Thursday, 12 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 The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10(c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illness. (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 Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Mr Fisher,Mr Goodluck,Mr Groom,Mr Hicks,Mr McGauran,Mr Porter,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembed, the humble peitition 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 and Dr Theophanous. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully shows that your petitioners are gravely concerned at hydro-electric or similar development in the South-West Tasmania World Heritage area. This area has been recognised as of National and World importance and therefore is National responsibility. Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to ensure all within its power, including the blocking or non-allocation of funds, is done to ensure this area is preserved as wilderness and therefore no road or dam development is allowed. This is a national issue and therefore Tasmanians should not be required to bear severe financial burden if this occurs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that because television and radio: (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your peititioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commerical broadcasters, to legislate: (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control. (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations- (a) Have been widely condemned for its support of un-Australian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side) (b) Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence. (c) Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ''a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment'', which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the 'family'. Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Parliament will:- (a) Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations, (b) Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia's support for the Year of the Child. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: (1) the high cost of many pharmaceutical items, necessary for the management of diabetes, imposes a heavy financial burden on sufferers of this disease; (2) while insulin is available on prescription under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, syringes and needles which are the only means of administering insulin, are not. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will extend the provision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to cover syringes and needles required by diabetics. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we request that the Government take steps to ensure: (1) The construction programme of Radford College, Bruce proceeds immediately. (2) Parents freedom of choice in education is fostered by continuing to provide a basic grant for all Australian children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Represenatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the present hunt for harp seals in Canada is carried out in a cruel and inhuman manner. That the population of harp seals has not been clearly shown to be increasing. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government formally call on the Canadian Government to end the harp seal hunt and use its constitutional powers to halt the importation into Australia of products derived from the harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: That the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district. deprive customers of a personalized reliable telephone service. reduce job opportunities in the area. increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social responsibility to provide a sound reliable, personalized telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 Punch. 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 Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote- ''The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that the United Nations General Assembly has authorised a conference on the question of Palestine to be held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in August 1983; (b) that the conference has as its object the establishing of a Palestinian State; (c) that the French Government has called on the conference and the Palestine Liberation Organisation not to meet in Paris; and (2) calls on the Australian Government not to par ticipate in this conference. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon- (a) the existing distribution of personal income and wealth and past trends in that distribution; (b) the extent of growth of tax avoidance and evasion, including its effect on the distribution of post-tax income; (c) methods of strengthening powers available to the Parliament, the Australian Taxation Office and the Judiciary to stop tax avoidance and evasion so as to increase the equity of post-tax income distribution; (d) the recommendations made in the reports by the Taxation Review Committee, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and the Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation, and the desirability of legislation being enacted to implement these recommendations. (2) That for the purposes of the inquiry the term 'wealth' shall include earned income of all types, fringe and non-monetary benefits, unearned income of all types, speculative profits and all forms of personal wealth. (3) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent senator or independent senators. (4) That the committee be required to report as soon as possible. (5) That further details in respect of the operation of the committee be the subject of a subsequent resolution. (6) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House applauds the Prime Minister for expelling the Russian spy Mr Ivanov and supports his determined efforts to expose others who also threaten our national security. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the treatment, by the Polish authorities, of Mr Lech Walesa and his colleagues in Solidarity, together with fellow Polish citizens in the Catholic Church in Poland. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Minister for Aviation to- (1) provide precise information on the evaluation processes to be used in assessing Sydney airport needs; (2) allay the fears of people of western Sydney by making a definitive statement on the importance he will be placing on environmental, technical, financial and capital factors; (3) seek the agreement of the Government of New South Wales in accepting objective criteria; and (4) avoid the non-definitive attitude of recent public statements. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the Government inability to decide with which parts of the $640m Water Resources Development Program, announced on 25 January 1983, it intends to proceed. Mr SPEAKER —I have received messages from the Senate concurring in the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and agreeing that the provisions of the resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The grave concern arising from the Government's handling of matters related to the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Ivanov. 