Magistrates to ensure that a Mr Kevin Humphreys was discharged regarding certain committal proceedings which were to come before one of the magistrates. That is in any sense, shape or form no ordinary allegation. It goes to the very core of the administration of justice in New South Wales. It raises very serious doubts about the confidence that the people of New South Wales have in a Labor administration which over the last seven years has had a series of affairs involving, inter alia, a former Assistant Police Commissioner, Mr Allan, and numbers of other activities, particularly by the former Attorney-General, Mr Walker. It is the conjunction of that with the remarks of a senior member of a newly elected national Labor Government that gives to this matter of public importance very special significance. The third issue that gives particular significance to Senator Button's remarks is the fact that at this very moment the Government is reaching for parliamentary approval to dismantle the existing Commission and to establish a broadcasting corporation. Coincidentally enough, that gives to the Government the power and the opportunity to sack all of the existing commissioners and to establish a new broadcasting corporation. In giving effect to the recommendations of the Dix Committee at this time, the Government takes upon itself a very special onus to satisfy the Australian public that it will not abuse the power that it is now seeking from the Parliament. It must satisfy the Australian public that, in appointing new commissioners to the ABC, they will in fact be people who will act without fear or favour, that they will in fact be people who will be completely dispassionate so far as political comment is concerned, and that they will in fact be people such as Professor Kramer, who was prepared to authorise the Four Corners program to go to air last weekend according to the principles of the ABC, and that it will not appoint people who may on some future occasion refuse to allow a program of that kind to go to air. I say that as a member of a party that can hardly claim to have received favourable treatment from the ABC over the years. I think I would speak for all members of this House in saying that, when the occasion has arisen, the ABC has not been reluctant to put the heat on both political parties in this place, as befits the role of a truly independent national broadcaster. So we have this rather remarkable-some would even say sinister-conjunction of events: Firstly, we have a senior member of the Government casting unfair, unsubstantiated, unreasonable and, so far as we can ascertain, unjustified aspersions on the Chairman of the ABC; secondly, this comes within days of the broadcasting of a program that raises the most serious questions imaginable about the conduct of the Premier of New South Wales, allegations which, if true, would undermine the confidence of the people not only of New South Wales but of Australia in the good order and government of the State of New South Wales; and, thirdly, at the same time, we have before this Parliament at this very moment legislation from the Government which will give it the power to dissolve the existing Commission and to take upon itself the power to establish a new corporation and to change completely the identity of the existing ABC. It is within the grasp and the capacity of the Government to put at rest the concerns and fears I have raised, which I believe the community shares, by answering a number of questions. I am glad that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is to reply. In his reply, he might care to answer a number of questions. Firstly, he might care to tell the House whether he has complete confidence in Professor Kramer as Chairman of the ABC. Secondly, he might attempt to explain, if he knows, what was in the mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, when he made his statements in another place yesterday. Thirdly, will the Minister repudiate the quite irresponsible, disturbing and unfair allegations that were made by Senator Button yesterday against Professor Kramer? Finally, will he give the House a categorical assurance that, if the conversion of the ABC into a corporation occurs before the litigation between the Premier of New South Wales and the ABC is resolved, there will be absolutely no interference or hindrance of any kind on the part of the Government in respect of the ABC's conduct of that litigation? It is only by giving clear, unambiguous and candid response to those questions that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, can put at rest the grave concerns raised by these extraordinary events of the last seven days. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.29) —The first point I make about this matter is that I find it extremely interesting that the motion was moved by the honourable member for Bennelong, Mr Howard. One would have thought that the responsible shadow Minister on the Opposition benches would have been the person who would have put forward the Opposition's views on a matter on which the honourable member for Bennelong places such tremendous significance. The fact of the matter is that the last point made by the honourable member for Bennelong may well be the reason why the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has not been on his feet in relation to this matter today. The last issue raised by the honourable member for Bennelong was that there should be no interference by the Government in respect of the litigation between the Premier of New South Wales and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The quite despicable suggestion that there might be was put forward here two days ago at Question Time and was categorically denied. One wonders where such a suggestion even came from. It is disappointing that it was repeated today. I have answered that question once. There will be no such interference with the ABC in respect of that litigation. I will start with that issue. That is repeated categorically. It would be very interesting to know whether the honourable member for Bennelong or the honourable member for Murray had any evidence to the contrary or whether the honourable member for Bennelong just came in here to float that sort of outrageous suggestion in an attempt to get some sort of political mileage from it. In answer to the allegations made, we will-- Mr Howard —What about the final two questions? Mr DUFFY —I will come back to them. I told you that I would deal with your last one first, and I will choose to handle it the way I want to handle it. You can give your advice later. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr DUFFY —We should look for a start at the statement made by the Chairman of the ABC. She said: This program raises matters of considerable importance. I was aware of its content before it was put to air. It is the role of the ABC as the national broadcaster to report events without fear or favour. I have nothing further to add. I will speak directly to that, because the Government supports entirely that statement by the Chairman of the ABC. This Government is totally committed to the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It ought to be remembered that it was the post-war Labor Government which set in place key provisions in the legislation to guarantee the independence of the ABC in news and information. With respect to the independence of the ABC, I turn at this stage to the record of the people opposite who are now complaining about this issue. Over a period of years there was intimidation of the ABC, continued cuts in its budget and general abuse and denigration of the ABC news and current affairs staff. That criticism came, in particular, from the Country Party, now known as the National Party. That may well be the explanation why a spokesman in this area of communications did not today put forward this matter of public importance against us. Anybody in the Country Party would be embarrassed to talk about anybody on this side of the House in respect of the independence of the ABC. Let us consider some of the performances. The former member for Gippsland, the Honourable Peter Nixon, the then Opposition spokesman, on 17 March 1975, when he was what was somewhat quaintly described as an Opposition front bencher, senior Country Party spokesman on transport and Country Party spokesman on the media, said: ABC Commissioner (Professor Downing) is either a naive academic or is part of the plot to disseminate socialist propaganda Australia-wide over ABC radio news. At best Professor Downing is so naive that he has had his head in the clouds for the past 20 years. That is not a bad performance when talking about attacks on the Chairman of the ABC. He was not satisfied with that. Mr Anthony —He was in the Opposition. Mr DUFFY —Now, there is a brilliant interjection from the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). He said: 'He was then in Opposition'. Let us look at what Mr Nixon said when in government. The right honourable member is still in Opposition. He can wait. Three days later, on 20 March, after Professor Downing dared to defend himself, we then had this outburst from Mr Nixon: How can Professor Downing's comments that 'the ABC reports and comments from a neutral position favouring neither one political belief nor another' . . . apply in this instance? . . . Even Professor Downing cannot deny the mounting evidence that ABC reports either on radio or television are far from impartial. Then, of course, all sorts of other events took place. The next thing that happened was the coup of 1975. Mr Nixon then became the caretaker Postmaster- General. This was at the stage when the present Opposition was the acting Government following the coup. I will read what he said and honourable members had better have a good listen to it. A Press report at the time stated: The caretaker Postmaster-General, Mr Nixon, yesterday renewed his pressure on the ABC with a call for a political 'moderator' to monitor the commission's election coverage. That was the report of his statement in the Age of 13 November 1975. It continued: Mr Nixon, who has strongly criticised the ABC in the past few months, said the 'moderator' was needed to balance 'the ABC's now well established bias towards Labor and the socialist side of politics'. He added: 'Never in its history will the ABC be under such close scrutiny as during the coming election campaign. ABC news and public affairs programs must expect unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party and the Liberal Party'. How about that? That is not a bad performance. It stated: The ABC news . . . must expect unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DUFFY —I wish Opposition members would sit there and listen for a while. The honourable member for Bennelong was at least heard in silence. Opposition members will not shut up, because they do not want to listen to what is being being stuck right up them at this stage. I will move now to the matters which Opposition members obviously want to listen to. They were not prepared to listen to what I said about the disgusting, utterly disgraceful performance that was put up by people when they were in a position to exercise influence over the ABC. Look at the headline 'ABC needs watchdog, says Nixon'. Let us look at what Senator Button said. In answer to a question in the Senate he made the following points: Firstly, the ABC is an independent instrumentality ; secondly under this Government it will become more independent than it has been in the past. In fact, the honourable member for Bennelong pointed that out in the opening to his speech, and I thank him for that. In introducing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983 yesterday, I said that: . . . 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. That is the attitude of the Government towards the ABC. The Chairman of the ABC made a statement which was referred to earlier in which I think she used the expression that the ABC acted in these matters without fear or favour. That is what in fact Senator Button said. Mr Lusher —Say that again. Mr DUFFY —Is the honourable member having trouble hearing? He was not listening. The Chairman of the ABC made a statement about this matter two or three days ago in which I think she used the expression that the ABC acted in these matters without fear or favour. That was the statement of Senator Button. When Senator Button said: 'I think she used that expression' he was correct because what Professor Kramer said was: 'It is the role of the ABC, as the national broadcaster, to report events without fear or favour'. That was endorsed by Senator Button in the Senate yesterday when he said: That is an appropriate position for the chairman of a body such as the ABC to adopt. My only regret is that the present Chairman of the ABC did not, in my view, always adopt that attitude in the past. Having regard to the integrity and capacity of Senator Button, which was outlined at some length by the honourable member for Bennelong, and his undoubted knowledge of the area, I have no doubt that he can substantiate that statement. Senator Button has already indicated, in a Press release issued yesterday and published today, that he would be writing to Professor Kramer directly in connection with his remarks. Senator Button further said: I stress that the Government is committed to the independence of the ABC. I applaud the statement by Professor Kramer that the ABC had a duty to report events without fear or favour. Certain matters were raised specifically by the honourable member for Bennelong. He made various points in his speech in which he referred to the need for independence and fearlessness in a professional ABC. We all support that point and I have dealt with that. The honourable member then moved to the significance of Senator Button. His significance in the political life of Australia was outlined at enormous length. He then moved to the events of the past three days, which we have dealt with. Then there was some sort of incredible suggestion to bring in the whole issue of the pending action in New South Wales by the Premier of New South Wales. He really was suggesting that the Premier of New South Wales had no right to defend himself by taking defamation proceedings. That is the issue that we are about here. If the action is taken by the Premier of New South Wales, the real issue is whether we will interfere in that action and we have said categorically that we will not. But it is an extraordinary suggestion to put before this Parliament that the Premier of New South Wales was not really entitled to take action to defend himself through defamation proceedings and should have done it in some other way. The honourable member then gave considerable praise to the veracity of the ABC program and that, of course, is a matter to be tested. The Opposition went on and on about how well researched the program was. Maybe it was. That is a matter to be tested. Let us see what happens in relation to that aspect. In fact, the Opposition had better be right about that because otherwise, as far as the ABC is concerned, it has grave problems and that, I think, is something that the Opposition well knows. It will have grave problems in relation to any defamation proceedings. The fact of the matter is that the problems of the ABC will be very considerable if that program was not correct. The Opposition is well aware of that because the ABC is facing defamation proceedings and that will cause some difficulties. Mr Howard —Answer my first two questions. You said you would. Mr DUFFY —The questions the honourable member put to me were these: Firstly, would I in fact, here today, express confidence in Professor Kramer. As far as I am concerned, in relation to that matter-(Extension of time granted). I indicate in respect of the questions raised that this is not a set of interrogatories and I am not obliged to answer them, but I propose to do so. Mr Howard —But you will, won't you? You said you would. Mr DUFFY —Yes, of course I will. In respect of the question of confidence in Professor Kramer, I have indicated to the House that the statement made by Professor Kramer in relation to the independence of the ABC is totally supported by me and it was totally supported by-- Mr Howard — Just answer the question. Mr DUFFY —I will answer the question in the way I want to. It was totally supported by me and totally supported by the Leader of the Government in the Senate yesterday. He also supported that. In respect of the allegations that were made, I am not in a position at this stage to start telling the honourable member, because I have not seen what the specifics of those allegations are. They are being conveyed to Professor Kramer, as indicated by Senator Button. The fact is that I have not yet-- Mr Howard —Do you have confidence in Professor Kramer; do you or don't you? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should allow the Minister to complete his speech and to be heard in silence as he was. Mr Lusher —We don't want the time to run out before he completes his answer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume has been interjecting throughout the whole debate. I have taken note of that. Mr DUFFY —The other issue specifically raised was the question: Am I prepared to repudiate Senator Button? The answer is no. Another issue that was raised-I will come back to it because it is the most incredible issue that the honourable member has raised in the whole of this debate-was whether I would give an assurance that there will be no interference in respect of the litigation. That has been answered. There will be in fact no interference by this Government in respect of any litigation against the ABC. The fact is that, as far as I am concerned, that is a matter which has been raised over two or three consecutive days. If the Opposition is going to ask again whether or not I, any member of my staff or any member of this Government has at any stage been approached in relation to that matter it had better come up with some evidence about it because it is the sort of thing that it floats. Mr Howard —I was talking about the future. You did not even hear the question. Mr DUFFY —Now the honourable member has asked about the future and I will answer him about the future. Insofar as my position as a Minister is concerned, and speaking on behalf of this Government, there will be no interference in relation to that litigation. If the ABC wants to run a program without fear or favour, as it should run it, it faces the consequences. If, in fact, litigation then takes place that is a matter for the ABC and the litigant, and that is in respect of the past and the future. There will not be interference. Mr Howard —What about the first question, though? Mr SPEAKER —The discussion is concluded. Mr Lloyd —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Murray. Mr Howard —We gave the Minister an extension; he has another four minutes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. The discussion has concluded. One of their number is asking for the indulgence of the Chair. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LLOYD —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LLOYD —I have been misrepresented twice by the Minister for Communications ( Mr Duffy). First of all, in his speech, he implied that in my simple and straightforward question on Tuesday, when I was seeking an answer as to whether or not the Minister had been contacted prior to the Australian Broadcasting Commission program being televised, I was impugning his honesty. Only he can say whether or not his answer was honest; I made no such implication. Secondly, he said that I should have been speaking on the matter of public importance today because I am the shadow Minister for Communications. I was listed with the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to speak on this subject today. Simply because of the actions of this Government in not wanting to have this matter of public importance fully debated participation was restricted to one speaker from each side. Therefore, I was not given the opportunity to speak. If I had, it would have been a delightful experience. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is debating-- Mr LLOYD —The Minister for Communications-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LLOYD —The Minister for Communications-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LLOYD —Used a certain argument-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member. Mr LLOYD —I was just completing my personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member was debating his personal explanation. Mr LLOYD —Because of his absurd defence, but what they have done now-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Murray will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister claims to have been misrepresented? Mr YOUNG —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Murray (Mr LLoyd) has suggested that in some way the order of debate today has been irregular. Let me point out to the House, for the benefit of those honourable members who may not be conversant with the way in which the former Government ran the House, that the Opposition has been given exactly the same opportunity this week to participate as was given to us when we were in opposition-two speakers from each side on the matter of public importance on Tuesday, two speakers from each side on the matter of public importance on Wednesday and one speaker from each side on Thursday. The Opposition is getting what they gave us. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Connolly had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (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'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.50) —My colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has eloquently set out the dangers that the parties on this side of the House perceive in this Bill. I support the amendment that he has moved and those that he has foreshadowed. The Bill in its present form is very widely drawn. It is a measure which will greatly erode the structure of our long-established and well-tried federal system. As my colleague said, the Bill as it stands is a virtual frontal attack on the federal system in this country. It is a major step towards changing, covertly, not by the proper procedure of a reference to the people, the power balance that has pertained in this country since Federation and which has served us well. It is sincerely to be hoped that, at the very least, the Government will harken to the arguments that will be put from this side for amendments to the measure. To that aspect I will return. Nevertheless, it would be a sad thing if the people of Australia should form the opinion that all members of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, because of their concern about the shape of this particular measure, condone the building of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. That is not the case. Indeed, many members and senators from the Opposition parties are strongly opposed to the construction of the dam and are convinced, as I am, that the majority of the Australian people-especially the young-hold the view that the dam should not proceed. I say in this Parliament that that attitude in the Australian community is a broad-based one. It is not just the 'greenies', as some so vociferously proclaim, who hold that view. As I said, it is the view of the majority of, at all events, mainland Australians. It is the view also of the Australian and New Zealand academies of science. They stress the basic fact that research methods in respect of the rich archaeological evidence, and of the ancient vegetation as evidence of climatic change, continue to develop. Thus the evidence cannot be researched once and for all prior to flooding; that is just not reality. Indeed, even more fundamentally, they stress that the right questions to ask emerge only with the development of science. I have a copy of a letter from the Council of the Australian Academy of Science to the former Prime Minister. As I understand that it is now public property I ask for leave that it be incorporated in Hansard to provide enlargement on the somewhat complex questions to which I have just referred. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Leave is not granted. In conformity with the precedents set by the previous Speaker, I rule that material of this kind which can be read into the proceedings cannot be incorporated. The effect of such incorporation is to expand the contents of Hansard. That is considered undesirable. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I am trying to conform with a suggestion made by the Whips that we limit our remarks. That was the point of the request for incorporation. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, can I intercede on your behalf. I think it is an important letter. I would like to see it incorporated for the record. I take the point that many honourable members want to speak. To read the letter into the record would protract the debate unduly. I ask you to exercise your indulgence. It is not an unduly long letter; it is an important letter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Without trying to diminish the important precedent which as been set in parliamentary procedure, having regard to the submission made on behalf of the Government I am prepared to accede on this occasion. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE P.O. Box 783 Canberra City Australian Capital Territory 2601 Telephone (062) 48 6011 Telex 62406 ACSCI Cables ACSCICAN President: Professor A. J. Birch, GMG, PRESAA, FRS 24th February 1983 Dear Prime Minister, South Western Tasmania Scientific Issues The Academy of Science Council, after inquiries, wishes to comment on its assessment of scientific issues involved in damming the Gordon River. Its conclusion is that the building of the proposed dam would deprive Australian science of a number of unique opportunities. So much of Australia has been irreversibly altered by human intervention, even before European settlement, but much more drastically since, that the few remaining virtually pristine areas must be preserved for long-term investigation . A major area is contained in South Western Tasmania. Due to its inaccessibility and lack of inhabitation for a long period, it represents a virtually undisturbed remnant of the post-glacial era. It is clearly fragile to any disturbance, not alone due to the physical damage due to a dam, but to the influences which go with this construction and use: roads, the introduction of exotic flora and fauna, the probabilities of much more frequent fire damage, general pollution. The inaccessibility which has preserved it has also rendered difficult its detailed examination. The difficult terrain and the physical obstacles exacerbate problems of systematic investigation. Although some biological investigations have been carried out in areas to be flooded, it is clear that these are rather sporadic and do not approach the systematic long-term work for which there is need and opportunity. Micro-flora in particular require more work . Of invertebrates little is known, except that freshwater ones are unexpectedly diverse. This, and ecological questions, may be correlatable to factors such as diverse but stable habitats, and to the biogeographical history of the area. Nobody knows. The use of the ancient huon pine potentially to date climate changes, of world significance, back as much as 11,000 years, which is a unique world opportunity, would be inhibited to an unknown extent by flooding of sites for material. It has been stated that only a small part of the site is directly involved, and that investigations now can provide what information is potentially available. The portion of the site directly involved is in fact a quite large proportion of the critical area, and the whole area is likely to be indirectly affected as noted already. Furthermore, there is insufficient time, or people available, for the researches. Even more fundamentally, we do not now know all of the right questions to ask, and the future will also undoubtedly supply new methods of investigation. It is one of the tragedies of archaeology, that many prime sites have been destroyed before the right questions were asked and the powerful new methods used. Archaeology is also not just a hunt for artifacts and bones but a most laborious, sophisticated use of scientific procedures. The complete destruction of sites by even the most modern is likely to forestall yet unasked questions, and methods not yet contemplated. They should remain available indefinitely. All of this amounts to a plea for minimum present disturbance of the biological and archaeological situations. The last in particular represents a unique opportunity to examine a period of human development, not available elsewhere. The scientific arguments are therefore more complex than statements that certain species will or will not disappear. What would disappear is a unique picture of knowledge and understanding in a unique area for which we are responsible to the world at large as part of our common heritage. We are also responsible to our own grandchildren and their grandchildren not to deprive them of unique scientific, as well as other opportunities resulting from our own short-term and probably insufficiently considered alleged needs. Further detailed information could be provided on request. The Council of the Academy of Science wishes to add its voice to those calling for no dam construction. Yours sincerely, A. J. BIRCH President The Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser, CH, MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the House. I referred a moment ago to the young people of Australia. Let me say this: It grieves me that their aspirations and ideals should have got so tangled up, so fouled up, if I can put it that way, with this far-reaching Bill which has been brought in at this stage, in the almost poisonous atmosphere of the gross failure of the Government to enter into serious, persistent, effective, sincere and meaningful negotiations on this great matter. I was saying how broad-based is the judgment that the dam should be stopped. I mention in that connection only that the Young Liberal Movement of Australia, for example, to a man, and to a woman, takes that view as, for that matter, do many, if not a majority, of State Liberal members in the New South Wales Parliament from Mr Greiner down. This perhaps is not the context in which to go over the arguments for not proceeding with the construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam; rather, we have to look, as my colleague said, to the insidious attack that this Bill makes on the federal system in this country. However, the arguments for not proceeding boil down to this-the recognition, which I have said is very broad-based and is held not least of all by the World Heritage Committee itself-that South West Tasmania, in terms of its physical beauty, its natural features and its archaeological and anthropological richness, is of outstanding value and importance not only to Australia but also to the world as a whole. To that one may add that the economic case for the dam, given the question marks over the growth of the demand for power in Tasmania, is at best uncertain. Finally, as to the argument which is much favoured by the Premier of Tasmania that employment in the construction phase of the dam is important to Tasmania, I can respond only by pointing out that to construct a dam for that purpose would surely be the most perverse and expensive make-work program one could possibly conceive. There are assuredly other more sensible alternatives to meet Tasmania' s acknowledged problems. We would all back them to the hilt, as I hasten to assure my colleagues and I hope still my friends from Tasmania. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who preceded me in this debate, talked a lot of mythology about Tasmania and the Hydro-Electric Commission, but not so much, I think, in this area of job generation. Beyond that very brief statement of the case for ceasing construction of the dam, I am bound to take this opportunity to set the record straight on some of the more misleading things that have been said on this matter. One of these is the claim that the World Heritage Committee, by listing the South West Tasmania area when it was informed that the dam was to be built, thereby condoned the building of the dam. That is not correct. I refer to Dr Ralph Slatyer, not your 'academic greenie' but a hard-nosed scientist whom the Liberal-National Party Government appointed as Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; he held that post until 1981. I now hear that former Prime Minister Mr Gough Whitlam is to take over that job. Ralph Slatyer, hard-nosed scientist, former Ambassador to UNESCO and currently Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, has categorically stated that the view that the Committee condoned the dam in that way 'is definitely not the case'. He went on to refer to the strongly worded statement by the Committee urging the Australian authorities-that is the phrase that was used-to take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property, that is, it was saying that the dam should not be built. He makes it quite clear that the Committee proceeded to the listing 'in spite of the planned dam in the hope of sharpening public opinion and bringing about rethinking on the part of the Australian governments'. He added: Sites listed by the committee are the modern equivalent of the seven wonders of the world. He said that if the building of the dam on the Franklin River went ahead, South West Tasmania could be delisted as a site and that if it were this would be 'the first time such a thing has happened'. I suggest to this House that most people hope that Australia would not be the first country to have an area delisted. The second point that needs to be set straight concerns the rather rabble- rousing speech made last week by Premier Gray to the Constitutional Convention that even got the name of Colonel Gaddafi of Libya into the act. For the record, the World Heritage Committee does include Libya. It suffers under the Colonel, no doubt, but also includes certain important monuments, as does Egypt and Iraq, who are also members of the Committee. But also that Committee includes France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Switzerland and-wait for it-the United States of America as well as Australia. There is no question that those substantial Western powers were outvoted or otherwise lent upon or outmanoeuvred by the Libyas and Bulgarias referred to by the Premier. The third point I make is: Are the Australian people aware that all of this fuss is over a dam to produce a mere 180 megawatts of power? Compare that with the Eraring station in New South Wales to produce 2,650 megawatts, Vales Point producing 2,150 and the new Loy Yang power station in Victoria to produce 4,000 megawatts. Honourable members can get some perspective of the 180-megawatt station when they compare it with the 2,650 megawatts at Eraring and the 4,000 megawatt station at Loy Yang. Mr Barry Jones —There is a great disproportion between ways and means. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, indeed as the Minister says. Of course those stations I have referred to are coal fired. I think that underlines that the small 200- megawatt thermal station as proposed by the previous Government would, with adequate planning, siting and modern methods of control, result in few pollution problems as indeed has been recognised by the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission itself. Having said all this, when we turn to the Bill before the House what do we find ? I come back to what my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) so ably said. For reasons known to itself the Government chooses to go beyond what is required for the purpose before us of preserving South West Tasmania for future generations and for science, and brings in a wide ranging Bill enormously extending the powers of the Federal Government, without the due process of constitutional change, grossly increasing the powers of the Government in a way quite unacceptable to this side of the House. Under the definitions of clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill the Government would have the power to declare any hillock, local waterfall or alleged Aboriginal sites- areas not within a cooee of World Heritage areas-and to do so against the wishes of State governments and local council authorities. Why the Government has taken this course, I am not aware. I sincerely ask the Minister in charge of this Bill , the Honourable Barry Cohen, to explain to us why this is so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I interrupt to say that there has been a tendency today for honourable members on both sides of the House to refer to members in terms of their surnames rather than their electorates. I ask all honourable members to note the complaint that I have made. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I request the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to provide us with a direct answer. For the reasons I have stated, my colleagues and I will be moving a series of amendments designed essentially to contain the thrust of this Bill to world heritage properties and in particular South West Tasmania-after all it is called the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill-as well as attempting to clear up a number of other problems in the Bill, specifically related to compensation that could be of very great significance to individuals with properties under threat. Then, with those amendments accepted, the measure can pass this Parliament on a substantially bipartisan basis. We can join together to preserve South West Tasmania for Australia and, indeed, the world for this and future generations so that, to quote the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in his policy speech of February last, 'it can be enjoyed and preserved for our children'. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.5) —In supporting the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill I must congratulate the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). There was a lot of good material in his speech and I hope that our Tasmanian colleagues take note of it. Probably there was less conviction in his argument when he became concerned about the Bill. In supporting this Bill I am deeply conscious of the apprehensions felt by many Tasmanian workers and their families. They have unfortunately become entrapped in a treacle of half truths and fear produced by the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission and retailed by the many myopic politicians who come from that State. In the sphere of the intellect, we have in this Parliament representing Tasmania a collection of giant pygmies. To compound that contradiction, I point out that they come in all sizes. This is a very unhappy situation and I will refer to it at a later stage. I must also say that I do not hold with all the people loosely called environmentalists. In my opinion, many of these environmentalists are suburban hedonists, people who have the affluence and the time to enjoy these remote localities and do so. It is an opportunity that many people in the community simply do not get. Even worse than these hedonists are those to whom I refer as environmental fascists who have simply elevated their conception of the environment and made it a fuhrer to which they tend to direct all their regard. They have no consideration at all for other people's views or, in many cases, the concept of joint use. This is not to say the wilderness concept is not valid . I believe it is valid and is endorsed by an overwhelming number of Australians . The abdication of power that has occurred in Tasmania is almost beyond belief. The Hydro-Electric Commission is the real government of Tasmania and, like all absolute powers, it corrupts. The HEC has as its main concern its own self- perpetuation and in its pursuit of this self-perpetuation it has become enmeshed in self-deception. This self-deception is based on the concept that building dams and creating more electricity will create more jobs. This is very self- deceiving. My colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has already explained the consequences of this error and I will not go down that road at this stage. I turn to the economic arguments. The Hydro-Electric Commission's economic scenario calls for a growth of 2.9 per cent per annum in power use between 1981 and the year 2000. Should this rate fall to 2.2 per cent or less per annum, the coal-fired option would become cheaper. That is the position even on the HEC's own plan. The HEC was 30 per cent out in its estimate of power demand in relation to the Pieman scheme-30 per cent in only 10 years. That says something about the HEC's ability to play with figures. The Pieman scheme was also subject to cost overruns and the HEC admits that the cost of hydro schemes is rising faster than the general rate of inflation. This economic scenario is cause for even more disquiet when it is realised that this reversal of relative costs comes about when only one variable-the demand variable-is considered. When other variables such as the future cost of coal and the rate of inflation are considered, the costing of the HEC becomes even more suspect. All these things demonstrate the ostrich mentality of the HEC. Coal would give greater flexibility to the hydro scheme as it would allow the lake system to be run down with more safety. I do not think anyone would deny that it is a good thing to have flexibility in anything as basic as a power supply scheme. The coal option would also provide many more full time jobs. Tasmania has inland from Bell Bay one of the most easily exploited coal fields in the world. The railway already exists and the coal could be delivered to Bell Bay at very competitive rates. The HEC has not properly looked at the economics of this, and , regrettably, neither has the Government of Tasmania. It is sad that the constitutional problem here-the State of Tasmania is taking the Government of Australia to the High Court-will stand or fall on section 51 ( xxix) of the Constitution; that is, the external affairs power. Section 51 (xx), which deals with power over corporations, and section 51 (xxvi), which gives the Commonwealth power to make laws in respect of Aboriginals, both relate back to this external affairs power. Therefore, it is my belief that the action will stand or fall on section 51 (xxix). One can only hope that with the departure of Mr Justice Barwick from the High Court the court will practise more intellectual rigour than it has done on previous occasions. I now turn to the behaviour of the Liberal Party members in this House. I exclude those Liberal Party members who are, understandably, embarrassed. There has been some suggestion by some honourable members-I think by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to whom I would be quite happy to extend Tasmanian status-that this Bill is some draconian power designed to further the cause of some centralist bogey. In my opinion, the Bill is specifically designed to cover the intransigence of that very obtuse gentleman, the Premier of Tasmania, and it relates specifically to this dam. How would one describe these members from Tasmania? One gets lost for euphemisms on an occasion such as this. I think of them as some sort of maggot in the collective intellect of Tasmania. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), with all the Gilbertian pomposity of a retired major, was a half colonel in the Army. The reason the Army only made him a half colonel was that most of the time he is only half there. The honourable member for Bass suggested that the use of the Royal Australian Air Force was not legitimate. The exercise was perfectly legitimate. Most people in Australia accept that the Air Force has the technology, the ability and the best people to undertake this sort of task. Most people in Australia applaud the Government for using the Air Force to take photographs of the area. Honourable members in this House call for the armed forces to be used to help the civil community on many occasions. I believe the forces should be much more involved in civil works. As I said before, I am really searching for euphemisms in trying to describe honourable members from Tasmania. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is a very ordinary and a very unctuous little man, but he has introduced burlesque into this House. There was much breast beating here yesterday with the utmost insincerity. He spoke of some threat to Tasmania. He talked of confrontation. This Government is not a confrontationist government. We had a situation in which the Premier of Tasmania was threatening the Government of Australia with his police force. The best way in which to avoid this confrontation was to take the course which the Government did. I do not back away from it in any way at all. I do not think it was a mistake. I commend the Government for it. Let us look at the hypocrisy of this unctuous little man. He called upon the Government of Australia to send the Army into Tasmania. He was prepared to set the Army on citizens of Australia. He was prepared to set citizen against citizen. In those days, as late as last December, the honourable member for Franklin wanted to send the Australian Army into the Franklin Dam area to round up all the environmentalists. Mr Goodluck —To put the Army on standby, that is right-Bellamy included. Mr CAMPBELL —There we have, from the honourable member's own mouth, an illustration of his hypocrisy. Mr Goodluck —It is not hypocrisy. Mr CAMPBELL —Oh, yes-absolute. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair. Mr CAMPBELL —The long term development of Tasmania must depend on providing jobs on a long term basis. It must be evident, even to Opposition members, that one cannot go on building dams forever. There must be a limit to the number of dams that one can use, even if one uses them for fish ponds. The electricity will obviously not be needed. Tasmania should be looking very closely at other industries. It may well be that the Hydro-Electric Commission, which has a marvellous technical expertise, would also be very good at building roads. On my last trip to Tasmania, I thought that the roads there could do with some upgrading. If Tasmania could upgrade its roads, it could enhance the tourist industry. It may be able to get people up into various areas to see some of the beauty spots that the island contains. Tourism is an industry in which there are real prospects of growth and in which one can sustain long term improvements. Tasmania should also, perhaps, be looking at modifying its education system so that it is turning out the sorts of people who can grasp the new technology. It is in those areas that the future and salvation of Tasmania must lie. I urge honourable members who come from Tasmania, instead of adopting the very parochial stance that they do in going on with all this meaningless posturing and breast-beating, to give serious consideration to the real problems that beset Tasmania and not to try to build a smokescreen around some issue of nebulous States rights. I come from an electorate that is many times bigger than Tasmania, an electorate that contributes very much more than Tasmania does to Australia's overseas earnings. It is an electorate which is very disparate and which covers all sections of the community. I represent to that electorate the Government of Australia. I do not flinch from that at all. I believe that in Australia we are one nation. We are all Australians. The Federation of this country came about at a time when that, perhaps, was not so. But history has welded this country into one nation. It is a matter of grave concern to me and a source of great grief that some people, for the most tawdry reasons, are setting to in an attempt to demolish this growth of Australian nationalism, the concept of Australia as a single nation. I do not believe that today the great majority of Australians still hold with States rights and parochialism. I do not believe that the great majority want to see Australia go down a banana republic road, so that we would have in the world the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Tasmania. It is very sad that this Parliament and country are being used as a forum to perpetuate that sort of dissent in the community. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(11.19) —At the outset, I should like to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your important position. We certainly wish you well in that position. This is an historic Parliament because, for the first time in our history, we have not one member on the Government side from one of our States. I ask honourable members to consider the significance of that fact. We have a new government, elected with a significant majority. But on that side of the chamber there is not one member from Tasmania. There is no one on the Government side with the local knowledge to speak on all the issues of concern to Tasmania. This is an historic fact and it has some real significance. Why did the people of Tasmania refuse to elect a member of the Australian Labor Party to this House, the people's House? The reason was-- Mr Campbell —Fear. Mr GROOM —As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said, they feared the Australian Labor Party and what it planned to do to Tasmania. I am the local member for this area and we have had this issue for five years or so now. We have had in Tasmania a State election, a referendum and the Federal election. There are people on the other side of the chamber who believe that they know all about Tasmania, having been down there maybe for a day or two. They pretend that they know more about our local situation, and South West area, the Franklin River, the Gordon River and our power needs than ordinary decent Tasmanians. The tragedy is that the Australian Labor Party and the present Government have been conned by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, which is not a Tasmanian-based body but a national body based on the mainland. It is headed by a number of fanatics, including Dr Bob Brown. People on the mainland have said that there is concern on the mainland; we are getting a lot of letters from members of the public; there are a lot of letters in the papers; there must be concern. I must say that the Tasmanian Wilderness Society has conducted a very efficient campaign. It has been a very professional and slick campaign. If honourable members want to know why they have received lots of letters and why the media has been bombarded with letters from so-called concerned people about the South West, I suggest they look at some of the tactics of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. I refer to a letter dated 23 November 1982, signed by Bob-that is not Bob Hawke but Dr Bob Brown. In that letter to people in the Tasmanian Wilderness Society all around Australia he urged them to write furiously to their Federal politicians and to bombard the media, the papers, the television and the radio. The Society put out a dossier on the tactics of interviewing a Federal member of parliament. It advised people not to let the member ask them questions, but to make sure that they continued to ask him questions; how to organise delegations to see local members. This concocted campaign has resulted in an emotional response from many well-meaning people on the mainland. I ask honourable members on the Government side not to underestimate the depth of feeling in Tasmania. It is not just among people employed by the Hydro- Electric Commission; it is right throughout the Tasmanian community. Ordinary, decent, hard working Tasmanians-not just archeologists, academics, trendies, Dr Bellamy-types from the United Kingdom-feel that the Hawke Government is taking away something that is very precious to them, namely, a large part of our State. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) talked about Tasmanians as vandals. A lot of unfair things have been said about Tasmanians in this House. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) did himself no credit when he referred to the five members from Tasmania, the only Tasmanians in this House, as maggots. The honourable member for La Trobe referred to Tasmanians as vandals . We are very proud of our record in Tasmania of looking after our environment. Some honourable members have gone with the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and camped on the Franklin River or the Gordon River. But have they really seen Tasmania? Have they seen how beautiful our State is? I am sick and tired of people referring to Tasmanians as vandals. We have protected our environment far better than any other State has. Twenty-seven per cent of Tasmania is national park or conservation area. We have the beautiful Freycinet National Park. How many honourable members have been to that beautiful Freycinet National Park, which I believe is our great national park in Tasmania? I wonder how many people know where is is. How many honourable members have been to Cradle Mountain and Lake St Clair National Park? How many of them have walked through the beautiful bush lands of Tasmania and seen our wonderful beaches? What about the Arthur River? When the radicals from the Tasmanian Wilderness Society come to see me and start asking questions, not knowing that I happen to be the local member and have lived in the area most of my life, I say to them: 'What about the Arthur River?'. Mr Burr —They have never heard of the Arthur River. Mr GROOM —They have never heard of the Arthur River. The Arthur River is our great river-and our great wild river. I suggest to anybody who wants to go and see the beauty of Tasmania that they should go to the Arthur River. Does the honourable member for Kalgoorlie know where the Arthur River is? Mr Campbell —Yes, in the south-west of Western Australia. Mr GROOM —That is about the standard of his knowledge of Tasmania. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to speak through the Chair and not to invite interjections. Mr GROOM —We talk about the power needs of Tasmania. We had a speech from the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who gave us lots of facts and figures. He also ridiculed Tasmania. His speech was a very patronising speech. It was one that should have been given to students at a university. I think he was formerly a lecturer. He really lectured to us, particularly to the Tasmanians. He tried to tell us what he thinks we should know about Tasmania. In political terms, this is a sad day because the reason this Bill is before the House is that honourable members on the Government side have been influenced by this pressure group-these trendies and radicals who are using the Franklin River as a cause. They are not really in love with the Franklin River but are political animals who are against all progress and all development of this country and are just using this river for their own purposes, and some of them to advance their own causes. Many of them like to grandstand, including Dr Bob Brown, who goes all around Australia. He is a well known grandstander. He was a grandstander before he became involved in this issue. The Franklin River is a beautiful river but what honourable members have to realise is that 88 kilometres of that river will remain untouched. The upper river is untouched-and that is the beautiful part of the river. Any honourable members who want to raft down the river or canoe down the river will still be free to do so. To those who are listening, to young people who are concerned and to those who have a genuine feeling for the area, I say that they can still go down this river and enjoy the beauty of the South West even when the dam is built. Eighty-eight kilometres of the river-some days trip-will still be a wilderness area. We have a great heritage in the South West and we intend to ensure that that heritage is protected for future generations. But the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people have a responsibility to make the most of their resources and, knowing the State as they do, to make the most of their opportunities. That is what the present Tasmanian Government is all about. I believe this Bill is a device to take over State responsibilities. The Tasmanian Government has been responsible for land management for many decades and has done a very good job in Tasmania. This Bill is a device to centralise power in Canberra. I ask honourable members to consider the attitude of the new Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He is a well known centralist. Let us speak about facts. That is the truth. Does anyone on the Government side deny that fact, that he is a centralist? Mr Holding —What does that mean? Mr GROOM —It means this: He wants one government and one parliament in Australia . If honourable members doubt that, I suggest they get a copy of the small book The Resolution of Conflict by R. J. L. Hawke, a book containing the 1979 Boyer lectures which were given by Mr Hawke, who was not then in the Parliament. It is stated on page 18 of that book: I believe the logical implication of this analysis is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-that is, the States-- Mr Campbell —I agree with that. Mr GROOM —Does the honourable member agree with that? How many others agree with that? Mr Goodluck —Put up your hands. Mr GROOM —They should put up their hands. Does anyone not agree with that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Mr GROOM —Mr Deputy Speaker, there were hands raised-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Again, I invite the honourable member not to invite interjections. Mr GROOM —They are coming anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker. There were a number of hands raised in support of that contention and when I asked whether anyone opposed that idea, no one raised his hand. The document states: . . . the elimination of the second tier of government-that is the States-which no longer serve their original purpose, and act as a positive impediment in achieving good government in our current community. This would give us, like the great majoirty of other countries, one Parliament with powers available to the government to match the responsibilities upon it of protecting and advancing the interests of Australian citizens. Mr Campbell —He is right, you know. Mr GROOM —Again, the honourable member interjects that the Prime Minister is right. The fact and the reality are that we do have a Federation. Australia is a Federation. Our founding fathers came together and the States came together to form a nation. They specified that certain powers should be given to the Commonwealth, and only those powers. People who live in a small State such as Tasmania deeply believe in the Federal system. It is all very well for people who live in Sydney or Melbourne. They are in a power base, are close to Canberra and close to the seat of power. They can influence the seat of power. But when people live in an island State, the smallest State in the Commonwealth, and a long way from Canberra, they believe very deeply in the federal system. They desire to have a State Parliament and a State government. The only reason this issue is now before this Parliament is not because of any great concern for the environment; it is because the greenies, who initially believed that they could influence the Tasmanian people to agree with their fanatical views, failed. They told us that they would win a number of seats in the State parliament. Dr Bob Brown stood for the State Parliament. He saw the State Government of Tasmania as the responsible organ of Government. He failed to be elected initially. The greenies failed dismally to convince the Tasmanian people of their cause because the Tasmanian people can see through what they are all about. We have a Government which says that it is concerned for consensus, that it wants to bring Australia together. These are fine words but, when we look at them from the Tasmanians point of view, what do they mean? Let us look at the record. Firstly, we had the spy plane incident. We can see that that was not a particularly significant incident. But in that incident our Defence Force, in which the Tasmanian people and, I gather, the people of all the States and Territories have always had confidence, was used for a partisan cause, because there is an action now before the High Court of Australia between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania. Ministers of this Commonwealth Government instructed people in the Defence Force to use a Mirage, initially, and an F111-and there may have been three or more flights, we do not know yet-to take photographs of the South West for a partisan cause. It is clear that the defence forces themselves are not particularly happy about what has happened, but the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and Government supporters apparently still consider that it was a proper use of the Defence Force. It is most offensive to the people of Tasmania and, I believe, most offensive to people in all States of Australia, when the Defence Force is used for blatant political purposes. I hope we will have a chance at some stage to debate the regulations. I ask Government supporters to think about the way in which the Government has put up these concocted, draconian and oppressive regulations, under which the ordinary decent, hard working people of Tasmania could be fined up to $5,000 for merely doing their job for a public authority. Did this Government, which believes in consensus, have the decency to permit those regulations to be debated publicly? The answer is no; it did it all in secrecy. To this stage they have not been debated in this Parliament. The regulations were disgraceful and totally oppressive. It is disgraceful that the Government was not prepared to have them debated properly in this Parliament so that honourable members could express their points of view. Now we have this particular device, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, as well. I say to honourable members from all States: Look carefully at what this is all about. It does not affect just Tasmania. It is a real attempt by Hawke, Evans and others to take control of this nation. If there is one thing that Australians should be wary of it is a man with too much power. Mr Campbell —What a lot of hypocrisy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member not to interject. The word 'hypocrisy' can be regarded as offensive. Mr GROOM —I am endeavouring to make a serious point yet, again, there is laughter from the Government side. My point is that we do not want a dictator in this country. I am not suggesting that Hawke is a dictator, but we do not want anyone to be given the opportunity in future years to become a dictator. The best protector of individual freedom in this nation of ours is the division of power, whereby not one parliament or government is all-powerful but power is divided between the government of the Commonwealth and the governments of the respective States. There are greenies and environmentalists who say that the Commonwealth Government should look after this matter, but that suggests that the Commonwealth Government is superior to any State government, that it will always protect the environment more effectively and with greater feeling than will the States. Mr Milton —That is very true. Mr GROOM —I ask honourable members to consider history. What will happen if someone who wants to mine all these national parks comes to power and signs a treaty with a right wing government elsewhere in the world or if this Parliament and the Commonwealth Government become all powerful and mine all the national parks of this country? Mr Milton —Haven't you read the Bill; it will stop that. Mr GROOM —I am suggesting that Government supporters think of the future. Those who think they are wise in what they are doing and who believe that they are protecting the environment should look at this matter with a wider perspective and consider what might happen in the future if power in this country becomes centralised totally in the one parliament. Geographically, we are a large country. It is sensible and proper that we have a division of power. Tasmanian representatives have a duty and responsibility to argue their case. That is why we are in this Parliament. We do not apologise for our strong stand. It is one that we will continue to take. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(11.4) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to your high office. I am very proud to see you there. I know you will do justice to the job. I offer you my full support at all times. I hope you will be in the job for many, many years to come. We have been listening to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). I do not intend to deal for too long with the argument that he put because I do not believe it deserves any great attention, but, as we listened, we found that no real argument was put as to why the dam should be built or why Australians should be destroying the wilderness areas of Tasmania. I feel the honourable member's argument was a nonsense. It had no real relevance to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill whatsoever. The Tasmanian members have become so totally paranoid about F111s, Mirage jets and the Special Air Service that they have been paying no real attention to what will really happen in Tasmania if the wilderness areas are destroyed as the Tasmanian Government is trying to do. In wilderness is the preservation of the world. This philosophy is particularly relevant to the passage of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 and the fate of South West Tasmania. Today, we are not debating the property of Tasmania or the property of Australia but the property of the peoples of the world. It is not the property of the shortsighted honourable members who represent Tasmania here today. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the previous Government acknowledged Australia's international responsibilities to preserve our heritage for generations to come. By inclusion of South West Tasmania on the World Heritage List, at the request of Tasmania-I repeat, at the request of Tasmania-Australia committed itself to preservation of the area. Disgusted at the previous Government's lack of resolve in carrying out its responsibilities, Australians gave the Australian Labor Party a clear mandate to take whatever action is required to save South West Tasmania. This Government suffers from no such lack of resolve. We are clear in our commitment to carrying out our wishes and the wishes of the Australian people. Let us have no doubt about the importance of the dam issue in the recent Federal election, the Flinders by-election and the Tasmanian dam referendum. I have heard a lot of nonsense here today. Let us have some real figures. Forty-two per cent of voters in the Flinders by-election wrote 'no dams' on their ballot papers; Milo Dunphy, the 'no dams' candidate in the seat of Bennelong, the seat of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), polled 14 per cent of the votes in that electorate in the Federal election; it was the highest independent vote ever recorded in Australian politics. I hope that the Tasmanian members are taking note of some of the figures. The Tasmanian dam referendum offered only two options-Gordon above Olga or the Gordon below Franklin. Again 45 per cent of people voted informally with 8 per cent voting for the less harmful compromise of the Gordon above Olga. No clear majority can be claimed. Certainly, the Tasmanian Government could not rightfully claim that the majority of Tasmanian people agreed to the Gordon below Franklin scheme. In a spirit of co-operation and consensus, our Government has made attempt after attempt to negotiate with Tasmania. We have been told that Tasmania relies on the scheme for employment. Accordingly, we have offered a commitment to assist in the transfer of employment from the Gordon below Franklin site to alternative sites, further to reduce unemployment levels and to assist in creating job opportunities in Tasmania. We have been told that Tasmania needs the power generated by the hydro-electricity scheme at the Franklin River. Accordingly, we have offered our commitment to ensure that alternative methods of power generation are found at no financial burden to Tasmania. We have offered a number of initiatives to boost the tourist industry of the State, to pay attention to the special needs of Tasmania as our smallest and most isolated State. In other words, we have offered to take a real role in the development of Tasmania. Our attempts at conciliation and negotiation have been met with confrontationist and stubborn attitudes. The introduction of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is testament to the unwillingness of Tasmania to come to a real solution and to have a hard discussion. Had agreement taken place prior to today, we would not have had the same need for the Bill. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) himself recognised two weeks ago that the introduction of this Bill meant effective negotiation and reconciliation had not yet been possible with the Tasmanian Government. Employment has continued to be cited as the major detriment to Tasmania should the Gordon below Franklin scheme not go ahead. But how many jobs are going to be created by the scheme and for how long? We have no figures from Tasmanian members on this. We have had no real constructive argument. Let us look at what we are really talking about. Once the dam is built only 29 operators are needed to maintain the scheme. How many people are required in the construction stage of the dam? Again we have no figures from the Tasmanian members on this matter. The Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania, in its submission to the Senate Select Committee on South-West Tasmania in 1979, numbers 3574 jobs dependent on the construction of the dam. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that that figure is only 2.1 per cent of the Tasmanian work force. What happens to these people after the construction? Did we hear anything about that from the Tasmanian members? The Hydro-Electric Commission's annual review points to a 57 per cent increase in power consumption since 1970, yet Tasmania in September 1982 had an unemployment rate of 10.1 per cent and those losing their jobs were retrenched from the very industries said to benefit from the cheap electricity generated from hydro-electricity schemes. What confidence can we have in the Commission's claim that employment will rise as a result of the dam? Did we hear anything like that from our Tasmanian colleagues? It is interesting to note that in 1981- 82 the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania, whose philosophy it seems is 'if it trickles or flows, dam it', spent 52 per cent of all Tasmania's public capital expenditure. This is an astounding withdrawal of capital away from areas which could prove more labour intensive in the long run for Tasmania, such as home building and local manufacturing. I fear that the public sector is also disadvantaged rather badly by this withdrawal of capital from areas such as schools, health, housing and transport. The Tasmanian members, as I have said before, have offered no constructive argument why we should be building the dam. I hope they are listening very intently to a few facts and figures and not ranting and raging about F111s and Mirage jets. I suppose there will be another attack on Tasmania by the SAS shortly. No doubt the Tasmanian members will find someone wandering around Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government's determination to proceed with the scheme has, to a large degree, relied on its hope that the cheaper electricity generated by the hydro-electricity scheme will prop up existing industries and attract new industries. Once again, I would be pleased to see documentation from national and multinational companies interested in setting up industries in Tasmania. Once again, we have been given no figures by honourable members from Tasmania. Can the Tasmanian Government provide these expressions of interest and commitment? I fear not. We all know very well that it cannot. Let us remember that only a select number of industries are large and energy intensive enough to be interested in taking advantage of the cheap electricity offered by Tasmania. What guarantee will these companies provide that investment, profits and jobs will be provided for Tasmania and not elsewhere? Comalco in Tasmania, for instance, has been investing its profits in aluminium smelters in New Zealand and Queensland. Hydro-Electric Commission annual review figures reveal that in 1978-79 companies such as this consumed 67 per cent of the electricity sold in Tasmania but provided only 6 per cent of Tasmania's jobs. For most companies, the cost of transportation across the Bass Strait for machinery, goods and staff , far outweighs any cost savings on electricity. What company would invest funds in the State of Tasmania when it realises that the Tasmanian power grid can never provide the large blocks of power which can now be supplied by the mainland? The comparative industrial power shortage can certainly not be much of an incentive in this area. Without assurances of investment in Tasmanian industry due to the Gordon below Franklin scheme we would be irresponsible in letting the dam proceed. But it is not very useful to outline only the problems associated with the proposed dam. Our Government has recognised the particular problems faced by Tasmania due to its size and isolation, high unemployment, small market -place and lowered capacity to attract investment. We wish to act to rectify these problems. The Commonwealth will provide a grant of the full capital cost of a coal fired power station-I hope that the Tasmanians are listening-which would generate the same amount of electricity expected by the hydro-electricity scheme planned for the Gordon below Franklin Dam. Moreover, if it becomes necessary to reduce the cost of thermal power to the cost of hydro-power, the Commonwealth will provide annually a share of the cost of coal during the entire life of the station. Mr Milton —They are not listening. Mr HUMPHREYS —I know they are not listening. They do not want to listen to facts . This offer of about $500m means that Tasmanians will have access to electric power at the same cost as if the Gordon below Franklin had gone ahead. If, as we have seen by the election, Australians overwhelmingly wish the Franklin River to remain undisturbed by industry, all Australians must agree to accept responsibility for any sacrifices made by Tasmania. We all must bear the cost of protection of South West Tasmania. So as not to disadvantage Tasmania the Federal Government is seeking to assist in all ways the creation of employment in the more labour intensive industries such as tourism. If honourable members are interested in Tasmania they would also be fighting for the tourists to go to Tasmania, as tourism is the most labour intensive industry in the world today. A comparison of the number of jobs and the length of employment in the tourist industry, with the precarious existence of construction work provided by dam building, points clearly to the long term preferability of tourism. Think what the wilderness of South West Tasmania has to offer the world for generations to come, against the questionable development of industry in that area. The destruction of the area will not be an easy thing to live with on our conscience . No progressive minded future Federal or Tasmanian Government can undo the destruction of South West Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.53) —I oppose the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill absolutely. Government members interjecting-- Mr GOODLUCK —I will look at you, Mr Speaker, so that I will not be distracted. I do not usually get personal and attack people but last night the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones)-honourable members tell me that he is a former Pick-a-Box contestant and that he has a very good brain, and I will concede that-spoke down to the Tasmanian members. He berated us and made us feel inferior. He also made the Tasmanian people feel inferior. I thought his remarks should not go without comment. He is a theorist. He projects what is going to happen in 20 or 30 years but says very little that is practical. I will mention some of the things he said. What did he say about the people from Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd when he mentioned zinc? What did he say about the people in Queenstown on the west coast when he spoke about silicon chips? What is going to happen to the people in Tasmania if all that he said last night comes to fruition? He was talking about the future. What about the present? What about the average workers and the ordinary people of Tasmania? How did they like being berated and ridiculed in such a way by the Minister last night? I thought that what he said could be summed up in a poem. The poem covers it pretty well and I will read it before I get too excited and say things I may feel sorry for: Barry Jones spoke most superior, All Tasmanians feel most inferior. That is the situation after that speech last night. Mr Cohen —If you are one of their representatives I can understand why. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I am one of their representatives-of course. We were elected by the people of Tasmania to come here and press for what they wanted, not for what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wanted. Honourable members opposite talk about being elected by the people of Australia and say they have a mandate to stop the construction of the dam. This Bill, specifically about stopping the dam , has been introduced because the people of Australia have been conned by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, by people like Dr Bellamy, Dr Brown and others. It has become a real issue about them. They are the ones who get assistance from the media. They have been given all the media attention during the campaign and the ordinary people of Tasmania have been forgotten. Somebody said, 'Mr Goodluck , you are a hypocrite because you said that the Army should be brought in'. I am not ashamed to repeat what I said. The Army should have been placed on standby in Tasmania to stop what was occurring on the west coast. People like Dr Bellamy , who said that he came from England specifically-- Mr Groom —It was an invasion. Mr GOODLUCK —It was an invasion by these types. He came specifically to get locked up for his fiftieth birthday. It was a very well organised campaign. I know it is a divisive issue but we, the Tasmanians, cannot compromise at all. We do not wish to make bad friends of our own colleagues who have a different point of view, but we went into the workshops of the EZ company and into the Hydro- Electric Commission workshops where ordinary people are employed. Honourable members opposite suggest that we started to generate fear. Mr Barry Jones —That is right. Mr GOODLUCK —The fear was not started by us; it was started by people like the Minister. He came to Tasmania and said that the people of Tasmania would lose their jobs. He was the one projecting these things into the future but he could not come up with anything real then. The fear was created by people like the Minister and by people like Dr Bellamy. They are like kids who want a lolly and when they cannot get it they become nasty. The Tasmanians have a point of view. We elected the Parliament of Tasmania and it made a decision to construct the dam because it was a works program. All of a sudden, people who did not like that got nasty and started to say it should not be built. What if the boot were on the other foot? What if we had decided to take the other tack? We would be the worst people in the world. It is a matter of fairness. We do not wish to be divisive; we want to make certain that we tell the people of Australia what the people of Tasmania want. That is what we are trying to do. There has been a lot of talk about facts and figures, that we are not coming up with and arguing the facts and figures. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document containing the facts in regard to Tasmania's next power scheme. It is not from the HEC. It is from the chambers of commerce right throughout Tasmania and they would like to have it incorporated in Hansard. Is the Government game to let me have it included in Hansard? Mr Cohen —No. Mr GOODLUCK —No, of course it would not be game; so it should stop talking about facts and figures. Mr Cohen —You never showed it to us. You know the courtesies of the House; you are supposed to show it to us. We have never seen it before. Mr GOODLUCK —Incorporate it in Hansard. Are you game? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Cohen —You can't incorporate that; it is cartoons. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat while the Chair is speaking . Mr GOODLUCK —You do not want to see it because-- Mr SPEAKER —And so will the honourable member for Franklin. I remind the House of a ruling given by my predecessor as to incorporations. He said that while the ruling was not inflexible, as Hansard was a record of spoken material inclusions would in general be restricted to tables. There is some discretion resting with the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I say to the Prime Minister of this country that the honeymoon is over. If we lose in the High Court we will continue to fight about this issue because it is about Tasmania. The judges of the High Court were not elected by the people of Tasmania and neither was the Prime Minister. He was not elected by the people of Tasmania. We will continue to fight this issue right to the end. Dr Harry Edwards —Do you want it in now? Mr GOODLUCK —Mr Speaker, can this document be included in Hansard? It contains facts and figures. That is what has been asked for by honourable members today. Mr Cohen —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —As I have just pointed out, even if the Government agrees to its incorporation, there are restrictions on the incorporation of material in Hansard. It seems to me that this document is outside the guidelines that have been laid down. Mr GOODLUCK —I am most disappointed about that, but I will seek leave to have it tabled later. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 12 midday, in accordance with the sessional order the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr PEACOCK —I notice that the Prime Minister is not present in the chamber. It is most unusual. I will proceed without him. My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Does the Government agree with the demand of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for wage catch-up? Mr KEATING —I was asked a question on this matter the other day. I thought I made the Government's position quite clear. Let me reiterate it: Any increase in real wages should not occur until there is a clear capacity in the economy to sustain such an increase. Let me get that on the record quite clearly so that the Leader of the Opposition can understand it. Quite obviously that cannot be for some time. As will be recalled, the scenarios which were presented at the National Economic Summit Conference did not contemplate any such increase at least until 1985. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a report in the reputable Dutch journal P.T. Aktueel, No. 43 of 27 October last year? According to the article which was written by Dr Broer Scholtens, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is to spend 4 million guilders in a collaborative effort with the Netherlands to build a small plant to produce Synroc. Can the Minister inform the House, firstly, whether the report is authentic and, if so, what is the present state of negotiations between the Ministry and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and whichever Dutch institution is to be involved and, secondly, whether investment in such ventures as described in the magazine is in accord with the Government's policy in regard to nuclear power development? Finally, will the Minister inform the House whether similar amounts are spent on solar energy development or on the development of other energy sources by the Australian Government? Mr BARRY JONES —I must say that I am not a regular reader of the Dutch journal to which the honourable member referred. I will treat the question as having been given on notice and ask my colleague in another place to provide an answer at the earliest opportunity. Mr ANTHONY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the very serious reflection on the integrity of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and in view of the refusal by the Minister for Communications to declare his confidence in Professor Kramer, will the Prime Minister declare his confidence in the Chairman of the ABC? Mr HAWKE —In the circumstances which have arisen I do not think it is appropriate for me to enter into this dispute. The situation is quite clear. Senator Button- - Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr HAWKE —We have plenty of time. If honourable members opposite want to take up Question Time by interjecting that suits me fine. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister is answering a question. Mr HAWKE —The position is quite clear. Senator Button has said that he will reply by letter to Professor Leonie Kramer. When Professor Kramer receives that letter, I believe that it will contain a invitation to her to make the letter public if she so wishes. In terms of my knowledge of what is in the letter, I hope that she will make it public so that the matter can then be pursued. Mr HAND —My question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs relates to the Aboriginal Land Claims Bill introduced into the Victorian Parliament on 17 March 1983. Is it a fact that the Minister recently discussed the Victorian Government 's proposals with Dr Ken Coghill, Secretary to the Victorian Cabinet, and the Victorian Aboriginal Task Force? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member. By virtue of his own interest in Aboriginal matters and matters which affect the Aboriginal community, some concern has been shown in areas of the Victorian Aboriginal community about legislation that has been introduced into the Victorian Parliament, dealing essentially with questions of land rights and other matters that affect Victorian Aboriginal people. I have discussed that not merely with members of the Aboriginal Task Force but with a wide range of Aboriginal groups in Victoria . They have indicated to me that they desire to have further time in order to consider their position in respect of this legislation and in order to make their views on the legislation known to Dr Coghill and the Premier of Victoria. I undertook to convey those views to Dr Coghill, and I did that personally last Friday. Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the National Party and concerns the Prime Minister's answer. As a consequence of that answer, does the Prime Minister not agree that he now places the integrity of the Chairman of the ABC under a cloud? Mr HAWKE —The answer to that question is no. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the Australian Government has bought two more Boeing 707 aircraft? What is their intended use? Is it for VIP or defence capacity? Mr SCHOLES —The Government has acquired two Boeing 707 aircraft. I have seen reports that they are for VIP use. I think that is a matter of some very skilful imagination, and I would wonder how the Defence Force could employ them for VIP use. This year, to date, the usage of the existing two aircraft for VIP purposes is less than 7 per cent of their actual operating time. During the period that they have been in service with the Government, overall operation for non-Defence Force purposes is slightly over 16 per cent of total operating time. The two additional aircraft will be utilised for defence requirements both as transport aircraft and, following conversion, as an addition to the present 707 aircraft for aerial refuelling. There is no role or requirement for additional aircraft of that type for VIP use, and certainly there would be no justification for the expenditure of Defence Force or Government funds to purchase aircraft for that purpose. The reason for the purchase at this time is that aircraft of this type are available. They are in extremely good condition, having been formerly in service with Qantas, and the price is less than half of that which was paid for the aircraft which are currently in service. There will be a delay, subject to budgetary and other considerations, also on the basis of need, in the conversion of these aircraft for aerial refuelling, but they will be available and utilised for training of Australian personnel in that area. I think that the need for these aircraft has been demonstrated by those persons responsible for defence policy, at the level of the Defence Force, and in both the previous Government and the present Government. Under the previous Government funds were allocated and the Royal Australian Air Force was authorised to seek suitable aircraft. The aircraft became available at a price which could not be resisted without some degree of irresponsibility, as any later purchase would obviously have been at a much higher price for probably less suitable aircraft. Any suggestion that these are additions to the VIP fleet shows a total lack of understanding of the existing use of 707 aircraft and the requirements of the defence forces. Mr ROCHER —I ask the Treasurer whether, in his speech to the National Economic Summit, he said: While forgoing the maximum wage increase that might be extracted in the short run may be regarded as contrary to the self-interest of those who would remain employed under those higher wage levels, it is in the interests of those who would otherwise remain or become unemployed. In these circumstances, why has the Treasurer failed to reject calls by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for full catch-ups and full indexation, which he showed in his Summit speech are against the best interests of the unemployed? Mr KEATING —I made the position quite clear in the answer which I gave: I stand by the statement which I made at the Summit in that respect. The Government has made it quite plain that it believes that restraint by all sections of the community is desirable in the current economic circumstances, both in respect of all classes of income-that was also reciprocated at the Summit by indications from business-and in respect of dividends and other areas such as non-wage incomes. I made it clear in my answer to the question asked by the former Treasurer two days ago and to that asked today by the Leader of the Opposition precisely where the Government stands in respect of the so-called catch-up. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Defence able to advise the House of any additional Royal Australian Air Force flights over Tasmania since 5 March? Mr SCHOLES —I am advised that there have been a number of RAAF flights over Tasmania since 5 March in addition to those already canvassed in this House. Between 5 and 9 March a number of F111s were operating in Exercise Sea Eagle and it is likely that they passed over parts of Tasmania. On 10 March an Orion aircraft carried out an instrument flying exercise over Tasmania. On 30 and 31 March RAAF aircraft flew over Tasmania in both directions between Hobart and Launceston for purposes which were relatively publicly known. On 22 March an Orion aircraft carried out a fisheries patrol operation in the vicinity of Tasmania. On 17 March an HS748 flew between East Sale and Launceston and Devonport on a training mission. In addition to that, on 9 March three Caribou aircraft carried out low flying training exercises over Tasmania, including low flying exercises in the vicinity of the Franklin dam by two of those aircraft. I assume that, as with the flight of 24 March, honourable members opposite would have anticipated that we would ask for information on 5 April. Therefore, the Air Force would have been able to anticipate, even before there was a change of government, those requests about operations. Tasmania is part of Australia. It is a requirement of the Australian defence forces that they carry out exercises and training in all parts of Australia to acquaint themselves with the areas and acquire the necessary skills and knowledge that may be necessary for their civilian operations as part of the Defence Force. I remind honourable members that there are three RAAF helicopters currently operating in Queensland and I would have thought that Queensland members opposite would feel that that was a proper use of aircraft. Training in the areas in which the RAAF is likely to operate is necessary for the safety and effectiveness of the RAAF, and at a defence level it is vital to its capabilities to carry out the defence of this country. I believe that this House and this country owe a debt for the availability of the services which the defence forces of this country carry out in respect of a wide range of civilian activities, including many which are requested by honourable members opposite. I suggest that if we are to go through this cyclical or sickening exercise of trying to suggest-- Mr Tuckey —Why don't you answer the question? Mr SCHOLES —I have answered it in detail, my friend. If honourable members opposite are trying to suggest that operations by the defence forces for training in essential defence purposes are in some way an improper activity, I reject that totally. I believe that the majority of members of this House would not support those who put forward that proposition. Mr Sinclair —In accordance with Standing Orders I ask that the Minister table the document from which he was reading. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr SCHOLES —I have no problem with the document from which I was reading. It is a minute from the Acting Chief of the Air Staff. I ask that the original be returned, after it has been copied for appropriate distribution, because it should remain on our files; it is a minute paper. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister will realise that the original, once tabled, has to stay with the House. Mr DRUMMOND —I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that, in his speech to the National Economic Summit Conference, he said: The fundamental risk to the recovery we are seeking lies with inflation. I stress the words 'the fundamental risk'. How does he reconcile this statement with the Government's preference for scenario A, which forecast an inflation rate over the next three years almost double that of the more responsible and restrained scenario C and which involves the creation of 130,000 fewer jobs than scenario C. Mr KEATING —I make the point at the outset that the last assumption in the honourable gentleman's question is wrong. The consumer price index assumption in scenario C was 5.3 per cent and in scenario A it was 6.2 per cent. That is the basis of the question. I also indicated at the Summit that there were severe reservations on the part of the members of the technical committee about some of the assumptions in respect of scenario C. They were outlined very clearly to the Summit, expressing the fact that some of the wage assumptions and other assumptions were out of line. I have a reference here to the non-farm wage section of those scenarios which were put to the Summit. The non-farm wage share in scenario C in 1985-86 at 62.4 per cent was well below historic levels. Indeed, if one looks at the capacity utilisation for 1985-86 and compares that non-farm wage share with capacity utilisation at other times in the 1960s and 1970s, when we were in a period of recession, one finds that the general non-farm wage share expressed in scenario A is very close to that which prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s. That is the basis on which the technical committee felt that the assumptions were in some respects unrealistic. But it does not detract from the main point and that simply is-we made it quite clear at the Summit-that the Government must deal with inflation and unemployment simultaneously. That was accepted by the Summit. The honourable gentleman, in his question, again harks back to the simple old Tory shibboleth that we should deal with inflation first. All I can say to the honourable member is that we have seen how that policy has been executed over seven years and we have noticed the result-there has been no substantial diminution in inflation in the seven year period, but rather a massive increase in unemployment, an increase of 270,000 people last year. We made it quite clear, and I have reiterated, that this Government is committed to an attack on inflation and unemployment simultaneously. On that basis, inflation always remains important, but not on the basis that a reduction in inflation is achieved by a policy of increasing unemployment, supposedly as some sort of brake on wages. This Government will not be sitting locked up in the bunker of Parliament House , pushing and pulling monetary and fiscal levers and hoping that everything outside will correct itself. That is why the Summit process was called. That is why there is substantial agreement about the objectives which were set down by the Summit. That is why this Government is committed to a policy of dealing with inflation and unemployment simultaneously. There is nothing, I believe, in the scenario A option which cuts across that principle. Mr PUNCH —I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the light of the current high level of unemployment and the current eligibility for working visas, will the Minister investigate reports and advertisements in the Sydney Press regarding the placing of so-called au pair girls from Japan? Will the Minister also examine the conditions in which these girls serve, in the context of Australian industrial law? Mr WEST —Several days ago I did note these advertisements in the Australian Financial Review and other Australian newspapers which indicated that, under the previous Government, control over immigration entry to Australia had been very lax indeed. It appears that under the working holiday arrangements that the previous Government had entered into with five other countries, these girls have been coming into Australia with temporary working permits for 12 months, as long as they did not work for more than three months in the one job. That practice has been continuing under the general working holiday program. I might say that when I was sworn in as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I quickly realised that the situation was out of control. What the former Government had allowed was a situation in which 19,000 working holiday-makers, at a time of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, had been allowed into Australia . The scheme was 11,000 out of balance the wrong way. That is, under the former Government, 19,000 working holiday-makers were coming into Australia, also 11, 000 more were coming into Australia than were going out, and they were entitled to work at each job for periods of three months up to a total of 12 months. What is more, change of status was being allowed and 1,000 of these people were allowed to change from temporary to permanent status at a time of high unemployment during 1982. I turn to the situation with regard to the au pair girls from Japan. It appears that organisations within Australia and Japan, through the use of travel agents in Japan, have been responsible for the penetration of the Australian labour market in this manner. I repeat, agencies in Japan have been organising the working and travel arrangements of these people and then requesting visas under the working holiday arrangements. These people come into Australia under a so- called cultural exchange scheme and they are being placed in domestic situations where they have been asked to work up to 20 to 30 hours a week in return for the provision of accommodation and pocket money only. That is what has been occurring. I have instructed the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that this organised abuse of a cultural arrangement between Australia and other nations will cease forthwith. We will inform those responsible that visas will no longer be issued in these circumstances. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Did his prediction of 21 April that inflation would be halved by early 1984 which, incidentally, mirrored substantially Treasury advice tendered to the former Government, assume a wage increase of 3 to 4 per cent this year, followed by a return to full wage indexation from the beginning of 1984? Mr HAWKE —May I preface my reply to the question of the honourable member by expressing the observation that if he had over the last few months in fact been frank with the people of Australia in terms of sharing with them the advice which had been tendered to him by the Treasury in regard to the level of the deficit in 1983-84 we would have had more honest politics in this country. The answer to the question is quite straightforward. The proposition that I advanced that we expected the rate of inflation in Australia as we went into the early part of 1984 to be halved, yes, was based upon the proposition that we expected a rate of wage increase in the latter part of calendar year 1983 of the order of 3 to 4 per cent. I point out that the expectation of an increase in wages of that order in 1983, as a result of the policies that we are pursuing, will mean an increase in wages in Australia in calendar year 1983 significantly below that level of wage expectations which the people advising the honourable member and his Government were operating on for 1983. As a result of our policies there will be a significant reduction in the level of wage increases that otherwise would have taken place and, yes, my projection of something like a halving of the inflation rate as we go into the early part of 1984 is based upon that proposition and a resumption of indexation thereafter. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the Treasurer seen reports of a statement by the Queensland Premier in relation to his decisions concerning the involvement by a Korean company, ICC Construction Co. Ltd, in the Jackson pipeline consortium? The Premier has alleged that the Government has arbitrarily changed the foreign investment guidelines, set at 50 per cent equity. I ask the Treasurer whether this is true. Will he also comment upon the Premier's claim that that decision, along with other foreign investment decisions, is anti-Queensland? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The first part of the honourable member's question was in order, but he cannot invite comment. Mr KEATING —There has been no change at all in respect of the 50 per cent rule to which the honourable member refers in regard to the foreign investment policy. There is certainly no anti-Queensland bias operating in this Government. I just make it clear that I felt that the language of the Queensland Premier and his Treasurer today was most intemperate in the circumstances. Indeed, what has happened here is that two Australian companies are perfectly willing and able to build an 800 kilometre pipeline to take the oil from the Jackson field across Queensland, yet it appears, at the insistence and only the insistence of the Queensland Government, that a Korean company has been asked to take up 25 per cent of that project. Of course, that company had no part to play in the discoveries at the Jackson field, or in the production of the oil. Today a statement on the matter has been published by a spokesman for the Jackson producers and the Jackson-Moonie pipeline partners. He said that the pipeline construction was already under way, the financial arrangements were almost complete and the Treasurer's decision would not delay the completion of the project. The spokesman said the pipeline consortium was able to finance, construct and operate the pipeline. Quite obviously the test which has to be applied is the test of net economic benefits. It was the Government's view-I think it was the only view that could have been taken-that there were not sufficient net economic benefits for the loss of Australian control and ownership, particularly when the companies involved are also involved in the Jackson oil production facility and are well able, in a technical sense, to construct the pipeline and also to build and to finance it without the involvement of a foreign company. So, the test always has to be in respect of direct benefits. In terms of that test the direct benefits were not applied. Mr Anthony —No foreign investment will be allowed if any Australian interests want it. Mr KEATING —Let me make this point. I could not understand what the Leader of the National Party interposed. Without inviting an interjection, Mr Speaker, let me just say that there has been a lot of very loose talk recently about the so called change in the foreign investment policy and the fact that some instruction has been given by this Government to the Foreign Investment Review Board to harden the policy. I will soon be putting to Cabinet a review of the foreign investment policy and an examination of it as it operates to date. That has not happened at this point in time. Two cases have received a lot of publicity. One involved Elders IXL Ltd and Unilever Australia Pty Ltd. It concerned the prospective purchase by Unilever of a significant element of the Australian edible foods market and the general products division of Elders. It was rejected by the Government simply on the basis that the concentration of the foreign ownership in respect of the edible oils industry, particularly in retail margarine, would have taken a combination of Unilever and Provincial Traders Pty Ltd, which is owned by Elders IXL, to well over 50 per cent of total sales. I indicate that, even in the event that the direct economic benefits were to be ignored, the matter still would have been subject to review by the Trade Practices Commission. There has been a lot of speculation about the second matter in respect of the prospective takeover of Allen's Confectionery Ltd by Cadbury Schweppes Australia Ltd and Nelson Tobacco Co. Ltd. Let me just say about that prospective takeover that Allen's Confectionery is a strong profitable Australian-owned company. Under the arrangement proposed, Cadburys would have taken over the manufacturing end and Nelson Tobacco would have taken over the distribution facility. That would have meant a very substantial increase in the foreign ownership of the Australian confectionery industry. Cadbury already has a majority position in respect of chocolate. It would have had a dominant position in respect of the non-chocolate part of the confectionery industry and would have taken foreign control of the confectionery industry to about 60 per cent. Again, there was not a clear demonstration of net economic benefits for the loss of Australian control. Again, on that basis the Government rejected the proposals. In respect of those two matters-I do not wish to comment and will not comment in the future about recommendations to me by the Foreign Investment Review Board -concerning Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes and Nelson Tobacco, the recommendation of the Foreign Investment Review Board was that the takeover should not be approved. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that, contrary to statements by the former Treasurer that he would have approved these proposals, he would have received the same advice and, I believe, would have made the same decisions. Mr COWAN —I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Aviation. In view of his statement that the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will be relocated, can the Minister say what the time factor will be, keeping in mind that a new site has to be obtained and the airport has to be planned and constructed? Will it not take at least 10 years or up to 15 years to build a new airport for Sydney? Bearing this in mind, I ask: Will the Minister indicate what action is being taken at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to overcome the present congestion which is taking place now and will take place over the years ahead? Will the Minister also give an assurance now to the House that there will be no diversion of intrastate or interstate passenger planes to other airports within the metropolitan area? Mr BEAZLEY —I will take the last part of the question first. Of course, there are frequently diversions of planes for a variety of reasons. But I do not anticipate any diversions on a regular basis. Could I deal now with the first part of the question which dealt with the time scale for the selection of a site and development of a second airport for Sydney . I think the time scale mentioned by the honourable gentleman was roughly correct. We are looking at a period of 10 to 15 years. We are also looking at a very substantial time scale in relation to the development of any other substantial runway facility like that originally planned and now abandoned for Mascot. That would not have been a solution to any problems that are immediately occurring. The actual selection of a site is, to some considerable degree, dependent upon the consultations that will proceed between ourselves and the Government of New South Wales. But I have said here and in other places that I hope that we will be able to arrive, after proper consultation with all potentially affected groups, at a reasonably rapid conclusion to that process. As I have said before, I am as concerned as the honourable member about the capacity of rural commuters to Sydney to have an adequate service. In connection with the developments at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, the previous Government introduced air traffic control procedures which have been quite useful in achieving a degree of traffic separation which has improved the position. The usage of Kingsford-Smith Airport sets an example for us in the difficulty of predicting the future of air traffic movements in an uncertain economic situation. All the various Major Airport Needs of Sydney survey statistics on Kingsford-Smith, including the most pessimistic of them, are overoptimistic, given the downturn which has occurred. This has afforded considerable relief. We are looking at other means of development at Kingsford-Smith Airport, such as fast taxiways and additional taxiways which will enable more rapid movement of aircraft around the airport and into a take-off position. We will also be looking at the development of surface-controlled radar which will also improve the movement of aircraft on the ground. All these developments , as they take place and as they are contemplated, will be referred for consideration to various interested parties, including the airlines and the commuter airlines which operate the country services about which I am sure the honourable member is concerned. It will be also done in consultation with the local authorities in the area which have an interest to ensure that appropriate noise abatement procedures are maintained. The management of Mascot will be in a fashion which is appropriate to an airport which, while serving the very considerable requirements of the Sydney region, is also one of the most difficult from an environmental point of view by a considerable margin indeed. I think the figures for Mascot show that about 78, 000 people are affected by excess noise levels compared to the figure for the nearest airport-these figures were revealed in a survey last year-which was about 17,000. It is a matter which we take very seriously. On that basis we have decided that we will abandon the proposed parallel runway and agree with our predecessors that there is a need to select a second site and move rapidly to a conclusion on the matter. But the honourable member may be assured, as I gave an assurance yesterday, that, as we go through this process, the needs and requirements of the country people in New South Wales will be given adequate attention. Mr BLANCHARD —I address my question to the Prime Minister. It deals with Australia's policy in the Middle East. Does the Government believe that recent adverse developments in the Middle East have killed the Reagan peace initiative? Does the Government continue to support efforts by the United States of America to bring about a peaceful settlement between Israel and its neighbours? Mr HAWKE —I believe that this very important issue raised by the honourable member is one upon which I will be able to speak substantially on a bipartisan basis. I believe that the views that I will express will be accepted by the Opposition. I say unequivocally to the House that my Government attaches very, very fundamental significance to the attainment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of mutual respect, the right of Israel to exist behind secure and recognised boundaries and a recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people. We base our approach on an acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council and on the Camp David processes. We welcome the initiative that was taken by President Reagan, based upon those premises, we believe, to use the influence of the United States to achieve the objectives to which I refer. There is no doubt that that honourable process undertaken by the United States has suffered a set-back as a result of the failure of the discussion which took place between King Hussein of Jordan and Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in an attempt to secure some involvement of the Palestinians in the negotiations to which I have referred. I do not believe that that set-back announced on 10 April should be taken as bringing to an end the processes to which I have referred. We hope and believe that the current visit of Secretary of State Shultz to the area will serve the purposes of hastening some of the more immediately obvious objectives which need to be achieved if the lasting and comprehensive settlement to which I have referred is to be capable of achievement. Obviously the most immediate objective must be the attainment in Lebanon of a peaceful situation. I make it quite clear in that respect that it is essential that the troops of all foreign countries in Lebanon should be withdrawn-the troops of Israel should be withdrawn and certainly the Syrian troops should contemporaneously be withdrawn. I have indicated, and so has my Foreign Minister , our commitment to the achievement of these objectives. I repeat that we trust that the current visit of Secretary of State Shultz to the region will secure quickly the achievement of these immediate objectives which must be seen as a necessary step in the processes of the achievement of this comprehensive and lasting basis of resolution of the problems in this troubled area. I am sure the House will agree with me when I give emphasis to the tragedy which has been suffered for so long and so deeply by the people of Lebanon. We commend the action of the previous Government in making available an amount of $ 10m for relief in the Lebanon. I am pleased that very recently $5m of that was handed over in New York to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund for these purposes. We applaud the action of the previous Government in this regard; we endorse it. I believe that the Opposition in terms of the answer I have given would share the view that what I am saying now is not merely a statement of position on behalf of the Australian Government but can be taken as a clear statement of a bipartisan position in these matters. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the present shearers strike is causing great concern to primary producers and to the nation? Is it further a fact that telexes and telegrams have been sent to him from members of parliament and farming organisations? In view of this serious situation will his Government now intervene to enforce the decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member. I would have expected the question to be addressed to the relevant Minister. However, if the honourable member desires me to answer it, I certainly will. I have been in constant consultation with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and we have done what we can to ensure that this matter can be-- Mr Lusher —Precious little. Mr HAWKE —Relisted and reheard. As distinct from those on the other side of the House, who, in some perverse manner which always escapes me, seek to gain some political advantage out of industrial disputation and do their best to keep it going, we on the other hand are committed to using our forces to try to ensure that industrial disputation, as far as it is possible, is either avoided or, if it commences, brought to an end. What we have done has been constructive and directed towards that end. We have played our part in consultations with a range of people to try to ensure that that matter is brought on under the provisions of section 59 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which provide for a hearing in these circumstances of what would in fact be a new industrial situation regarding the factors that have been covered. Let me make the Government's position in this matter clear. We will not be going into such a hearing to support the claims of the Australian Workers Union. That is quite clear. What we will be doing is supporting the utilisation of the procedures of the Act for securing an amicable resolution of this matter. We do that on two conditions, and let there be no doubt what those two conditions are. Firstly, the union would have to cease its industrial actions. Secondly, the union cannot expect to have, in this rather special way, the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission again available to it unless it gives the undertaking in advance that it will abide by the decision of the Commission. On the basis of those two conditions-that industrial action should cease and that the union will give an undertaking to abide by the decision of the Commission-this Government will support an application before the Commission that the matter should be reheard. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present volumes 3 and 4 of the report of the Commonwealth- New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking on its investigation of Harry Wainwright, Nugan Hand Ltd and its associated companies, and the affairs of Murray Stewart Riley and his associates, as recommended by the Further Report of the Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, May 1980. Volumes 3 and 4 of the report were tabled in the New South Wales Parliament by the New South Wales Premier on 30 March 1983. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-proposed: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of Volume 3: The Associates of Murray Riley and Volume 4: Nugan Hand (Part II) of the Report of the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking, and (2) That the reports be printed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(12.49) —I wish to adjourn the debate but I am not sure whether we adjourn it on that basis. I think the reports have to be printed, do they not? Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present the sixth annual report for the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations for the year ended 31 August 1982. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report by ASTEC on the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory and the use of live exotic animal pathogens. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a supplementary report by ASTEC on biotechnology in Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act, I present the Law Reform Commission 1981-82 annual report. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945, I present the 1981-82 annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner, together with a half-yearly financial and statistical bulletin. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members I present monthly statements on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance from November 1982 to March 1983. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 76A of the National Health Act, I present the 1981-82 annual report on the operations of the registered medical benefits and hospital benefits organisations. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, I present the Australian Atomic Energy Commission annual report for 1981-82. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members and on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy I present the Australian Safeguards Office annual report 1981-82. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Non-government Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1977, I present the annual report for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the reports of the States' local government grants commissions which contain the recommendation for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the State grants commissions for Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Senators and members have already been advised of the allocation within their own States. Payments to the States in respect of the recommendations contained within the reports were made during late August and early September 1982 by the Treasury. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —by leave-I am taking the first opportunity after its presentation to table this fine report, entitled The Plan for the Development of the Museum of Australia', which was prepared by the Interim Council of the Museum of Australia under the chairmanship of Mr Alex Dix. The report gives us a fresh insight into the purpose that can be served by a national museum and the character that the Museum should have if it is to achieve its objectives. The report pursues the original concept of a national historical museum first advanced in the report on museums in Australia by the Pigott committee of inquiry, which was established by the previous Labor Government in 1973. I supported on behalf of the Australian Labor Party the legislation which followed and this report now represents the next phase. I believe that the tone of the report is set by that section of the Museum's proposed charter which reads: The Museum will reflect the development of the Australian nation in all its cultural diversity. In particular, it will create, through the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, a focus for the cultural aspirations of the Aboriginal people. The report recommends that the Museum be located in a magnificent setting on an 88 hectare site at Yarramundi Reach beside Lake Burley Griffin. Both outdoor and indoor displays are envisaged and all would be planned in a highly imaginative and informative manner such as to appeal to visitors of all ages, interests and personal tastes. It is planned as a major research centre, a great tourist attraction and, above all, a focal point for the expression of national identity . The proposal-and I stress this-is not for a conventional museum. It is designed to show things uniquely Australian in a way not attempted anywhere else in the world. It proposes living and participatory displays of Aboriginal life and culture, prepared by the Aboriginal people themselves. It will demonstrate Australia's distinguished contribution to technology-for example, through radio astronomy-and will trace the development of our pastoral and mining industries. The concept of the Museum fully reflects the Government's objective of providing for the greatest possible access to and participation in all aspects of Australian culture by all people. It justifies the high priority of the Museum in our arts and heritage policies as recognised in our policy speech. The report and its recommendations remain to be considered by the Government, and I cannot therefore commit the Government at this stage to the course or timing of action on them. I do, however, commend the report as an admirable contribution to public discussion and to the deliberations that must now take place. I take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Dix and his colleagues on the Interim Council of the Museum of Australia on their excellent report. In conclusion, whilst I know how many reports honourable members and Ministers receive, I hope they will take the trouble to read this one. I think they will find it very interesting and very stimulating. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes and applauds the report from the Interim Council of the Museum of Australia. It is worth reminding the Parliament and the people that the Museum was established by an Act of this Parliament in 1980 and the Interim Council was established by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr R. J. Ellicott. At that time the Council was instructed to advise the Government and the Parliament on a range of issues relating to the establishment of the Museum of Australia. In particular, it was to report to the Government within two years on the Museum's establishment, location and development. At that time the Fraser Government had previously laid down that the Museum should follow three main themes: Firstly, the history of Aboriginal people; secondly, the history of non-Aboriginal people; and, thirdly, the interrelation between people and the Australian environment. The Chairman of the Interim Council, Mr Alex Dix, and his colleagues must be congratulated for the excellent work they have done in putting before the Parliament a very worthwhile report that shows considerable imagination. If its recommendations are implemented it will ensure that the Museum of Australia will not be just of world class but, more important, a world leader in establishing a framework directed to encouraging Australians of today to have a better understanding of their national origins in a wider sense and thus develop a more sensitive approach to creating within our society a wider acceptance of our common destiny as a united people. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Interim Council. The proposal to establish the history of the development of Australia in all its cultural diversities by establishing a gallery of Aboriginal Australia as a focus for the cultural aspirations of the Aboriginal people must be applauded. Similarly, the recommendation that the Museum emphasise the interaction between people and the environment also must be fully supported. There is no doubt that one of the very great challenges facing Australia and all Australians is going to be how we manage the maintenance of adequate standards for the environment's protection while at the same time being able to pursue rational policies of national development. It is often claimed that Australians generally are unaware of their past. If that is so, it is a fault of the education system but, at the same time, it is probably a reflection of the fact that we are more today than ever before a migrant society. That in no sense means that we should not seek for a common future and to draw from Australia's specific past as well as from the cultural strands from other societies which now make up part of the complexities of the Australian nation. It is absolutely correct, as the report observed, that no action of any part, in either the past or the present, has been, or is, taken without an impact on the other parts-people on people, people on environment, and environment on people. The Opposition supports the proposal to build the Museum of Australia on land adjacent to Yarramundi Reach overlooking Lake Burley Griffin. We will continue to take a close interest in the development of the Museum. While time does not permit me to examine in detail all the proposals contained in the report of the Interim Council, nevertheless the Opposition supports, in general terms of course, the proposals outlined in the report. Mr SPEAKER —I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to committees as follows: Joint Committee of Public Accounts Senators Georges, Maguire and Watson. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Senators Foreman, Jones and Kilgariff. Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Senators Coleman and Watson. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to add to an answer I gave to a question this morning? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I give that indulgence. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, in answer to a question, I said that the aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport had fallen below the lowest Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee study figures. In fact, they have fallen below the median level MANS study figures. Aircraft movements at Sydney Airport in 1979 totalled 186,197; in 1980, 188,606; in 1981, 185,763; and the provisional figure for 1982 was 181,679. The median forecast aircraft movements published by the MANS study were, for 1980, 177,800 and for 1985, 193,100. The 1982 figures adjusted would be about 183,000. It can be seen that while in 1980 the actual aircraft movements were well ahead of the median forecast of the MANS study, since that time they have fallen below it. It is also of interest that the forecast of MANS lowest passenger movements at Sydney Airport for 1980 was 9,170,000 and for 1985 was 11,560,000. In fact, in 1980 the movements were 8,678,000, but they have since fallen to about 8,400,000 , which was well below the level expected. In fact, passenger movements will be significantly below the lowest forecast made by the MANS study of 11,560,000 for 1985. Debate resumed. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(2.17) —I will try to add a bit of reason to the debate on the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill. Mr Keogh —That will be hard. Mr GOODLUCK —I am glad to see that Government supporters have all come back into the chamber. There are two sides to this story and we cannot compromise on this Bill at all. We oppose it. It attacks a fundamental principle that a State should be able to be master of its own destiny and introduce a works program and be able to go ahead with it. I can understand the divisiveness, but there are two sides to the argument. On one side there is the Tasmanian Parliament led by Robin Gray. People can say what they like about Robin Gray, but he has done a dashed good job, far better than has that previous compromiser who is on the opposing side at the moment. Behind Robin Gray are his Parliament, most of the Labor Party except for a few, the majority of the people of Tasmania and a lot of other Australians. Opposing the dam there are, first, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government. Many groups have come out of the woodwork to support opposition to the dam-groups such as Save the Whale, Save the Cats and so forth, and the socialists and the communists. This Bill attempts to stop the dam and to stop the works program. With all the fanatics who are opposed to the dam a lot of very good people have been conned. They have been conned by the left wing Press which is composed of trendies and which only gives a headline to certain things that suit it, not to a little bit of common sense. The Press developed it-- Mr Groom —What about Ken Davidson? Mr GOODLUCK —Oh, I will not talk about Ken Davidson from the Age. He called us gorillas or something today. Let him call us anything, I do not care. Anyway, all these types put up that argument. But they have missed the important point that the heart and the pulse of the small State-the 400,000 people in Tasmania- do not like the intervention by the Prime Minister and his Government. The people of Australia may have voted for them. It serves us right if they did because we stood up for a principle. If a government stands up for a particular principle, people will support it. But when some go in a different direction-I forgive them, it is their own business where they go-people think that we are a fragmented party which accepts all the fringe people that come in with their own ideas. Mr Barry Jones —Well, look who your audience is. Look whom you are talking to. Mr GOODLUCK —Oh, you are here, Pick-a-Box-so shut up! Lots of people like that come in, but I warn the Prime Minister that he will be like Dorian Gray from the classics-each year he will be scarred by this decision and each year the people of Australia will realise more and more that he is a dictator. He wants to take over the small State of Tasmania. That is what he and the Government want to do. Why does he not concentrate on prostitution in New South Wales? What about the sex shops in Melbourne and all the other dirty things that go on in Australia? Government supporters talk about the wilderness. The wilderness is not just for a few cranks with haversacks on their backs. It is for some of the good people in my electorate who cannot afford it. Honourable members opposite are always against the rich. They always purport to be for the workers. What about the workers who are employed in Tasmania and the poor people there? Of course we are going to develop roads. That will open up the tourist industry. My colleagues and I will stand by this principle. One of my colleagues might not-that is his business. I do not care. When we fight we fight dashed hard. That is the only way to win. If we lose the battle we will win the fight. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(2.21) — After listening to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) it is hard to get to grips with the purpose of the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for protection of certain property that Australia has identified as national or cultural heritage within the meaning of the international treaty known as the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The sad thing about this Bill is that it should not be necessary. In a country such as Australia we should not have to bring a Bill like this into the Federal Parliament to try to achieve what is necessary for the best interests of Australia and the world. For instance, had the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) been consistent in what he has said in the past, we would not have to bother about this type of legislation, because people should be willing to support what the Australian Government is doing in this area. Indeed, my personal view is that the Bill probably does not go far enough in that no area is automatically covered. The proposed Act will apply only after proclamation is issued. In my view, world heritage areas especially should be protected in an unequivocal way regardless of what government is in power. I would be very concerned about the fate of this proposed Act if ever the present Opposition came back into government. In the rather inflammatory statements from the Opposition, particularly from those members from Tasmania, we find the rather false argument about States rights as if Tasmanians were a peculiar group of people who were not Australians . They are not just Tasmanians; they are Australians. We are all citizens of this country. All Australians have a right to some say in what happens to individual parts of Australia. During the last election, the people of Australia had a fair bit to say about building a dam in South West Tasmania. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) said that the fact that there were five Tasmanians in the House of Representatives meant that they have nearly unanimous support from the people of Tasmania for opposition to the dam. I remind the honourable member for Braddon, for instance, that in the last election the two-party preferred vote for the Labor Party in all the House of Representatives seats in Tasmania was 42.8 per cent of the total vote. We went into that election with an unequivocal anti-dam stance-and 42.8 per cent of Tasmanian electors voted for our point of view. Fifty-two per cent of them may have voted for the Opposition parties, but a vast group in Tasmania is not in favour of the rather narrow approach that has been taken by the Tasmanian members in this Parliament and by the Tasmanian Government, which is an extremely reactionary government. In the Bennelong electorate, held by the previous Treasurer, the Independent candidate, Mr Milo Dunphy, got 12.7 per cent of the vote-the largest single vote ever given to an Independent in the electorate of Bennelong since it was formed. That is what people in various parts of Australia thought about the concept of dams in Tasmania. There is no doubt that this will continue to be a contentious issue and as such will become very important in national debates. Some time ago the Prime Minister said: The Government's decision on this important question would not be supported by all sections of the community. He went on to say: We must, however, take decisions that will be to the lasting advantage of the entire community-- I do not suppose any of the Tasmanian representations would agree with that. They would think that that was a terrible thing to say. No doubt the honourable members for Bass and Franklin would think that was wrong. But it was not a Labor Prime Minister who said that and he was not talking about South West Tasmania. It was the previous Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, who said that about Fraser Island , which was one of the last big environmental issues we debated in this Parliament. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, went on to say about Fraser Island: We recognise the quality of the environment is crucial for this and future generations of Australians. People understand that many parts of this and other countries have been polluted and destroyed because man has not recognised his potential for environment change. That was not our leader saying that. That was the leader of the previous Government. At the time honourable members opposite all sat over here on the Government side of the House and they said that that was pretty good. The hypocrisy of the present Opposition members has been shown by the stance they took then on what was supposed to be a States' rights issue and the stance they take here and now. The honourable member for Bass will not say anything because he knows what he said when he was Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Some of the things he said then do not sit very well with what he is saying now. Of course, Joh jumped up and down, spoke about States' rights and said: 'You cannot do this. Queensland comes first. Queensland is not part of Australia', just as Tasmanians are saying similar things now. But the honourable member for Bass ought to be reminded of what he said about Fraser Island when he was Minister for the Environment. It was a lot different from what he is saying now. In fact, the honourable member for Bass was quoted in the Sunday Mail, a Queensland newspaper, of 10 July 1977 as follows: In Canberra last week Mr Newman said in an interview he hoped the Federal Government's decision to stop sand mining on Fraser Island would have left no doubt that the Government was determined to carry out its environmental responsibilities. Mr Newman went on to say: 'I reaffirm the Commonwealth Government's commitment to the conservation of our natural heritage and the protection of our environment'. That was in 1977. He has had an instant conversion along the way. Indeed, that great Tasmanian newspaper, the Mercury-we have had the five Tasmanian representatives tell us ad nauseam about the Mercury-in an editorial on 12 November 1976 stated: The decision of the Federal Government to prevent sand mining on Fraser Is. is a politically wise and environmentally sound move. Nothing was said about the Constitution. The newspaper thought it was a politically wise and sound move. It went on to say: The Fraser Is. decision probably is the most significant of its kind and is a fine example of how independent, expert analysis and political courage can produce a result that should be welcomed by the majority of Australians. It is a pity these people do not have the political courage now that they had then. The Mercury article continued: But not all governments, and certainly not all self-interest groups and unions, are willing to accept the verdict of qualified umpires. We can see who is not willing to accept the verdict now. The Australian people gave a very significant verdict on 5 March and 42.8 per cent of the Tasmanian people gave a pretty significant verdict. But those people opposite want to go back into the past. Indeed, the honourable member for Bass, who is saying how terrible the World Heritage List is, was quite willing on 12 November 1976 to try to have Fraser Island put on the World Heritage List. Joh said he would not have it put on any list but the then Minister for Environment, the honourable member for Bass, who has discovered States' rights all of a sudden is reported as saying in 1976: . . . the Federal Government had already said it would look at the idea of declaring Fraser Island part of the National Estate under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. He went on to say that it should be put on the World Heritage List and this could be done under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's Convention to which Australia was a signatory. But those people opposite do not learn from history. Unfortunately for them they do not remember the history that they were part of. It is rather significant that they were putting forward that line five years ago. There is absolutely no difference between the environmental question of Fraser Island and the environmental question of South West Tasmania except that South West Tasmania is more important than Fraser Island ever was. But those people opposite forget what they did then and they now come in here and put up this extremely erroneous, selfish argument about Tasmania, States' rights and what people in Tasmania have to say. They mislead this Parliament and the Australian people in their attempts to make out that all Tasmanians are in favour of the dam. I have been to Tasmania a number of times and I have been to the wilderness area. I can tell the House that it is frightening to look at the people who are supporting their point of view in Tasmania. They are people like the Tasmanian Premier, who is a political lightweight if ever there was one in this country. But, more importantly, there are organisations such as the Organisation for Tasmanian Development. If ever there was a rather threatening organisation in this country it is that organisation. It is centred in Queenstown-one of the environmental disasters of this country-and the members of that organisation make out that they are the people who should say what should happen to South West Tasmania. There are only five sites in Australia on the World Heritage List. Of the 136 properties throughout the world that are on that list, five are from Australia. They are the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, South West Tasmania, the Willandra Lakes region of New South Wales and the Lord Howe Island group. I have had the privilege of seeing two of those places-Lord Howe Island and South West Tasmania. It would be a terrible crime if any Australian government stood back and allowed a sectional group to change those areas irrevocably. The New South Wales Government has made it quite clear that it will never allow anything to harm the environment of the Willandra Lakes region and Lord Howe Island. The Commonwealth Government has care and control over the Great Barrier Reef and the Kakadu National Park-I might say that it did not get that care and control over the Great Barrier Reef all that easily from one of the Opposition's new colleagues in the States rights game up there in Queensland. If Bjelke-Joh had had his way, we would have oil rigs on the Great Barrier Reef now. The Minister for the Environment at the time had something to say about that. These people go in for rather selective reporting. But the question before us here today is to take a decision to ensure that South West Tasmania, and those other four regions of Australia which are on the World Heritage List, are held for the good of all Australians and indeed, for the good of all people in the world. We must ensure that this legislation is passed through Parliament to protect those areas from the rapacious demands of certain small-minded State governments and their very small-minded supporters. Those people who support the building of dams in Tasmania are not looking to the future. My colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) pointed out very eloquently in the Parliament last night the economic fallacies involved in building the dams. The absolute distortion of the use of public funds in Tasmania on hydro-electricity has destroyed the development of that State. The over-use of public funds on hydro-electricity generation in Tasmania has distorted the type of public sector infrastructure that has been provided in Tasmania to the detriment of all Tasmanians. In my view, Tasmania's future lies in tourism. It is one of the great tourist destinations of the world. To hear those people over there-the honourable member for Braddon, the honourable member for Bass and his little friend, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who seems to have gone to sleep- say that tourism is not important in Tasmania shows obviously that they do not know what their State Government is doing because that Government spends more on tourism, on attracting people to go to Tasmania, than does most other State governments. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member misrepresented what was said on this side of the House. That comment was quite incorrect. We support the Tasmanian tourist industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —There is no point of order. Mr LEO McLEAY —It is very difficult to misrepresent these people because most of the time they are not quite sure what they are talking about. The point about tourism is the most important thing for Tasmania. If the wilderness area in the South West is destroyed, the people who would normally come to Tasmania from Europe and parts of America will no longer do so. Tasmania and Australia will be seen as ecological vandals in the eyes of the world. This Bill not only will save this area for the whole of Australia and for all people to enjoy but also will go a long way to helping Tasmania survive as one of the great tourist destinations of the world. I think we should put aside the small-minded political divisiveness that has allowed these people to ride back into this Parliament. This issue has been deliberately manipulated for their own personal political position. We should think of what is good for all Australians. We should think about the common good for Tasmania. Common good for all will be achieved only if this legislation is passed by this Parliament, and we stop the environmental banditry that is going on in Tasmania. One can only hope that the Tasmanian Government will take the very proper and forthright view of protection of the environment as the New South Wales Government has done with the Willandra Lakes region and with the Lord Howe Island Park, and indeed as the Commonwealth Government, even under the leadership of those opposite, did with the Great Barrier Reef and the Kakadu National Park. For goodness sake, why cannot the Liberal Party be broadminded for once in its life and take a principled stand on Tasmania as it did on the Great Barrier Reef . Let us see some of the people in the Opposition who have some sense and principle stand up. There are many people on that side who do not want to adopt the bad position they are being forced into. To see those people having to stand up and vote for these rather repulsive types of amendments that have been put up is a shame. I commend the Bill to the Parliament. I know that the great bulk of Australians wish to see us pass this legislation. Debate interrupted. Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to withdraw a motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Yes. Dr KLUGMAN —This morning the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) gave notice of a motion which contains the word 'hypocrisy' and the motion appeared to have been accepted at the time. I gave notice of a motion in these terms: That this House congratulates Mr Speaker on reversing the decision of the previous Speaker that the words 'hypocrisy' and 'hypocritical' were unparliamentary terms. I have since been informed that this was done by mistake and that Mr Speaker still regards those terms as being unparliamentary. I therefore obviously withdraw my motion congratulating Mr Speaker and would like to substitute my original motion, which I moved on 4 December 1980, which states: That this House is of the opinion that the words 'hypocrisy' and 'hypocritical' , defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as simulation of virtue or goodness, are not unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will accept the proposition that the honourable member has put to the extent that his Notice of Motion is withdrawn, but I am not prepared to permit the substitution. Debate resumed. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party)(2.38) —The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is an omnibus Bill with very wide and serious ramifications. It is a Bill which, as presented, is a poor Bill. The heads of power that it relies upon make it a bad Bill. The Government has introduced this legislation in pursuit of its determination to overrule and override the rights and responsibilities of an elected State Government. This objective has very far reaching implications for all State governments and for the whole foundation of the federal system under which Australia is governed. As the Australian Financial Review said a few days after the election of 5 March, a major constitutional crisis is really not a good way to kick off a government committed to consultation and unity. What irony it is that one of the first pieces of legislation brought into this House by the new Government is a Bill whose effect will be to drive deeper divisions into the Australian community, which is already divided over the Australian Labor Party's attack on the Australian Constitution. It should not be thought that this is a view held only by politicians on this side of the House. There are people with a long tradition of Labor support and involvement who share our concern about the damaging approach that the Government is taking. Many people in this House will know of a man who was the Labor member for Wilmot from 1946 to 1975, a period of 29 years. He was Whip of the Labor Party and a very respected member of the Parliament. I refer to Mr Gil Duthie. Mr Duthie made his views on the Tasmanian dam issue very clear in a letter which he wrote to the Bulletin magazine and which was published in the issue of 29 April this year, just two weeks ago. In this letter, after commenting on the devastation of the Labor Party in Tasmania at the election in March, Mr Duthie said: As a life member of the ALP with 42 years membership it was heartbreaking to see what one section of the Party was prepared to do to another section. He went on to say that the Labor Party's decision to stop the dam was one of the most provocative, unnecessary and divisive Labor decisions in his 42 years membership. Mr Duthie ended his letter with these words, which I hope all of his Labor Party colleagues will consider very carefully: If the High Court decides against the dam, then all States beware. Their powers will be on the skids. That is really what this debate is all about. If it were possible to look at this matter simply in terms of the rights or wrongs of building a dam, then I would say that my preference would be not to build the dam. I had the opportunity of hiking through at least 100 kilometres of this country with my wife a couple of years ago. I know, appreciate and love the environment. I have said before that, as Acting Prime Minister, in January this year I went to Tasmania to see for myself the situation there. I visited with the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, the site of a coal deposit and had discussions with the company that held the rights to that deposit on the prospects for a coal-fired power station to be built in Tasmania as an alternative to the dam. I visited the South West of Tasmania and discussed the situation there with the Premier and with officers of the Hydro-Electric Commission. The fact is that we are not involved in just an argument over a dam. We are involved in an issue which is of immense importance and involves the whole nation. It is a debate about the fundamental rights of the States and about an attack on those rights by the Hawke Government. In pursuit of that attack the Government, as we have seen and as we are seeing, is prepared to go to extreme lengths to bring in the use of powers which I think few people ever imagined would be sought to be used in the way in which this Government is using them. The tragedy is that, whilst this confrontation goes on between the Commonwealth Government and the Tasmanian State Government, nothing is being done about a joint program of management of this wonderful area. Nothing is being done to see that no more dams are built in the region of the Franklin River. Mr Leo McLeay —That is your fault. Mr ANTHONY —Our fault? Honourable members opposite cannot even get into dialogue with anybody. A couple of days before the election, in March, I said that the people who used their vote to try to stop the dam should realise that, while they might stop the dam, they could start some things that would be very hard to stop. We are seeing those words come true. We have seen the Government embark on a course which, if it succeeds, will convulse this nation. We have seen the Government, or some of its Ministers, taking the incredible step of using Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to gather evidence on what is happening in Tasmania. That is a step which I know the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not agree with and which I am sure he was extremely annoyed about. In my comments before the election I said that few actions open to a government in Australia could be as divisive as the action which is now being contemplated by the Labor Party or could hold so much potential for conflict and damage to our system of Government. I suggested then, and repeat now, that heavy-handed intrusion of this kind by a central government could split Australia right down the middle. So much for all the Government's slogans during the election campaign about bringing Australia together! What is at stake now is much more than a dam, a small part of a river or even a very small part of the wilderness of Tasmania. If the basis of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States is to be changed, there exist proper constitutional ways of bringing about such a change. If change is to be secured through resort to powers that were never intended to be used in the way in which this Government seems determined to use them, the result can only be very severe damage to our system of government and very deep divisions in the Australian community. As we all know, the Government, in its efforts to overrule the decision of the elected government of Tasmania, seeks to rely on the external affairs power. In fact, this Bill refers to several heads of power to which the Government seeks to resort, if necessary. The external affairs power is one of these. I think it is worth recalling the views expressed by the Chief Justice in the Koowarta case -views to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) drew attention at the recent Australian Constitutional Convention. In referring to possible interpretations of the external affairs power, the Chief Justice pointed out that it is impossible to envisage any area of power which could not become the subject of Commonwealth legislation if the Commonwealth became a party to an appropriate international agreement. It seems to me to be a very bad state of affairs when matters for which our States are constitutionally and historically responsible can be usurped in this way by a centralist government determined to trample over the rights and responsibilities of States. Because this Bill, in its present form, provides for such overriding of the States by the central government I cannot support it, nor will my party. I know that to some people these things do not matter. For them, legal and constitutional questions, even economic ones, carry little if any weight. They see the Tasmanian dam question, for example, purely and simply in environmental terms. But we cannot do that. Those of us who are entrusted with shaping and safeguarding the system by which this country operates do not have the luxury of taking such a simple and uncomplicated view. I would have very much more respect for the Government if I could believe that the zeal with which it is pushing this legislation results only from its concern about the environment. But those of us who know and understand the fundamental principles and philosophies of the Australian Labor Party know that it believes in central government. We know that it believes that the powers of the Commonwealth, as derived from the Constitution, are an anachronism and should be changed. This was stated very clearly by the Prime Minister in the Boyer Lectures of 1979. I fear that that is the deep-seated core of the Government's stand on this issue. Of course, it is very convenient for the Government to give the impression that it is pursuing this issue wholly and solely on environmental grounds. It can take the issue to the High Court of Australia and cite its concern about the environment. Then, if it loses, it will be off the hook; it will be an easy way to discharge all of its unctuous pre-election promises. If it wins in the High Court, the results will have enormous ramifications for the shift and transfer of powers to Canberra. Tasmanians feel strongly about this issue and have made very plain their objection to the policies of the Federal ALP and the Hawke Government. There are Tasmanians who do not support construction of the dam, but the people of the State are united as never before in their determination to protect their rights and to make their own decisions rather than be directed and trampled on by Canberra. The arrogance, insolence and contempt for the fundamental rights of Tasmanians that have been demonstrated by the ALP Government in Canberra instinctively provoke the strongest reactions in Tasmania, and so they should for anyone worth his salt. This is a matter of great importance and every State, if it believes in preserving those areas of independence agreed upon at Federation, must react and fight against such encroachment. The legal, constitutional and economic considerations cannot be brushed aside as if they do not matter; they do matter. As I have said on other occasions, the real question that will remain is not as to the extent of the Commonwealth's powers but as to the justification for and the implications of their use. The Bill seeks to bring into play not one but four heads of power which the Government might rely on in its determination to impose its will on Tasmania. I do not think anyone seriously suggests that we on this side of the House lack concern for the environment or are happy about anything that threatens it. Our record in government is clear. I remind honourable members of the ban on whaling , the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the preservation of Fraser Island and the establishment of the Kakadu and Uluru national parks. It was a Liberal-National Party Government that proposed the Tasmanian wilderness for inclusion in the World Heritage List. So, let no one question our commitment to the protection of the environment. Similarly, let no one question our commitment to maintaining Australia's tried and proven institutions and constitutional framework until such time as the Australian people, through proper processes, decide that they want those institutions and that framework changed. The Bill can only be looked upon as one in pursuit not of genuine environmental interests but rather of powers to further centralist beliefs. It is that question of powers of which the Australian people should be aware. If there is to be a transfer of these powers, it should not take place by way of the High Court but by referenda. It is the people, not the High Court, who must decide whether they want a basic restructuring of our system of government by diminishing the powers of the States and moving towards the vesting of more powers in Canberra. For my part, I am a federalist and believe in that system. I believe that a division and balancing of powers as between Commonwealth and States is the best way of preserving and protecting the rights of individuals in this country. Therefore, I strongly oppose any changes in the Constitution which are designed to vest additional powers in the Commonwealth-as this Bill is basically intended to do. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(2.54) —We are today debating two issues of crucial importance, firstly, the most important conservation question that has come before this Parliament for a long time and, secondly, the crucial question of the Federal Government's ability to abide by international treaties in relation to matters affecting the environment. Both issues are of national importance. They affect not only our national heritage and pride as a people but also our international reputation as a nation concerned about the conservation of the world's resources. A rich area of natural beauty such as South West Tasmania is not the treasure of one State only, or even of one nation, but it is, I submit, the heritage of all humanity. Future generations, not only of Australians but also of people from all over the planet, are entitled to strong action on our part to preserve this heritage. It is because of this that both the previous Tasmanian Government and the previous Federal Government placed this area on the World Heritage List. It has been argued by the Opposition-especially by certain strenuous members of the Opposition-that, notwithstanding what the people of Australia believe, the people of Tasmania voted in the last Federal election to build the dam. I want to say something about the reporting of the facts in the Tasmanian media. Unlike the media of other States, the Tasmanian media are the subject of the biggest monopoly of any media in this country. The Hobart Mercury and the Launceston Examiner are the worst two newspapers that one could imagine in terms of fairness of presentation of points of view. Generally, the Tasmanian media have not presented to the Tasmanian people a fair and balanced presentation of the issues involved in the matter. If one read the editorials in the Hobart Mercury last year, for example, one would think they were nothing more than the views of the Tasmanian Government and of the Tasmanian Premier. Mr Newman —Have you ever read the Mercury? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I read the Hobart Mercury quite often, don't worry. I have visited that State quite often and have discussed these matters. So I ask the honourable member not to try to intervene on that score. The situation is that the people of Tasmania have been subjected to a propaganda barrage about this issue, but they have not been presented with the basic facts in regard to the matter. Let me look at these facts and let us go directly to one of the two matters mentioned by the Opposition. One wonders what the Opposition's position on this matter is because it is so totally confused. I will come to that point later. One amendment to be moved by the Opposition relates to the supposed inadequate compensation being offered to Tasmanians. What have we offered? We have offered to supply all the power which this project would create by alternative power projects. Mr Newman —Which one? Name them. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I am ready to name them. I will come to that. I will table a paper written not by any biased authority but by two economists from the University of Tasmania, Dr Rutherford and Mr Thretewey. It is called ' Compensation and the Dam'. It is a discussion paper. It shows that there are thermal alternatives for the creation of electricity in Tasmania. It shows that the cost of the thermal scheme or of an alternative hydro-electric scheme is such that it can be compensated for in the offer made by the Federal Government. So let us not talk about the provision of power. In order to save this dam we are prepared to provide power by alternative means. This point has not been prominently featured by the Tasmanian Press, to its disgrace. Let us talk about the jobs involved. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that we will provide alternative job schemes to replace all the jobs which have been and will be created if the dam goes ahead. So, what is the argument for destroying this area of natural beauty and national heritage? It is not an argument based on a need for power because we will provide power in alternative ways. It is not an argument for jobs because we have said we will provide an equal number of jobs. What then is it? The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony ) said that we were provoking a constitutional crisis. Who is provoking a constitutional confrontation? It is, in fact, the Federal Opposition and the Tasmanian Government. They have adopted a bloody-minded attitude on this issue, to destroy an area of natural beauty for no reason whatsoever. As I said, jobs and power can be created by alternative means. What then is the reason? It is quite clear. The Opposition wants confrontation for none other than purely political reasons. This kind of bloody-mindedness is an absolute outrage when one considers the importance of that area. Many previous speakers have spoken about the beauty of this area and its importance in terms of conservation. What about the Aboriginal relics in the area? Archaeologists are developing new techniques all the time. If we flood this area and destroy things of interest to archaeologists we will, in fact, do a great disservice to humanity because that area, important in terms of research , will be destroyed forever. Archaeologists and scientists will not be in a position to study this area and find out what it can tell us about primitive man and about the early Australian Aborigines. Of course, I know that honourable members opposite do not give a damn about the origins of man and other important scientific investigations. They are not concerned about that at all. They think that to provide a piddling amount of electricity is more important than the destruction of this area in terms of its archaeological importance, leaving aside its importance for conservation reasons. Let me say this: This dam will not be built. The Australian people made their determination on 5 March. We are determined to use every possible means to prevent the building of this dam. As I said, there is no reason, in terms of power or jobs, for the building of this dam. The Tasmanian people are wonderful people. I have been down there and I have talked to them. They would take a different view had it not been for such a total exercise in propaganda and bias that was presented to them. Let me talk a little more about the constitutional issues raised by the Leader of the National Party. He had the gall to tell us that, in fact, his party represents conservation issues. Was it not the Premier of Queensland, the most prominent member of that party, who wanted to drill on the Great Barrier Reef? Who was it if it was not him? Was it not the National Party that was concerned to destroy Kakadu National Park? Mr Lusher —Produce the evidence of this. You know it is absolute nonsense. There has never been such a proposal. Produce the evidence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member for Hume will remain silent. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Since the honourable member for Hume has been in Opposition, he has been very vocal, talks a lot of rot and interjects whenever anyone else presents an argument which he does not want to hear. The honourable member is welcome to bring Mr Bjelke-Petersen here and let him testify about this great conservation record. We are prepared to have a debate at any time on the conservation record of the Premier of Queensland. Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just had a telephone call from Tasmania and was told that the debate cannot be heard by listeners there. Would you please ask honourable members to be quiet? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member should not take a frivolous point of order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Leader of the National Party referred to constitutional issues. He quoted a statement that we have heard read out here many times and which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) at the Australian Constitutional Convention. But the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members did not mention that the Chief Justice was in the minority in this opinion. He was not in the majority at all. He was expressing his own personal view and not the view of the majority of judges, who felt that the Commonwealth rightfully had the external affairs power. Who referred that issue to the High Court in the first place? Was it not the Fraser Federal Government that referred that issue to the High Court because it wanted to prove that it had that external affairs power? I ask honourable members opposite to answer that question. Of course it was the previous Federal Government. Honourable members who supported that Government now read to us a section of the Chief Justice's remarks supposedly to frighten the rest of Australia about the constitutional implications. I will tell the House about constitutional implications. What would be the position if a nation could not sign and be bound by international treaties? What would be the position if international treaties had to be torn up because of bloody-minded action, as I have described it, by one State in relation to matters of international importance? It may be that honourable gentlemen opposite do not consider issues of the environment to be of international importance. If we were to adopt that attitude , where would we be in respect of the law of the sea, where would we be in respect of all of the other environmental issues that involve international agreements? Therefore, let us think about this. We need the power to make treaties in relation to the protection of the environment. The area which is the subject of this legislation was nominated by the Tasmanian Government for inclusion on the World Heritage List. That nomination was approved by the World Heritage Committee. We are bound by the international treaty which we have signed in relation to that listing. Therefore, it follows that constitutionally and in terms of the kinds of powers which every other nation has we ought to have the power to sign those treaties and to stand by them. I want to make some remarks about the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition. The amendment refers to the inadequacy of compensation. A table I have shows the relative cost of building thermal versus hydro-electric power stations. The difference in cost is given in terms of both the building and operating of these stations on the basis of an interest rate of 10 per cent. These tables appear in the report to which I referred earlier. According to the first table, the difference between building these two types of power stations is only $138m. In addition, a second table shows that the difference in terms of employment costs is $82m. I am using these figures as an example to show that options and alternatives are available. These considerations should be studied and worked upon and a reasonable attitude should be shown in respect of their development. The difference between these two alternatives in terms of total cost is only $220m. The Government has agreed to offer much more than that. In fact, the previous Federal Liberal Government offered the Tasmanian people $500m. I am sure that if the Tasmanian Premier had taken a constructive attitude and had been prepared to negotiate to help develop alternative forms of power and create alternative jobs we would have been prepared to increase that figure in order to save the river which we consider to be one of the great conservation and heritage issues, but instead, what do we find? The Tasmanian Premier is not even prepared to talk about the matter. Someone mentioned figures in excess of $2 billion to $3 billion. We might be prepared to negotiate on a reasonable basis by way of an independent expert study and even increase our offer substantially. But we are not prepared to give away the world to the Tasmanian Government because of its blackmailing tactics. It has been supposed that the determination of the High Court will be the conclusion of this matter. It will not be the conclusion of this matter as far as many of my colleagues and I are concerned. As far as I am concerned, we will continue to try to fulfil our international obligations and our obligations to the people of Australia in relation to this area. I have shown that there are alternatives available in terms of power and in terms of jobs. There is absolutely no reason why this dam should proceed except for the purpose of political point scoring on the part of the Tasmanian Government and the Federal Opposition. We reject their arguments. We are ready to fight until we win victory on behalf of the Australian people. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(3.13) —I take the opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your election to the position of Chairman of Committees. The debate that is now ensuing over the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill concentrates on two things. First of all, there is the assault on our Constitution and the threat that that poses to our Federation. Secondly, and obviously this is very important to me and my colleagues from Tasmania, there is the threat to stop the Tasmanian people from building the Franklin Dam. My colleagues the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) have more than adequately dealt with the first issue-the threat to the Constitution that is posed by this Bill. Therefore , I will concentrate purely on the Tasmanian issues. I do not think I can recall such a vicious attack on members of parliament, both Federal and State, or such an unprecedented attack on the people of a State. Speaker after speaker has abused the Tasmanian State Government, the State Premier and the State's newspaper and other media outlets. Overall there is an assertion that Tasmanians are barbarians, vandals or simpletons and do not understand the debate that they have been listening to for the last three, four or five years. To begin with, I just want to make this very clear: There are many people in Tasmania of both political persuasions who have very strong views about the environmental problems posed by the construction of this dam. Many people-I suppose they include members of my own family-have agonised over the decision that has to be taken as to whether we save the environment or provide Tasmania with its energy needs. It has not been an easy decision. It is not simply that people do not understand or that somehow they have been subjected to a barrage from a biased Press, as the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) would have us believe. Honest people have made honest decisions. However much honourable members opposite might like to interject now, to continue to downgrade this debate into an attack on personalities and an attack on a State, that happens to be the fact. The crux of the argument is this: How is Tasmania going to meet its energy needs in the 1990s? The fact is that this has been conveniently overlooked or ignored by every speaker opposite, except the honourable member for Burke and he is so far off the track it does not matter. I will deal with him in a moment. The fundamental issue is this: Where is the energy to come from? Unless there is some addition to the generating system that exists now, there will not be enough electricity to meet the needs in the 1990s. Mr Milton —That is not true. You know it is not true. Mr NEWMAN —That is the situation. The projections that have been made for the construction of the dam are based on a 2.7 per cent increase, which is a very conservative estimate. The construction of that dam, based on that appreciation of energy needs of 2.7 per cent, will provide Tasmania's energy needs only up to the year 2000. With that assessment it is important to recognise, because a lot of claptrap has been spoken about the use of this new increment of power, that the facts are that 70 per cent of that power will go to commercial, light industrial and domestic users. Only 30 per cent of the allocation will go to heavy industry. Of that heavy industry, presently 19 users of that power will be bidding for that 30 per cent. The honourable member for Burke wanted some facts. The Government Whip wanted some facts; so let them digest those facts so that we can have a balanced view on this argument. The honourable member for Burke is the only one who has tried to tackle the question of where the alternative power will come from if this dam is not built. He has proposed a thermal station. That reveals a very interesting situation in the Government because I thought it had its act together on this. It speaks so confidently about it. The Government tells us: 'Stop the dam. It won't be built. Don't worry, everything is all right. We will provide the jobs and the power'. The honourable member for Burke says that a thermal station will provide the power. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not say that a thermal station was going to be provided. What I said was that it was one of the options. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Bass. Mr NEWMAN —I do not really care what he said exactly. Let us deal with the position in the way he has now put it. He suggested that a thermal station would be one of the alternatives. I might add that it is the only one he gave. He did not mention a single other alternative. Let us deal with the thermal alternative . I have a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Let us hear what he has to say about the matter: First, the Labor Party is committed to an all Hydro policy for energy development. Coal fired thermal power stations in Tasmania have been rejected as unsuitable. Not only did he write that letter to the people on the west coast of Tasmania during the election campaign, but also he appeared on television and spoke on radio programs in our State and rejected that time and again. So we have a situation where these people in the Government are determined to stop the construction of the dam but do not have a policy for what is going to replace it -not a single policy. If ever there was an argument for the devolution of power in this country, if ever there was an argument that it is necessary to have State and local governments so that they understand the local situation and can provide policies to meet the local situations, whether they be in local government areas or in the States, it has been presented in this debate. Canberra, the fount of all knowledge, is going to produce the policies for this State, overriding what the State Government wants and overriding what the people of the State want. What have we got? We have a debate characterised by an honourable member who does not even know the policy of his own Government, characterised by other Government members who have never produced an alternative to the scheme that has been promoted- Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the second time I have been misrepresented by the honourable member and I demand- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr NEWMAN —The honourable member for Burke is being condemned out of his own mouth. Apart from that, this debate has been characterised by honourable members and Ministers who are totally insensitive to the Tasmanian feelings. We have seen their arrogance to the democratic process which has taken place in Tasmania as speaker after speaker has sought to reduce it or to put a misleading slant on it. I refer finally to the gross stupidity of most of them in not understanding what the issues are all about in the debate in Tasmania. One of the things which characterised most of their speeches was how terrible it was that three members from Tasmania could come in here and stick up for the rights of their State. Somehow this seemed to be anathema to them. But they conveniently forget that we do not just represent the States' rights argument in here. It is an argument that has been put by Labor governments and Labor oppositions over the years that this debate has been going on. It started with the famous Premier Lowe himself. I ask honourable members to read what I hold up here. The headline is: 'Lowe tells Canberra: Stay out of S-W issue'. The article states: The Premier, Mr Lowe, last night told the Federal Parliament-including the Labor Opposition-to keep its nose out of Tasmania's business. That sort of comment has been reflected time and again by the current Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Wriedt. When this policy was first produced at the Labor Party State conference he fought against it principally on the basis that it had nothing to do with the Labor Party nationally. We are only acquitting our responsibility to our people in our State, and it is a responsibility, thank God, that the Labor Party members in the State also recognise. I now deal with some of the comments made by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), the Mr know-all of this Parliament. I think it is the contribution that he made to this debate that offends me most of all. His speech was vindictive, condescending and gratuitous. For one who prides himself on knowing everything and who can suggest policies for other people-I might say he also pretends to be a rationalist-it is a disgrace to him. I am sorry that he is not in here to listen to the debate. At last I am glad to see that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has stopped being a will-o' -the-wisp and has had the decency to stay in here and listen to the debate for five minutes. Why do I say what I have about the Minister for Science and Technology, the Minister for know-all? On the surface it may have been a smooth little speech full of all the good buzz words. It had a few comments to ridicule Tasmanians and he had his sycophants behind him having a bit of a giggle about it. But when his speech is analysed it will be seen that it got down at best to a gross distortion of what the basic problems are in Tasmania. There was no analysis of energy use. He knows well what the assessments were in Tasmania for the projections to the end of the century. He conveniently forgot that while he busily got about ridiculing me, other honourable members and Tasmanians. He gave absolutely no clear understanding and exposition of what the manufacturing problem is in Tasmania. He was trying to pretend that heavy industry has no more use for energy in Tasmania. I demonstrated that there are 19 heavy industry users queued up to try to make use of the last 30 per cent of the increment in power that will be available from the dam. As usual he trotted out the fact that 16 industries are waiting to go in Tasmania. We interjected and asked him to tell us what those 16 industries are. He has promised to table them in the House . We look forward to the tabling of the list of those 16 industries. I hope it will not just be some more vague descriptions of the sorts of things he was talking about last night. We want to see 16 industries specified by name and by type when he tables that list which he says he has. Mr Milton —The tourist industry is one. Mr NEWMAN —The honourable member should keep quiet. He is making a fool of himself. The only good thing about the speech made by the Minister for know-all was this- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Minister in the proper terminology if he is to refer to him at all. Mr NEWMAN —The Minister for Science and Technology; I stand corrected. The only good thing about the speech by the Minister for Science and Technology was that, thank heavens, he gave it in Tasmania and people heard him. If ever there was a contribution to five members on this side of the House of Representatives it was the Minister's speech. It was analysed by people and, unlike how the honourable member for Burke would have it, it was reported in the media and commented upon. People saw the fallacies. As I said, he made a tremendous contribution to the defeat of the people who stood against us in Tasmania. The second reading speech of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment was one of the most disgraceful speeches to have been made in this Parliament. It was mean, insensitive and deceitful. If I have the time I will go through it paragraph by paragraph and point out what leads me to make that criticism. First of all, I refer to the question of co-operation. We have these great conciliators on the Government side. The honourable member for Burke accuses us of promoting the argument on this issue, but it is the Government which is promoting it. It is causing this confrontation, and that flies in the face of what it has been claiming since 5 March. The Minister said in his speech: I want to stress at this point the importance we attach to State and Territory co-operation in this area. Nominations by Australia to the World Heritage List have been made in a spirit of co-operation with State authorities. . . It follows that there would normally be consultation with the State or Territory. What a spirit of conciliation and co-operation we have seen in this House over the last 24 hours. Member after member of the Government, without arguing the case, has been content to be vindictive and insensitive and to offer gratuitous insults to me and the other people of Tasmania. It is the same sort of thing that we have heard time and again. At the Adelaide conference the Prime Minister -I bet he regrets the stupidity of ever getting hooked on this issue-said: The new Commonwealth Government is committed as a responsible federal partner to approach the use of the external affairs power as indeed it approaches all Commonwealth powers-in a spirit of consultation and co-operation with States wherever appropriate. What a hollow, hypocritical statement that is. What has been the co-operation or the attempt at co-operation with Tasmania? The Minister has never been down to investigate the issue; he has never been down to consult- Mr Cohen —How much would you like to bet? Mr NEWMAN —Let me make that statement perfectly clear: He, and every other member of the Government, Minister or otherwise, may have been down to consult with the conservationists, but I am getting at this spirit of consultation with the States. Not one member or Minister has spoken to his counterpart in the State Parliament, asked the Hydro-Electric Commission to give its view or tried to go to the areas they have never been able to get into. If that is a spirit of consultation then it can only be one of the most hypocritical efforts ever made in this House. What is the basis of this consultation, this attempt to talk to us? The bottom line in the whole issue has been repeated by the Prime Minister time and again. It is this: I will come down and talk to you and consult if you agree not to build the dam'. That is the bottom line in the attempts at negotiation. What a negotiator! That is like the burglar putting the gun to the poor would-be victim and saying: 'Hand over your money; I will start negotiations with you but I will pull the trigger if you don't'. That is the basis of the consultation. Again we have the claim that has been trotted out by so many members of this Parliament that somehow the Federal Government has a mandate for what it is doing. That was repeated in this mean speech by a Minister who cannot even be bothered listening to the debate. Part of his speech says: . . . the Government is fulfilling a commitment given to the people of Australia and is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. Where is this mandate? There has never been a fair dinkum debate on this matter on the mainland. It is sad to say that where there was a debate the members on our side who tried to join in abused the then Government for its actions. They were running scared because of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society's operations against them in their electorates. Had they understood the debate in Tasmania and put it to their electorates and had we had the chance to put it to the rest of Australia I am certain the mainland States would have understood the real issue. But it has never been put; there has been a vacuum on mainland Australia. There is no doubt about that. Anyway, I do not believe that even that vacuum of a lack of understanding really adds to the Government's mandate. Let us compare that to the situation in Tasmania. There have been referendums and State elections and independents who stood on anti-dam issues. Dr Bob Brown and an Australian Democrat, Dr Sanders, stood on this issue. There has been a Federal election also. In each case those independent members have been defeated on an anti-dam issue. People have spoken in a solid way, as indicated by their election of the State Government and their voting for the five Tasmanian Opposition members of this House. That is the mandate which the Government accuses the Premier and the Opposition of abusing. The State Government has a clear mandate to build the dam, and, thank heavens, it will. Unless the Government is prepared to give me an extension of time I will have to stop going through these points. Mr Cohen —You have gone five minutes over the agreed time now. Mr NEWMAN —Will the Minister give me another five or 10 minutes now? Mr Cohen —No. Mr NEWMAN —No, he is not game to take it on. This dam should be built. The State needs the development because it provides the energy it requires for this generation and other generations to come. The issue has been debated in Tasmania for years, and the Tasmanians have made a decision. They have given the Tasmanian Government a firm directive to proceed with the construction, and that work is proceeding. Equally important is that this legislation strikes at the heart of our federal system. It is bad enough that the Federal Government should try to stop a project in Tasmania which the people of Tasmania have voted on but it is even worse that it will now impose its will on the rest of the States of Australia. This Bill, as it stands, achieves everything that those who wish to centralise power in Canberra want. I oppose the Bill but support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable member for Burke has approached the Chair seeking to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Bass ( Mr Newman) misrepresented me in a gross and disgraceful fashion. He quoted part of a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which purported to show that my view was contrary to Australian Labor Party policy. They are the terms he used. Part of a letter from the Prime Minister, which shows that that is totally false , states: . . . We are committed to ensuring alternative schemes, including hydro, are found to guarantee the energy needs of Tasmania in the future, allowing for growth rates that you refer to and your expected industrial expansion. This comment, in itself, refutes not only his attack on me but also the whole argument he presented. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Bass. Mr NEWMAN —I quoted from a letter. The matter would be very easily cleared up if the letter by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 25 February entitled 'A letter to the working people of Tasmania from Bob Hawke, Leader of the Australian Labor Party' were incorporated. Then we would be able to see whether the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) was misrepresented. I seek leave to incorporate the letter. Leave not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek leave to table the document? Mr NEWMAN —Yes. Leave granted. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(3.55) —I do not accept that the Tasmanian Government or Tasmanian members opposite are protecting the interests of other Tasmanians. Mr Newman —I rise to support a point of order that the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) was trying to make. He was anxious to table a letter. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you would give him the opportunity to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I think the honourable member for Burke is quite capable of seeking to attract the attention of the Chair. He did not effectively do so. Dr Theophanous —In order to resolve this matter, I seek leave to table the letter from the Prime Minister to Premier Gray. Leave granted. Mrs DARLING —I repeat that I do not accept that the Tasmanian Government or Tasmanian members opposite are protecting the interests of other Tasmanians. In the House this morning, an Opposition member, the very honourable and very independent member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), supported the Government's stand, particularly in the first half of his speech. I agree with his statement that if the project should go ahead 'it will be the most perverse and expensive make-work program which could be conceived'. The principle of States' rights, as I have seen it manifested in this House, has nothing to do with protecting the rights of people within our States. All it has to do with is the division of power-governmental power and party political power. It has to do with people and members-in this instance members of the Opposition who wish to get a little publicity and keep their seats secure-and it has nothing to do with getting information through to assist the people in that area. This was most obvious last week in Adelaide when I attended the Australian Constitutional Convention. During that week I was obliged to see previous Government members who, when in government-- Mr Groom —I raise a point of order. A few minutes ago the honourable member for Burke indicated that he was tabling a letter. I have just inquired as to the whereabouts of that letter and apparently it is not on the table at the present time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Braddon need not have interrupted the honourable member for Lilley on that point of inquiry. It is not a point of order. The processes should apply. I have no doubt that the letter as presented is in safe custody. Mrs DARLING —The type of process that is occurring in this chamber typifies what I am trying to say-pity the people from Tasmania or any State who become entangled in this childish game of whether we table or do not table a document. The so-called argument on States' rights will strangle the people in that area with misinformation and through the party political parading that is going on here. During the Constitutional Convention which was held in Adelaide last week, the States of Queensland and Tasmania thoroughly abused the system. The whole idea of that forum was to ensure that there was an objective apolitical background to what has become party political government in this country. One would have to be naive to think that we could get rid of party politics from government. It makes it all the more important that a Constitutional Convention, where we look at reform of the Constitution, be objective. During that week we saw the spectacle of Opposition members repeating their behaviour in the Parliament by getting up and voting against propositions which they themselves had proposed to the last Convention while in government. Most particularly I think of the Family Law Act, changes to which should have the agreement of Opposition and Government members. In the past, certain changes did have the support of Liberal-National Party members, but last week those people got up and voted against them. This means that the children whose parents are subjected to marital break-ups are still torn between State and Federal courts. Such families are having to wait for as long as 12 months before they get justice. I think it is worth putting the basis on which all this nonsense is founded and the hole in the argument of States' rights. It is not in Tasmania's interests to spend a large amount of money building a huge status structure and employing a small number of people to generate electric power which will not be needed in the near future. The initial strategy of the Tasmanian Government was to attract industry to Tasmania, using cheap power generation as a carrot. But with the development of new power plants in New South Wales and Victoria the strategy is looking sick. The fact is that Tasmania's entire power grid produces one gigawatt while the Eraring power plant in New South Wales alone has added one gigawatt and the Loy Yang power station in Victoria has added a massive 2.5 gigawatts to that State's output. The point is that Tasmania has unequalled natural assets which would attract world-wide interest. If the South West Tasmanian wilderness area is protected, tourists should be drawn to the area in their thousands, particularly if some of the money saved is injected into the tourist industry. The fact remains that Tasmania is no longer the only State which can offer an abundance of cheap power to industry. Therefore, Tasmania no longer has comparative advantage over other States in terms of attractions it can offer to industry: Hence, the Hydro- Electric Commission's strategy for the development of Tasmania needs to be re- examined, as does the rationale for the Gordon below Franklin Dam, and any other dam. Another point to note is that, even if Tasmania were successfully to attract manufacturing industry to the State, the chances are that employment in manufacturing industry in Tasmania would decline. The assumption that increased electricity consumption leads to more jobs is not a valid one. Tasmania's manufacturing industries are energy intensive industries. They use 60 per cent of Tasmania's electricity but employ only 6 per cent of the work force. During the 1970s, energy use by those industries has increased by 26 per cent compared with only 6 per cent for the Australian manufacturing industry as a whole. But over the same period employment in the manufacturing sector in Tasmania fell by 16 per cent compared with only 9 per cent of Australia as a whole. In other words, the more power that was used by industry in Tasmania the more jobs were shed. This is not an attack on the manufacturing base but it is an appeal for objectivity in using the resources of that State effectively and efficiently, which must be done if the people in the area are to be protected and if they are to have a decent usage of their tax money. The situation whereby the Tasmanian manufacturing industry uses six times the amount of electricity per output and two times the amount of other fuels per dollar of output can no longer continue. What has happened is that over the 1970s increasing use of electricity in industry in Tasmania has paralleled a decline in employment because electricity is used as a substitute for labour. That is all right as it stands but it is absolutely essential that we get job creative industries into Tasmania. The most job intensive industry is the tourist industry. What beautiful potential that wonderful State has. That resource should be exploited. Tasmania should be better represented by Opposition members in this House. I do not suggest that the existing power base industry should be discouraged but that the Tasmanian Government should consider the most efficient way of managing the States resources to the benefit of Tasmanians while retaining the unique wilderness area for all Australians and all people in the world, including the Tasmanians. In this context I would question the efficiency and the motivation of the Tasmanian Government in considering the feasibility of alternative energy forms. There are many options which should be investigated. I state here that I am proud to be part of a government and a party which encourages initiative and thinking on the part of back benchers as well as members of the front bench. We do not have to sit here gagged by our own Government and our own Ministers before we can say something which has not yet been formulated fully in policy, as was suggested by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) today-which is why I say that. There are a number of options which could be looked at. The one that I mention, because I am concerned about the lack of response by the Tasmanian Government, is that of wind power, which has much going for it. In fact, there is much generated in this chamber. In 1982, following a call for tenders to provide wind power on King Island, the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission claimed that wind energy was still too expensive. However, the HEC has been strongly criticised for the very limited advertising of the call for tenders and the short period permitted to supply a new turbine of quite detailed specification. More recently , a private company, Tasmanian Wind Enterprises, has asked the Tasmanian Government for permission to interconnect two 55 kilowatt Danish wind turbines to the King Island supply. The Tasmanian Government has approved the project in principle and has given the HEC responsibility for negotiations. The company aims to sell the wind generated electricity to the HEC at a cost of 90 per cent of the value of the diesel fuel saved, and it expects to make a profit. That is the type of efficiency at which the Tasmanian Government should be looking. That is the sort of alternative. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the north and north-west of Tasmania has found these areas to be endowed with winds with high and consistent speeds. The CSIRO has rated the sites examined as very favourable by world standards. The region also appears to be well suited to the use of wind power from environmental perspective in that it comprises largely cleared sheep pasture and heath country. No trees would need to be removed, and the provision of access tracks is not seen as financially or environmentally significant. Sheep grazing could continue beneath the towers and several landowners have expressed interest in a wind power project. It is a pity that while people are playing party politics, this sort of alternative and these facts are not considered, so that we can maintain a unique and necessary area in an age when so much destruction of the natural environment has been taking place and, at the same time, create more jobs and produce the power which is necessary. The case for the preservation of South West Tasmania as it stands is beyond dispute. In fact, some feel that we are 10 years too late and that the real integrity of the South West of Tasmania was lost when Lake Pedder was flooded and enlarged, taking a large chunk out of the very centre of the wilderness. What remains may yet become a marginal wilderness area if proposed plans by the Tasmanian Government to exploit the South West area for minerals and timber get off the ground. More dams are also planned. If we are fair dinkum about preserving South West Tasmania as a wilderness area, work on the Gordon below Franklin Dam must cease immediately while that wilderness which remains can still justly lay claim to the description. There is no reason to bulldoze into the area and move with such haste, unless it is true that the Tasmanian Government is holding a fiat grasp on the people. It should be able to wait, so that the area is not destroyed, until some solution is reached between the Federal and State governments, both of which represent the people in the area. In the whole of the Southern Hemisphere-one half of this entire planet-there are only three genuine wilderness areas which do not consist of desert, ocean, jungle or ice. These areas are found in western Patagonia, at the southern tip of the South American continent; Fiordland, in the south-west corner of the South Island of New Zealand; and South West Tasmania. In relation to the size of the total land mass of each of these continents or islands, these wilderness areas represent an infinitesimal proportion of the whole. Their economic worth, aside from tourism, is negligible. Their value, then, is not measurable and clearly depends on the viewpoint of the observer. However, one thing is certain. If properly cared for, they will increase in many types of values over time. South West Tasmania's worth in an increasingly urbanised, polluted and treeless national and world landscape will then be truly immeasurable. People will have something to be proud of, both as Tasmanians and Australians, because Tasmania, and the South West wilderness area included, will in effect be priceless. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.50) —I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate briefly, if only to indicate my support for what the Tasmanian members of this House have been saying here this afternoon. Because, understandably, most of the speakers from the Opposition side have been Tasmanians, one could be excused for thinking that they are carrying this issue and burden alone. I want to indicate quite clearly that that is certainly not so. I am speaking not only for myself but also for the great majority of Australians on the mainland. There may be many people of the mainland who do not understand the issue and have an emotional feeling that the dam should not be built. However, if one asks those people, as I have on many occassions, whether, the dam aside, they think this is something that Tasmanians should decide, one finds that overwhelmingly they put up their hands and say yes. So I am speaking not only for myself but also for them as well. There are many genuinely and firmly held views on this matter, but there are some that are not so genuine. It was seen as a popular cause about two months ago by the Australian Labor Party, something to hang one's hat on, something on which to campaign. One member of the ALP in another place has said, quite glibly , 'It seemed like a good idea at the time', and now the ALP is stuck with it. It is not just a Tasmanian issue, as many speakers have already said. It affects all Australians, because if the Bill goes through we shall rue the day in the upset of the balance in the federal system under which we have lived successfully for 83 years. It is an attack, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) said a short time ago, on the very structure of the federal basis of our political system. It is worth while saying a few words on that basis, because what we are seeing here is an attempt to centralise the administration of Australia in Canberra. Mr Howe —What rubbish. What about the United States? Mr WHITE —It might be all right in other countries under a different system. Someone mentions the United States. I have no doubt that someone will mention Britain. They have different systems. We have a federal system, to which we on this side of the House will very strongly adhere. That is why many of us oppose Bills such as this. I dread the day when we shall have a decision in Canberra, overriding the State Government decisions, which will make the same laws that pertain to the people in South West Tasmania applicable equally to the people of Torres Strait or of the Kimberleys. What a hopeless situation that will be if the Government continues this centralist role. I should like to quote from something that was said in the Senate just before lunch. It indicates that it is a populist view-something which was good at the time-on the part of many members of the ALP. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in answer to a question said: I simply reiterate the point I made in answer to Senator Chipp when he first raised this question. Matters relating to the administration of justice within New South Wales and involving no larger national issues or allegations about breaches of federal laws are and must remain properly a matter for the State concerned. They are matters for the State concerned-notwithstanding that the matter concerned the Australian Broadcasting Commission and a very proper matter of justice in Australia. The Attorney-General went on: I do not believe and the Government does not believe that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to which Senator Chipp referred for the Commonwealth to involve itself in a matter which is . . . one of States rights. Senator Gareth Evans said that some hours ago in the Senate. So he wants to have it both ways. One of the other things which amuse me and annoy me to some extent in this debate is that the people who make the most outlandish and emotional statements on this issue have never been to South West Tasmania. I do not know whether the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) has been there. Having listened to her speech and some of the rather foolish things she said about wind power as a substitute for hydro-electric power, I cannot believe that she has ever been there. Apart from talking about wind power, the honourable member for Lilley and three or four other honourable members opposite have today referred to tourism. They have asked why the Tasmanian Government does not do something about tourism. My God! If they had been there they would have seen that the creation of this dam will do more for tourism in Tasmania than any other single thing that has been done for 50 years. So I ask honourable members opposite not to talk about tourism when they do not undertstand what they are talking about. They can hold their views-- Mrs Darling —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to put the record straight. I was saying that we would like more of this money to go to tourism. It is not a question of what is being spent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member is free to take a point of order but she is debating the matter. The honourable member will resume her seat. Mr WHITE —They can hold their views about whether the dam should be built, but they should not say that Tasmania should be encouraging tourism by not building the dam. If honourable members opposite had been there they would realise that the area to be flooded is a very remote area. It cannot be reached by road. It can be reached only by rafting down the Franklin River. Fewer than 2,000 people a year would go there. Mr Milton —You do not know what you are talking about. Mr WHITE —As it is a very important issue and concerns State rights, some weeks ago I took the trouble to go and have a look. I went by road as far as I could; then I went by helicopter; then I went by boat; and then I walked. So I happen to know something about what I am talking about, which is in stark contrast to a lot of the nonsense and emotionalism that has been talked here today by supporters of the Government. One of the worst speeches I have heard was that by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), to which the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) referred. The Minister usually takes a fairly rational approach to most matters. Yesterday, in the most pompous and condescending speech that I think I have ever heard in this House, he proceeded to talk down to some 400,000 Tasmanians in a way that I should think will preclude his visits to Tasmania forever, because if the Tasmanians have any sense they will make sure that what he said is broadcast throughout the length and breadth of Tasmania. I hope that it has been broadcast by today. No one denies that the area in question is a beautiful part of Australia and that it is a very wild and beautiful river. The problem is that there is no access to the area. The Tasmanians propose to dam part of it so that people- apart from the power suppliers-can get in and have a look at this part of Tasmania. Australia is a young, developing and expanding country. I ask whether it is likely that in the years past, when some of our major projects were built, such an attitude existed? Is it likely that the Snowy Mountains scheme supplying power to all Australia would ever have been completed if we had an attitude similar to that of those people opposing the dam? The answer is no. It would have been stopped by emotional issues being raised falsely by members of the Australian Labor Party. There would never have been a hope of building the Snowy Mountains scheme if the Australian Labor Party had carried on then as it is now. No doubt there will be people who will be raising these issues about the Burdekin Dam in North Queensland. I have not heard too many people in this House complaining that we are ripping the top off a hill a few hundred yards from here to build a new Parliament House that will provide us with a lot of comfort. No doubt it could be argued that that hill is part of the inalienable heritage of the Australian Capital Territory. There is not a whimper about that sort of thing. It would be better if we could all go ahead and not destroy any of the environment, but how is it possible to achieve that in an expanding, developing country? It is just not possible. On balance, I very much oppose this Bill. I oppose it because of the implications for the federal system of government. I oppose it because the Tasmanians have decided after four popular votes on the issue that they want the dam. I support the dam basically because in my view the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. That is always a decision that has to be made. I think it is a very sorry day and that we will all regret in the long term that this Bill has come before the House today. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may make his explanation. Mr MILTON —About 30 minutes ago the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) asserted that members on the Government side of this House had not consulted with the Hydro-Electric Commission. That was an untrue statement. In fact, I was in Tasmania with the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in February. The Committee and some of the observers-I was one of them-did consult with the Hydro-Electric Commission. Mr Groom —How many? How many people were there? Mr MILTON —There were some 10 of us, as I remember, most from the honourable member's side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. Ms FATIN(Canning)(4.2) —Earlier in the debate today the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) said that the Hawke Government, by introducing the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, was taking something precious away from Tasmania. I suggest that he and his party are trying to take something precious away from Australia. What kind of issue are we debating here today? Are we really here to talk about States' rights or are the issues more subtle? It is interesting to remember that the Fraser Island debate was used by the Premier of Queensland to defend what he said were his State's rights. The Fraser Government then demanded the right to overrule that claim and it did so. Why then does the Opposition claim that the Hawke Government has sinister motives when it demands that right also? It seems to me and to many others who are concerned to protect the South West of Tasmania that the real issues are in danger of being submerged by the inflated rhetoric emanating from here today, and from the Premier of Tasmania and his power-hungry advisers. During the last few months we have been subjected to a confused and blustering attempt by Mr Gray and the Opposition to conceal the real economic and environmental conflict surrounding the dam controversy. In addition, the Opposition in this Parliament is intent on capitalising on the issue in the most blatantly misleading fashion. As a recent correspondent to the Australian noted: . . . if a dam is ever built it will be . . . a monument to an exercise in cynicism and cheap politics. Let me refer briefly to the economic aspect of the scheme to flood the Gordon below Franklin. If the work on the dam goes ahead it will provide approximately 890 jobs. These jobs will be short term. They will be almost exclusively jobs for men who will be working in extremely isolated and unpleasant conditions. The Tasmanian Government has ignored this Government's offer of a much larger number of jobs. The 890 jobs provided by the building of the dam are therefore to be created at the expense of a much larger number of jobs elsewhere. But the final economic irony is that in the long term, once the dam is completed, the scheme will provide only 29 jobs. The United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage lists several criteria which an area must meet to merit a place on the World Heritage List. Only one criterion must be satisfied to merit a listing. Such is the significance of the Franklin valley in South West Tasmania that the World Heritage Committee judged that the region met all four criteria of outstanding universal value for natural properties and three of the six criteria for natural properties. The South West of Tasmania is one of only 38 world heritage areas which have qualified in terms of natural areas. The natural richness of the area has been well documented. Preliminary investigations into a small part of the threatened district have revealed several shelters and caves which show evidence of human occupation. Scientists estimate that the area was inhabited by humans more than 20,000 years ago at the peak of the last Ice Age. The special climatic features of the area have preserved, in quite astonishing detail, the evidence of the way those first Tasmanians lived. A massive amount of data is available to scientists in the more remote areas of the Franklin valley. Huon pines still growing in the area are estimated to be nearly 2,500 years old. A fallen trunk of a Huon pine was recently established to be 7,500 years old and another fallen tree has been dated to almost 12,000 years old. The valley is also a stronghold of rare marsupials like the Tasmanian devil which is extinct on the Australian mainland. It also hosts many rare birds and plants, many of which were in grave danger of extinction even before the Tasmanian Government determined that they should meet their end sooner rather than later. No scientific survey has ever been made of the reptile life but the Hydro-Electric Commission's environmental impact study found 269 invertebrate species, a quarter of which were new to science. What do these figures mean? Are the advocates of the 'No Dams' campaign merely concerned to have a few fluffy animals, an old tree trunk and mouldy human relics? Our opponents on the opposite side of this House seem to think so. What they completely fail to understand is the whole concept of a natural national heritage. They entirely miss the point that as human beings we have a responsbility to ourselves and to others beyond that of immediate economic advantage. They fail to see that we are responsible to the world at large for part of our common heritage. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to deprive them of the unique opportunities for understanding offered by areas like the South West of Tasmania . If we permit this area to be destroyed, we will brand ourselves in the eyes of the world as red necked philistines, as having sold out to technology and economic interest to satisfy an immediate and ill-considered need. One of the defining characteristics of a wilderness is that it cannot be evaluated in economic terms. I urge this House to show Australia and the world that we are capable of justifying the saving of the Franklin on human, aesthetic and environmentally responsible grounds and are not bound by the mentality of galloping economism to which various groups and governments in this country seem to have succumbed. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.09) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate. Honourable members will know that from time to time I have expressed quite severe reservations about this particular dam-the Gordon below Franklin Dam-as a proposal. I am not against the building of dams per se-in fact I was discussing this a few moments ago with one of my colleagues -but I have been persuaded by my concern about some of the archeological aspects of the caves on the Gordon River likely to be affected by this particular development. Other members have quoted in some detail from the views of people whom I respect very much-people like Professor Mulvaney, Professor Rhys Jones and others who have been involved in research in this area and who have detailed the importance of the sites in this region not only for Australia but also internationally. From time to time I have stated my concern to my constituents who have approached me about the building of this dam on this site. Per se, I am not against the building of dams. I certainly understand very much the States' rights argument. I suspect that, if there were an argument in New South Wales over the building of a dam similar to the Warragamba Dam, New South Wales people who might be deprived of water and other facilities-perhaps electricity and the like-might well feel as hostile as do Tasmanians to other people intruding into a decision that they traditionally have thought was one which they were entitled to make. But for all that, I believe that, I, as an Australian, as are others, am entitled to express a view on the matter and entitled to put that view as frankly as I have to constituents and as frankly as I have here today. Some people have said that one has to visit the site to be able to make an assessment of whether the arguments are justified. That is a view that I do not accept. I have often been known, like many other members of this House, to express a view on the Soviet Union and on the virtues of communism. The fact is that I have never been to the Soviet Union but I have never shirked from expressing a view on that matter and, I suspect, nor have many others. One does not need to have been to a particular place or location to be able to express a view or to have read the opinions or to be aware of the matters and the issues involved. On this matter one is entitled to form a judgment on the information that is publicly available. But I am concerned-I have expressed this view to my constituents-at the pace with which the Federal Government has proceeded to intervene in this matter. I want to see the dam stopped. I do not want to see this dam proceed. But I believe that the Federal Government by its action has heightened the possibility of the dam being built. In my judgment, pursuing in a cavalier and reckless way Commonwealth power assumed to exist is likely to lead to a situation in which we will find that that power will not be upheld. I would put it on the basis that there is possibly a 50-50 chance that the Federal Government may well lose. If the Government has the view that there is a prospect of losing the case before the High Court and it proceeds to put the arguments in the Court by the pursuit of legislation, it will only drive deeper and deeper divisions between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government. Any prospect of stopping this project in a negotiated way is lost. All honourable members will be aware that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote a couple of letters-- Mr Cadman —Three. Mr RUDDOCK —He wrote three letters to the Premier of Tasmania after the election and then proceeded to introduce certain regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act in an attempt to stop the dam. Now the Government is proceeding with this legislation. The reason it is proceeding with this legislation is that the advice it has received-I imagine it to be proper advice-is that it is unlikely to have its position upheld on the regulations. The regulations are most likely in excess of the power given under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Prime Minister wrote three letters. The Government has introduced these regulations and it has lost the opportunity to sit down in a calm and considered way, after the election, and in a non-confrontationist atmosphere in an attempt to negotiate an alternative approach, in an attempt to pursue another solution. I very much regret that because I think there is an enormous lost opportunity. In the post-election environment, the willingness- Mr Cohen —You can't be serious. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, I am very serious and it is the strongest view I hold. The real chance of stopping this dam with certainty would have been a negotiated solution . As a result of the legislative solution, the prospect that the Government has now of stopping the dam is at best 50-50. I say to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) that in my judgment, having put aside the opportunity to negotiate and being seen to negotiate, he has it on his head and the head of his colleagues if this dam is built. Dr Klugman —It will be called the Cohen dam. Mr RUDDOCK —Perhaps I should suggest that to the honourable member's colleagues. In my judgment, the prospect of going before the High Court of Australia on the bases that are available, and losing, must be at least 50-50. I think it would behove me at least to take honourable members through the powers that the Government might be seeking to rely upon in this Bill. Mention has been made of section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, the external affairs power. Under the external affairs power people are relying upon the judgment in the Koowarta case for an assumption that the Court will willingly extend that power into this situation. A number of reasons exist, and because of the federal clause in the agreement that has been negotiated, because of the unique circumstances in this case and because it is a very marked extension, I believe- and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) highlighted this in a letter that he wrote to the newspapers before the election-that the extensions of the external affairs power, having regard to the great variety of possibilities that might exist in terms of treaty arrangements, will prompt the Court to put a fence around the external affairs power and limit it. It has been suggested that section 51 (xxvi) might be able to be used. Some people call that the power to make laws for Aborigines, but it is not that. It is the power to make laws for people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. I suggest that if that clause is looked at, bearing in mind the extent to which archeological relics are involved, it is very unlikely that it will be deemed to be a special law for people of any race. To suggest that relics of 20,000 years of age are making special laws for people of a race seems to me to be stretching the incidental nature of any extension of that power quite beyond that which is reasonable. It has also been suggested that the trade and commerce power might be able to be used. But because of the qualification in section 100 of the Constitution, in my judgment it is most unlikely that the use of the trade and commerce power would be upheld. Honourable members would be aware that section 100 of the Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation. I think that particular qualification would certainly limit the extension by any court of the trade or commerce power to stop the building of this particular dam . Finally, it is suggested that the inherent nationhood power that was used to uphold the Australian Assistance Plan might well be properly extended in this case to enable intervention. Whilst I recognise that there is an inherent nationhood power I think that in these circumstances one is very much more likely to find the High Court building a fence around the nature of that power and the natural extension of it as well, because really what we are about when we extend these headings of power quite unnaturally is undermining the very federal nature of this Constitution. I want it to be understood that I am not a States' righter; but I am not a centralist either. I think people have to understand that there is a different position, and that is of a federalist, a person who believes in the nature of our federal compact and what it is all about. We cannot deny the Constitution. It is there. It is a federal Constitution and I do not believe that the courts of this land will lightly put aside that document, the very fundamental nature of the federal compact, to allow these unnatural extensions of the four powers that the Government is purporting to extend in this statute. I go back to the point. If we believe that this dam should not be built, as I do, then one would not, I suggest, want to rely upon an Act of parliament which so unnaturally extends some sections of the Constitution in the hope that one might win because, in my judgment, that is a very significant doubt and a risk that I would not be prepared to take until I had exhausted in every possible way every attempt to negotiate a solution. Clearly, also under the Constitution, and this Act has it in mind, there is provision for the acquisition of land or property. The Constitution clearly lays down that the acquisition of property must be on just terms. I understand that there is an argument that when one purports to say that a State cannot deal with its territory in the way in which it might ordinarily deal with it, one is, to all intents and purposes, acquiring its property, and that means that compensation on just terms will be required for any intervention. I suggest that when this matter gets into the courts the compensation that is likely to be payable will be a very significant amount of money. Therefore I would say that it was incumbent upon the Government, having regard to those provisions dealing with compensation and to the doubts about the extent of its constitutional power, to negotiate realistically with the Tasmanians in an attempt to stop this dam proposal. Until those steps were taken, I do not believe this legislation was proper. I do not think it should have been introduced into the Parliament. I would even suggest at this late stage that it should not be proceeded with and that the Minister should endeavour to negotiate further for a solution. That is not to say that at the end of the day legislation of this sort is something that I might not have looked seriously at supporting. But I cannot support it at this time, and I want the Parliament to know that I cannot support it at this time. I think it is precipitate, and I have made that very clear. I do not think the Bill should be supported for that reason. The Minister should go back and attempt to negotiate realistically in a non-confrontationalist atmosphere and be prepared to pay compensation as the Constitution requires on just terms. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.24) —I rise to take part in this debate and to express a disappointment at the way in which the Labor Government has attempted to protect an area on the World Heritage List and a disappointment at the way in which our Tasmanian colleagues have failed to appreciate and understand the great significance of the area in the South West. Having said that, might I also say that I appreciate and understand the deep, heartfelt feelings of the Tasmanians. I also appreciate and understand the deep and heartfelt feelings of many other Australians about the significance of South West Tasmania. Two issues exist in this debate, one being the significance of our federal system and the other being how, within that federal system, we can protect not only State and national assets but also world assets. But the Bill that has been introduced here represents an attack on the very fabric of the federal system. It is one that does not address itself merely to the five properties listed on the World Heritage List. It would give to a Minister of the Commonwealth Government powers far in excess of those that relate only to properties that are, or might be, on the World Heritage List. It is a back door method designed to centralise power in Canberra. I recall a debate that took place between 1972 and 1975 when the same sorts of issues arose. At that time the Labor Government, under Mr Whitlam, moved swiftly to destroy the federal system. It did not succeed and the Hawke Labor Government will not succeed either. Labor's objective was then, as now, the ultimate establishment of a unitary, unicameral system of government with one Australian Parliament vested with plenary powers. As an Australian and a South Australian, I do not believe that a unitary system of government would be in the best interests of Australia. I believe that people want parliaments and local government that are closer to their day to day needs and which have responsibility to handle policy matters related to those needs. I also believe that a system of government that divides sovereignty, that divides legislative capacity as well as administrative responsibility, is one that prevents from arising the circumstance whereby all power is in the hands of one or a few and thus can be abused to attack the Australian democratic system of government. Therefore, because this Bill is drafted so widely, because it will enable the Minister to do far more than simply protect the world heritage items referred to , I find myself unable to support it. However, I wish that the Government had been more sensitive to the concerns of Australians of all political persuasions and had directed this Bill to the central issue confronting us: How are we to protect Australian assets that have been identified as of world significance? This week the 1982 report of the Australian Heritage Commission was circulated. In the report the commissioners state: The dominant issue, in a public sense, over the past year has been the proposal to dam the Franklin River in Tasmania. This river is listed in the Register of the National Estate and the area has been proposed, by the Australian Government , for the World Heritage List. Of course, since the report was written, that area has been so listed. The commissioners continue: There is no doubt in the mind of the Commission that this river and its surrounds constitutes a place which has ' . . . aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community'. The Commission is of the view that there are ' feasible and prudent' alternatives to the project and that these should be investigated. I agree with both aspects of what I have just quoted. I agree as to the aesthetic, cultural and environmental significance of South West Tasmania. I also agree that there should be a full and proper investigation of the alternatives. When a body set up under legislation of this Parliament-one which has been in operation for a number of years and has established a high reputation for identifying places and properties of significance to all Australians and in some instances to the whole world-makes a report such as that from which I have quoted I believe that the Parliament should take special note of it. My statement that I cannot support the legislation as it comes before us does not mean that I do not believe that we in this Parliament should not examine ways and means whereby items of the national estate should be protected. I was Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment when the South West Tasmania area was proposed for listing by the World Heritage Committee. At that time I said that the nominated area of Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks covered approximately 769,355 hectares and was one of the last remaining temperate areas in the world; that it contained the South West National Park, the Franklin-Lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Claire National Park; and that the area had a wide and outstanding range of geological, landform and vegetation characteristics. All of those parks were declared under legislation of the Tasmanian Parliament. I went on to say that in the nomination the site had been described as a large, primitive area with its land and waters and its native plant and animal communities substantially unmodified by humans and their works. I added that it was large enough to survive as wilderness and to maintain genetic diversity, despite influences from surrounding areas, and to permit the experience of solitude. That nomination went forward at the request of the Premier of Tasmania and was accepted by the World Heritage Committee. I believe that governments have a right to deal with other governments-from Premier to Prime Minister. Once they have so dealt and have requested action by another government, which takes action in circumstances which then subject it to a set of political pressures, the government and the Parliament that made the original request are estopped from denying the consequences that flow from that request. That request went forward to the World Heritage Committee on the basis that a dam was to be built in the South West. The property was listed by that Committee which, as was its right, listed it with a commentary-not a qualification-that the Australian authorities should do whatever they could to protect the South West. That was addressed to the Commonwealth Government and to the State Government because between them they have legislative power to provide the necessary protection. I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), insofar as it looks to the future. There is no doubt that, under the Commonwealth Constitution, this Parlaiment has power to act. Section 51, placitum (xxxviii) refers to- The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the states directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia. That placitum of the Constitution would give power for legislation to be jointly implemented by a State parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament in order to protect an item on the World Heritage List. The problem with which we are confronted today is that there are already five items on that list. I believe that two are under the complete legislative control of the Commonwealth. I refer to the Great Barrier Reef and the Kakadu National Park- Mr Barry Jones —And Lord Howe Island. Mr WILSON —That would come under New South Wales, I believe. Two come under direct Commonwealth control and three under the control of States. The vexed problem is as to how a Commonwealth Parliament, having initiated action at the request of State Premiers, governments and parliaments-under informal arrangements, because this is the first time that we have had this experience of processing some of our great world treasures in this way, by having them listed on the World Heritage List-can then protect them in the future. I hope that, if this Parliament, as I would like it to do, passes the amendment proposed by my colleague, the honouraable member for Bradfield, the Parliament of New South Wales would immediately seek to consult with the present Commonwealth Government and devise matching legislation so that those two areas can be protected. We may well find that the only way in which the Commonwealth has the legislative capacity to protect a World Heritage item is in that way, in concert with the State in which the property is located. As I have said, I think it is a great pity that this legislation is so wide and covers properties other than those on the World Heritage List. It will be a massive intrusion on State sovereign powers in a way which I think is beyond the capacity of this Parliament. Therefore, I am not disposed to vote for legislation, which I believe is beyond the legislative capacity of this Parliament in circumstances where the proposed legislation goes much further than I would want it to go if there were a capacity. I would have liked to see an amendment to this legislation to include, in addition to what my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield has proposed, a proposal in these terms: ' That the Commonwealth has, pursuant to a request by a State, submitted to the World Heritage Committee under article 11 of the Convention, that the property is suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List and it has been so included before the commencement of this Act'. There is no doubt that the property was listed as a result of a request of the Tasmanian Government. That request was conveyed to the Commonwealth by the Premier of Tasmania at the time. It is irrelevant that that Premier was not Premier at some later date. What we need to do in regard to this legislation is to recognise that there are two fundamental issues. The first relates to the question of the integrity of our federal system and the division of power and the right of people of States to determine their own future in areas that are of State legislative capacity. I will fight to defend that right. But, at the same time, I believe that there are circumstances where our great national assets need to be protected by a mechanism that entrenches that protection. Preferably, that entrenchment of protection should be as a result of the agreement between a State government and the Commonwealth Government, each passing legislation which reinforces the enactments of the other. If we did not do that we would find that some of our great national assets would be under threat at any time according to the whims of our politicians. I think there are assets that the majority of Australians will identify from time to time as being something that Australians want preserved for all time. That we have not had this proper consultation with Tasmania since the Hawke Government came to office is a tragedy, for it may well have been that by careful and sensible consultation some solution to this problem could have been achieved. But that it has not been achieved is no excuse to play constitutional brinkmanship; it is no excuse to threaten States in relation to the areas of their normal responsibility. The freedom and the security of the Australian democracy depend upon the strength of a co-operative federal system, not upon one such as we had between 1972 and 1975 which was described as a coercive federal system. We need to recognise also that the present Labor Government has indicated that it will coerce States in other ways. I am reminded that prior to the election date the man who is now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would withhold section 96 grants from a State that did not bow to his requests. He said he would withhold grants not in relation to the area in which there was a disputation between the Commonwealth and the State but generally, by blackmail, to force a State into doing what a coercive federal government required it to do . Yet, he sought election and claimed election on the basis of consensus. How can it be described as consensus if on the public record, a Prime Minister, during an election campaign, holds above every State the Damocles sword of a threat of withdrawal of every section 96 grant if that State fails to do what that centralist coercive Prime Minister wishes it to do? The other interesting aspect that I believe should be drawn to the attention of the House in the closing stages of this debate on the second reading of this very bad Bill is that the Prime Minister's predecessor as Leader of the Australian Labor Party made it clear in correspondence that he believed that Tasmania should make decisions for itself as to what it did in relation to the South West. More importantly he went on that the more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and, he said, outside the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth. Now, presumably, he made that statement on advice. If he made that statement on advice, one wonders why we have before us a Bill with no explanation as to the full justification of its constitutionality and no explanation as to why this Bill, instead of addressing the central issue that should be before this Parliament-that is, the protection of items on the World Heritage List-gives to a Commonwealth Government the right to intrude into a whole range of areas such as a centralist Commonwealth Goverment would like to have available to it. But I, as one who believes in co- operative federalism, who believes in the division of powers, who believes in the balance and distribution of responsibility that presently prevails in this Commonwealth, do not wish to see the Parliament pass such wide legislation. I oppose the Bill. I would like to see mechanisms developed that would enable the protection of all Australian properties in the future listed on the World Heritage List, and where possible and where constitutional and in co-operation with the States, to achieve the same thing in relation to the five items already listed on the World Heritage List. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(4.43) —This debate is a tragic culmination of four or five years of unbelievable bungling, stubborness and politicking by both State and Federal politicians. It now appears that this issue will be resolved only by the High Court of Australia. It should never have reached this point. The opportunities to resolve this impasse have been many and varied. They have all been lost. The debate which originally started around the question of Tasmania's need for more energy and the value of preserving the South West Tasmanian wilderness area has been lost as Tasmania's Liberal Government and the Tasmanian representatives in this House rage against the rest of Australia about States' rights. I have been a member of this Parliament for nearly 14 years. If there is one thing that I have grown to despise more than anything else it is those politicians who use this forum as a means of whipping up the people they purport to represent into a frenzy of rage against Canberra or the rest of Australia. It is cheap, populist regionalism and is the grubbiest form of politics available to man. I bow to no one in my concern for the electorate I represent, the Central Coast electorate of Robertson. But before anything else I am an Australian; I am not a Gosfordian or a New South Welshman but an Australian. I believe that the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament feel the same. Unfortunately , the majority of the Tasmanian members of parliament know how easy it is to play regional politics, to inflame the people and play on their prejudices and feeling of isolation. The Tasmanian members of parliament had the opportunity to do one of two things. They could have taken a courageous position and called for a full disclosure of the facts by the Hydro-Electric Commission. They could have called for a public inquiry similar to those carried out under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Two such national public inquiries were called by the Whitlam Government on Fraser Island and the Ranger uranium project . That was the only way in which this nation could have been given the opportunity to hear all of the facts about hydro-electricity and Tasmania's future power needs. That is the only way in which it could have been judged impartially. The other option was to do nothing, say nothing for years and let the Hydro-Electric Commission and the Tasmanian Government have all the running on the issue. Let us not forget that all of the Tasmanian members of parliament with one exception-the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr)-refused to commit themselves for a long time, preferring to wait and see which way public opinion in Tasmania was going, without trying to inflame it. They sat on their hands waiting to see which way they should jump. When they saw the pro-dam argument was winning they jumped on the bandwagon. I have no doubt that the Tasmanian people favour building the dam-no doubt at all. We do not question that the majority opinion in Tasmania is in favour of the dam, probably by a ratio of 6:4 . But let us not forget that there is a very sizable minority, probably 30 per cent to 40 per cent of Tasmanians, who are just as strongly opposed to the dam, and they too are Tasmanians. As the debate gathered momentum it was clear that it would be a courageous politician who took a contrary point of view. The Tasmanian members of parliament, except for the honourable member for Wilmot, could have played a real role and called for a genuine open inquiry. They chose the coward's way out . They tested the wind and they went with the mob. Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order. I would like the Minister to withdraw the remark 'cowardly'. Mr Milton —It is true. Mr Goodluck —It is not true. He knows it is not true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin has made his point. He will remain silent. I would require the Minister to be a little more selective in his words. I will not require a withdrawal because I do not see the word as being unparliamentary in the context of the debate. Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order. You said, sir, with the greatest of respect, that the word was not unparliamentary. I take offence to that word being used with particular reference to me and my colleagues who are not here. I ask for that word to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has quite clearly- Mr Goodluck —No one calls me a coward twice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has clearly expressed his view. The Chair in its comments to the Minister conveyed its displeasure, if you like, at its use but did not feel required to insist on a withdrawal. However, I am sure that the Minister would be responsive to the honourable member for Franklin 's distress and withdraw the word. Mr COHEN —I was referring in the broad to Tasmanian members of parliament. If the honourable member for Franklin considers that the word is personally offensive, I will withdraw it. The tragedy that I referred to earlier is that national debate is now impossible. People within Tasmania in particular are becoming so entrenched in their views, pro or anti, that even to raise the subject is to run the risk of getting a punch in the nose. I want to go back to 1980, when as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I visited Tasmania-one of the many visits I have made to Tasmania-to carry out an inquiry into a proposal to dam the Franklin River. We met with the Hydro-Electric Commission in Hobart and discussed the proposal. After an hour or so it became patently clear to me that the HEC was primarily interested in how to find work for the 1,000-odd workers who could be put out of work if the dam did not proceed. When I put this question to officers of the HEC, they replied: 'That certainly is a major consideration'. In my view, it was the only consideration, with the possible exception of their own jobs-no dams, no engineers; no dams, no growth, at least for the HEC. I then asked the question: 'What will the dam workers do in 10 years when the dam is finished?' They said, 'We will worry about that in 10 years time'. Every single inquiry outside Tasmania by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania has given the thumbs down to the project-and remember that both of these committees were not controlled by the Australian Labor Party and its members. The Fraser Government instructed its departments to inquire into both the economic and environmental aspects of the project. All opposed it. Let us not forget that the Fraser Government opposed the building of the dam, and it is obvious in this debate that there are many Liberal and National Party members who still do. There is one major difference, and I take up the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). The one major difference on this issue between the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government is that we believe that the South West is so important to the people of Australia and the rest of the world that we are prepared to take every legal measure at our disposal to stop the dam. The Fraser Government made the right noises. It even made the right offers. But when those offers were stubbornly rejected for purely political reasons it went to water, if honourable members will excuse the pun. Let us take up the question of offers. We are told that this is a matter of power and jobs and Tasmania's future prosperity. Without going into all the facts about Tasmania's declining industrial activities so superbly argued by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), I would like to remind the House of the unbelievably generous offers that both the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government have made to Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray. I refer first to Mr Fraser's offer. The offer by the Fraser Government on 9 January this year was a grant to cover the full capital cost of a modern environmentally clean coal fired power station in Tasmania to generate an amount of electricity equivalent to that which would be generated as a result of damming the Gordon below Franklin. The Commonwealth also guaranteed to provide on an annual basis a share of the cost of coal for the life of the power station , if necessary to reduce the cost of thermal power to that of hydro-power. The $ 500m offer comprised an estimated $250m capital cost and $212m over the life of the power station for coal. Now, look at the offers of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In his letter to Premier Gray on 30 March the Prime Minister wrote: We have stated repeatedly we will assist in developing alternatives which guarantee your energy supplies to cover both the present and future needs. We are not opposed to the development of hydro-electricity to meet Tasmania's future energy needs. We are opposed to the Gordon below Franklin Dam. We have made it clear we will assist those directly affected by stopping work on the dam and in the transfer of employment from that site to other projects. We are committed to achieving equivalent employment opportunities for those working on the current project. Further, we will assist in developing a long term economic package for the benefit of all Tasmanians. We acknowledge and accept our responsibility to do all that is possible for those currently unemployed within your State. Finally we have many times stated our commitment to healing the divisions in this society. This issue clearly divides Tasmania. Surely anyone who claims to have a basic understanding of the English language would realise that these are unbelievably generous offers. We have said in no uncertain terms that we recognise Tasmania's fears and that if the Australian people want to save the Franklin River and the South West they, the Australian people, must be prepared to pay for it. At no stage have we suggested that the Australian people should demand that Tasmanians should be the only ones to pay for our wish to preserve the South West. We have said: 'You save it, we will pay for it'. Premier Gray was virtually given a blank cheque. Tasmanians could have had the best of both worlds. They could have had the South West preserved and all the benefits that would flow from that. There was an unequivocal guarantee that their future power needs would be met and an assurance that every person's job was safe. What could be more generous? What more do they want? Those 1,000-plus workers who were not going to be working on the dam would have been employed on a whole range of projects, including other hydro projects, major roads, environmental improvement and tourist attractions. What sort of stubborness, what sort of politicking, what sort of madness rejected this offer? Finally it came down to the HEC, backed by the politicians in this House, whipping up a fury amongst their constituents that no one on that other island was going to tell them what to do. States rights, not energy requirements and environment protection, became the issue. During this debate one of the silliest comments emanating from some of the Tasmanian members was that members on this side hate Tasmania. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, it is because we love Tasmania that we do not want to see this project proceed. I have visited Tasmania on many occasions, including camping in the upper reaches of the Franklin River and canoeing some 16 kilometres down that river. I know of no other place in Australia, with the possible exception of North Queensland and the Northern Territory, that has such enormous tourist potential. I speak with some knowledge of the subject because during the thirteen and a half years I have been a member of this House I have devoted a large part of my time to the tourist industry. I was instrumental in convincing Mr Malcolm Fraser to set up a select committee on tourism and for three years I was shadow Minister for tourism, sport and environment. If a fraction of the money-I repeat, a fraction of the money-now being proposed for the Gordon below Franklin Dam were to be expended on tourist infrastructure, Tasmania would become a tourist El Dorado. At the time the previous Tasmanian Government was hoping to spend $453m-at 1982 prices-on the dam, the Labor Government was planning to spend $70,000 on tourist infrastructure. Tasmania's great charm, alongside its natural beauty, is that it has not had the massive industrial development, the massive population growth and urban restructuring that all of Australia's other cities have had. There has not been the pressure to pull down the wonderful old colonial buildings in Hobart, Launceston, Richmond, New Norfolk and other areas of Tasmania. It is a traveller's paradise. All it needs is the investment in tourism to ensure its economic prosperity. Time does not permit me to go into great detail but I refer honourable members to the new tourist village now being constructed at the Uluru National Park at Ayers Rock. It is an excellent model for the future development of tourism in Tasmania. I want to deal very briefly with the question of States' rights and the Constitution. The main line taken by the Opposition, commencing with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), is that the Bill is a devious plot to subvert the Constitution and establish central control in Canberra. If indeed this is a view held by the Austraian Financial Review and others, one can blame only Mr Gray and the honourable members opposite from Tasmania. Their refusal to negotiate has led this Government, as a last resort, to use its full powers. There is no such thing as States' rights; only people have rights. States have powers. This Bill is careful to respect the powers of the States. It does not and cannot take from the States those powers that exclusively belong to them. I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 6 (2) of the Bill and the careful way that it is drafted so that the Governor-General in making a proclamation under the section, may make a proclamation only in relation to an identified property that is in a State when one of a number of conditions which attract the Commonwealth powers apply to the property. I also draw honourable members' attention to clauses 7 and 8. These clauses allow the Governor-General to make proclamations which we based on the Commonwealth foreign corporations and trading corporations powers and its powers to make special laws in respect of the peoples of any race respectively. The Commonwealth has responsibility to implement the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and must implement them as required by the Convention. If the States generally were so worried about this legislation why have New South Wales and Victoria intervened in the case in the High Court of Australia to support the Commonwealth? I am sure that if they were truly concerned about their rights they would not have let political affiliations influence their action. Western Australia, a State not well known for its centralist views, will not intervene but has said that the Commonwealth is on sound legal grounds in taking the action that it has taken and that Western Australia does not agree with those who say a move like this constitutes the end of all States' rights. Western Australia has said that it does not follow that success by the Commonwealth in the present High Court action will mean the end of all States' rights, as is being claimed by some people. The Bill is the embodiment of this Government's commitment to protect South West Tasmania, for which we have a mandate from the overwhelming majority of Australian people. The Bill is based only on the rights and powers that the Constitution grants to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth cannot go beyond these powers and does not attempt to in this Bill. We are not seeking to change the Constitution, as the Opposition suggests. I note that the honourable member for Bradfield has suggested that we should hold a referendum. Apart from the practicality in terms of time lost while the HEC assaults the world heritage area, this does leave us with an interesting option to consider if necessary. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) stated that 27 per cent of Tasmania is either national park or conservation area. This sounds very commendable until one examines the range of activities the Gray Government has allowed in these areas. For example, logging and mining exploration are permitted in the conservation areas. When the HEC wanted to flood parts of the Franklin-lower Gordon Wild Rivers National Park and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park, the Gray Government meekly revoked sections of the national parks so that the HEC could get its own way. This makes a mockery of the Liberal Party election promise to preserve our heritage. The honourable member for Braddon also said that the Arthur River is Tasmania's great wild river. It is interesting to note that the ubiquitous HEC has two dams planned for the Arthur River. He said that 88 kilometres of the Franklin River will not be flooded by the Gordon below Franklin Dam. What he conveniently forgot to mention was that under the HECs proposed integrated scheme with a further dam upstream, 40 of these 88 kilometres would be flooded. The HEC has never deviated from its intent to construct the full integrated scheme and the Gordon below Franklin Dam is only the first cab off the rank in the South West. I refer again to the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield. He referred to what one might call the 'Colonel Gaddafi syndrome'-a complaint new to medical science. It broke out in Adelaide last week, when Premier Gray became the first patient. It has now unfortunately spread to the mainland, as was seen in the House last night. The syndrome is evidenced where the patient demonstrates irrational fear that this country is in some way selling out to overseas interests by signing international conventions. The Opposition claims that Australia has signed 16,039 bilateral and international agreements, most of which would no doubt have been concluded when the current Opposition was in Government. The syndrome has, thank goodness, not spread to other countries with democratic federal systems that have signed the World Heritage Convention. Seventy-two countries in the world have signed the Convention, including the United States of America, Canada, West Germany and of course Libya. It is ludicrous to suggest that we are being taken over by foreign interests such as Colonel Gaddafi through our ratification of the Convention-and I am not one of his great admirers. Our powers and rights as a nation are in no way subject to the control of overseas powers. If honourable members use this as an example Australia would never sign any international agreements. Finally I would like to table this article by Kenneth Davidson in the Age this morning. I do not agree with everything in the article but there are some excellent points that need to be made, particularly those about total Commonwealth net payments to or for the States per head of population in 1982-83 . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.5) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, line 10, after 'property' insert ', land or interest in land'. (2) Clause 3, page 2, lines 16 and 17, omit sub-paragraph 2 (a) (ii). The first amendment, to clause 3 (2) (a), is that the property forming part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage should read 'being property including land, or interest in land'. The Opposition has moved this fairly simple but nevertheless significant amendment to ensure that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill covers all possible interests by individuals, corporations or States in land which may be the subject of proclamation under this Act. For example, in many situations one can have a lease over land which may ultimately be the subject of a proclamation. Other situations could involve other legal interests such as joint tenancy. As the Bill stands at the moment there does not appear to be adequate protection for the rights of individuals, corporations or States whose land could be subject to proclamation under the Act. That is why I have asked for this small inclusion. The second amendment is to delete clause 3 (2) (a) (ii); namely, the words 'has been declared by the regulations to form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage . . .'. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen ) will recall that last night in my speech during the second reading debate I made the observation that the real substance of this Bill is world heritage properties conservation. The issue which we put to the House was simply that the Opposition supports the concept of a Bill covering that subject. We doubt whether, within that context, we should also add questions of cultural heritage or natural heritage which are not necessarily involved in any way with registration under the world heritage properties conservation procedures. If the Government believes that there is a need for federal jurisdiction or for federal legislation covering the question of cultural heritage or natural heritage, by all means it has the power to introduce the appropriate legislation into this House. We simply emphasise the point that we do not feel that this Bill, at this time, is the appropriate vehicle for covering questions beyond and above the question of world heritage properties conservation. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(5.8) —The Government rejects the Opposition's amendments. The purpose of the amendment to clause 3 (2) (a) is not apparent. It seems to be designed to overcome a doubt that property includes land or interest in land. The expression 'property' has been used in the Bill because it is the expression used in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Article 3 of the Convention refers to properties in a way that clearly shows that they might include land. There seems to be no reason to depart from the approach taken in the Bill. The amendment to clause 3 (2) (a) (ii) would remove the Government's power to bring property under the Act by the making of a regulation. This provision is important because Australia would have obligations under the Convention in respect of cultural and natural heritage that has not been nominated or accepted for the World Heritage List. Such heritage will still be of outstanding universal value and Australia's obligations will exist whether or not the property is nominated. The Convention envisaged that it is for Australia to identify such property, and clause 3 (2) (a) (ii) is therefore needed to make the Bill an appropriate means of giving effect to Australia's obligations to the Convention. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.9) —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) said that the words used were in accordance with those existing in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. He also made the observation that the terminology might include land. Since we are dealing with the rights of individuals-I quote his most excellent words on that subject to the effect that governments do not have rights but individuals have rights-it would not be inappropriate for him to demonstrate clearly in legislation under his control that he means what he says. The simple fact of the matter is that the Oppositon does not believe there is reason for anything but doubt that in this case individuals could suffer unnecessarily by virtue of the fact that the Act would not be specific enough on the matter I have raised. That is why we ask for the inclusion of the words 'land or interest in land'. It is not a cost to the Government. It is simply an insurance by which rights of individuals are covered under the Act. I take this a step further and draw the Minister's attention to a procedure which this Parliament has followed for many years, and that is for the granting, to the States under regulation 98 grants, of funds for the purchase by those States of land for natural conservation purposes. This is a standard procedure; the grants have gone through the Parliament on many occasions. Matters such as this are amply covered in the legislation involved. There could well be circumstances where the rights of individuals must be appropriately covered and there is no reason why this Act, important as it certainly will be, should in any sense be an exception to that rule. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.11) —I want to ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to reconsider the views he has just expressed and in doing so to depart from the Tasmanian issue and consider some of the broader issues. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill lays down a procedure which is applicable to the natural and cultural heritage of this country. For example, it could be said to apply to a whole variety of situations-undoubtedly it does-which have nothing to do with the somewhat contentious subject of the dam. Let me put a hypothetical instance and assume that it was decided that certain foreshore areas in Sydney were to come under the operation of the Bill, then an Act. Let it also be assumed that, as would undoubtedly be the case, leases were in existence for a lot of the property affected. Surely the Minister would agree that it would be appropriate to give to those persons whose leasehold interests might be affected compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. That is the point I seek to make. Perhaps I can underline it by referring the Minister to the way in which the provisions as to acquisition operate. Provision is made in clause 16 (3) that where a person considers- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I remind the honourable member that the Committee is dealing with clause 3. I would not want him to depart from that substantially. Mr SPENDER —I understand that. I am not doing that, Mr Chairman; I am simply illustrating the operation of clause 3. Mr Cohen —You were in Sydney Harbour a moment ago. Mr SPENDER —Sydney Harbour is a lovely place and we would like to conserve it as it is. Under clause 16 and the other provisions which apply in respect of compensation, where a person considers that the operation of the Act has resulted in the acquisition of the property of that person, then the person is entitled to give notice and the Minister who receives that notice has a certain time to consider it. Certain procedures then follow. I am sure the Minister would agree that it would be an unintended consequence of the proposed Act's operation if the compensation provisions were to be limited to freehold interests only and that all other interests might, unintentionally, be excluded. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(5.14) —Despite the charm of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I am afraid I have to say no. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Property to which section 9 applies). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.15) —The amendment which the Opposition proposes to clause 6 is of a fundamental nature and goes to the very heart of this legislation. It is regrettable that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), since he would not accept the very small amendment to clause 2, quite clearly will not support in any sense our amendments to clause 6 . Nevertheless, I hope that, at some future date, if the High Court of Australia judges the Government's position to be correct-there is certain doubt about that -he will reconsider the contents of our recommendations in this regard. I think it is very important to note that the essence of clause 6 sub-clause (2 ) and the subsequent sub-paragraphs going down to (e) are fundamentally directed at introducing into this legislation the external affairs power as the basis for the Commonwealth's action in the High Court against the State of Tasmania. It is worth emphasising that, under section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament does have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to external affairs. It may seem a very simple phrase but in fact it is, has been in the past and no doubt will be in the future the subject of considerable legal debate with considerable political tones. As I stated on behalf of the Opposition yesterday, we believe there should be most definite limitations on the capacity of the external affairs power because, as the Minister so rightly said-I re-emphasise his words-governments do not have rights; individuals have rights. The whole principle of the constitutional system, as we understand it to be, is that through the system of the States there is a better possibility of the majority of people within a State having a greater capacity to influence the affairs of the nation through the State than by simply working in a more centralised system of administration. I think it is worthwhile noting that our views are shared not only by members on the Opposition side of the Parliament but also by people of some courage on the side of the Government. I draw the attention of the Minister to a letter to the editor of the Australian which appeared in that newspaper on 28 January 1983 . The letter stated: Lawyers are arguing whether the High Court would grant the Commonwealth Government power to intervene and prevent the construction of the Tasmanian dam under the external affairs power of the Constitution. May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds, caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such power in this case. What would prevent an Australian government signing a treaty with South Africa dealing with 'subversion?' Could an Act endorsing such a treaty then give an Australian government unlimited powers, denied to it by the High Court (and a referendum) in the early 1950s? Before endorsing the use of the external affairs power to circumvent the Constitution let us remember that an Australian government could find a number of foreign governments prepared to sign all kinds of treaties conferring unpleasant powers on our government. The letter was signed by Labor member for Prospect in New South Wales, Dr Klugman. He is one of the few people in the Australian Labor Party who on other occasions over the years have demonstrated that they are not only masters of their own destiny but also men of considerable courage. Nevertheless, the principle he has enunciated is one which is well worth looking at. I made this observation yesterday. I am not, as the Minister suggested, trying to take up the Gaddafi syndrome. I did not even mention the question of Gaddafi, the State of Libya or anything related to it. I simply made the point that there is the risk, when one is dealing with external affairs, to work on the principle which has been used by constitutional commentators in the past, that is, the concept of international concern. The words 'international concern' also appear prominently in the sub-paragraphs of clause 6 which we recommend to the Committee should be deleted from the Bill. Incidentally, the question which came up in the Koowarta case in relation to human rights would fit that description of international concern. If it could be demonstrated that a convention had been signed by the whole world for example-that is, some 250-odd states which belong to the United Nations-in which a series of principles was agreed I would find some difficulty in seeing how the Government could relate that to the question of world heritage. At this stage at least the number of states which have signed the World Heritage Convention could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as an accurate indication of world concern in the widest sense. It is for that reason, among others, that we have suggested to the Committee that this sub-clause be removed from the Bill. It was put there for the very simple reason , as I said in my speech at the second reading stage, to create in the mind of the High Court the maximum number of headings of power by which it will be expected to make a determination as to whether the Commonwealth Government does have the power to involve itself in the questions which we believe are essentially the domestic responsibility of Tasmania. As we are well aware, the High Court will soon be making a legal interpretation of the Constitution in respect of the application of the World Heritage Convention in Australia, but it should not be the Court's role to determine the future of Australia's federal system. There is no way in which we can avoid the fact that that role rests ultimately with the people of Australia and, through them, their elected representatives who take their place in this chamber. This legislation, like the regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, ultimately will probably be taken to the High Court by the Queensland and Tasmanian governments. But it is important to remember that laws are made on behalf of people and that it is the role of the High Court only to interpret those laws and not to make them. Therefore, there is a pressing need for definitions of what constitutes an 'external affair' and for clarification of the extent to which the Commonwealth can enact legislation pursuant to the external affairs power. The Chief Justice has offered some helpful criteria in this respect in the following terms: A law which regulates transactions between Australia and other countries or between residents of Australia and residents of other countries would be a law with respect to external affairs. I am sure that no one in this chamber would dispute that interpretation. Regarding the Koowarta case, he further noted: If section 51 empowers the Parliament to legislate to give effect to every international agreement which the Executive may choose to make the Commonwealth would be able to acquire unlimited legislative power. The distribution of power made by the Constitution could in time be completely obliterated. There would be no field of power which the Commonwealth could not invade and the Federal balance achieved by the Constitution could be entirely destroyed. The important thing which I say to members of the Government is simply this: Those were not the words of some politician who happened to be gracing the Opposition side in the Parliament or some megalomaniac, as some people on the Government side have suggested some of my colleagues might be; those are the words of one of the most highly respected lawyers in this land who has been given the function of the senior judge of the High Court of Australia. He made that judgment in the Koowarta case which has been quoted by many people on the Government side as the basis for claiming that the Commonwealth may have power in terms of the Tasmanian dams issue. As I said in my speech yesterday, and as I reiterate today, these questions now rest with the High Court. We must not hide ourselves from the ultimate responsibility that the law is not made by justices of the High Court. The law is made by politicians and by the people through the system of referenda which has stood us pretty well since 1901. It is for these reasons, therefore, that we ask the Committee not to support the inclusion of the external affairs head of power as part of this legislation, knowing full well, of course, that the Government will naturally oppose our recommendations. I refer briefly to the second proposal. We believe there is a very strong case for including in law the provision that, in the future when States are prepared to make suggestions to the Commonwealth for the inclusion of items on the World Heritage List, those recommendations must be supported by the State parliaments and also by the Federal Parliament. My objective would be that over a period, because of the exclusive nature of the rare cases which go on the World Heritage List, each of them deserves a piece of legislation in its own right which sets down the provisions for State responsibility and the provisions for Commonwealth responsibility which would then be supported by both parliaments so we would obviate for all time the difficult situation which we have faced in recent months in terms of the Tasmanian issue. Therefore, I move: (3) Clause 6, pages 2 and 3, omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub- clause: '(2) A proclamation may also be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State if the property, after the commencement of this Act, has been included in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee, pursuant to article 11 of the Convention and the Parliament of the State and the Commonwealth have consented to that inclusion. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(5.25) —I wish to address myself to the points made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). He and his colleagues have argued consistently that what they are on about is federalism and the division of power, but when it comes to recognising the power of human beings or of humanity at large, or of the international community, suddenly they want to maintain their power centralised here in Canberra. When we want to pass a law which is to specify and spell out our commitment to the international community and to humanity at large, not to a particular government or State, the objection raised by the honourable member is that we are trying to legislate by an action of the court when it should be determined by the elected representatives of the people. That seems to be a very convoluted argument. I should have thought the other way round: If we do not have this legislation, the courts of this land will be in a position of having to determine what the external affairs power is. If the elected representatives of the people want to spell out what they see as the external affairs power, that is doing exactly what the honourable member has been asking for-that elected representatives determine what is the wish of the people of Australia with regard to the external affairs power, and not what the courts wish it to be. The issue of divided sovereignty as between a Federal and a State parliament is not one that is to be determined on tradition or on the intent of the framers of the Constitution, or indeed on the Constitution itself. If one is looking at the rights of individuals, one should be looking at them in the light of the moral principles behind those documents. We have advanced a little since 1901 when we adopted our Australian Constitution, and we have declared ourselves peoples of the United Nations. We have declared ourselves bound by international law in international matters. It was the late Dr Evatt and the late Right Honourable Frank Forde, whose memory we recognised this week, who were instrumental in drawing up that very document, the charter of the United Nations, which started with those words 'We the peoples of the United Nations'. If that document is to have any meaning or relevance at all, it means that we have acknowledged that there are rights and issues that are more important than national ones; that national, parochial and local issues and sovereignties must give way to higher and wider concerns. That is where Tasmania has fallen down, and it is where this Government would fall down if it limited its concern to what Australians only want and not to what the world at large wants. I am not suggesting that Colonel Gaddafi is any wiser than Bob Hawke or Malcolm Fraser. I am not suggesting that South Africa's apartheid is the sort of thing that we ought to embrace in an international convention. What I am suggesting is that there is usually more wisdom in larger numbers in deciding what is best for humanity and for the larger group than in looking at the local and parochial interests. After all, the very principle of democracy is that there is some wisdom in numbers. Obviously there is also unwisdom. Populism is not democracy. Unless one has informed general discussion, consensus and acceptance developing in a community, something wider than just Tasmania and just Australia, one is not acting in the interests of humanity. The World Heritage listing is a recognition, not only by Gaddafi but by Australia and by the representatives of many countries with which we like to be associated in many international issues, that there is something more important than a national interest in a World Heritage listing. The Government of Tasmania itself has recognised this in applying for the South West to be listed an an international heritage, a world heritage-not a Tasmanian heritage, not an Australian heritage. The Government of Australia and the Government of Tasmania have responsibilities in these matters; they do not have rights. Ideally, of course, all matters of international dispute ought to be decided at an international level. We ought not to have a debating club such as the League of Nations or the United Nations appealing for a gentlemen's agreement. We ought to be able to enforce international law on international criminals. We ought to have a means of arbitration and of policing, rather than the appeals which fall so often on deaf ears in an organisation such as the United Nations Security Council, in which one atomic power can torpedo any decision on security and can prevent any concerted action at all to enforce international law. We ought to have the rule of law among nations as within them. I have spoken to ambassadors from the United States, the Soviet Union and all sorts of colours in between. They all agree-yes, a great ideal. 'It will not come in our time', some of them say, 'but maybe in 2000 years', or they say: 'It will come in our time. We agree with it, but of course, the other side will not'. That is a counsel of despair and defeat which will lead us over the brink of atomic destruction if we follow it. We must start recognising that the body of international law ought to take precedence in international matters. To give Federal law precedence over State law is not a new concept of a Labor government. It is a centralist obsession. It is written into the Constitution. When those honourable members opposite who criticise the actions of this Government in adopting the power given to it under that Constitution and taking it to the High Court to determine that that power is given accuse us of torpedoing that Constitution, in effect they are saying that they do not believe the Constitution and they do not believe that powers were ceded to the Federal Government. If this is an international matter, then it is an external affair. The determining factor in whether a centralised law or a decentralised law is a better one or a more democratic one is not whether it comes from a left wing or a right wing source, or whether it is from a dictator or from a democratically minded person; the determining factor is: What is best for human rights? There are some matters where the central government can best ensure human rights. There are other matters in which local government or state government can best ensure human rights. There is a very strong body of opinion in the Labor movement that we would be best served by two levels of government in our federal system: A national government; and regional governments which would assume many of the functions of the States and many of the functions of local government. There is much opposition to that, from local government authorities which want to maintain their bailiwick and from State governments. But the argument is not that because States have existed, because some politicians in London a century ago drew lines on a map and declared what would be State boundaries, that is in some way a sacrosanct right. The argument is: What is the best distribution of powers between the central and the local or regional level to serve human rights? The human rights concerned in the case of the Franklin are international rights. They are not Tasmanian or South West rights; they are not Hydro-Electric Commission rights; and they are not Australian rights. They are international. That is what is to be made clear by the passing of this legislation. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(5.35) —We have just heard a very interesting contribution from the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). As I understood his argument, he seemed to be suggesting that we should have a world government. Dr Everingham —A federal government; federalised not centralised. Mr GROOM —There is probably some consistency in our views then. But as I understood him, he was suggesting that the more people involved in a decision, the more valuable or appropriate is that decision. He seemed to be suggesting that the world should be involved in these decisions. It seems therefore-if he is honest and his argument is logical-that he should be looking to some international body to take total control over South West Tasmania. It is the ultimate sell-out argument. Dr Everingham —I am not totally committed to anything; I am dividing power. Mr GROOM —It seems to me, though, that the argument that the issue should be determined by the world community, because it is an international property, is the ultimate sell-out argument. Dr Everingham —A world heritage. Mr GROOM —If it is a world heritage, as the honourable member for Capricornia suggests, Tasmania has no rights, therefore Australia has no rights. But the kind of view that he puts is supported by some of the words in clause 6. I find the words in clause 6 (2) (d) offensive. It refers to when a proclamation can be made. It reads: the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern (whether or not it is also a matter of domestic concern), . . . The key words are those in parentheses. It seems to me that this is a clause which suggests that the international view is more significant than even the national view, let alone the view of ordinary Tasmanian people. It is suggesting that if someone like Dr Bellamy has a particular concern about this issue it does not matter what Australians think; it certainly does not matter what Tasmanians think. If Dr Bellamy is concerned, the Governor-General should act by proclaiming the area once it has been identified as an appropriate property within a State. In the second reading speech the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) praised Dr Bellamy. I do not recall his exact words, but he referred to him as a well known international figure in the scientific community and as an eminent botanist. He said that here was a man who expressed concern on behalf of the international community. But as my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) indicated earlier-in what I believe was an excellent speech and one that strongly defended the rights of his constituents, the people who elected him to this place-Dr Bellamy is the person who announced in Britain before he even came to Australia that he intended to come here and go to gaol and spend his fiftieth birthday in the clink in Tasmania. After his arrival he did that very thing; he made sure that he was arrested. The same man announced quite publicly that he was a publicist, that he was a television star in England. Dr Klugman —A self-publicist. Mr GROOM —A self-publicist, as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) mentions. That was the purpose for which he came here. He brought a television team with him to take films of what he did in Tasmania. In relation to this clause it is worth while recalling that Dr Bellamy went up the Gordon River and sat in his aluminium dinghy and said on television: 'Look at this beautiful forest and this beautiful timberland in its natural pristine glory'. It so happens that that beautiful bushland which he said was to be damaged and destroyed by the damming of the Gordon and Franklin rivers would not be at all affected by the flooding. It was downstream on the Gordon towards Macquarie Harbour from where the dam site is. Yet he said that this beautiful bushland had not been touched for 40,000 years. Logging has been going on since the early 1880s in that bushland he was pointing to. The convicts of Sarah Island and Macquarie Harbour were involved as teams in taking all the good huon pine from that area from the early 1800s. I am sure that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), the well known quiz kid-- Mr Barry Jones —King. Mr GROOM —King, I am sorry. I am sure that he could confirm that particular fact . Dr Bellamy also said that he had been through the forest in that area and had detected 40 new species of insects. This is absolute nonsense. He said that these were previously unknown to science. This really was a joke because teams of botanists and scientists have worked in that area. The Commonwealth Government financed various studies in the South West. Mr Barry Jones —I thought it was fauna generally. Mr GROOM —No, that is not right. One of the points made by a speaker earlier concerned the Tasmanian devil. He seemed to suggest that this was the last habitat of the Tasmanian devil, an endangered species. We have Tasmanian devils throughout Tasmania. This indicates-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think the honourable member might try just a little harder to relate his remarks to the clause under consideration. Mr GROOM —I thank you, Mr Chairman, for bringing me back to the point. The main point I wanted to make was that I find these words an insult to the Australian community, in particular to the Tasmanian community. We have a Bill brought before our national Parliament which says, in effect: 'We do not give a damn about what Australians think; we are only concerned about people like Dr Bellamy who live in other parts of the world. If they are concerned, let us have a proclamation; let us make sure that we take over this particular part of the State and not give a damn for the people who live in that State'. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.42) —I want to take only a couple of minutes. I have no strong views on the Gordon below Franklin Dam one way or the other, but I would like to sound a warning on two issues. I feel very strongly on both of them. One is the making of a rod for our own backs by giving in to what I call single- issue fanatics. When I think of single-issue fanatics, I am not favourably impressed by the honourable for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). Single-issue fanatics to me include not only people from the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, but also the Right to Life crowd, the Festival of Light, the Defence of Government Schools, the Campaign against Nuclear Power and all the other single-issue groups which try to stand over us as politicians. In the long run, it is very bad for us if we cave in to those sorts of groups. I think that at least some of us have caved in. We can win one election on issues promoted by such groups and get beaten in two or three other elections on the same sorts of issues. My second point is that I am basically a civil libertarian-or I hope I am-and I consider human beings more important than trees, flowers or vistas. Therefore, I again emphasise the point that I made in a letter which I understand somebody quoted from, either in toto or in part, earlier today. The letter I sent on 26 January refers to the external affairs power of the Constitution. In part, it reads; May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds, caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such power in this case. What would prevent an Australian government signing a treaty with South Africa dealing with 'subversion'? Could an Act endorsing such a treaty then give an Australian Government unlimited powers denied to it by the High Court and the referendum in the early 1950s. That referendum dealt with the Suppression of Communism Act. The letter continues: Before endorsing the use of the external affairs power to circumvent the Constitution, let us remember that an Australian Government could find a number of foreign governments prepared to sign all kinds of treaties conferring very unpleasant powers on our Government. I emphasise that there can be lot of reasons for preventing the building of that dam-economic reasons, archaeological reasons, Aboriginal affairs powers-all kinds of reasons. But we open a Pandora's box once we say that a government can do something just because it has signed a treaty with one or a number of foreign governments. We give a government, which has a majority to endorse that treaty, absolute power on issues in relation to which I hope none of us-certainly none of us on this side of the House-would be prepared to give power to a government. On the questions of what one can read, what is subversion and the unlimited use of powers, at some stage I would like to hear people who defend the use of such powers justify the power in this case and show me how the use of that power would in some way be limited compared with the use of power if we signed a treaty with, say, South Africa or any other country to deal with subversion. I note that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table. He has some views on this and has some legal training. I hope he will reassure me on this point. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.46) —Clause 6, as I think we would all agree, is the crux of this legislation. It contains the rules; the rest of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill tends to refer to that clause. When we have finished with this clause, we will certainly have finished with the principal part of the Bill. Of course, there have been plenty of honourable members who have said here today that they are interested in the rights of the individual and the rights of people. When we set out to protect those rights it seems amazing that we must have all these clauses which in truth seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of fish. The honourable member for Capricornia ( Dr Everingham) talked about how governments make decisions and the types of government we should have. Of course, this Bill, as has just been said, is very much about those relative powers. I have had a long period-some 16 years-in local government. I still hold to the view that that form of government is better able to recognise the day to day will of people than any other, and for a very simple reason. I had an electorate of 160 voters and I was able to chat with them on fairly frequent occasions. But naturally, on the other hand, I did not see them make the sorts of decisions that are being made today. There has been a lot of talk about the will of the people and what the people want. There is one other certainty. We have no idea whatsoever of the numbers in favour of this issue or this Bill. We can claim mandates from elections and yet we are all politicians. We all know that only a percentage of the populace swings from major party to major party and that percentage does not swing on the same issue. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not want to be unreasonable but will the honourable gentleman try just a little harder to relate his remarks to clause 6 of the Bill ? Mr TUCKEY —I believe that these clauses, and in particular our amendment, try to bring this Bill back to a situation where there is a chain of decisions all related to the rights of individual Australians, starting off with a voter, a State government and then the Federal Government. That is my understanding of our amendment and my understanding of why we want the other clauses removed that give those sorts of powers to, for instance, the lady who was out here recently running around with a photograph, which she parades around America, of a kangaroo that has been attacked by dogs. I see her as the type of lobbyist provided for in clause 6 (2) (d). It is all right for the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to say that he has absolutely no intention of using sub-clause (d) in that fashion. The other certainty is that he will not be a member of this Parliament for the life of this Bill. Once it is enacted and entrenched, its provisions could apply for 100 years. In truth, this is what we are talking about. I think the previous speaker made that point. We are talking about putting something into legislation and taking a punt on how other people will interpret it or use it. I included in an earlier speech which is recorded in Hansard the story that the politicians of the day told the Australian public when they sought the Aboriginal power. At no time was there a voter in Australia who thought that that power would be found to be used in this Bill in such a fashion. That is an absolute fact. I say to every one present that we can have a Bill to achieve what the Government wants, with one exception . The Government has to count the numbers. It has to find out, firstly, what at least the Tasmanian people want. We can do this either through their State Parliament or from the people themselves. I would prefer some form of referendum . That would be a great start because of the Tasmanian's great knowledge of this situation. Secondly, we need to know what the Australian people think of this type of legislation, with or without the dam thrown in. To me that is essential in an issue as important as this. The great thing about our Constitution is the simplicity of its words. In fact I looked at an amendment yesterday and I am horrified by it because it will be a lawyer's dream. It takes five pages to say what is presently said in a few lines . I favour the Constitution as it was written originally. But all of these clauses are in fact unnecessary, except one, and I honestly believe that the general intention of a government that wants to bring Australians together could be met by the type of amendment that we have proposed. Mr Scott —One of the Tasmanians is asleep. Mr TUCKEY —Cut it out; I am not even trying to get the honourable member angry. He should just listen. If one looks at the other sub-clauses, for instance sub- clause (b), it states: the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international obligation, whether by reason of the Convention or otherwise; My side note there is: 'Who decides?'. Mr Milton —The Commonwealth. Mr TUCKEY —But that is not stated in sub-clause (b). What about sub-clause (c) which states: the protection of conservation of the property by Australia is necessary or desirable for the purpose of giving effect to a treaty (including the Convention ) or for the purpose of obtaining for Australia any advantage or benefit under a treaty (including the Convention) There was some talk this morning about a trade-off of coal sales for a pipeline or something. Is that the purpose behind this sub-clause? Will we do a deal with some other country and then say to Australians: 'Tough luck, mate. You are a very small voting section of the Australian public. We have just traded off your rights because we have done a big deal with some other country'. Can honourable members opposite tell me what those things mean and what purpose they serve? I do not think they serve a particular purpose. I have already mentioned sub- clause (d). The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) also mentioned it; so I will not worry too much about that. It is astounding that a piece of Australian legislation can give the right to the Government to act 'whether or not it is also a matter of domestic concern'. It is unbelievable to suggest that people from another country can apply pressures and that that can be used as an excuse. Let us be very careful. Some raving right wing group may decide that it will have some laws and rules of an intolerable nature that this Government would not like very much. I have been in this place for just over two years and I am deeply concerned about some of the decisions that my Government took in that time-not on matters of human rights but on issues which I predicted at the time we would wear, and which we are beginning to wear. This is the message for the present Government. Some Government members are the greatest human rights advocates in this place- probably greater human rights advocates than me. But they are introducing a Bill that does not care about human rights. Honourable members opposite are saying, ' We have an obligation to meet on this. We think we picked up a couple of seats because we made a promise and let us not worry about anything else'. There are some people in another place who actually are the survivors of the sectional vote and who, strangely enough, also consider themselves great defenders of human rights. They have subverted completely their position in the expediency of supporting their voting bloc which does not want that dam. I refer of course to the flights of aeroplanes and the use of the military forces in Tasmania. There is no way that on any other issue and in any other place the Australian Democrats would not have brought the House down on that matter. It is another great tragedy to see people losing sight of the wood for the trees. I ask honourable members, for goodness sake, to think about these clauses. I suggest to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) that he should ask himself whether he needs them or whether he can survive with a simplified clause of the nature we have put before him. The day may come when it will be his name that will be held up as a major person to take away from Australians something which I think we put above the value of all else. The checks and balances of the federal system are extremely good. They can be provided for in this particular Bill. If they were it would certainly have my support. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.56) —I am prompted to make some remarks about clause 6 of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill by what has been said by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Let me say that I agree generally with what he had to say and I thought it was very much to the point. The interpretation of the external affairs power has not stood still. We all know that, and we all know that now the High Court of Australia places a very different interpretation on it from that which was placed on it in 1901. That may be said to be beside the point because the Constitution has to be interpreted to reflect changing circumstances. But let us see where we are. By means of reliance upon the external affairs power, as the honourable member for Prospect has pointed out, it is quite possible for laws to be passed by this Parliament which otherwise would be quite beyond power. He pointed to the danger of single issue politics and I agree that single issue politics do present a great danger. If one is to deal with a particular issue such as whether the Franklin River should be dammed, whether drilling should take place on the Barrier Reef or whether anything else should take place which some would regard as an affront to the cultural heritage of this country and others would not, then it might be very much wiser to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis because, if we go down this road, we cannot see where it will lead. If governments come to rely upon the external affairs power to pass legislation which at the time appears to be good, then this precedent will become or may become entrenched in the Parliament. The honourable member for Prospect put an instance of a government of a far right wing persuasion entering into an agreement with South Africa on subversive activities . Let me put another instance. Let us assume that sometime in the future we found a government of an extremely right wing nature and one that none of the members on this side of the House would embrace. This could happen in politics. Let us assume that that government was deeply opposed to the union movement in all manifestations. It may not be difficult to find a country with which a treaty could be entered into, the effect of which would be to outlaw the union movement . That would be a very bad thing. But the posibility remains that the power can be misused. Some would say that these are mere possibilities. The answer that I put to honourable members is that they should consider very carefully where the use of the extension of power can lead. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.59) —I would also like to comment on clause 6 of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill and to draw the attention of the Committee in particular to the proposal by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on the need to include at the beginning of clause 6 this phrase: . . . and the Parliament of the State and the Commonwealth have consented to that inclusion. I think that we are putting a very important proposition to the Government. I would ask the Government, and particularly the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), to look very carefully at what the honourable member for Bradfield is suggesting there. I turn back for a moment to the Minister's second reading speech, just to illustrate the point. He said: The nomination of the Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks was submitted by the Australian Government to the World Heritage Committee, at the request of the Government of Tasmania, in November 1981. Later in his speech he said: At the same time, a State Government, following the request by the State itself for nomination of the property now seeks to destroy some of its most important features. I refer to the speech of the Minister in order to make a couple of points. First of all, the Minister was being a little mischievous there because he was implying that the State did not know what it was doing. But he well knows the fact of the matter. The second point I want to make in order to emphasise the point that my colleague has made in the amendment is this: In November 1981 the then Premier of Tasmania, Mr Lowe, was under siege on this issue, and under siege with a weak government that was divided amongst itself and which was floundering around trying to find a way out. He went to the Government and said: 'Put it on the World Heritage List'. His aim clearly was to try to find a course of action that would stop the problems that he had in his Government and perhaps persuade the people of Tasmania to go with him. He did not put it to the State Parliament. Rumour would have it that he did not really ever get the consent of his own party to do so. But the effect of what he did was probably what we are all now facing here in this place. What is being suggested by my colleague- Mr Cohen —And your Government accepted it. Mr NEWMAN —If you want me to argue that, I will. I am trying to be constructive. Mr Cohen —How did it get on the World Heritage List if you didn't do it? Mr NEWMAN —I will come to that later, if you wish me to. But let me finish the point I am making. The point which the honourable member for Bradfield is trying to make is that this sort of thing would not occur again. There would be no question of who had a mandate. There would be no question of whether the people of the State wanted something or not because the amendment would show that the State Parliament and the Government had agreed to the request to put the area forward for inclusion on the World Heritage List. The effect of Mr Lowe's action in November 1981 is really very dramatic. I recognise that people on the other side of the House have strong feelings about the preservation of the wilderness area. Equally, people on this side of the House do too. But we have to understand that the action that the Government is taking tonight, the bungling that occurred over the use of the F111s and the way the Government tried to negotiate a position on this matter have meant that it has alienated the majority of Tasmanians. They truly and really feel alienated. Mr Milton —You have aggravated that situation. Mr NEWMAN —Well, you have too. Both sides have. We have been trying to explain here that we have a responsibility to acquit the vote that we got and that is all we are doing, as well as sticking up for the State. If this amendment were accepted by the Government it would be a foolproof way of ensuring that the States rights are recognised and that there truly is a mandate for putting such an area on the World Heritage List. The Minister wanted to comment about the fact that we put the area on the World Heritage List. Let us come to the description of that by the Minister. In his second reading speech, he said: The World Heritage Committee had before it reports of the proposal for dam contruction in the area. That must be the understatement of the year. It certainly is an attempt to distort the facts. Surely the Minister knows that the proposal to include the area in the World Heritage List was made against the strongest objections of the Premier of Tasmania. Up to the eleventh hour of the nomination going forward, the Premier argued that he had a strong mandate from his State to the effect that it should not go forward. That is the first point. The second point-and this is why I say that portion of the second reading speech is misleading-is that the World Heritage Committee had before it not a report of the proposed dam construction in the area but rather a clear statement by the Federal Government that the dam would be constructed. It was a specific aspect of the application. Specifically, the policy of the Tasmanian Government was to construct the dam. It certainly was not just a case of reporting a proposal to construct a dam in that area. Therefore, I urge the Government if it really means what it has been telling everyone in this country, that one of its objectives is national reconciliation, to accept this amendment. That may do something to repair the damage that the Government has caused in one little State of this Federation. Finally, I pay tribute to my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for the way in which he has produced these amendments and handled this whole matter for the Opposition. It is something that we from Tasmania appreciate very much. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(6.8) —The debate on this clause shows quite clearly that this Parliament, recognising the existence of the federal system, needs to work out a way in which State and Commonwealth Governments can appropriately protect items of our heritage that warrant inclusion in the World Heritage List. The amendment that has been moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Bradford (Mr Connolly), seeks to resolve that problem. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), speaking from the Government benches, said so forcibly a few minutes ago, we should have grave reservations about the use of the foreign affairs power in an extended form. There are also very grave doubts in the minds of many of us as to whether that power extends to the legislation that is now before us; whether it gives us the authority so to legislate. Therefore, it is quite clear that we should be looking at this matter objectively and aside from specific issues, so that we can put on the statute books legislation that will avoid our getting into the sort of emotional debate in which we have been involved in respect of South West Tasmania. That is why the amendment of the honourable member for Bradfield should be supported. As I indicated earlier, I would have liked the Parliament to go one step further and embrace an amendment that would cover the five properties currently on the World Heritage List. What the amendment before us proposes is that, in future, inclusion in the World Heritage List and subsequent protection of properties by the Australians authorities should be undertaken as a result of agreement between, and the passing of legislation by, the parliaments of the State concerned and of the Commonwealth. The experience of the past few years in relation to items proposed for inclusion in the World Heritage List has left us with a major problem. We propose that in future the mechanism should involve action by the State Parliament. We had not thought of that before. But the issue has now arisen. The chronology of events has been such that we need to study carefully, and to understand, the implications for a Commonwealth Government, in the environmental or any other area, when it acts upon the request of a Premier. Must a Prime Minister, every time he receives a request from a Premier, send an acknowledgement and say: 'Mr Premier, I am not sure whether you have authority from your Ministers; could you please confirm that you have'? Or must a Prime Minister write to the State Premier and say: 'I am not sure whether you have the authority of your Ministers; I am not even sure that you have the authority of your Parliament. Please write again when you have put through a Bill'. Quite clearly, governments have properly acted upon the basis of requests made by Premiers. In considering the chronology of events relating to South West Tasmania, we may go back to July 1980. Then, under Commonwealth legislation, the South West Conservation Area was placed on the register of the National Estate. On 8 December 1980, the Tasmanian Government recommended nomination of the South West National Park for world heritage listing. The World Heritage Committee rejected that application because, it said, the park that was then proposed for listing was unacceptable. On 28 March 1981, the Tasmanian Government proclaimed the Wild Rivers National Park, which included the Franklin River. Did the Premier do that in secret? Did he do it alone or did his Government do it? The National Park was created by the Government authorities of the day. On 22 September 1981, the Tasmanian Government proposed the South West National Park, the Wild Rivers National Park, and the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park for nomination for the World Heritage List. That area was to be collectively known as the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks. The Commonwealth Government then acted-in reliance upon the earlier declaration of the Wild Rivers National Park and the subsequent request by the Premier. In those circumstances we must examine how we are to protect the five areas that Australia has nominated and that have been accepted for listing on the World Heritage List. I believe that in relation to the South West, as in relation to the Willandra Lakes and Lord Howe Island, the procedure was necessarily different because we were feeling our way. In those circumstances, if this legislation had been narrowly drafted, if it had been confined to those five areas and was then tested to determine whether or not the Commonwealth had power to pass legislation to protect the five properties listed under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the circumstances would be very different. Instead, we have before us legislation which seeks to confer on the Commonwealth Government an intrusive power, by the exercise, in a very wide and expansive way, of a foreign affairs power. In that regard, I again draw attention to the comments made earlier by the honourable member for Prospect, who warned this House, including members of his own party, about the dangers of an expansive interpretation of the foreign affairs power. It will be for the High Court to determine how expansive that interpretation should be but I believe that it should be narrowly confined. If there be such a power-I hope that it is very narrow-so to enable the preservation of the Willandra Lakes, Lord Howe Island and South West Tasmania they should be protected. Because the Government of Tasmania is estopped by the actions of its Premier and the earlier declaration of the Wild Rivers National Park, we members of this Parliament should properly be concerned about the protection of South West Tasmania. It is a protection that we have been called upon to achieve at the request of the World Heritage Committee, following a nomination made by us on the basis of a proper request by a State Premier, presumably authorised by his Ministers. Certainly, that authorisation appears to be confirmed by the fact that he and his Government declared the Wild Rivers National Park which was one of the national parks to be incorporated within the area that was subsequently requested by Tasmania for nomination on the World Heritage List. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.16) —I will speak very briefly because I do not want to hold up the Committee for much longer. There has been a lot of talk about the future. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is about the future. A lot of reference has been made by the Government to the planning, requirements and needs. I thought I might read from the National Economic Summit Conference the words of Sir Arvi Parbo. He said: It is undoubtedly necessary to plan and to forecast to the best of one's ability. However, I would like to sound a word of caution. We should not overestimate our ability. It is an attractive thought that we should foresee and plan our future with assurance and confidence. However, it is a sobering fact that if anyone three years ago had predicted exactly what has happened since, that person would have enjoyed two distinctions. He or she would have been the only person in the country to do so and he or she would have been considered mad by all the experts. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(6.18) —This proposal for the substitution of a different clause 6 (2) is unacceptable. It would make the coverage by the Bill of heritage property within a State conditional upon the parliament of the State consenting to the property being covered by the Bill. This would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill which is to enable the national Government to take action where a State has failed to take the necessary action. If the amendment were accepted the Bill would not be an effective vehicle for giving effect to the treaty because its effectiveness would depend upon State components. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.19) —I would like to respond to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). There has been some confusion tonight on exactly the content of Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention and how it should be interpreted. For the benefit of honourable members I think we should place in Hansard exactly what it says in terms of its opening clause. It states: To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State Party to this Convention shall endeavour, in so far as possible-- I emphasise those words- and as appropriate for each country: In a Federal situation, therefore, the whole question of the relevant division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States is the essence of the words ' appropriate for those countries'. What that means in terms of Australian advice is illustrated by advice given to the previous Government by its legal advisers which states: 'If the Australian Government, while unconvinced of Tasmania's case for the dam, believes that that Government entertains such belief and that in such circumstances Commonwealth intervention would harm the Federation or that the belief might be true or that for serious reason it should not intervene , the Convention does not oblige it to take any steps. This stems from the true construction of Article 5 of the Convention'. I rest my case on the simple fact that the Government has chosen to interpret Article 5 in a way which meets its political objectives but which are not consistent with the contents of the Convention nor with the social, economic or any other national realities of Australia. Amendment negatived. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(6.20) —I move: (1) Clause 6, page 3, lines 32 to 35, omit sub-clause (4). This sub-clause is to be replaced with new clause 15A which I now foreshadow. Clause 6 (4) provided for a proclamation to be revoked by the Governor-General. The purpose of the new clause 15A is to place conditions on the power of the Governor-General-in-Council to revoke proclamations-that is, before a proclamation can be revoked a resolution approving the proposed revocation must be passed by each House of Parliament. I will expand on the purpose of new clause 15A at the proper time. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 15-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr Cohen)-by leave-proposed: (2) Clause 7, page 3, lines 40 to 43, omit sub-clause (2). (3) Clause 8, page 4, lines 2 and 3, omit ''and section 11'', substitute '', section 11 and sub-sections 13 (7) and 14 (5)''. (4) Clause 8, page 4, lines 13 to 18, omit sub-clause (4). (5) Clause 13, page 7, line 27, omit ''and conservation'', substitute '', conservation and presentation''. (6) Clause 13, page 7, at the end of the clause add the folowing sub-clauses: ''(4) Where the Minister gives or refuses to give a consent pursuant to section 9, 10 or 11, the Minister shall- (a) before the expiration of 7 days after the giving of the consent or the refusal to give the consent, cause to be published in the Gazette a notice stating that the consent has or has not been given and setting out particulars of the act or acts to which the consent or the refusal to give the consent relates; and (b) cause a copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the giving of the consent or the refusal to give the consent to which the notice relates. ''(5) Without limiting any other application of the Administrative Decisions ( Judicial Review) Act 1977, for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to a decision of the Minister to give or refuse to give a consent pursuant to section 9 or 10 in relation to particular property- (a) a person whose use or enjoyment of any part of the property is, or is likely to be, adversely affected by the decision shall be taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision; and (b) an organisation or association of persons, whether incorporated or not, shall be taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision if the decision relates to a matter which is included in the objects or purposes of the organization or association and to which activities engaged in by the organization or association relate. ''(6) Paragraph (5) (b) does not apply in relation to a decision given- (a) before the organization or association was formed; (b) before the objects or purposes of the organization or association included the matter concerned; or (c) before the organization or association engaged in activities related to the matter concerned. ''(7) Without limiting any other application of the Administrative Decisions ( Judicial Review) Act 1977, for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to a decision of the Minister to give or refuse to give a consent pursuant to section 11, any member of the Aboriginal race shall be taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision.''. (7) Clause 14, page 7, line 41, omit ''made on behalf of the Commonwealth'', substitute ''or of an interested person''. (8) Clause 14, page 8, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clauses: ''(3) The reference in sub-section (1) to an interested person, in relation to an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 9 or 10 in relation to particular property, shall be read as a reference to- (a) a person whose use or enjoyment of any part of the property is, or is likely to be, adversely affected by the doing of the act; or (b) an organisation or association or persons, whether incorporated or not, the objects or purposes of which include, and activities of which relate to, the protection or conservation of the property or of property of a kind that includes the property. ''(4) Paragraph (3) (b) does not apply in relation to an act done- (a) before the organization or association was formed; (b) before the objects or purposes of the organization or association included the matter concerned; or (c) before the organization or association engaged in activities related to the matter concerned. ''(5) The reference in sub-section (1) to an interested person, in relation to an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 11, shall be read as a reference to any member of the Aboriginal race.''. (9) Clause 15, page 9, lines 7 and 8, omit sub-clause (6). Mr PORTER(Barker)(6.22) —I want to deal briefly with some administrative aspects of clause 8 of this legislation. May I say that, as one who has been to South West Tasmania and as one who would prefer that the dam was not built, it is of great concern to me that we are debating this Bill at all. The way to solve the South West Tasmania dispute in my view was through negotiation. I am very disappointed that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not go to Tasmania in an effort to find a solution to the problem. Instead, we have this legislation which raises such fundamental issues regarding States' rights that the initial question of saving the Franklin River area has been lost in a debate which is now focused on the heart of our federal system of government. Putting aside my disagreement with the Bill on the constitutional question, I refer to difficulties arising out of clause 8 should the Bill be passed. Clause 8 seeks to invoke the Commonwealth's constitutional powers relating to Aboriginal affairs. I think it was probably included in the legislation as a fall-back position in case the High Court of Australia rules that clause 6 is beyond the Commonwealth's external affairs power. Certainly it seems that clause 6 will be the real basis for action under this Bill if allowed by the High Court . However, if that fails, clause 8 may be used. Clause 8 purports to give the Governor-General power to protect Aboriginal sites. Under the Bill, Aboriginal sites are those which fulfil two criteria: Firstly, they are within identified property-that is, if the area had been nominated for, or is on, the World Heritage List, or, the site has been declared to form part of the cultural or natural heritage; secondly, and as the Bill states, the site must be of particular significance to the people of the Aboriginal race by reason of the presence on the site of artifacts or relics or otherwise. I presume that 'otherwise' refers to sacred sites and the like. Clause 8 (3) requires the Governor-General to be satisfied that it is an Aboriginal site pursuant to the definition and that it is being damaged or is likely to be damaged. The question then arises as to how the Governor-General satisfies himself that the site is of particular significance to the people of the Aboriginal race. The Governor-General would normally rely on the advice of his Ministers-in- Council. But we are still left guessing as to what criteria his Ministers are to use to assess whether a site is of particular significance. Identifying and protecting sites of significance to date has been undertaken mostly by the States. Let me quote from page 4 of the 1976-77 annual report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, where some of the Institute's activities are dealt with. The report states: Funding continued for 15 site recorders within State administrations; 3 site recording positions were funded in New South Wales, one in Victoria, three in South Australia, two in the Northern Territory, four in Western Australia, one in Queensland and one in Tasmania. In addition, the rock art conservation program at the Western Australian Museum, has continued under the conservator and his assistants. Aboriginal training programs provided for four trainees, two in New South Wales, one in the Northern Territory and one in South Australia. In addition, financial support was provided for the training program at the Western Australia Museum. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies has established a national register of sites, and it may be that this would be used to identify sites and it may be that this could be used to identify sites of particular significance. Bear in mind that the Government has to advise the Governor-General as to sites- not just Aboriginal sites but sites of particular significance. Let us say it is going to use the Institute. Mr Walsh's report of the review of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies states at page 43: The desirability of establishing and maintainng a national register of significant sites is not in question but the Institute has really achieved little more than obtain material for archival purposes. The Institute has adopted the practice of recording all Aboriginal sites as information becomes available, in order that their significance may be determined later. I am not in a position to test the validity of that statement. However, it does clearly leave open the question as to the administrative arrangements that are to be made to provide the Governor-General with information to ensure he is in a position, in the words of the Bill, to 'satisfy' himself that the proposed site is of 'particular significance to the people of the Aboriginal race'. If satisfactory administrative procedures are not laid down and made public, clearly the Government will leave itself open to criticism and possibly further legal challenges from both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and perhaps State and local governments. I trust the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, will inform the House of the arrangements which have been made to meet the requirements of this clause. Further, I trust that the Aboriginal people will have an input in that decison- making process. I hope that the Minister can provide the Parliament with details of the consultative arrangements which have been made. Amendments agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.31) —I move: Clause 15, page 8, sub-clauses 3, 4 and 5, omit '5 sitting days' (wherever occurring), substitute '15 sitting days'. In view of the importance of proclamations and the timing factors involved in their placement before Parliament, I think a period of effectively three parliamentary sitting weeks is much more rational in terms of the realities of the situation than five sitting days, as was previously proposed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.22) —Mr Chairman, I will be very brief. I was a little surprised that the Minister, probably in the rush, did not reply to the question I raised as to what administrative arrangements had been made in relation to clause 8 for the Government to satisfy the Governor-General in relation to sites of particular significance to the Aboriginal people. I wonder now, as clauses 7 to 15 are being reconsidered, whether the Minister would answer as to what the Government intends in relation to that clause and how it is going to satisfy the Governor-General. Amendment agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 15A. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(8.33) —I move: After clause 15, page 9, insert the following new clause- Revocation of Proclamations under sections 6, 7 and 8 ''15A. (1) Subject to sub-section (3), where the Governor-General is satisfied that there is no longer any threat of damage to, or of the destruction of, property in respect of which a Proclamation under section 6 or 7 is in force, he may, by Proclamation, revoke that first-mentioned Proclamation. '(2) Subject to sub-section (3), where the Governor-General is satisfied that there is no longer- (a) any threat of damage to, or of the destruction of; or (b) any threat of damage to, or of the destruction of, artefacts or relics situated on, a site in respect of which a Proclamation under section 8 is in force, he may, by Proclamation, revoke that first-mentioned Proclamation. '(3) A Proclamation shall not be made pursuant to sub-section (1) or (2) except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament approving the making of the Proclamation, being a resolution passed in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 5 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.'. New clause 15A provides a special procedure for the revocation of proclamations of properties or sites that have been proclaimed pursuant to clauses 6, 7 or 8. The purpose of the new clause 15A is to place conditions on the power of the Governor-General-in-Council to revoke proclamations under clauses 6, 7 or 8. Under the amendment it will not be sufficient for the Governor-General-in- Council to be satisfied that there is no longer any threat of damage or destruction in relation to the protected property. Before a proclamation may be revoked a resolution approving the proposed revocation must be passed by each House of Parliament. The purpose of adding this requirement is to establish parliamentary control over the maintenance of protection where actual damage to or destruction of property or sites or the threat of such damage or destruction has been such as to justify the making of a proclamation. If such a serious situation had already arisen the government believes that protection should not be removed without the concurrence of Parliament. The requirement for a resolution of each House of Parliament follows the provision made in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, section 31, in relation to a revocation of a proclamation of an area as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clause 16 (Compensation). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.35) —by leave-I move: (4) Clause 16, page 9, line 12, after 'Constitution' add 'as extended by sub- section 3A'. (5) Clause 16, page 9, line 15, after '1975' add 'and any Regulations made pursuant to this Act'. (6) Clause 16, page 9, after sub-clause (3) insert the following sub-clause: '(3A) For the purposes of sub-section (3) property shall be deemed to have been acquired from a person in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 to the extent that its use or its enjoyment by a person has been affected by the operation of this Act or the Regulations.'. (7) Clause 16, page 9, sub-clause (4), line 38, omit 'High Court', substitute ' Federal Court'. (8) Clause 16, page 9, sub-clause (5), line 41, omit 'High Court', substitute ' Federal Court'. The compensation provisions in this Bill, in the light of a deep examination of the question, have caused the Opposition very real concern. Apart from the basic principles of this legislation, with which we also have great difficulty and which we have already discussed, we believe that the essence of this legislation must never lose sight of the fact that where the Crown, for whatever reason, believes that it has to obtain access to property relating to world heritage, for example, or to the other matters covered by this Bill, attention must always be given to ensure that the basic rights of owners of that property-whether they be States, corporations or individuals-are adequately taken into account. I regret to say that this is not the situation as the compensation clauses have been drawn in this Bill at this time. I suspect that one of the reasons this is so is twofold. Firstly, a policy decision has been taken by the Government that in the event of the High Court of Australia determining that Tasmania does not have the right to build a dam, in the sense that the Commonwealth has the right under one of those four heads of power to prevent it from doing that, the Crown- that is the Commonwealth-would like to be in a position to prevent the construction but at the same time not have to pay adequate and fair compensation to the Government of Tasmania for the loss of the usage of the facilities which would naturally come from the dam. This, of course, is a political judgment and one which any government is entitled to make. Whether, however, it is a fair judgment to make in terms of the implications of such a decision on any State of this Commonwealth is a matter of gravest concern to the Opposition. One of the basic principles of justice in our society has always been that those who have rights to land, at whatever level that right may be, also have the right to due, fair and appropriate compensation if for any reason in the so- called national good it has been effectively taken over by the Crown. Therefore we, as I said, enter into this debate on this clause full of concern that the provisions, as they stand, are in no sense adequate to take normal cognisance of the real situation concerning the rights of individuals and corporations or in this case a State of the Commonwealth. For that reason we have put forward a number of amendments. I refer specifically to clause 16 (1) and the concept of adding the words on line 15: 'and any Regulations made pursuant to this Act'. We do that in the specific hope that, as I have referred to earlier, the Government will give serious consideration to utilising the existing formulas found in the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. That Act covers in every reasonable degree adequate compensation in terms of Crown land, State or Federal, matters to consider in the determination of compensation, agreement as to amounts of compensation for acquisition, determination of compensation by agreement after acquisition and determination of compensation both by a court and through the normal procedures of arbitration. As clause 16 stands at the moment we have the interesting situation that the Government is putting to the House a proposal that there should be a fundamental division between claims for compensation exceeding $5m and those claims which are less than $5m. The implication appears to be that by utilising the concept of a commission of inquiry people will be encouraged to go by a route which is not necessarily going to give them fair and adequate compensation if they do not go through the traditional avenue under Australian law, and that is to seek the support or otherwise of the court system. Consequently, we are suggesting that the contents of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 be used as the basic model in this case. The amendment I have moved to insert new sub-clause 3A covers this question adequately. The provisions for compensation should be in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act to the extent that its use or the enjoyment by a person of that land has been affected by this Act or by the regulations which may in due course come from it. The minor details also concern the fact that sub-clauses (4) and (5) of clause 16 also relate to the need to make application to the High Court. Again, this is a rather extraordinary situation because as we are well aware the High Court under present law is the ultimate appellate court of the Commonwealth. It seems an extraordinary situation that matters of compensation at this level should, on the question of first instance, be from the individual through the Commonwealth to the High Court. So what we have recommended is that the High Court be replaced, with a reference to the Federal Court, with the intention that should a person feel that he has still been wronged after having made representations to the Federal Court, he can still appeal to the High Court. This is an important matter because there is already the difficulty that much legislation is now being referred to the High Court. Most of the courts of the Commonwealth are on appeal making reference to the High Court and unless this is merely another technique of the Government to create a situation where it has no alternative but to establish a larger bench-more of its own kidney, perhaps-on the grounds of its inability to handle the amount of legislation before it, then I and my colleagues believe that to enter into a situation where compensation claims also have to be to the High Court in the first instance would simply be a very dubious way indeed of trying to establish a case for more judges of that court. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(8.42) —These amendments are all concerned with clause 16, which sets out elaborate machinery for compensation. Amendment (5) is superfluous as it is based on the view that an acquisition of property by regulations under the Bill is not already covered by the reference in clause 16 (3) to the operation of the Bill. An acquisition by virtue of any regulations under the Bill is already covered by clause 16 (3). Amendment (6) would be a substantial extension of the scope of the compensation provisions. As presently drafted they are intended to provide compensation only where there is an acquisition in a constitutional sense; that is, an acquisition within the meanings of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. This amendment proposes that property be deemed to be acquired to the extent that its use or enjoyment by a person has been affected even though there may have been no acquisition in the constitutional sense. While it is a matter of policy whether compensation should be payable in these circumstances, the acceptance of such a proposal would change the purpose of clause 16, which is to meet a constitutional requirement. There might be some political merit in making the point that the Government is not ruling out compensation to Tasmania in the event that the dam is prevented from being built merely because the requirement of this clause might not be met. The whole question of providing further employment and assistance with other projects is a matter that has to be taken up outside the Bill. It is not appropriate for the Bill to attempt to lay down a statutory procedure for the determination of compensation in this more general sense. Amendment (8) proposes that the Federal Court be named as the court to deal with certain matters that the Bill requires be dealt with by the High Court. The High Court has been specified in the Bill as the issues concerned are constitutional ones for which the High Court is the only appropriate court. However, the Federal Court may have a role with regard to other non- constitutional matters and this is already provided for in the Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.44) —I support the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) to clause 16. In doing so, let me say that that support can be regarded as support for the purpose of ensuring that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, operates in a more efficient manner. I am sure that none of us want to have legislation go through this House, regardless of our views on the legislation, which operates in an inefficient or cumbersome manner. Amendments (7), (8) and (9) as proposed by the honourable member for Bradfield would substitute the Federal Court for the High Court. Clause 16 (3) provides that where a person considers that the operation of the Act or the regulations has resulted in an acquisition of property from that person, he may give notice to the Minister. The Minister must then consider the notice to determine whether or not he considers that the operation of the Act or the regulations has resulted in an acquisition of property. If he does not consider that the operation of the Act or the regulations has resulted in an acquisition of the property in question then he is bound to send a notice in writing to that effect. The person who made the application- that is, in effect, the property owner-may then make an application to the High Court requesting it to make a declaration that the operation of the Act or the regulations has in fact resulted in an acquisition of his property. The constitutional question that I would understand the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has in mind is whether or not the operation of the Act can be considered to fall within section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution . This is a question of principle which no doubt would be considered by the High Court, and it would determine that question of principle. But the practical difficulty is this: There may be under the operation of the Act many cases where a property owner and a Minister would disagree. I do not impute any ill faith in advance to any Minister but there could be many such cases. When such a case arises the only procedure open to the property owner is to seek a declaration from the High Court. This could easily, in fact one would think almost inevitably, cause the High Court to be burdened down by applications for declarations which in effect are no more than factual disputes, because in the first instance all that needs to be determined is the applicable principle. While this may be a constitutional question, we are concerned here with a constitutional question of a limited kind. That constitutional question is whether or not the Act can operate, or does in any circumstances operate, as an acquisition within the placitum of the Constitution to which I have referred. Once that question is determined as a matter of principle, everything thereafter is really very much a matter of the application of the principle of law to the facts of the particular case. It would be a quite unnecessary burden on the High Court for it, in effect, to be put in the position of being the court to determine the application of a principle, which it has laid down and which it understands, to a wide variety of facts and possibly to a great number of cases. The important thing which I say to members of the Government is simply this: Those were not the words of some politician who happened to be gracing the Opposotion side in the Parliament or some megalomaniac, as some people on the Government side have suggested some of my colleagues might be; those are the words of one of the most highly respected lawyers in this land who has been given the function of th senior judge of the High Court of Australia. He made that judgment in the Koowarta case which has been quoted by many people on the Government side as the basis for claiming that the Commonwealth may have the power in terms of the Tasmanian dams issue. As I said in my speech yesterday, and as I reiterate today, these questions now rest with the High Court. We must not dulude ourselves from the ultimate responsibility that the law is not made by justices of the High Court. The law is made by politicians and by the people through the system of referenda which has stood us pretty well since 1901. It is for these reasons, therefore, that we ask the Committee not to support the inclusion of the external affairs head of power as part of this legislation, knowing full well, of course, that the Government will naturally oppose our recommendations. I refer briefly to the second proposition. We believe there is a very strong case for including in law ultimately the provisions that, in future when States are prepared to make suggestions to the commonwealth for the inclusion of items on the World Heritage List, those recommendations must be supported by State parliaments and also by the Federal Parliament. My objective would be that over a period, because of the exclusive nature of the vary rare cases which go on the World Heritage List, each of those cases deserves a piece of legislation in its own right which sets down the provisions for the State resonsibility and the provisions for Commonwealth responsibility which would then be supported by both parlaiments so we would obviate for all time the difficult situation which we have faced in recent months in terms of the Tasmanian issue. Therefore, I move: (3) Clause 6, pages 2 and 3, omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub- clause: '(2) A proclomation may also be made under sub-section (3) in relation to identified property that is in a State if the property, after the commencement of this Act, has been included in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee, pursuant to article 11 of teh Convention and the Parliament of the State and Commonwealth have consented to that inclusion. I understand that the Minister may not at this stage be in a position to give a final view upon this amendment but it is, as I say, an amendment of a technical nature which is designed to make the Act operate more efficiently. One can easily see that all rights would be adequately safeguarded if, in place of the High Court, one substituted the Federal Court since where it was necessary for an aggrieved property owner to contest a Minister's decision, he could in the first instance go to the Federal Court. If he or the Minister was dissatisfied with the determination of the Federal Court, which would be a determination at first instance, there would then be an appeal procedure open from the Federal Court at first instance to a full court-that is to say, a court of appeal of the Federal Court. If there was any outstanding matter of legal principle of such importance that the High Court's determination was desirable, there would then be open, with the leave of the High Court, an appeal to that court. But to burden it in the first instance with the jurisdiction of being the recipient of applications for declarations, is, I would put to the Minister, most unnecessary and indeed cumbersome and inconvenient. I can well understand how in the preparation of legislation such as this one may look to the High Court as the court to determine disputes. But this overlooks entirely the fact that what one must pay attention to is the fact that the principle will be laid down and it is the application of that principle to many cases which will be the burden of the work under this clause if, and when, it becomes a section. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the mechanisms which are in place and to substitute the words 'Federal Court' for the words ' High Court', recalling that, in any matter of great constitutional difficulty, the High Court would, in any event, be the ultimate arbiter of that question. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(8.52) —I wish to take up the question of compensation as it affects the possibility of the Government winning its action in the High Court of Australia. My first query is one of some concern about the remarks that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) made in response to comments by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I may have misheard, but I understood him to say-I hope he will be able to respond immediately to clarify this point-that the criteria for compensation for Tasmania, if it does come to pass that the Government will stop the construction of the dam and acquire the area, will be outside the scope of this Bill and will be dealt with separately. Honourable members would understand that that is a very serious matter which must be clarified. It is one which would be of great interest to all the Tasmanian members, not to say the least, the Tasmanian people too. Secondly, I ask whether there is provision for that aspect in the Bill. Is it covered by the mechanism contained in the legislation, or is it to be outside the Bill, as I think the Minister just said? I ask him to clarify exactly which factors will be taken into consideration. The questions I ask on the factors to be taken into consideration are these: Firstly, the Government is seeking to acquire the wilderness area as described in the Schedule to the Bill. Would the Government also be considering acquiring the buffer area around that prescribed area as set out in the Schedule? Secondly , does the Government intend to compensate for the jobs lost by the Hydro- Electric Commission? What criteria will be used to calculate the number of other commercial interests that will be affected? For example, I speak of the contractors who provide plant and contractors who provide the administration of the Hydro-Electric Commission, food, workshops and so on. I think that the Minister, and certainly other Ministers, have said that in assessing compensation they would provide in a compensation package a variety of alternative energy schemes. No Minister has yet specified what those energy schemes are. Can the Minister specify the energy schemes that he has in mind? Honourable members and Ministers have talked about the number of dams that the Hydro-Electric Commission-apparently on the Government's information-intends to construct in the wilderness area. Does the Government intend to compensate for all the dams that it believes the Hydro-Electric Commission plans to build? In the package which the Government announced, it said that certain roads and dams would be built and that certain ports would be assisted. Can the Government make it clear whether the roads are outside the special road assistance that has been given to Tasmania or whether they are to be subsumed into the package which the Government has announced? Regarding the dams that the Government says will be included in this package, I ask whether they are additional to the dams that would have been financed under the National Water Resources Program. Regarding the ports which the Government apparently intends to help construct or assist, do these come outside the assistance that would have been provided for dams under the Callaghan plan which is in operation as a regional development plan for Tasmania? Will the Government be compensating for the loss of timber resources in the area? Will the Government be compensating for mineral exploration in the area? These are some of the issues that we want clarified, which have not been clarified in this debate and which, to my knowledge, have never been clarified in any of the letters that have been sent to the Tasmanian Government by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in these so-called negotiations. As well as clarifying these points, will the Minister tell us what criteria will apply for each of the factors to enable a proper assessment to be made? Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.57) —I take up some of the observations of my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and re-emphasise the point I made when we started discussing this clause. The question of compensation is of fundamental importance to the Opposition. What has been stated by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) in response to my earlier comments has merely confirmed my worst fears. He effectively said-as we already knew and as I stated in my speech yesterday at the second reading stage-that this is a piece of legislation which does nothing more and is not meant to do any more than provide a key which the Government can use in the constitutional sense through its four heads of power to get a judgment out of the High Court. A favourable decision will result in the Government being able to prevent certain activities taking place in Tasmania. I think it is a travesty of justice -it is certainly a travesty of the normal procedures of legislation in this Parliament-that even questions of compensation have been linked in every single element of this exercise by the Government with that judgment it hopes to obtain . I remind honourable members that, whatever the decision of the High Court is, this Bill will still stand. The provisions for compensation contained within it will be the basis against which in future years, whenever this Government or any succeeding government wishes to bring forward world heritage property proposals, the judgment will be made as to whether compensation will be payable either to the States-as I said earlier-to corporations or individuals. Earlier at this table, the Minister made the observation that we are not talking about laws for governments; we are talking about the rights in relation to laws for individuals . That is what we stand for in this Opposition. Above all, we stand for the rights of individuals. It is not satisfactory for the Minister to come in here and simply to tell us, through his advisers, that nothing can be done on the question of compensation because the whole thing is locked up with his total strategic approach to the Government's handling of the case before the High Court. The amendments which the Opposition has put forward are quite simple, straightforward and absolutely in conformity with existing constitutional principles. In this respect, my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) referred to section 51 placitum (xxxi) of the Constitution which I read for the benefit of honourable members: The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws: There is no question, therefore, that the Commonwealth does not have power to acquire. There is no question under constitutional situations as the Constitution stands at the moment. Yet this Bill is again trying to reinvent the wheel in that area for somewhat nefarious purposes. It is for that reason that we have recommended, and we stand by our recommendation, that the whole question of utilising, for example, this two-tiered approach in this Bill-as I said earlier with reference to compensation which is under $5m or is over $5m-should be linked to the basic principle that a person who feels he has been wronged under the proposed Act in terms of the provisions of compensation offered by the Minister at the first instance has the right to take the case to the Federal Court for judgment. That is a perfectly simple observation. What the Government has done in this Bill is to go a step further. The Government has established a most intricate arrangement by which the Governor- General may establish a commission of inquiry. Apart from the fact that it is to have three members, one of which may be appointed by the State Government, the Government tells us nothing about the conditions and nothing about whether these people should have adequate qualifications, and it gives no details as to the operations of these commissions of inquiry. I shall make one certain prognostication, and it is simply this: Such commissions of inquiry will add yet further delay to the question of whether the individual will ever get his money, in terms of his rights to compensation. The estimates which I have worked out, which I included in my speech in the second reading debate, are that in most cases, and especially those of any complexity whatever-and let us be frank; in some cases there will be complex issues to be settled-there could easily be delays of between five and six years if those concerned are going down the road of having to make reference to Ministers, then reference to commissions of inquiry and then reference to courts and God knows what else. But we have had the most interesting observation of all: Once one has gone through this most intricate and complex procedure, the Governor-General, who appointed the commission of inquiry in the first place, does not have to obey or accept the recommendations that the commission has made. So the poor frustrated individual who has lost access to his property finds himself in the unique situation of being right back at stage one, regardless of the number of days or years lost and the amount of time it has cost him to go through the procedures or anything else. The Minister says that he represents a party of compassion and concern for the little people. Little people can own land just as anyone else can. They have just as much right as anyone else to have reasonable access through the courts to get just terms where compensation requirements are made. That is why we return to what I said previously. The Lands Acquisition Act, which has been accepted in this Parliament, and which is a product of this Parliament, which has been accepted by Liberal and Labor governments alike for many years, should be the basis of the compensation mechanisms which should be in this legislation. My final observation relates to sub-clause (6) of clause 16-I omitted to refer to it earlier-on the question of the payment of interest. Some members may be aware that the Fraser Government, in the last two years, introduced a very worthwhile amendment to the Income Tax Act in relation to the question of the payment of interest where there was a significant delay in settlement of the question of what level of taxation was due when a case was taken before the various inquiry mechanisms. What we are simply suggesting for this legislation is that a similar provision be introduced so that interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation determined by the Governor-General or the Federal Court as the case may require; that such interest is to be calculated from the date of the acquisition up to and including the date of payment at a rate that is fair and just in the circumstances. Again, a provision of that nature is also to be found in the Lands Acquisition Act. Again I emphasise the point: We are talking about the rights of individuals who , through no fault of their own, may well find themselves owning property or having a right of interest in property which has been claimed by the Commonwealth under this legislation, especially in terms of its very wide coverage, as we saw in the first clauses of the Bill, in relation to cultural heritage or natural heritage. We are not just talking about the Sydney Harbour Bridge; we are talking about the rural properties of Australia; we are talking about potential Aboriginal sites which people may own without any knowledge of their historical or cultural significance. Yet under this legislation as it stands the future rights of those people to access to adequate compensation are by no means secure. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.4) —I support what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has just said. No doubt the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is intimately acquainted with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. He will no doubt know that by section 6 of that Act, provision is made for the acquisition of lands by the Commonwealth. He is also no doubt acquainted with the fact that under section 19 of that Act provision is made for compensation for damage to land. He is no doubt acquainted with certain elementary principles of justice, such as this: If one owns a piece of land and the Government says that one may not deal with that land otherwise than in a manner laid down by the Government, it is common justice that one should look to some question of compensation. For example, under this Bill, which the Minister is so skilfully presenting to the Parliament, it is provided by clause 9 that there are a variety of unlawful acts, and that one may not, except with the consent in writing of the Minister-and one wonders how much consent would be forthcoming from the Minister, who I know would administer the legislation in the most just and fair manner-carry out any excavation works, carry out operations on it, erect a building, damage or destroy a building, or kill, cut down or damage any tree. Let us ponder upon that for a minute. Let us assume that one has a property of, say, 40 or 50 hectares and, stupidly enough, one has bought this piece of property before this Bill is brought before the Parliament, and one suddenly finds, as a result of the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act, that one cannot cut down a tree on one's own property, that one cannot construct any road or vehicular track, and indeed, if the Minister comes on to the property, one is not even entitled to use explosives. In those circumstances, one has an asset which is frozen. Because one cannot use it, because one cannot develop it, it means that it is worth very much less than it otherwise would have been. That is the reason why it is intended under the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield that compensation should be granted to the extent that the use or enjoyment of the property by a person has been affected. Is that not simple justice and, as the honourable member for Bradfield said, is it not important that the little man, or any other man, be given compensation in those circumstances, or is this Government looking for the cheap, the easy and the unjust solution? The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order. Could I clarify whether the Minister is going to answer any questions? The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Mr Cohen —I have no intention of answering the honourable member for Bass. He asked about 300 questions, which I would be here until midnight answering. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr Cohen —It would be a second reading speech. Don't be stupid. The CHAIRMAN —I call the Committee to order. Mr Connolly —On a point of order: I am appalled to hear the Minister make that observation. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Bradfield will cite his point of order. Mr Connolly —The point of order is that the purpose of the Committee stage of the Bill is for members to have the opportunity to go through it clause by clause. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.8) —I want to make this point: Much of this debate today has been about Tasmania and the proposal by the Commonwealth Government to take over part of Tasmania. Yet the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) tells us that the compensation provisions in the Bill do not apply to Tasmania. Some very proper questions have been put by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and we request answers. If the Minister cannot provide detailed answers, let him provide general answers; but let us have some information about this important issue. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member will address himself to the clause. Mr GROOM —That is it. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(9.9) —I should like to return to the question of compensation. We have come to a fairly crucial part of the whole debate. We have been told over and over again today that this Bill is designed so that the Commonwealth can stop the construction of a dam in Tasmania. The Government has freely admitted that by virtue of this Bill it is going to annex at least 11 per cent of Tasmania. I ask whether the annexation of this area as specified in the Bill provides for a buffer zone. Such a zone would increase the area of annexation to 23 per cent or 24 per cent of Tasmania. This is relevant because when the Minister says that the Bill does not include any mechanism for compensation to Tasmania if the Government happens to win the High Court case that raises very serious issues. The Bill does not make clear what is encompassed by the mechanism of this clause. When we have asked a series of legitimate questions about the resources that will be lost to Tasmania-not just the energy resources, but also potential resources such as timber, minerals, future dams and all the rest of it-and the Minister cannot tell us the answers, it means that this Government has not thought about what it will do if it wins the High Court case. If the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) does not know what he is talking about, let him admit it. But let us not have the whole issue wiped with an arrogant offhand comment that he does not have time to answer. I ask the Minister to get up and do something about answering these questions. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(9.12) —The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) ranged wide in his ten minutes. He raised every single question that could be asked in this whole debate. If he had listened to what I had to say in my second reading-- Mr Newman —You did not listen to what I said. Mr COHEN —I listened to the honourable member's speech, boring as it was. If he had listened to my reply to the second reading debate he would know that I said that the Government had sought to negotiate with the Tasmanian Government on a whole range of questions; that we had put up preliminary projects for discussion ; that we would be ready to talk to the Tasmanian Government on every aspect- roads, energy projects and tourist projects. Of course, we have not got down to a total specific package of compensation proposals for Tasmania. That would have come had the Premier of Tasmania agreed to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and agreed to stop the damming of the river. Clearly, such a package will have to come from negotiation with the Tasmanian Government. Clearly we will be guided a lot by what it wants and the sorts of projects that are suitable. It is true that we do not have a full, total list of projects that will apply from day one after the judgment. Mr Newman —Mr Chairman, I wish to go on to query the-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member has already spoken twice. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.16) —I want to add a few comments on this question of compensation. We are staggered that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) cannot provide any answer to the sorts of questions we have raised and that he indicates that he has no idea of the sorts of procedures the Government might adopt should it win the High Court action. I have a few other questions to add to those raised by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). We want to know the procedures that the Government might adopt should it unfortunately be successful in its High Court action. Who can make claims for compensation following the annexation of the area in Tasmania? How will those claims be initiated? Will, for example, contractors involved in work in the South West be compensated? What about the small businesses in the South West? Has the Minister given any thought to these matters since initiating action in the High Court? What about plant and machinery that has been purchased by the many small contractors involved in the work in the South West? Has any thought been given to their situation? Has the Government considered at all the plight that they would face if it steps in and stops the Gordon below Franklin Dam as it threatens to do? What about the projects that the Government seems to be suggesting would be part of the compensation package? How would it implement these projects? As the honourable member for Bass mentioned, the Government talks about many other projects that it will initiate in Tasmania. But how would those projects be initiated? In particular, the Minister has said that the Government would be involved in other hydro-power scheme developments. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made that very clear in the letter he wrote to the workers of Tasmania, which letter was tabled earlier. In it he said that the Government believed in an all hydro development policy. There has been an indication that the Government would build many other dams in Tasmania and dam many rivers. We would like to know whether any thought has been given to how such work would be implemented. Who would be involved in that work? Would the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania be involved? One would have thought from the comments that have been made by the Minister that he would not want the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania involved in those projects. We would like to know- preferably tonight, because we are debating this important measure tonight- whether the Government will fund the Hydro-Electric Commission to undertake those many hydro-electricity projects which it apparently promised as part of its package. Mr White —And the windmill. Mr GROOM —The honourable member for McPherson mentions windmills. There was talk earlier about wind power being an alternative to hydro-power. If such wind power schemes were a part of the package, how would they be financed? There are many other questions to be answered. The answers given so far by the Minister are totally inadequate. They leave very much to be desired and it is very disappointing that when we are debating this important measure we do not get more adequate answers. Since compensation has been highlighted by the Minister and is an important part of the Bill and since Tasmania has been the focal part of debate during the day, although the Minister says that the Bill does not apply to Tasmania, we want to know exactly what he has in mind. If he cannot give us the detail, surely he can give us a few more facts so that we can go home to the constituents in our State and advise them of what the Government has in mind when it carries out its threat, if it is able to stop this project in South West Tasmania. We are not happy with the performance of the Minister. We believe his answers so far have been totally inadequate. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.18) —My colleagues have raised some serious doubts. A few weeks ago, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would assume responsibility for negotiations in relation to the non- construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam and, in particular, all aspects relating to South West Tasmania. Let us not fool ourselves. This debate has been specifically about stopping the construction of a dam in Tasmania. It has all revolved around Tasmania. The Prime Minister has sent two Ministers into war this week: First, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who did not know the answers- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks more directly to the clause. The discussion is becoming very wide-ranging. Mr GOODLUCK —If, perchance, the High Court of Australia rules in favour of the Government and the dam is stopped, what will happen to all the people involved at the present time in the construction of the dam? The Minister is duty bound to tell the people of Tasmania. We have been under attack for the last couple of days. Certain things have been said about us and we have endeavoured to defend a particular right. Therefore, the Minister is duty bound, if he is to proceed with this Bill, to tell the people of Tasmania and everybody involved in the construction of the dam what will happen if it is stopped. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.19) —I address myself briefly to clause 16, the compensation clause, and the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It is important in this debate to understand that the clauses dealing with compensation deal with the compensation to be paid in any of the circumstances on which this legislation provides that the Commonwealth may intervene. Of course, it needs to be understood that the Commonwealth has not only provided a basis for intervention where an international treaty is involved by using the external affairs power but also in circumstances where it is necessary or where it is declared to be necessary to enact the terms of the proposed section as a special law for people of Aboriginal race. Where that particular power may have been used to protect a particular area, or a corporations power may have been used, it needs to be understood that this legislation and the compensation provisions that will flow from it not only are intended to operate in relation to Tasmania but also may have much wider operation in any of the circumstances where this legislation is used for the purposes of protecting property. Of course, the draftsman was not able to avoid the effect of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. The most disappointing part of clause 16 of the Bill is that what the draftsman has tried to do is to limit compensastion to only those circumstances in which the Constitution would provide compensation. So what he has endeavoured to do, by defining acquisition of property in this clause and providing compensation only when an acquisition of property is involved, is to ensure that section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution applies but compensation will not be applicable in any further cases. Of course, one of the amendments that we have proposed is to ensure that the operation of this clause is much wider than the Government's intention. Clearly, individuals may own land that is in some way affected by an appropriate declaration under this Bill. A company may own land that is affected by an appropriate declaration under this Bill and, of course, States-as in the case of Tasmania in its situation-may own land that is affected and for which compensation may be required. Any individual in Australia would be concerned that his property, or another interest that he may have in property, or an interest that is in any way affected by the operation of this legislation-the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) identified the extent to which actions might be affected-might be interfered with and that compensation might very well not be available. The operations of clause 16 which is designed to postpone possible inquiries for compensation might well be involved. In sub- paragraph (10) of clause 16 provision is made for a commission of inquiry to be established. That is a special form of commission of inquiry to be initiated in relation to the acquisition of property under this legislation. It needs to be understood that that form of inquiry and the compensation that might be assessed as payable under that clause is very much more limited than the rights that are given to people generally under the Lands Acquisition Act of 1955. It is of the utmost importance that people understand and know that the Commonwealth, when it was established, was in an unusual position. The early framers of the Constitution wanted to be sure that the Commonwealth, when it acted to acquire property from Australians, would not acquire property unjustly. Section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution was a very special provision. Of course, people realise that States, when they acquire property, are able to do so on terms which are often quite unjust because there is no similar provision binding them. It needs to be understood that if one attempts to write out the effect of this section of the Constitution or limit it, that is a very important matter. It is a new principle because the Commonwealth is the one government in Australia in relation to which people knew in the past, as a result of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, that they would be entitled to compensation on just terms. I wish to read to honourable members that section of the Constitution because I think it is important that everybody is aware of it. Section 51 (xxxi) states: 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:- . . . . (xxxi) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws: It is those words 'the acquisition of property on just terms' that are so important. Of course, people who have looked at this section from time to time are aware that some effort has been made by the courts to look at what the words 'just terms' mean. I suggest that it is most undesirable to take out of the hands of the Government departments the right to negotiate with people and then take out of the hands of the courts the right to deal with the assessment of just terms. When a commission of inquiry is established to make special and unique inquiries with procedures to be gone through, procedures that might take quite a deal of time, procedures will be established which can limit people's rights to compensation on just terms. People will be aware that the cost of money is significant these days. Where interest is payable at very high rates the longer a person or a State is denied compensation under this legislation, the amount of compensation that that State or individual would receive would be substantially reduced and, of course, some savings may be involved for the Commonwealth. But that is a new principle so far as the acquisition of property is concerned. I would not want to give up lightly the right to compensation on just terms in legislation such as this. I think the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) ought to consider very seriously the amendments that have been painstakingly developed by the honourable member for Bradfield and which are designed to ensure that a more appropriate system of compensation is available- one which will ensure that not only for States, including Tasmania, but also for any individual, any company or any corporation that might be affected, the compensation will be just and appropriate and that people will not have to complain about the Commonwealth. I am sure that, like me, honourable members would have been approached from time to time by people who have been affected by resumptions or have been affected in situations where their properties have been acquired by government. I have been approached on a number of occasions by people who have had property acquired by States and I know what a tremendous feeling of loss and deprivation they feel. Very often there is tremendous emotional uncertainty as a result of the loss of their home. It is not a matter that can be taken lightly. People's livelihood can be very much affected, people's property can be affected and it can affect their whole lifestyle and their whole being if they are dealt with unjustly in circumstances like this. It is for this reason that section 51 (xxxi) was included in the Constitution. It is for this reason that we have been painstaking in developing over a long period, under the Lands Acquisition Act, procedures which ought to apply to ensure that people are dealt with justly and properly. I am sure the Minister would not want to be known as the Minister who introduced legislation that dealt unjustly with individuals and under which proper compensation was not payable. I am sure he would want to take away this Bill, consider these amendments and bring it back in a form that will ensure that justice is done to all Australians . The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Mr Goodluck —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member has already spoken twice. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Milton, P.Charles, D. E. Morris, AllanCharlesworth, R. I. Morris, PeterChild, J. Morrison, W. L.Chynoweth, R. L. Mountford, J. G.Cohen, B. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cross, M. D. Punch, G. F.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Reeves, J. E.Darling, E. E. Saunderson, J.Duffy, M. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Edwards, Ronald Scott, J. L.Everingham, D. N. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Jocobi, R. Coleman, W. P.Hurford, C. J. Hodgman, W. M.Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A.Brown, Robert Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Connolly's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J. Coleman, W. P. Jacobi, R.Hodgman, W. M. Hurford, C. J.Street, A. A. Hayden, W. G.Katter, R. C. Brown, Robert Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Mr Cohen) agreed to: (11) Clause 16, page 9, lines 41 and 42, omit sub-clause (5). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I move the following amendments together, by leave: (9) Clause 16, page 10, paragraph (b) of sub-clause (7), line 10, omit 'High Court', substitute 'Federal Court'. (10) Clause 16, page 10, sub-clause 7, lines 15 and 16, omit all words after ' or', substitute 'failing agreement, the Commonwealth is liable to pay such compensation as is determined by the Federal Court to be fair and just'. (11) Clause 16, page 10, sub-clause 8, lines 30-33, omit all words after 'shall ', substitute 'determine the compensation that he considers to be fair and just in respect of the acquisition not later than 14 days after the said 6 months period expires'. (12) Clause 16, pages 10 and 11, omit sub-clauses (9) to (14) (both inclusive), substitute the following sub-clause: '(9) Interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation determined by the Governor-General or the Federal Court (as the case may require), such interest to be calculated from the date of the acquisition up to and including the date of the payment at a rate of interest which is fair and just in the circumstances .'. (13) Clause 16, pages 11 and 12, omit sub-clauses (15) and (16) substitute the following sub-clause: '(15) Where the operation of this Act or of the Regulations has resulted in or is taken to have resulted in an acquisition of property from a person and the person considers that the compensation determined by the Governor-General is not fair and just, the Federal Court may, on the application of the person, determine the compensation that is fair and just in respect of the acquisition'. Earlier this evening we covered a range of matters that were of particular relevance to the question of compensation. Firstly, the Opposition has found, on the part of the Government's spokesman, an utter inability to provide satisfactory answers to the very legitimate queries that Opposition members have raised. There is no question that, in terms of rights, the average Australian citizen likes to know that in the event of his property being taken over, for whatever reason, by the Commonwealth he will be entitled to receive fair and just compensation terms. The most critical and difficult situation that would be created by the Bill is that we would now have two classes of Australians, those fortunate enough to enjoy compensation under the conditions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 and those who will have the misfortune of trying to seek compensation under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. It produces great depression in us to find that, in relation to legislation which has been held up to the Australian people as an example of the pristine honour and integrity of the Government, when one actually gets down to the debating stage it is seen not only as not well thought out but also as having such an influence and effect on the rights of ordinary Australians that they have simply been ridden over. It is fundamental that the owner of territory or property in Australia that for any reason is taken over by the Crown may expect, as a right, to receive fair compensation. Amendment (9) relates specifically to interest payments. I have already made general observations about that and wish merely to repeat that the mechanisms established by this Bill are so bad that they delay the individual obtaining a determination through the court system or via the Governor-General- depending on whether one is talking about compensation in excess of $5m or less than that figure, a most extraordinary division that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has failed utterly to explain. We come back to the fundamental question: If the people's rights are to be held in such contempt, if property is to be taken over by the Crown, what will the Government do to make some small recompense to those who lose access to property for a period which I estimate, on the basis of the Government's arrangements, could be between five and six years? The only sensible approach is to return to the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act. That is the basis of our amendments . If the Minister is not prepared to do that the next most simple and obviously fair alternative is to propose the payment of interest rates on fair and just terms under the circumstances. This provision is again contained in the Lands Acquisition Act. I ask the Minister for about the third time: Why is it that in this case you are trying to create two types of Australians? The first is those who can expect and would receive due compensation on fair and just terms under the Lands Acquisition Act which covers Commonwealth purchases under virtually every other aspect of Australian law. Yet in this situation, in terms of this legislation, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, if the property is taken by the Crown for whatever purpose, the result will mean a significant delay in payment if one is lucky enough to get it at all. The second type is the person to whom interest is due, but the Government has advised already it is not prepared to pay it on the value of that property for the period that it has effectively frozen it from use and from enjoyment by the legitimate owner. These are questions which the Opposition rightfully asks. I ask the Minister these questions on behalf of the Australian people because every person in this country likes to feel that the property he owns is his just reward for the hard work and the effort that he has put into saving the money to obtain the capacity to buy land for whatever purpose. Anyone who owns a house had better start checking the foundations to see whether he can find an Aboriginal axe or something because under this legislation he would find himself in the situation of the Crown simply saying: 'Hard luck, Fred, your property will now be taken by the Crown because it is part of the natural heritage or part of the cultural heritage of Australia'. That will be fine for the Government sitting in Canberra . What I question is this: What are the people of Australia going to think when the draconian implications of this legislation are brought home to them in very cold hard facts? The ultimate fact of course is that they will not get access to compensation and will not get access to interest which they have the right to expect for the period that they have lost access to their property and everything else that goes with it. Again, for the fourth time, I ask the Minister seriously to put his mind to answering the very serious questions that my colleagues on this side have put in this debate. We have done our best tonight not to hold back the Bill. This is the first division we will call. It was my original proposal that we would not be dividing on this legislation because I am well aware that some Government members have yet to make their maiden speeches. I also understand that some have even issued their Press releases. I only hope that their speeches are not libellous because we may be here for some time, until the Opposition has received an answer, which we have a right to expect, from a Minister to legitimate questions which we have raised in the Committee stage of this Bill. This is not a second reading debate. The Bill has not even reached the third reading stage yet. The delay is in the Government's hands, not in ours. Mr Newman —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —I remind the honourable member for Bass that we are dealing with clause 16. The honourable member has already addressed himself to that clause on two occasions. Therefore, he is unable to speak to this clause again. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I believe that we are considering a fresh amendment which means I have the right to speak again. The CHAIRMAN —The Chair is prepared to uphold the point of order. I call the honourable member for Bass. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(9.54) —I think we should be clear that, as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has said, nobody on this side wished to hold up the passage of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. But what we have now discovered is that either the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is incapable of answering the questions and does not know what he is talking about and therefore should not be sitting at the table-the Leader of the House (Mr Young) should get rid of him if that is the case; let us have somebody who can answer the questions-or, the Government does not know what it is doing. On a fundamental question of compensation he cannot answer a whole series of questions which have now been put down in the Committee stage. Either of those two things is correct or perhaps both are correct. I pose the question again because it is absolutely essential that we get this cleared up. What exactly has the Government in mind when it talks about annexing some of Tasmania? Is it to be the area that comprises 11 per cent which is known as the South West Wilderness Area Park or is it to include also the buffer zone which would extend the area of acquisition to approximately 23 per cent or 24 per cent of the State? This is obviously absolutely crucial because until we know what area the Government has in mind, nobody can begin to determine exactly what sort of compensation criteria or what factors have to be taken into account in establishing compensation. I plead with the Minister either to answer that part of the question-there are many more that have not been answered-or to do as the honourable member for Bradfield suggested, and that is that this debate be deferred and we come back to it next week when the Government has sorted out what it really means. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.57) —We are now considering the Opposition's amendments (9 ) to (13) to clause 16. These amendments are very important because they go to the nub of the argument raised by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on the question of compensation and the need for such compensation to be fair and just. In relation to the question of interest that might be payable in circumstances where the legislation will operate, he has moved an amendment to add a clause. I will read it to honourable members because I think it is important that they understand the nature of the amendment. The amendment is to sub-clause 9. It states: Interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation determined by the Governor-General or the Federal Court (as the case may require), such interest to be calculated from the date of the acquisition up to and including the date of payment at a rate of interest which is fair and just in the circumstances. That provision is of the utmost importance because we were faced with the problem that interest would not be dealt with in this case. Sub-clause 9, as it was proposed, stated: Where- (a) the Governor-General has, pursuant to sub-section (8), given notice of his intention to establish a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the compensation payable in respect of an acquisition of property from a person; and (b) the person and the Commonwealth have not reached agreement as to the compensation payable . . . . Of course it then dealt with other matters as to the way in which the Governor- General would act. Honourable members appreciate that no provision was made for interest to be payable in a case where compensation had been provided. I find it quite extraordinary that, in the same week when notice is given by the Government of its intention to provide that interest would be payable in circumstances where a person has had a dispute with the Commissioner of Taxation and where certain moneys have been paid to the Commissioner to satisfy a demand for tax interest would be payable on those funds where the taxpayer wins, in another Bill which is introduced dealing with compensation the question of interest on the amount of compensation payable is not addressed. Obviously, in these days when we have had very high rates of interest and high levels of inflation, the extent to which people are without their money that they have an entitlement to can very much affect the value of that money. In the circumstances where compensation might have been appropriate to be paid, the longer the person can be denied that compensation and denied the interest that would ordinarily be payable in any other circumstances, the more he suffers. He suffers considerably. I cannot understand why any government would want to resist an amendment of this sort which provides for the payment of interest, particularly when, as I have said already, the Government has this week introduced legislation recognising that principle in other circumstances. I just want to reiterate what our amendments to clause 16 are about. We are faced with a situation in which the Commonwealth is endeavouring to limit the circumstances in which compensation would be payable to people whose property has been affected by the operation of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. The Government's intention, of course, is that this Bill should operate in the widest possible circumstances. The Government declares that it should operate in the national interest, where sites have been identifed as Aboriginal sites, where properties have been registered under the world heritage treaty and in a wider set of circumstances. I think it is necessary for the Government under clause 6 of the Bill to deal with a wider range of properties for conservation purposes than properties registered under the world heritage treaty . The Bill refers to a property that is part of the heritage distinctive of the Australian nation by reason of its aesthetic, historical, scientific or social significance or its international rating or national renown. That is a very much wider description of property which under this legislation may be declared to form part of the cultural or natural heritage. Those terms are not defined in the legislation. If someone owns an old property which he wants to declare to be of aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance the provisions of this legislation dealing with the activities that might be undertaken in relation to that property would apply. I think people need to understand that these compensation provisions are, therefore, of very much wider significance than just the national park in South West Tasmania. We have provisions that relate to properties that are deemed to be of significance to Aboriginal people. Similarly, people might not know whether or not their property is affected in that way and whether a declaration is going to be made under those provisions. Again, the question of compensation might arise in such cases. It is very important, therefore, that the compensation provisions in clause 16 are put right now. I cannot imagine that any Minister would want to have his name associated with these draconian provisions which limit the effect of section 51 (xxxi) of our Constitution, which I read earlier in respect of other clauses that I discussed. That provision of the Constitution is of the utmost importance. It goes to the very character of Australia. It states: The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws: I reiterate the words 'just terms'. When the Commonwealth was established it was recognised that the Commonwealth would only acquire property from people or deal with people's properties on just terms. Very important legislation has been passed through this Parliament which has been designed to entrench in our system of government fair provisions for payment of compensation. Interest is a natural corollary of this. When people have a property acquired by government, as property might be acquired after a declaration under this Bill when it becomes an Act, they are entitled to believe that they are going to be dealt with in the way in which people have been traditionally dealt with when their properties have been affected by a Commonwealth law. The fact of the matter is that the Lands Acquisition Act has essentially been accepted by Australians as having been a fair and proper way for compensation to be assessed. When we have in an innocuous Bill such as the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill provisions which are of very much wider effect and which are designed to alter the very basis upon which compensation might be paid and the steps that have to be gone through, we have to ask ourselves why in this instance these amending provisions to the Lands Acquisition Act have been included. I can only believe that the provisions in clause 16 have been included in this Bill with only one purpose in mind, and that is that this is a cunning and devious scheme on the part of the Government to avoid, so far as it is possible, the provisions of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, which provide for the Commonwealth to compensate on just terms. I think when people recognise that this is a cunning device which is designed to avoid the payment of proper compensation on just terms to Tasmania in this instance and has very much wider implications for all Australians they will be calling upon all of us to repeal this proposed section if the Government sees fit to proceed with it tonight. I am sure that this provision will be very carefully examined by all our colleagues in the Senate, the House of review. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.7) —I hesitate to delay the Committee further on this matter. However, it quite beggars the imagination, it is beyond my understanding why in a Bill which is designed for the purposes of preserving world heritage properties and in particular the South West Tasmania wilderness area-and I argued very strongly this morning that one ought to attempt to preserve this property-the Government should choose to introduce such provisions in relation to compensation. We have proposed a relatively simple amendment in place of the very complex clauses in the Bill. The procedure which is set out in the Bill could take a very long time to complete. The legislation provides for negotiation with a Minister about a request for compensation. In the event that a claim is rejected there is provision for an application to be made to the High Court for a declaration. The Minister is again involved if the Commonwealth and the party cannot agree, and the Governor-General convenes a commission of inquiry. The commission has to give a written report within up to 12 months of its being convened. The Governor-General then determines what is fair and just compensation. To crown it all, if the party affected considers that the Governor -General's determination is not fair and just the Federal Court comes into the picture to determine the issue of the amount of compensation. So a whole string of procedures are contained in the Bill. Affected parties who are lucky enough to proceed under the long standing Lands Acquisition Act can get a decision within a reasonable time and be paid reasonable compensation in accordance with the Constitution. However, the whole situation is different if they come under this legislation. In such a case they would be subject to a significant delay. Also, no provision has been made, as we would seek to make, for the payment of interest on the funds so tied up. It defies my understanding why all this should be so. I hope the Minister can do a lot better than he did earlier this evening in giving us, on this side of the House, some explanation as to why this complex procedure should be adopted when there is an accepted and established procedure available, and I ask him to do that. Progress reported. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.11) —I declare that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 is an urgent Bill and move: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the first piece of legislation from this Government and it is guillotining it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Coleman, W. P.Hurford, C. J. Hodgman, W. M.Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A.Brown, Robert Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.20) —I move: That the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be until 10.30 p.m. this day. Mr Speaker, no government that I know of has been more generous in regard to the debate on any Bill than we have been on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. The stage we have reached now is like the two Ronnies- honourable members opposite keep saying the same thing. They have been saying it for three days. The Opposition knew the situation when we allocated time for debate. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order, in relation to what the Leader of the House has been saying. If the Minister would answer the questions then we would stop asking them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —This Government, with its first Bill, has given more time to the Opposition than any government has done in the nine years I have spent in this Parliament. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) have spoken four or five times. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) has spoken, as has the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Everybody on the Opposition benches has had the opportuntiy to speak, including a number of honourable members who actually support the Government's position. Unfortunately the honourable member for Bass is suffering the frustration of being put from the front bench to the second row, and he does not suffer that gladly. We have to conduct the business of the Government of Australia, and we have given the Opposition almost unlimited time in which to debate this Bill. I told the shadow Minister early in the week that it was our intention that this Bill be completed tonight, and it will be. Members of the Opposition have had more opportunity than any Opposition has ever been given by a conservative Government to debate a Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.22) —We have just heard a pathetic performance, with respect, from the so-called Leader of the House (Mr Young). He gives us 10 minutes and uses up almost half of it. He called a division, as well. He says that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is a Bill of great importance. In doing so, he took up another 10 minutes of the time of this House . I had only two more small amendments to this Bill to propose and we could have gone through to the third reading. Instead of that, we were fiddled around for 10 minutes. Let us get down to the fundamentals. Nobody in this House realises any more than we do that this is not just an act in a passing phase of interest on behalf of the Government. This is a constitutional Bill; the whole basis of the Bill is to change the Australian Constitution. If we have been given by the Government a few extra hours as if we are the poor men to whom the crumbs from the rich man's table are thrown, so be it, but there are still a lot of people in Australia who are concerned about their Constitution. Many people in Australia are concerned about their property rights. Government members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will be heard in silence. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek your indulgence for protection on occasions. We are concerned about those people who voted for us to come here and , on behalf of all Australians, ask the Government exactly what it means to do with this legislation. We set about going through to the Committee stage of the Bill without dividing the House. We did divide the House for one fundamental reason: The legitimate questions that my colleagues asked of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) did not receive a single answer. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, the Government then admitted that it had not thought out the compensation procedures in this Bill. The Government had ignored the traditional compensation arrangements which are covered in the Constitution and which do not require any further constitutional change. It ignored the provisions of existing legislation which covers the purchase of land by the Commonwealth. We have now set upon this extraordinary new route through the jungles of the Australian Labor Party's progress to the future where we are going to have two lots of Australians-those who are protected under the traditional constitutional provisions and those who are not. The Government may think that that is bringing Australia together, but it will not convince us and most certainly it will not convince the Australian people. We want legislation which will stand up to the closest scrutiny. It is our function in the Committee stage of the Bill to bring to the attention of the Government matters of concern to members of both the Government and the Opposition. It is not satisfactory for the Minister simply to say 'I don't know the answers'. I suppose if he shot his cat he would say he did not know the gun was loaded. It is the Australian people who will have to be on the receiving end of this legislation. It will not be the State of Tasmania; the provisions in this Bill go far beyond Tasmania. Whether one wins or loses one certainly cannot draw and neither can the Australian people when it comes to the fact that the individual has to have his rights protected. How can he have his rights protected when he has to face up to a piece of legislation which is a sham? In my speech last night during the second reading debate I emphasised on behalf of the Opposition one key question: If the Government wants a piece of legislation relating specifically to world heritage properties, so be it; if it wants specific legislation relating to the Tasmanian dam, so be it. But, no, it was not satisfied with that. It had to have an omnibus piece of legislation which covers all sorts of things, whether related or not. Then when we ask questions about it, all we are told is 'I don't know'. It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. I have been here for nine years and I have never heard a Minister of any party say 'I don't know the answers'. I have seen a few filibusters over the years but nothing quite as extraordinary as that. Let me get back to what I wanted to say before the Leader of the House (Mr Young) cuts me off. The procedures for compensation in this Bill are grossly unsatisfactory. We ask the Government to take them away and redraft them, to reconsider exactly what it is trying to achieve. For goodness sake it should relate the Bill to the Constitution as it stands, to the legislation already on the books which has been accepted by all parties over many years. In that regard I simply make this final observation: Why establish a committee of inquiry when one is not needed, when the law is there? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.28) —Mr Speaker, we are brought here for the purpose of considering the Government's first major Bill. It brings us a Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment (Mr Cohen), who is incapable of answering the most fundamental questions. One of the questions put to this Parliament was what should be the just terms of compensation. What does the Minister do? He has amendments and questions put to him but he ignores the questions and does not understand the amendments. He turns to his advisers, walks back, gets a piece of paper, turns around and after a while reads that piece of paper. He does not understand what the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill sets out to achieve. The compensation provisions provide that the Government can close down the rights of Australians to deal with their properties; it can close down the basic rights of any citizen just so long as it can bring the case within one of the provisions of the Bill. Then what? Does a person have any rights? He does not. One cannot build, put in a road or cut down a tree. As I put to the Minister, a person cannot even cart explosives onto his land for the purpose of blowing up the Minister should he presume to come on to it. What answer do we get to that? 'Well, that is all right because that is the way the Australian Labor Party operates'. It operates on the principle that justice really is our view of the world and not justice according to the views that all Australians have, which is a fair go for people whose rights are going to be affected. It has been said here by those who seek to confine and narrow the debate that we are dealing with the dam in South West Tasmania. We are not. We are dealing with a Bill the provisions of which will operate throughout Australia. If it becomes an Act, it will enable this Government, by advice given to the Governor- General, which he would be bound to follow, to say for example that all the foreshores of Sydney Harbour come within the Act. In that situation, one could not do anything at all with the land and one would not be entitled to any compensation. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Allotment of Time Debate resumed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.31) —Let us reflect on some of the provisions in the Bill which need to be considered very carefully. If the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) would bend such faculties as he can on to the subject he might learn something. If honourable members go to the provisions in this Bill concerning compensation and look back to the provisions which deal with what can be done to the property, they will find that, for example, where a proclamation is made nothing in effect can be done with the property concerned. As I said to the chamber, one cannot even cut down a tree. What are the kinds of provisions which can bring to bear the issue of a proclamation? Let me give one example. Sub-paragraph (e) of sub-clause 2 of clause 6 states: the property is part of the heritage distinctive of the Australian nation- (i) by reason of its aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance; God almighty! What does that cover? Who understands that? What does the Government mean by 'social significance'? Does the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) understand that? He most certainly does not. Could he give us a dissertation upon the meaning of that provision? He most certainly could not and he most certainly would not. It can be said that the property can be closed down by reason of its international renown. Sydney Harbour, Brisbane and Perth could be closed down by reason of their international renown. Now who is going to be a judge of the international renown? The Government is. Is that a judgment which is appealable? No, it is not. In the end, what compensation do we get? We get no compensation at all if a property is closed down. What does this Government do? It deliberately avoids identifying what constitutes an acquisition for the purposes of the Act. It deliberately leaves in limbo the rights of the many people who could be affected by the operation of this Bill if it becomes an Act. It does that because it is not in the least bit concerned with the rights of the average Australian. The Minister seems to have an absolute incapacity to understand the legislation that he is seeking to put through this House. If he did understand what the legislation-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.33) —It disturbs me greatly that tonight in the first full week of the parliamentary sitting the Government has moved to apply the guillotine to the first piece of legislation that we have debated. This is the attitude with which the Government is dealing with the Tasmanian people. The Government has introduced legislation which will deny States' rights, which is so broad that it will allow the Government's interpretation of the Constitution to be applied to give it powers that will trample over traditional understanding of Commonwealth powers. The Government is treating this Parliament in the same way as it is going to treat the Australian people should this legislation succeed through the High Court of Australia. It is unbelievable that a party which recently went to the people of Australia claiming consensus, claiming that it wished to work with all sections of the community, state governments, local authorities, business and unions, can come in on the first full sitting week of the Parliament with the first piece of legislation that comes before the House for debate and cut off debate by the use of the guillotine motion. The Government is seeking to deny the basic democratic process of the Parliament. I can remember the present Leader of the House (Mr Young) complaining on many previous occasions when debate was slightly curtailed . I can remember when late in a session which lasted for many weeks he complained that there was haste in decisions and debate on legislation. He is absolutely hypocritical. On those occasions the present Leader of the House complained that the process of haste was being used. Yet here in the first week in relation to the first Bill to be debated the Leader of the House decides to apply the guillotine. It is a shameful display. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Mitchell to withdraw the description of the Minister as being hypocritical. I have ruled that the word is unparliamentary and so have my predecessors. Mr CADMAN —Mr Speaker, it is a word-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word. Mr CADMAN —That has been used on many occasions in this House by members of the present Government. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mitchell that I have asked him to withdraw. I expect a withdrawal. Mr CADMAN —I think it is an act-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word or to resume his seat. Mr CADMAN —I substitute the word 'duplicity'. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word or I must proceed with the warning that I have given him. Mr CADMAN —I withdraw the word 'hypocritical' but I think it is-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must withdraw without qualification. Mr CADMAN —I think it shows duplicity on the part of the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call on the honourable member to resume his speech. Mr CADMAN —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment cannot handle this Bill . The Special Minister of State has come in here to protect him and he has used the guillotine to do so. That is hypocritical. I believe that is-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw. Mr CADMAN —The Minister has come in here-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw. Mr CADMAN —I withdraw. The Minister has come in here to protect another Minister who has not done his homework, who does not know his legislation and who cannot handle the situation within the House. The Minister does not understand his Bill . He wishes to trample over the people of Tasmania and the Australian people. The Special Minister of State came in here to support him by trampling over the wishes of and democracy in the House. Mr Scott —You wouldn't know what it means. Mr CADMAN —The Minister is getting legal advice. The Ministers are now together. He cannot deal with the Bill himself, so he is seeking legal advice. He does not understand the processes of the Constitution which apply to this legislation. He does not understand the processes of compensation. He does not understand the Constitution as it applies to this legislation. The Minister should resign. The Leader of the House has failed the Government. He cannot protect the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. The Minister will fail again as he has failed now. He has failed the Tasmanian people; he has failed the Australian people; and the Leader of the House has failed the Australian Parliament. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(10.38) —Many of us on this side of the House-in my case not as long as most honourable members-have sat through year after year of the most arrogant behaviour by governments in the history of this Parliament. There was in my father's time in this House an occasion when the then Government guillotined through 14 bills in one night. Mr Cohen —Seventeen Bills. Mr BEAZLEY —The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, pushed through 17 Bills, I am reminded. Yet the Opposition has the hide to stand up here after ranting and raving for the last 7 1/2 hours to claim now that it has been roughly treated. Mr Tuckey —Tell us what the Bills were. Mr BEAZLEY —Now I am being heckled by the honourable member for O'Connor. To describe the honourable member for O'Connor as a Liberal is to place an orang- outang in coronation robes. Those of us on this side of the House who have watched his slightly simian visage in the House as he jobbers and twitters on the Liberal Party back bench are presented with a vivid image of what is meant by monkey business in the Western Australian Liberal Party. We have seen the most disgraceful behaviour over years regarding this matter. The Opposition has had all the chance that it needed to speak on this matter and it is all that it will get. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allowed for debate on this motion has expired. Question put: That the allotment of time be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Coleman, W. P.Hurford, C. J. Hodgman, W. M.Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A.Brown, Robert Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Clause 16 (Consideration). Amendments (Mr Connolly's) negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Government's circulated amendment. (12) Clause 19, page 12, lines 35 to 37, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Jurisdiction of Courts '19. (1) The High Court has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under section 14 and sub-section 16 (4). '(2) The Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under section 14 and sub-section 16 (15).'. Remainder of Bill and Government's circulated amendment agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. Question put: That the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Coleman, W. P.Hurford, C. J. Hodgman, W. M.Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A.Brown, Robert Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That Standing Order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(10.57) —The Opposition finds it hard to understand when a Government that was prepared to have this place used for an economic summit moves, as soon as the Parliament meets, a series of motions designed both to curtail debate and to extend the hours of sitting with the result that the ordinary and proper conduct of the business of this House in a manner that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) advocated not so many months ago is completely frustrated. This is not a motion the Opposition accepts. We do not believe that it is necessary. We believe it is counterproductive and it is absolutely incredible that it should be introduced on this, our fourth sitting day of the Thirty-third Parliament. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Coleman, W. P.Hurford, C. J. Hodgman, W. M.Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A.Brown, Robert Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of Joint Standing Commitees on the Australian Capital Territory, the New Parliament House and a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in addition to Mr Speaker, ex officio, Mr Blanchard, Mr John Brown, Mr Burr, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Lusher be members of the House Committee. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, in addition to Mr Speaker, ex officio, Mr Burr, Mr Charles, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Hicks and Mr Maher be members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Mr Cadman, Mrs Kelly, Ms Mayer, Mr O'Keefe, Mr Punch, Dr Theophanous and Mr White. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following members be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Mr Cowan, Mr Drummond, Mr Fife, Mr Keogh, Mr Lindsay and Mr Saunderson. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.5) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1983). The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Proposals No. 1 (1983) introduce into the Parliament, as required by law, tariff changes published in the Australian Government Gazette following the dissolution of Parliament on 4 February 1983. Many of the changes have been in operation for a considerable time, some as far back as 27 May 1982. These changes arose from Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 16 to 26 (1982) which proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966, and which were introduced into the House of Representatives during the last Budget sittings. These 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. In addition, the Proposals also contain a new schedule of rates of duty for certain New Zealand goods following the introduction of the closer economic relations trade agreement with New Zealand and a number of changes in order to ensure the correctness of the new simplified Customs tariff. Honourable members will recall that yesterday I introduced a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. The subject matter of these proposals is also contained in that Bill. The Proposals simply allow the collection of duties to continue until the Bill completes its passage. A summary setting out the nature of the changes has been prepared and is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 3 May, on motion by Ms Fatin: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Petrie and I remind honourable members that, although the hour is rather late, this is the honourable member's maiden speech and he should be extended the usual courtesy. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(11.7) —I begin by thanking honourable members for taking the trouble to attend my late night maiden speech. It is one of the congenial courtesies of this place that honourable members cancel other commitments to attend maiden speeches. I would also like to thank those many people in my electorate who I know have stayed up to hear their new member. I am sorry they were kept waiting by the mindless filibustering of certain honourable members opposite and their time wasting division calling. Mr Speaker, may I now congratulate you on your election as Speaker. It greatly adds to my pleasure in being able so to congratulate you to reflect upon the fact that my personal association with you has been a long and happy one. To think of a parliamentarian better suited to the office than yourself, Sir, would require a considerable effort of the imagination. In this context it is noteworthy that the Opposition parties allowed you to be elected unopposed. It would be appropriate to remark upon the legacy of your predecessor, the retiring right honourable member for Bruce. The former Speaker's departure from this House was a triumph for a great principle. This in itself does not distinguish him from dozens of his colleagues whose careers were terminated by the last election. The difference was that the right honourable member for Bruce was retired by his own hand. The former Speaker's decision to retire from parliament was, we were told, part of a package of Opposition measures aimed at establishing a new practice concerning the Speakership. The proposal is that the Speaker should be above party politics. The suggestion is that the Speaker should be a person acceptable to both sides of the House. The Speaker, in their suggestion, would therefore be elected to his position without opposition in this House. From the time of his election to the Speakership he should, they say, retire from the policy and tactical deliberations of the party which supported him into Parliament. In consequence, his exalted station, high above the machinations of this place, would endow him with a loftiness of vision and an immunity from reprisals that would guarantee that his determinations in this place would be objective, fair and without hint of preference to any party. In fact, Mr Speaker, what your right honourable predecessor is seeking to establish by the supreme sacrifice of his retirement is the Westminster convention concerning the position of Speaker. For those of us on this side of the House, it is a refreshing change to see the men of 1975 trying to establish rather than destroy Westminster conventions. So, while they are in the mood for it, let me remind the few of them who remain of a few more good ones that they might like to observe this time around. There is a constitutional convention that the upper House does not block Supply. There is a constitutional convention that the Government is drawn from the party that has a majority on the floor of the lower House. There is a constitutional convention that a government resigns if it loses a motion of no confidence. Finally, there is a constitutional convention that the Governor-General acts only on the advice of Ministers who command majority support in the lower House. Its corollary is that Opposition members act improperly if they collaborate in the Governor- General's unconstitutional proposal to do otherwise. While we must applaud the Opposition's new found zeal for Westminster conventions, I urge Opposition members to pause in their exuberance to establish new conventions to reflect upon those that they trampled upon in their seizure of power in 1975. Nevertheless, to give credit where it is due, the composite gesture from the Opposition benches consisting of Opposition members refraining from opposing your election, Mr Speaker, and their former Speaker offering his resignation is a gesture which has, whatever its motivation, much more than a merely economic significance. But if the Opposition really wishes to establish the Westminster convention concerning the Speakership, I must tell them that the next step also is up to them. According to Westminster practice, the Speaker is not only unopposed in the House at his election to the chair; in addition, he is not opposed in his constituency. In other words, if the Opposition really means business in its attempt to establish this convention, it will not run a candidate against you, Mr Speaker, in the next general election. The fate of the proposed new convention will be written on the ballot papers in the electorate of Scullin when next those good people go to their polling places. I hope that the Opposition does make this next necessary move. It would be a pity, Sir, if the final parliamentary gesture of the retiring right honourable member for Bruce were wasted. His departing speech was gracious and, not to denigrate his other achievements in this place, nothing in his parliamentary life became him like the leaving of it. He will be much more kindly remembered on this side of the House than the man who replaced him as leader of the Liberal Party, the defeated Prime Minister, the retired right honourable member for Glamis. I would like now to say a few words in honour of the gentleman who preceded me as the representative of the people of the electorate of Petrie. Mr John Hodges is a man who has exerted himself with courage and conviction in both the local and the national arena. He spent more than seven years as an alderman with the Redcliffe Council, including a period as vice-mayor, and nine years as a member of the Australian Parliament including almost one year as a Minister of the Crown. At the local level he will justly be remembered for a number of achievements. John Hodges was involved in a number of community fund raising endeavours. He was active in the Salvation Army appeal, he contributed to the fund raising effort to establish the pensioners' hall at Redcliffe and he was chairman of the fund raising appeal for the Blue Nurses centre on the peninsula. He was and is patron of the last mentioned establishment, and when I visited that centre recently I was impressed by the extent to which he was held in esteem. As would be expected, Mr Speaker, I disagreed with my predecessor on a wide range of issues and indeed that is the very reason that my constituents chose to send me here to represent their attitudes. However, I never at any time doubted the sincerity with which my opponent held the views he expressed during the election campaign and I wish him well in his return to private life. I have read in the newspapers that Mr Hodges intends to seek an important position within his party organisation. I wish him well in that arena also. I should now like to inform the House of the political philosophy which motivates me. I believe that the purpose of government is to secure the greatest wellbeing of the greatest number of citizens. By 'wellbeing' I mean that condition of a person in which he or she is able to realise to the maximum whatever capacities he or she might have. Happiness is part of what constitutes human flourishing, but so are many other things without which that state of mind can still exist. People have been known to be happy although they were in ill health, impoverished and deprived of any outlet for the development of their talents. But a government would be a poor one indeed if it settled for that. Governments should strive, therefore, to create a situation in which their people are not merely happy but also healthy, prosperous and able to express and develop their talents and creative potential; and I do not mean health just for those who can afford the medical bills or prosperity just for those who inherit or claw their way to prosperity. Nor do I advocate only the self-expression of those whose abilities and talents are so outstanding that they are able to draw public attention. What my political philosophy requires is that governments should act so that every citizen has an equal opportunity to make of himself or herself the very best that he, or she, can. It is quite obvious what governments can do in this respect. Governments cannot make people happy. That is not part of their business. But they can maximise their citizens' opportunities for finding happiness for themselves. They can, or could, eliminate poverty, minimise disease and fear of financial ruin caused by disease, and make education and training and satisfying leisure available to all . But in Australia today, more than anything else, an accident of birth determines a person's path through life. If you happen to be born into the right family in the right suburb, you will have at your disposal every ease and convenience of the post-technological elite. You will have excellent medical treatment and attend the most expensive school where you will meet all the 'in' people. You will meet those people again later, in boardrooms, at champagne breakfasts or perhaps at Liberal Party functions. But if you, like most of the people in my electorate of Petrie, do not happen to be born into the right family and the right suburb, you will be up against it for most or all of your life. If you are lucky you will be struggling to pay off a mortgage, the payments on which get larger while the family housekeeping budget is eroded by uncontrolled price rises. If you are not so lucky, it is the rent that you will be worrying about rather than the mortgage and you will be wondering how long you will have a job to pay for it. If you are unluckier still , you will be a pensioner trying to make ends meet, while the uncontrolled price rises of the previous Government eat into the diminishing size of the fortnightly instalment of the insult you receive instead of the living wage which should be just reward of a life of service to Australia. And if you are unluckiest of all, you will be young, jobless, possibly homeless and surrounded by people who preach the virtues of hard work in much the same way as Marie Antoinette might have spoken of the delights of cake to people who did not even have bread. Mr Speaker, the people of my electorate of Petrie know very well what I mean. My electorate has the largest proportion of home buyers in Queensland. Most of them have young families. In the suburbs of Arana Hills, Ferny Hills, Everton Hills, Albany Creek, Kippa Ring, Bald Hills and elsewhere in my electorate of Petrie, there are 22,240 young parents in traditional dual-parent households alone. Many have large mortgages and are struggling to give their children a decent life. Those children, Australia's greatest natural resource, will in future years be the backbone of this nation. They attend 47 government schools and 14 private schools in my electorate. But they are tomorrow's taxpayers and not only will they be paying the inflated retirement benefits of the former Prime Minister, whose life was obviously meant to be easy; they will also have to pay indirectly for the gracious living of every luxuriant speculator and every superannuated executive in the country, not to mention Australia's tithes to the multinational corporations that are bleeding the country dry. Yet these very children live with the insecurity of their parents who, under the policies of the previous Government, did not know how long they could afford their investment of a home. I promised these home buyers, in the name of the party I am proud to represent, that their conditions would be better under a Labor government than under a continuation of Liberal policies. I promised them that we would stimulate the housing industry and control interest rates. I look forward to telling them that that promise has been fulfilled. In the suburbs of Scarborough, Clontarf, Redcliffe, Margate, Woody Point, Wavell Heights, Chermside and elsewhere in my electorate of Petrie there are, according to Social Security Department statistics, based on returns of the Redcliffe and Chermside regional offices, 17,293 age pensioners. The total figure for all pensioners in my electorate is 24,059. These people have suffered a shocking decline in their living standards over the past seven years. Age pensioners saw their income fall from nearly 25 per cent of average weekly earnings during the previous Labor Government to, at one stage, hardly more than 21 per cent. They are justifiably anxious to see this situation redressed. Many of these people voted for me because I promised them, on behalf of my party, that we would, within three years, restore their incomes to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I believe that a decent retirement income is a right deriving from years of service to the community and in no way should it be seen as a gift of a charity. I am anxious that whatever the nation's deficit, and even if a consensus were achieved to the contrary, my constituents should receive their rights. Especially in the suburbs of Aspley and West Chermside, and also in the suburbs of Geebung and Zillmere, as well as everywhere else in my electorate of Petrie, there are vast numbers of young people in their late teens and early twenties. According to the same Department of Social Security statistics that I quoted before, 6,616 people in my electorate do not have jobs. Most of them are young. They are intelligent, sensible and willing. They are unemployed because, at the Chermside Commonwealth Employment Service office, there are 9.6 registered unemployed for every job and at the Redcliffe CES there are 21.8 registered unemployed for each job. That is the worst ratio in the Brisbane metropolitan district. They, more than anyone else, are suffering from the former Government' s 'fight inflation first; unemployment last' policies. In almost every street in my electorate of Petrie there would be one young Australian whose reasonable demand for a job has not been met, and whose reasonable hopes for a career have been shattered. I am glad to be here supporting a Government that gives the very highest priority to job creation. But the scars of these last seven years will remain on the lives of thousands of my constitutents. This massacre of youth aspirations must not continue and it must never be repeated. As a Government we must appreciate, and this social system must learn, that we must either provide jobs for everyone who is capable of work or at least provide them with dignified and undenounced leisure. Several of the maiden speakers so far have stated that they expect to serve the Parliament for many years to come. Considering the demography of the places that they represent, I believe that their expectations are justified. I will not make any extravagant predictions about my own tenure in this place, but I will say this: By the time I reach the age at which I would expect to enter retirement, we will be approaching the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century. By then this Parliament, if it has not actually been replaced by a committee of survivors meeting in a radiation shelter, will be dealing with very different business. The Minister for Aviation will not, as he has been this week, be making announcements directed at improving the competitiveness of Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas. It is far more likely that the announcements will concern Australia's participation in inter-planetary travel. By then the Minister for Health will no longer be exerting himself to introduce a universal health insurance scheme. That will be an achievement of the past. It is possible that the issue will be the distribution of a medication which will halt or reverse the aging process, providing the possibility of indefinite youthful, fit and healthy life for all, without fear of death from diseases associated with advancement of age. By the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the news bulletins will not be full, as they were this week, of news of the first implantation of a freeze-thaw human embryo. By then it is more likely that we will be hearing reports of the first ectogenetic human birth, that is, the birth of a baby gestated and brought to developed human form in an artificial placenta entirely outside its mother's womb. Whether this-forgive the pun-ulitmate labour saving device is first announced in Australia or elsewhere in the world will to a large extent depend on the determinations of this Parliament. By the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first centry, it is unlikely that this House will be smarting from the fact that the Premiers of Queensland and Tasmania chose to frustrate constitutional reform by stacking a constitutional convention. By then communications technology will have made us so completely one people that, apart from strong local government, this Parliament will be the only significant representative voice of our nation. Paradoxically, it will also make us so much part of the global community that we will at once be more closely in touch with both the sources of our heritage and the international forces shaping out destiny. The Premiers of Queensland and Tasmania, if such expensive and anachronistic sinecures are still held, will be of about as much interest to the twenty-first century as R2D2 to Darth Vader. It might be thought odd that, in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s, I am speculating about the future of the new world ahead; but it is not odd. The vision that we adopt as we emerge from the depression will help to determine the structure of the future. And the vision splendid of a new life in the space age full of excitement, fulfilment, human achievement and satisfying recreation, will be next to worthless unless it is a vision of a future in which all will share. Whatever gadgets, trinkets, frolics and prosperities the twenty- first century may deliver, it is our task to ensure that we do not repeat the injustices of the past and make them the privileges of an elite. Mr Speaker, just as our planet is anchored in its orbit by the gravity of its whole mass, and would be thrown out of that orbit if any part of it were lost, so our nation is anchored in history by the contributions, passive as well as active, of every one of its citizens. In this metaphor, every individual is equally important. I have a vision of the future in which every individual has an equal opportunity for happiness in life. At present we are far from it. The world we live in at the moment is much bleaker. The lives of the people I represent could well be much less stressful and much more fulfilling than, through no fault of their own, they are at the moment. To ask for a satisfying career, a secure home, or a dignified retirement is not, I would have thought, an unreasonable request. But these are the very things that many of the people of my electorate of Petrie do not have. It was precisely because their very reasonable desires were not being met that they voted to send me here. My constituents seek only those things which should be the birthright of every Australian. Mr Speaker, I will not rest until they have their birthright. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.25) — This Government has been in office for just over two months-not very long, but long enough for us to see how it operates. I invite honourable members to look at what we have. We have an Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and a Defence Minister (Mr Scholes) who send Royal Australian Air Force fighters to spy on a sovereign State of the Commonwealth. We have an Attorney-General who dismisses his actions by saying: 'It seemed a good idea at the time'. We have a Defence Minister who does not know what he is talking about, wastes the time of the Parliament during Question Time and then has to come back later and say: 'I did not know what I was talking about'. We have the extraordinary situation that, on the one hand, the Government promises that the Australian Broadcasting Commission will become more independent while, on the other, one senior Minister, Senator Button, makes an outrageous attack under privilege on the integrity of the Chairman of the ABC, and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) leaves the future of the ABC board in doubt. We have a Special Minister of State (Mr Young) responsible for the Australian Federal Police, who was too busy to bother about representations for increasing the strength of that police force, but who comes in here and uses the Government's numbers to deny us the democratic right to talk about legislation. Quite obviously he is old blucher boots himself. We have a Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who goes around the country denigrating the status of our capital cities and of our national emblems. We have classic bungling in administration, with the permanent head of the Department of Territories and Local Government being transferred without his or his Minister's knowledge. We have a half-baked wages policy that tells the unions they cannot have wage rises beyond those set in the national wage case, but can make up the losses by increased allowances. We have also a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who extols the virtue of consensus and co-operation but cannot deliver the goods. We have a Minister for Communications and a Minister assisting him, Senator Button, who do not communicate with one another. One had only to look at the television program Nationwide tonight to know that. Mr Speaker, quite obviously the only thing that the Government has going for it is you. You have done very well and I congratulate you on your election. The Government's record is not very impressive. Where is the evidence of consensus and co-operation in the Government's decision to scrap pre-Budget consultations with all interested sections of the community, in favour of its Economic Planning Advisory Council? Where are the constituents about whom the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) spoke-the women, the children, the unfortunate in society? At least the last Government gave them the opportunity to come along and talk to it and acted in regard to their wants in its Budget. Where is the evidence of consensus and co-operation in the building industry or the shearing industry? The Prime Minister, in his rural policy speech on 20 February, said: I have committed my Government to industrial relations policies which I believe will vastly improve the general industrial climate in Australia; and in putting those policies into effect, we will be particularly mindful of the interests of primary producers. What about the interests of primary producers in the current shearers dispute? What about the interest of our $2 billion a year wool export industry, which accounts for 10 per cent of our total export earnings? What has the Government done to protect these interests? Virtually nothing. I will return to the shearers dispute in a moment. Firstly, however, I want to look at this Government's agricultural policies and where they currently stand. I must say it is a pity that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is overseas and will miss these first two weeks of parliament because there are several important questions that need urgent answers. Throughout the election campaign, the Australian Labor Party issued promise after promise for primary producers. But the vast majority of its proposals were unspecific; they were more like first drafts than finely tuned policies. Since the election we have heard nothing more about some very important aspects of these policies. For example, let us look at drought. There is still a very serious situation in Australia despite good general rains in recent weeks in the eastern States. But the effects of the drought will be felt for a very long time to come. Farmers need to know now where they stand in terms of what continuing assistance they might expect from the Hawke Government. The Prime Minister said, again in his rural policy speech, obviously before the election: A responsible Australian government should be looking beyond the present devastating drought. I could not agree more. But what have we heard from this Government about drought aid since it came to office? Absolutely nothing of any consequence. The Minister for Primary Industry announced that pumpkin and citrus pulp would be eligible for the fodder subsidy. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question in the House on Tuesday, said only that his Minister was preparing a review of drought relief measures for early consideration by the Government. That is simply not good enough. There is the prospect of drought declarations being lifted in some areas in the near future. Farmers need to know what assistance they can expect in those circumstances. In particular, I ask: Will the Commonwealth continue the fodder and interest payments subsidies beyond the lifting of drought declarations? Farmers want and need to know these answers now . There is not time for the Minister to come back from overseas and prepare a review for government consideration. What has happened to the specific promises on drought made by the Labor Party during the election campaign? We were promised additional drought aid measures. Where are they? What are they? When will they be introduced? What about the promise to utilise a range of tax rebates to encourage producers to protect themselves against drought? Where is the explanation of what that means? What are the rebates and when can farmers start using them again? We have heard absolutely nothing about this promise. The coalition Government introduced a concession whereby farmers could write off in full, in the year of expenditure, the cost of providing dams, bores and water reticulation facilities. This was specifically to help farmers build up their capacity to withstand drought. Will this Government maintain that concession or not? In the context of the Government's election promise it is a highly relevant question and one which the Government should answer forthwith. Where is the promised new drought section within the Department of Primary Industry? Where is the promised national drought consultative committee? All of these things were promised in the election campaign. Because of the gravity of the drought, especially at that time, they are promises that should have been acted on with the utmost urgency as soon as the Government assumed office. But we have heard virtually nothing. The silence poses the question: Now that we have seen some rain, have these promises been quietly scuttled? It is not only promises on drought that have not been enlarged upon. The whole document on policies for agriculture is littered with unspecific promises about which we have heard absolutely nothing more from the Hawke-led Government. How will the Government set up its promised national meat inspection service, especially if the great State of Queensland so admirably led by Joh Bjelke- Petersen continues to oppose the concept? Will we see an attempted overriding of States' rights or might it be like the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) said in the other place today when questioned about not interfering in the Wran scandal in New South Wales? He said that it was a State matter. It was not a State matter when the Government interfered in the sovereign responsibilities of Tasmania. The Prime Minister has said: Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. Is that an open-ended commitment for the next three years, forever or for the next 12 months only, or what? We want to know. When will we see the promised agricultural attaches in Japan, Korea, the Middle East and South East Asia? Will we deny the Korean people the opportunity to come here and contribute to improving the lifestyle of the Australian people, as the Treasurer, the Honourable Paul Keating, denied the Korean people the right to be involved in the preparation of the gas pipeline? The Government has rejected the previous Administration's five-year $640m national water resources program: In favour of what? In favour of studying an independent report. How long will we have to wait before such a program is implemented? What sort of money will be put into it? Has the Department of Primary Industry yet taken over responsibility for the administration of quarantine from the Department of Health? What is meant by Labor's recognition that there is an urgent need for changes in the way wool promotion is funded? Will growers have to pitch in more money for wool promotion ? Will the Government provide $28m towards funding for wool promotion next year, as our Government promised and would have delivered? Will it keep funding for wool promotion on a three-yearly basis? What is the future of the live sheep export trade? Given the Government's preference for the export of carcass instead of live sheep, will the Government cave in to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union as it caved in to the shearers union? Will this $6m a year export industry cease? Mr Speaker, you have been around this place for a long time. You know that all of these questions are vital questions. They are but a handful of the sorts of questions that immediately need to be answered and clarified by the Government. Farmers have a right to know the answers. The Labor Party cannot expect to come into office with a great ream of unspecified policies and a heap of rhetoric and be allowed to sit on its laurels. The Minister for Primary Industry said in Brisbane last week that he and his Department would take a much greater leadership role in the formation of rural policies than did the previous Government. I ask: What is the point of taking a geater role if the policies are never implemented, as seems to be the destiny of the bulk of the election promises? More importantly, does the Minister mean that he intends implementing policies without prior consultation with industry? It would certainly appear so, because in his policy for the beef and sheep meat industries he condemned the previous Government for awaiting industry consensus. Maybe he should get his line of communication established with the Prime Minister who believes in consensus. The present Minister for Primary Industry does not believe in industry consensus. The Prime Minister's great words about national consensus are being thrown to the winds daily, even by his own Ministers. Consensus was heralded as a major achievement of the recent Economic Summit. Let me say immediately that no one is criticising that objective. The trouble is that the so-called spirit of consensus generated at the Summit is now falling apart less than one month after its discovery. Let us talk about the Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide where the Government talked about consensus. On not one occasion did members of the Australian Labor Party break ranks. They did not agree with a proposition put up by anyone else. That is not consensus. Yet, they condemned us for not agreeing to their proposals. I cannot understand it. If only one man had enough intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted and break from the pattern that was established-one in all in-I would have been a little bit happier to say that at least there was one member of the Australian Labor Party who could think for himself and who was not a robot. The spirit of consensus is falling apart because of the attitudes of some elements of the trade union movement and because of the inability of the Government to maintain the momentum. As Mr Spicer of the Victorian Employers Federation pointed out, a growing number of militant trade unions are wrecking the spirit of the Summit. But neither the Prime Minister, nor any of his Ministers, nor the Australian Council of Trade Unions seem to be in the slightest bit interested in trying to rein in these union elements. The truth is, of course, that the Government cannot. It has an accord with the unions, and it is becoming clearer day by day that under that accord the Government is nothing more than a puppet and the unions are pulling the strings. In the case of the shearers strike, for example, sections of the Australian Workers Union are being allowed to threaten the entire industrial relations system of this country-and they are being encouraged by the Government. By refusing to accept two decisions of the Arbitration Commission, sections of the AWU are flouting the law and thumbing their noses at rulings given by the highest industrial court in our country. The Government should be supporting the rulings of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, instead of supporting the right of the union to have the case heard, yet again, for a third time. How many times does the Commission have to rule on an issue before its decision is accepted by the union and the Government? The Commission has ruled twice on this dispute. The Wool Council of Australia is prepared to give a written undertaking, registered in the Commission, not to alter shearers' pay rates for the use of wide combs, and it is also prepared to talk with the union and the Government over alleged anomalies concerning the employment of New Zealand shearers. There is absolutely no reason for sections of the AWU to hold out any longer, and there is absolutely no reason why the Government should support the union's application for a further hearing. The hearings have been held, and the decisions have been given. Those decisions should be accepted and upheld. The truth is that the Government has copped out, shirked its responsibility. Caucus has said: 'Look, we can't touch this one, we'll upset our union brothers; let's leave it all to the Arbitration Commission and let the Commission cop the flak'. The Government has already shown itself to be incapable and inept. Its legislative program, as outlined to the Parliament by the Governor-General, is totally inadequate. Such is the importance that this Government attaches to primary industry that it allowed for 53 1/2 seconds in the Governor-General's Speech-five paragraphs-for this vital section of our national economy. It is abundantly clear already that the Government will not live up to many of its election promises. Already this Government is guilty of perpetrating a fraud on the great Australian nation and its people. Mr Campbell —You really are a charlatan. Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, a remark which I found offensive was uttered by a member of the Labor Party who was not sitting in his place. I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —I did not hear the remark. Mr McVeigh —I do not think that you are deaf. It was that galah-it was that charlatan on the other side of the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not reflect on the Chair. I did not hear the remark. If he likes to tell me what the remark was so that it can be recorded in Hansard, I will ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr McVeigh —That charlatan on the other side of the House called me a charlatan. Mr SPEAKER —I think you should both withdraw. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 1982 General Elections in Fiji Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.45) —I rise on the adjournment to raise a question regarding a constituent of my electorate, Ms Rosemary Gillespie, who has been requested to attend a royal commission in Fiji. The royal commission is the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 1982 General Elections in Fiji. The sections of its terms of reference which concern Rosemary Gillespie are: Whether Ms Rosemary Gillespie had first assisted the Alliance (through Carroll and also directly), but later took documents from Carroll and obtained the 'red file' and supplied them to ABC television, the National Times, and the National Federation Party. . . . . (1) Whether the alliance commissioned the Carrol Report; (2) whether some or all of the recommendations contained in the Carroll Report were implemented, deliberately or otherwise, by the Alliance Party; (3) whether Clive Speed- (a) was appointed on Carroll's recommendation, and (b) was appointed to, and did in fact, assist in the Alliance's election campaign, and (c) had his salary paid (directly or indirectly) by the Australian Government; (4) whether the ABC people involved in producing the 'Four Corners' television programme (and the persons involved in writing the National Times article) collaborated with the National Federation Party both in the content of and the time of release of, that programme. I raise this matter tonight for the following reasons: In order that the Government may be aware that one of its citizens is required to attend the inquiry; and secondly to ask the Australian Government for legal aid for Ms Gillespie or at least to ensure that she is adequately represented at the inquiry. The names of two other persons were mentioned among the issues raised for discussion. They were Mr A. Carroll and Mr Clive Speed. Mr Carroll is employed by Business International, an organisation with a reputation for involving itself in the affairs of governments within the Asian region-and this includes the former Australian Liberal Government. Mr Speed is a former Australian Broadcasting Commission journalist who in 1982 worked for the Fijian Prime Minister. I would now like to read a section of a letter which would seem to be signed by Mr Alan Carroll. It states: Following these recommendations-- Mr Carroll earlier in the letter listed a number of recommendations to the Government of Fiji- I am happy to note the appointment of Mr Ishmail Bose to the party until the next election. We were pleased to arrange contacts and details of a short study program by Mr Bose with the Australian Liberal Party. He then went on to talk about Clive Speed. He said: Following these recommendations we were pleased also at your request to search for and recommend a journalist of exceptional talent to work in media relations with the Government. Mr Clive Speed, Executive Producer, Current Affairs for the Australian Broadcasting Commission who is strongly recommended to you as one of Australia's most mature and experienced working journalists . . . Does this mean that the Federal Liberal-National Party Government, through Mr Allan Carroll, interfered directly or indirectly in the 1982 Fijian elections? There is proof that Mr Speed reported to Mr Carroll on a regular basis in the period prior to the Fijian elections and that he sent written reports on the performance of the Fijian Prime Minister, Ministers and the political parties involved. I conclude by asking the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), who is sitting at the table, to ascertain from the Government whether the Fraser Liberal Government allocated $50,000 to the Fijian Government towards the cost of Mr Speed's employment, thus enabling a person to be employed by and to spy on the Government of the day. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.48 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Burr to move- That this House urges the Federal Government to maintain the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Dr Klugman to move- That this House strongly supports moves for multilateral and verifiable disarmament. Mr Simmons to move- That this House commends the Federal Government for its assurance to country air transport users in N.S.W. that they will not be disadvantaged by the Government's decision not to proceed with the close spaced parallel runway at Sydney Airport. Mr Ronald Edwards to move- That this House expresses its concern at the current level of air fares being charged to passengers between Western Australia and other Australian States with their consequent damaging effects on business, tourism and family reunions. Mr Punch to move- That this House- (1) deplores the pretence of the Opposition in attacking the Government's wages policy when the Opposition does not have a wages policy itself, and (2) calls on the Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Employment spokesman to reconcile their reported differences on this issue and establish a consistent policy so as they might make a worthwhile contribution to the House. Mr Cunningham to move- That this House- (1) congratulates Mr Cliff Young-the 61 year old farmer who amazed the world with his performance in the Sydney to Melbourne Marathon Run; (2) commends the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Hon. John J. Brown, for extending the Government's congratulations to this amazing man personally, and (3) calls on the Government to encourage and support efforts by people like Mr Young who, by example, show what Australians of all ages can achieve. Mr Snow to move- That this House requests the Government to proceed forthwith with the erection of an international airport in the Queanbeyan-Goulburn region. Mr Cunningham to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern about the developments in the field of genetic engineering and related medical research; (2) deplores the fact that experimentation and research have been allowed to continue without sufficient community debate about the ethical, legal, social and moral ramifications both for those subjects involved in the experimentation and society as a whole; (3) believes that the National Health and Medical Research Council should report to Parliament about these issues rather than compiling reports without prior consultation with the community; and (4) supports the case by concerned people for proper debate on the multifarious , legal, ethical, social and moral problems which have arisen from this research . The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 5 May 1983: Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1983/2-Holders of Offices in the First Division of the Australian Public Service and holders of public offices on other bodies. The following papers were presented: Mr Newman-Copy of a letter from Mr R. J. Hawke, Leader of the Australian Labor Party, to the working people of Tasmania, dated 25 February 1983. Dr Theophanous-South West Tasmania-Government policy statements-Quotations. Mr Scholes-Franklin dam photography-Department of Defence-Note for information of the Minister, dated 4 May 1983. Mr Cohen-Copy of extract from article in The Age headed 'Parasites have gone too far', dated 5 May 1983.