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 ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party)(10.8) —Mr Speaker, the extraordinary statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday relating to the expulsion of the KGB agent, Mr Valeriy Ivanov, and his association with Mr Combe has led to grave concern because it opens up a number of questions that this Parliament and the nation are entitled to have answered. On 22 April the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made a statement to the Press that Mr Ivanov had infringed the conventions applying to the proper conduct of diplomats . He said that Mr Ivanov's actions had threatened Australia's national security in a way which could not be tolerated by the Government. The Opposition accepted this statement. It did not question it. It accepted that the Government had available to it information which on its judgment required action, and it acted. It was not until last Sunday, 8 May, that the Sunday Telegraph ran an article that an Australian Labor Party member had been implicated with Mr Ivanov. Following that article, newspapers started to run a series of articles building on the assumption that somebody in the Australian Labor Party was involved in this affair. It was not until Australian Associated Press put out a news release reporting on the matters brought before Caucus-that is, that the Prime Minister had made reference to, and had instructed his Ministers not to have any dealings with, Mr Combe-that a question was asked in this House by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) asking the Prime Minister what were his reasons for that instruction. That brought a response whereby Mr Combe's credibility was put in great doubt. Because of the further stories surrounding the Prime Minister's somewhat inept comments, he felt compelled to make a statement in this House yesterday, trying to justify his actions. In Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister made an allegation that is probably the most serious allegation that it is possible to make against a person, short of the outright allegation of treason. The Prime Minister implicated Mr David Combe, the former Federal Secretary of the Labor Party, in an allegation that Mr Combe's relationship with the expelled KGB officer gave rise to 'serious security concern'. The Prime Minister told the Parliament, and the community at large, that, in the view of the Government's National and International Security Sub-committee of Cabinet, Mr Combe either had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Mr Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Government Ministers to deal with him. The Prime Minister went on to say that the relationship that Mr Ivanov had cultivated with Mr Combe was one of the reasons which led to Mr Ivanov's expulsion from Australia a few days ago. These are extremely grave allegations. They have been made by the Prime Minister in a way which places Mr Combe in an impossible position. In fact, the allegations made by the Prime Minister against Mr Combe represent a massive breach of Mr Combe's civil liberties and rights as a citizen of Australia. The allegations have been made without any substantiation. There is no opportunity, therefore, for Mr Combe to respond to the allegations and to seek to defend himself. There is no opportunity for the community at large to judge for itself the correctness or otherwise of the allegations because no information has been given to support them. The Prime Minister has alleged that Mr Combe has been compromised to the extent that it is no longer appropriate for Ministers to have a dealing with him. That allegation, of course, has brought vast damage to Mr Combe, even though the allegation, I repeat, is completely unsubstantiated by evidence of any kind. But the matter goes much further than that. What the Prime Minister and the Government are saying in reality is that Mr Combe is a security risk to the extent that he is denied contact with Ministers. But he is allowed to continue contact with public servants, with the business community and with anyone who likes to have a dealing with him. In making the allegation, the Prime Minister has of course cut off Mr Combe from having any contact with virtually anybody. He has destroyed him. Mr Combe's reputation is under the blackest cloud one could imagine. The damage Mr Combe has suffered cannot be redressed-indeed, no attempt can be made to redress it-unless the allegations are substantiated and Mr Combe is given the opportunity to be able to defend himself. One can only wonder whether the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday was designed to explain what has happened or to hide what has happened. I believe there are very strong grounds for taking the view that the Prime Minister's statement was designed to protect the Labor Party rather than the interests of the community. It certainly was not designed to protect Mr Combe. In fact, one can only wonder whether Mr Combe is not the scapegoat in this affair. The Prime Minister has dealt him an unusually severe blow. It was an extraordinary thing to do to a former colleague. Quite clearly, the matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is. I am certain that many people within the Labor Party are very unhappy about this situation. Mr Combe has had a long association with the Labor Party. He held a very significant and influential position during the period of the previous Labor Government under Mr Whitlam. Obviously he would have been closely involved with many confidential matters. Mr Combe was also the Federal Secretary of the Labor Party for a number of years while the Prime Minister was the Party's President. One can recall his vigorous defence of Mr Combe when allegations were made about secret discussions to solicit funds from Iraqi officials for the benefit of party operations. I cannot imagine what prompted the Prime Minister to take such extreme action. It was not done lightly. I am sure it caused him a great deal of anguish to come to these conclusions. The Prime Minister has placed Mr Combe in a position in which no citizen should be allowed to remain. This is not Moscow, Mr Prime Minister. He can blackguard a person if he likes but there are principles and procedures which everybody in this Parliament respects. Mr Combe has been branded with conduct which gives rise to serious security concern, but he cannot defend himself against that charge. Mr Combe is said to have compromised himself, but he cannot defend that charge. Mr Combe's association with Mr Ivanov has been given by the Prime Minister as one of the reasons for the expulsion, but Mr Combe cannot defend himself against those assertions. The Prime Minister says that Mr Combe understands and accepts why Ministers can no longer have dealings with him. I do not think Mr Combe really had much choice. That was a very generous conclusion to come to. I would be very surprised indeed if Mr Combe did not want the opportunity, publicly and in a proper place, to explain himself and to defend his actions, whatever they are. I do not know whether Mr Combe has done anything detrimental or potentially detrimental to Australia's security or whether he has acted in ways which could be potentially damaging; no one knows. We have not been told the basis of the Prime Minister's allegations. We have been told that, in the opinion of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and his Department, Mr Combe has committed no criminal offence. We have been told that, in the Government's belief, there is no foundation for any allegation or imputation that Mr Combe is or ever was a Soviet spy. Yet in spite of those assertions the Government has cut off all official contact with Mr Combe, seriously damaging his reputation, and has expelled a Soviet spy as a result of Mr Combe's association with him. If Mr Combe has done anything wrong, and if it is proved that he has done anything wrong, then he should be required to answer for his wrong-doings. If he has not done anything wrong then he should be allowed to show that he has not. The Prime Minister yesterday said the Government was concerned that Mr Combe should not become the object of public censure without some opportunity to defend himself. Yet that is precisely what has happened as a result of the Prime Minister's unsubstantiated allegations in Parliament. No Australian citizen should be subjected to damaging unsubstantiated allegations no matter what the ground. This is a fundamental principle of human justice. If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned to give Mr Combe an opportunity to defend himself, and if he is concerned that the community should be able to satisfy itself as to what is the truth of this matter, there is only one course open to the Prime Minister -and that is immediately to establish an appropriate judicial inquiry. This is an allegation of the utmost seriousness against a private citizen, made in a way which, I repeat, represents a massive breach of that citizen's civil liberties and rights. It demands examination by a judicial inquiry. It also demands an immediate and full explanation by the Government of the circumstances leading up to Mr Ivanov's expulsion. This did not come out in the original statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it did not come out in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The Prime Minister sought to avoid giving an explanation, relying on the convention that security matters should not be discussed. That convention is important, and fully accepted by the Opposition. But on previous occasions-rare though they are-when a diplomat has been expelled , there has been a full statement on the matter. On 7 February 1963 the then Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General made a full and detailed statement of the reasons for the expulsion of the First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy, Mr Ivan Skripov. Skripov's activities were described in detail to this Parliament. It was appropriate then for a full statement to be made, and it is appropriate now for a similar full statement to be made. It is even more imperative now because in the present case we have the most serious allegations about an Australian citizen. In summary, Mr Speaker, the situation seems to be that a Soviet agent has been expelled but an Australian citizen has been severely damaged, his credibility has been put at risk, because of the ineptitude of the Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.23) —Mr Speaker, the Government rejects-- Mr Newman —I take a point of order. Most serious allegations have been made about the Prime Minister. He should be at the table, not hiding behind another Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Speaker, I hope that this debate can be heard in silence. We do not want any of the vaudeville acts of the sort we have just witnessed. Let me make it very clear that this matter of public importance has been raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and not by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Mr Newman —Put the Prime Minister up to answer it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Just a moment. I ask the honourable member in the name of justice to give me a fair chance for once. Let me make it very clear that, when this matter of national security was brought to the Government's notice, in accordance with the proper principles of bipartisanship the Leader of the Opposition was fully briefed for two hours and given every item of information relating to what has been raised here today. What a hypocritical and miserable action it is to think that the Opposition put up-- Mr Cadman —I take a point of order. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will state his point of order. Mr Cadman —The point of order is that the Deputy Prime Minister used the word ' hypocritical'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a hypocritical action to be fully briefed on a matter and to send somebody else in here today to establish a case-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I withdraw the word. Mr SPEAKER —I ask for a withdrawal because of the relevance of a Standing Order, not because the word is considered unparliamentary. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is an extraordinary action to send in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make a case on behalf of an Australian citizen when the Leader of the Opposition was fully briefed for two hours, expressed himself to be completely satisfied with the action taken and in fact issued a statement in accordance with that position. What is it that we are discussing here today? The matter of public importance suggests that there is some problem concerning the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. Everybody agrees he should have been expelled but, in the process of adding some weight to that debate, we get the suggestion that an injustice has been done to somebody and that his name had been bandied about. Let me go through the points very clearly. There was a two-hour briefing of the Leader of the Opposition. Every aspect of the matter-all of the details-was disclosed. The Leader of the Opposition, whose views we respect, has indicated to us that he also fully briefed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Anthony —He did not. Mr Peacock —No, on the Ivanov matter; it had nothing to do with the other matter , as I told the Prime Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to put on the record, in fairness, that I will accept that position. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will come to order. The Leader of the National Party was heard with courtesy and the Deputy Prime Minister should also be heard with courtesy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would appreciate the opportunity to make the point-it has been said clearly-that there was a two-hour briefing of the Leader of the Opposition. It is now denied that the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he had fully briefed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Not on David Combe; that was expressly understood. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, would the honourable member accept the view that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also saw him after Question Time on 10 May and asked him what was going on because, on that date, the Opposition raised a number of questions, one of which was his own? Would he accept also that, later that evening, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) having gone on Newsvoice and having again raised the matter, the Leader of the Opposition was again asked to see the Prime Minister, which he did, saying that he would adjust the matter by discussing it with the right honourable member for New England and others. I do not know where we are going on this question of bipartisanship if we had two discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and now we are not given any chance to suggest that in fact it happened. Let us come to the nub of the question raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the honourable member for Richmond is actually the Leader of the National Party. I understand that the honourable member for Bennelong is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was referring to the Leader of the National Party. One would have thought that he would have been briefed on the matter. Are we to accept now that he knows nothing about it? Is that the situation; that the Opposition now goes to the extent of bringing forward a matter of public importance, raising all these issues, yet the man they put up to present it had no briefing on the matter? Do honourable members really accept that that is the situation? Is this the ridiculous situation-that the Opposition has allowed an honourable member who has had no briefing on the matter to bring up for discussion this matter of public importance? How dishonest can they be; how ridiculous must the Opposition look in the eyes of the public if a matter of the gravest importance is presented for discussion by a person who has had no briefing on it? Let us come to the question of the sincerity of what the Opposition has done. Mr Anthony —What about the civil liberties of people? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Then why does the honourable member impugn them? The members of the Opposition are the only people who have dragged in the name of the individual. Mr Dobie —No way! Come on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No way? If I may be heard in silence, let me tell honourable members what happened on 10 May. How did the matter arise? What evidence was produced? We find that one of the first questions raised on that day was raised by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who asked whether it was not a fact that a senior Labor man had been one of the most important figures involved? Mr MacKellar —That was reported in the Press. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but the matter was raised in the Parliament by the honourable member. His leader had already been fully briefed. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party was heard in silence. The Deputy Prime Minister should be heard in silence also. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I can appreciate the reason for the interjections, but the matter was first raised by a front bench member of the Opposition. Mr Burr —It was raised in the Press. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That the person concerned was a member of the Labor Party was raised here in the Parliament by the Opposition. That was the first question. Soon after that, the next question was raised on the same day by the Leader of the Opposition himself. Of course, he raised it on the basis of what was, he said, a Press report. He said that a former senior Australian Labor Party official was involved. That was the first time that word had been used, and it was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He, of course, had had a briefing, but he was quoting a Press report. It was never a true Press report because the Prime Minister clearly said that never at any stage did he indicate who the person was or what his former position had been. What was the pattern or the intelligence of the Opposition on that day? Firstly, there was a question about a Labor Party person. The Leader of the Opposition himself quoted a false Australian Associated Press report asking whether a Labor Party official was involved when, of course, he himself knew the position. The Prime Minister denied it and he denied it accurately. Now that Mr Sinclair is trying to interject, let me quote the third question. We must assume, of course, or at least we would have thought, that Mr Sinclair would have been aware of the matter, but what was his question? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the custom with regard to referring to members by electorates. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —All right, the right honourable member for New England; he is also the Deputy Leader of the National Party. The question of the right honourable member for New England, which was headed Mr David Combe, asks: Has the Prime Minister instructed the members of his Government to dissociate themselves from . . . , Mr Combe? Why is it that that trio of questions comprise, firstly, the suggestion that it was a Labor man involved; secondly, the suggestion that it must have been a Labor Party official; and thirdly, the question of whether it was Combe? Today, during debate on the matter of public importance, we heard about the dreadful miscarriage of justice in the bandying around of Combe's name. Who bandied it around? Who did it and for what purpose? Mr Sinclair —The Prime Minister, your Prime Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member for New England was anxious to go on Newsvoice and he mentioned quite actively that afternoon who Combe was, what he had been in the past and what he thought of some of the actions including Iraqi breakfasts. There is no suggestion of Mr Combe's getting fair play on Newsvoice. Surely the Leader of the Opposition will not deny that there was a second conference with him later about what he was going to do about the matter. He said: 'Well, I will go and tell them'. That was about the best he could do at that stage. In other words, he said that he would try to get Opposition members to understand what honourable members would all agree is in the interests of national security. If we were able to disclose to the Opposition all the information, we would expect other members of the Opposition to act in accordance with the code and not in any way infringe it by asking questions in the Parliament or, worse still, coming in here as they did today to make a specious defence of a man, whom they would happily see done away with, on the basis that he has been denied natural justice. Again, I make the point concerning the statement that was made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He said that Mr Combe had a chance and had availed himself of it with his legal adviser to go through the whole of the evidence available to the Government. Following that discussion, which his lawyer approved, Mr Combe is on record as saying that he understands and accepts the Government's decision that Ministers should not associate with him as a lobbyist. As I said, he had the opportunity to go through the Government's case line by line; he accepted the Prime Minister's statement to the Parliament. What could be fairer than that? We want to make the point, in response to the question of what there was to hide, that there is nothing to hide. All the information was given to the Opposition. The Opposition knew of the information; if it did not, then that is an indictment of the Leader of the Opposition. I think he is more capable than that . But we are not prepared to accept the view put here today by a person who apparently alleges-I suggest he does so somewhat tongue in cheek-that he knew nothing about the matter, that there has been no defence available to Mr Combe and that there has been a cover up, and he wants a judicial inquiry. Surely, if he-the Leader of the National Party-wanted to help Mr Combe, that would be the last thing he would want. Surely that is the position from the Opposition's point of view. Mr Cadman —What do you know? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know no more than what your leader knows. Honourable members opposite are urging that something should be done on the basis that it would be able to assist Mr Combe. We are all anxious to assist Mr Combe. Assistance will always be available from the point of view of his lawyer having access to any information he wishes. Mr Anthony —How does he defend himself? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know how he will defend himself now in the terms of the Opposition's indictment of him. It is honourable members opposite who apparently are deliberately playing this action for their own party political purposes. Mr Anthony —Where are your civil liberties? Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Honourable members opposite feign disdain on the question of civil liberties. They raised the man's name when the Leader of the Opposition was fully aware of the circumstances. It is the Opposition which is asking for information when all information has been provided. Does the Leader of the National Party suggest that the Government acted improperly in expelling Mr Ivanov? He cannot say that. There is no evidence of that at all. The real issue which the Opposition has to face is that because it wants to try to destroy Mr Combe it will use knowledge given to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Anthony —You have done it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We did not raise the matter; the Opposition raised it. The innocence in which this matter is apparently raised is astounding. I make the point that the matter of public importance was raised to discuss a matter of grave concern, the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. I think he got a brief five seconds mention in the speech made by the Leader of the National Party who said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) had said that Mr Ivanov had to be expelled and made a statement accordingly. The rest of his speech was on the basis that an injustice had been done to Mr Combe. Yet, I repeat that the person who has made the allegations never bothered to ask his own leader what were the facts. The Leader of the Opposition allowed-I must say he virtually connived in what happened-the matter of public importance to be raised today on the basis that the real position was not known about the person mentioned. Again, it goes against all sense of justice in this country to think that, on 10 May, a series of prearranged questions were asked, one of them by the Leader of the Opposition , to guarantee that Combe was named. I think it is dreadful to expect this House or the people of Australia to accept that as an honourable action. The Opposition has destroyed itself. It deserves the greatest indictment from Mr Combe and others for what it has done to him. The Opposition did it all. Mr Anthony —It is shocking behaviour to a colleague. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is no need to shout me down. The Leader of the National Party is guilty of informing on this man with information that was within his own knowledge and privilege. He has destroyed the concept of bi-partisanship. He does not deserve to hold his position as a leader. That is the position. The Leader of the National Party is not entitled to remain in this Parliament because he used confidential information given to him in Opposition to malign and to destroy a decent citizen. He talks about justice and civil liberties. It is the Opposition who has destroyed this man. The Opposition raised it. It is the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. As a personal explanation, my remarks therefore must be necessarily brief. I will relate the matter to the facts. Certain allegations have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). On 21 April, I was called by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I received a briefing from him and officials on the matters relating to Mr Ivanov and also Mr David Combe. I advised the Prime Minister on that occasion that, in regard to the briefing given to me about Mr Combe, I would say nothing at all and he concurred. In regard to Mr Ivanov, I said that I would relate this matter to my senior colleagues. At a later stage, I did inform them of my support for the Government 's action in expelling Mr Ivanov. There were no further briefings, to the best of my knowledge and recall, until last Thursday night, 5 May, when we spent an extensive period examining matters relating to articles in the National Times. After that again I indicated that on this occasion I supported the Government, and I advised the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The next briefing I received was also on the National Times article and the High Court of Australia hearing-bearing in mind that since 21 April no mention had been made of Mr Combe-and it was on Tuesday morning, 10 May. On Tuesday afternoon, 10 May, while in this Parliament I was handed, as honourable members will recall, a telex of the Australian Associated Press news release which indicated that a story had been given that the Prime Minister had discussed this matter in the Caucus, and I asked a question relating to this. The facts were explained by the Prime Minister, that it had been raised in the Caucus. We later understood that the matter was exacerbated by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) giving a Press briefing in which he told the Press what the Prime Minister had indicated to the Caucus. Later that day the Prime Minister and I met and he indicated his concern with the question that had been raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, which related to ministerial dealings with Mr Combe-the subject matter of the Press release that there had been no ministerial briefings. I indicated to him that I had not briefed the Deputy Leader of the National Party in regard to David Combe. The Prime Minister asked me to inform the Deputy Leader of the National Party of certain matters relating to Mr Combe and I gave him the assurance that I would. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party will confirm, I executed that duty after indicating to the Prime Minister that I would do that. Mr Sinclair —Which you did. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you. As the Prime Minister's statement yesterday indicated, the decision regarding Ministers, which was the subject matter of the question of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, was in the first instance made by the Cabinet on 26 April and endorsed by the full Ministry on 2 May. As I have indicated to honourable members, I had no discussions with the Prime Minister relating to Mr Combe between 21 April and the evening of 6 May. On 6 May it was public knowledge that it had been discussed in the Caucus. The briefing of the Leader of the House had ensured that; the Prime Minister's answer to a question in the Caucus had generated that Press briefing by the Leader of the House. So I reiterate: The conduct of the Opposition and me is entirely proper. When I am briefed on matters of national security I indicate to the Prime Minister to whom I relate these matters. I do not go out, nor am I given any writ to go out, and inform all members of my party on this matter. I have not departed from that at all, nor will I until he releases me from this. These are briefings that are given to me and I have at all times told him to whom I have relayed certain matters and when. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has corrected, in his view, certain statements that were made. I suggest he is now proceeding into a more general area which is beyond a personal explanation. Mr PEACOCK —I draw the matter to a close, Mr Speaker. The facts support the statement that I have made, both in relation to dates and times, on the accuracy and the proper conduct of the Opposition in this matter. The fundamental error was made by the Prime Minister in breaking a long standing convention. It should never have been brought into the open. It should never have been compounded by the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now going into a point of order. Mr PEACOCK —The Government should never have behaved in this manner. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr YOUNG —Yes. It is not so much what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said that may be inaccurate; I do not say it is inaccurate. It may be misinterpreted. What he said was that I gave the briefing to the Press, which was part of my responsibility after the Caucus meeting. The record of that briefing will show that the name of David Combe was never mentioned. It was raised in the Caucus following the publication of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald, under the byline of Paul Kelly, that an Australian Labor Party person was involved. One of our colleagues, who again was not named at the Press briefing, had raised the question with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister had told the Caucus, again without mentioning anyone's name, that there was no member of the Government involved. It was felt desirable that I should relay that to the Press. On all other matters concerning this question, I told the Press-and it will show on the records, because most of the Press representatives use tape recorders-that all questions should be referred to the Prime Minister's office. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAWKE —Yes, Mr Speaker, indeed, by both the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It is relevant and instructive that the Deputy Leader of the National Party, at the outset of his speech this day, proceeded from a deliberate misrepresentation which is based upon the proposition-- Mr McVeigh —He has not spoken. Mr HAWKE —I mean the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony). They switch and change so much that it is hard to keep up with them. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, if Opposition members think that they can avoid the substance of what I am about to say by this nonsense, let them think so. Let us go to the facts. The Leader of the National Party, in his speech today, started from the basis of a deliberate misrepresentation in respect of what I had done on this matter in the Caucus. He proceeded on the basis of that deliberate misrepresentation, picked up subsequently in these proceedings by the Leader of the Opposition, on the basis that I had in this matter referred to an Australian Labor Party official in the Caucus. Let us have straight the facts to which the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has alluded. I repeat that what happened in the Caucus was that a member of the Government, a Minister, referred to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and raised a question as to whether he was the person involved. Faced with that question, I answered simply and exclusively that neither he nor any other member of the Government was involved. There was no question. If members of the Opposition or any member of the media want to ask the Chairman, the Secretary and every member of the Caucus, they can undertake any inquiry that they like, but they will find that the fact is that I did not mention Mr Combe or any Labor official. There was no mention at all by me of Mr Combe. Yet on the basis of their prearranged determination to introduce the name of Mr Combe into these proceedings-which deliberately by me had not at any stage in this House been introduced; a full protection to the civil liberties of Mr Combe had been pursued by me-the Opposition introduced into this House the name of Mr Combe, and on the basis that I had mentioned Mr Combe in the Caucus. I repeat to this House that, with a full sense of the obligation of this Government with respect to both the security of this country and the civil liberties of individuals, I did not-repeat, 'not'-in the Caucus mention the name of Mr Combe or of any Labor Party official. I repeat that in response to a question from one of my Ministers I said: 'It is not you or any member of the Government'. Mr Combe's name was not mentioned. In the light of that explanation , I trust that there will be no further repetition of the deliberate misrepresentation which has been undertaken in this House. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 November 1983, by which date it is expected that the Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2) and the appropriation Bill for Parliament, which will form part of the Budget for 1983-84, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $5,741.3m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $925.3m or about 19.2 per cent greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1982-83. A large part of the increase reflects higher staff ceilings approved by the previous Government after the 1982-83 Budget, salary and other cost increases and an extra payday which falls within the Supply period in 1983-84 as compared with 1982-83. I mention two specific provisions in the Bill. First, in line with the Governor -General's Speech the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be introducing Bills for referendums on fixed term Parliaments and other matters of constitutional reform, a sum of $21m is included under the Australian Electoral Office for the purpose of the referendums. Secondly, $150m is provided for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $25m more than in 1982-83. Apart from an adjustment made last year to bring the Supply Bill (No. 1) provision into line with that included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), this is the first increase in the amount provided in the No. 1 Advance since 1979. The need for the increase reflects the growth in expenditures over this period and the pressure placed on the Advance in recent times. The need for the Government to seek urgent interim appropriations at the special sittings in April-including supplementation of the Advance in the Appropriation (No. 1) 1982-83-was a clear manifestation of the pressure. I wish to emphasise that this Bill does not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1983-84 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations totalling $998.7m for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July to 30 November 1983. The amount is $201.5m or about 25.3 per cent greater than provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1982-83. The main increases include: $55m for estimated establishment costs associated with the proposed Medicare medical benefits arrangements, the Government's commitment to which was confirmed in the Governor-General's Speech to the Parliament. $41m under the Department of Housing and Construction for payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory to give effect to the previous Government' s decision to increase grants for welfare housing. $28m for construction of the new Parliament House; this reflects the planned expenditure pattern for the stage of construction now reached and is necessary to enable completion of the building in time for the official opening in 1988 as part of the Bicentennial celebrations. $1.2m is included under the Department of the Special Minister of State to enable the Government to publicise initiatives flowing from the National Eonomic Summit Conference, as called for by the Summit communique. For reasons similar to those I outlined in relation to Supply Bill (No. 1) this Bill also includes $120m for the advance to the Minister for Finance, an increase of $20m over the equivalent amounts provided in recent years. While provision is made in this Bill in respect of establishment cost for the Medicare arrangements, concerning which the Government's broad intentions have already been announced, the provisions do not otherwise anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the Budget context. This is fully in accordance with convention. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(11.0) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditure by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1983 to 30 November 1983. The appropriations sought total some $14m which is $3.1m or about 28.4 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the Supply period 1982-83. This reflects, in large part, an additional pay day, that falls in the Supply period in 1983-84, and wage and salary increases. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Lloyd had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until- (1) the legal action against the Australian Broadcasting Commission instituted by the Premier of New South Wales is concluded, and (2) an assurance is given by the Government- (a) that no action will be taken to alter the existing membership of the Commission until the Bill is again before the House at the conclusion of those legal proceedings, and (b) that there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy'. (Quorum formed). Mr Lloyd-I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is this the first time that the Government has ever called a quorum on itself? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.4) —In the House last night we heard the contribution of the Opposition to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) moved an amendment to the second reading and indicated that it was proposed to move further amendments in Committee. It was indeed disappointing that the Opposition was unable to make a reasonable contribution to such an important subject. I propose to deal briefly with the amendments and the arguments in support of them. I will then move to what the Bill will do for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as clearly the Opposition has failed totally to grasp what the Bill is about. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray proposed that the Bill should not proceed until legal action against the ABC, instituted by the Premier of New South Wales, is concluded and an assurance is given by the Government that no action will be taken to alter the existing membership of the Commission until the Bill comes back into this House at the conclusion of such legal proceedings. This proposition can be described only as ludicrous. The report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, known as the Dix report, was tabled on 29 May 1981, almost two years ago. The Opposition is now suggesting that because of litigation between the Premier of New South Wales and the ABC this legislation should be delayed pending the conclusion of such legal proceedings, being a time which is uncertain. It is difficult to believe that such a ridiculous suggestion could have been made, but it was and is on the record as an amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray. Five of the commissioners retire in June. The Opposition is suggesting that the tenure of the present board should be extended, not even for a definite period, until the legal action referred to is concluded. That could be one month, six months, a year, two years, three years or whatever. In the meantime the Government would be expected to take no action on this Bill and would thereby bury the enthusiasm for the modernisation of the ABC generated by the Dix report. That is the way in which the Opposition has addressed the matter in the debate. I must say that when I first saw the amendment at 8.30 last night I was sufficiently charitable to think that the Opposition may have thought that the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would, in some way, complicate the legal proceedings. However, it is clear that this is not the case, as the Opposition's argument was not based on that premise which would have been at least a misunderstanding of the position. The Opposition's argument was worse than that. It was an attempt to bury the first essential step in the implementation of the recommendations of the Dix report. Before leaving this point it is necessary to refer to clause 9 (1) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. It does appear that there may still be some misunderstanding of this question by the Opposition. Last night one Opposition speaker was under the impression that the establishment of the Corporation, in fact, turned it into a company and put it under the provisions of the Companies Act. Clause 9 (1) of the principal Bill deals specifically with the legal proceedings question. Clause 9 (2) provides that the alteration of the name and constitution of the Australian Broadcasting Commission does not render defective any legal or other proceedings instituted or to be instituted by or against the body corporate as any proceedings against the ABC may be continued against the body corporate by the name of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In order that those opposite are at least clear on that, it is necessary to put it on the record at this stage. Mr Lloyd —No, it was not that point that we were making. Mr DUFFY —I am glad that it was not, but nothing would surprise me. The other part of the amendment related to there being no interference by the Government in the independence of the ABC and its programming policy. On this issue the Bill establishes clearly the independence of the Corporation in a way never contemplated by the Opposition. The Bill will guarantee such independence. I now wish to move to the amendments, copies of which the Opposition provided at 9.30 last night, as its proposals to be put forward at the Committee stage which may well have been reached last evening, but was not. The first amendment proposes that the no work as directed, no pay provision be included in the Bill. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) directed his attention to this issue. It should be pointed out to him and to all other members of the Opposition that such a provision is contained in sections 44 and 44A of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Such provisions were inserted by the Liberal- National Party Government several years ago. As far as I am aware, this provision has never been used by the ABC and it should be congratulated on the fact that it has not adopted that confrontationist course. The inference of the Opposition is that the failure to include such a provision in the Bill leaves the ABC management without authority. This is patently untrue. There are disciplinary provisions for ABC officers who wilfully disobey or disregard directions. I refer the Opposition to clause 64 (10) and clause 64 (1). The latter provides for dismissal, transfer, reduction in salary and the right to refuse salary increments. It may, of course, be that that is not acceptable to the Opposition because, in its attitude to industrial relations, that would not be sufficiently draconian. But the fact of the matter is that the ABC management has ample authority to deal with members of staff. The suggestion that the no work as directed, no pay provision should be reinstated in the Bill is totally rejected. The attitude of the Opposition on this issue clearly indicates its lack of understanding of industrial relations and its obvious desire to bring about confrontation. This Government came to office with a commitment to examine restrictive industrial relations legislation applying to Australian Government employment. The no work as directed, no pay provisions which give power for the non-payment of salary to employees who refuse for industrial reasons to comply with a direction to carry out work normally performed are seen to be in this category. The non-inclusion of these provisions in the legislation to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is consistent with the commitment and with industrial relations policy objectives included in the statement of accord by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding economic policy. These objectives are aimed at improving industrial relations in Australia to the benefit of workers, employers and, of course, the public in general. To achieve its objectives in this regard the Government intends to create a better industrial relations climate by itself adopting, and encouraging other employers to adopt, a rational and less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. This is a matter which is just not understood by those opposite. The Government encourages the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation without recourse to legislative or common law provisions. The Bill reflects this approach of the Government in relation to the ABC. The next amendment to be proposed at the Committee stage relates to the complaints procedure. On this matter the honourable member for Murray referred to the British Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission. The total lack of knowledge of the Opposition on this issue is exposed by the fact that the BBC Complaints Commission no longer exists. The correct position is that Britain has a Broadcasting Complaints Commission which covers both the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority. In other words, both the BBC and the commercial radio and television networks are covered by the Commission. The commissioners are appointed by the relevant Minister. Is it now the policy of the Opposition to have such a commission in Australia? Mr Lloyd —There is nothing new about that. We have it all here. Mr DUFFY —That may be so but the honourable member's information is defective. I repeat that the commissioners are appointed by the relevant Minister. Is it now the policy of the Opposition to have such a commission in Australia covering the ABC and the commercial services, and is it suggested that the Minister for Communications should appoint the commissioners? That is what the proposals in fact put forward last night mean. The honourable member said that the Opposition 's policy was based on the British position, which he has totally misread. I am glad to see that he is nodding his head in acknowledgement. Is that the policy which in fact the Opposition now has? Does it propose that we should have a broadcasting complaints commission covering the ABC and the commercial sector and that the commissioners should in fact be nominated by the Minister, who in this case will be me? If that is its policy, the Opposition should come out and say so. The next point to be raised on this issue is that, according to the Opposition' s definition, a complaint may be made if a program is unjust or unfair. It will be interesting to see how the Opposition proposes to define unjust or unfair. Is it suggesting that where there is no error of fact-that is, that what the ABC has said is true-there will be instances that will warrant investigation on the basis that the report was unjust or unfair? A complaint could, of course, be made on the basis of invasion of privacy, but that issue is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Protection is afforded people in that situation. To allow complaints on the basis that a program is unjust or unfair is, to say the least, dangerously unclear and would permit the complaints procedure suggested by the Opposition to be used as a method of engaging in unjustified interference in the programming of the ABC. Last year, the then Minister for Communications raised the possibility of looking at the BBC model. That possibility reappeared in the Parliament at 9.30 last night. It is interesting that the Opposition has kept quiet on the issue until now, obviously fearing the consequences of making its views available for public comment and, particularly, of an obviously adverse response from the ABC and its staff. The proposal by the Opposition would establish an outside body to monitor the ABC. That would reflect the infamous view of the former member for Gippsland that a political monitor was needed. It is a tragic reflection on the Opposition that it has made no advances since those days of threats and intimidation against the ABC. That is obviously still its preferred position, since it seeks an outside monitor of the ABC. So much for the crocodile tears of the Opposition concerning non-interference in the affairs of the ABC. What absolute humbug! All of the Opposition's amendments are rejected by the Government, which intends to proceed to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation so that the important work of reconstructing and modernising Australia's national broadcaster can go ahead without further delay. Until this Bill is passed there can be no effective implementation of the recommendations of the Dix report. The Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent ABC, one that is able to meet the broadcasting needs of Australians. The Government believes that the ABC, as Australia's only national broadcaster, has served and must be able to continue to serve, in the forefront of Australian broadcasting. The Bill gives the ABC a charter which clearly sets out its functions and obligations. The charter, which is set out in clause 6 of the Bill, requires that the Corporation provide innovative and comprehensive radio and television services of a high standard, and also to provide programs which contribute to a sense of national identity and inform, entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. The charter makes clear the need for a balance between programs of wide appeal and those that are more specialised. It also acknowledges the role of the ABC as an international broadcaster and provider of educational programs and reaffirms its role of encouraging and promoting the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia. The Dix Committee criticised the ABC for failing to take account of changes in the composition of the Australian community. The charter has been expanded to include a provision that requires the Corporation to recognise the multicultural character of today's Australian society. That recognition is seen by the honourable member for Murray as an indication that the Special Broadcasting Service would be replaced by the ABC. This view is an indication of the lack of understanding of the need for the ABC to recognise the multicultural character of Australian society. Is the honourable member for Murray in fact suggesting that the ABC should not pay regard to the multicultural nature of Australian society? Those were, in fact, the amendments moved by the Opposition last night. Mr Lloyd —They were not all moved then. Mr DUFFY —The first amendment was moved last night; the other amendments will be moved in the Committee stage. At this stage I indicate, for the reasons that I have already set out, that they are not acceptable to the Government. I now move on to some more positive aspects of this matter. They relate to what the Bill does. With respect to how the legislation will benefit the ABC I think that there are some matters the Opposition should understand. The ABC will have its own Act of Parliament. Its legislation will be extensively modernised. The independence of the ABC will be strengthened. There will be a clear charter setting out the functions and the obligations of the ABC. There will be a statutory recognition of Radio Australia and the ABC's television news service. The legislation will clearly spell out the duties of the Board and the managing director. There will be a major upgrading of advisory mechanisms. There will be an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council and provision for similar councils in relation to a State, Territory or region of Australia. The position of the chief executive of the ABC will be substantially upgraded. He will exercise statutory powers in his own right and will be a member of the Board. There will be a substantial modernisation of administrative provisions as set out in part V including removal of Public Service controls on salaries and terms and conditions of employment, early retirement, efficiency to be the sole criterion for promotions, provisions for more than one promotions appeal board as set out in clause 41 and for appeals against temporary promotions as in clause 40. Part V division 3 deals with updated redeployment and disciplinary provisions including provisions for a tenure appeal board as well as a disciplinary appeal board. There will be greater ABC control over transmission facilities. The ABC transmitters located within the national transmitting stations will be transferred to the ABC ownership. The ABC will be given control of links between its studios and local national transmitting stations. The Minister will, in certain circumstances, be able to transfer individual transmitting stations to the ABC. The limitation on ABC contracts requiring ministerial approval will be lifted from $250,000 to $500,000. The matter over which all the crocodile tears have been shed is the issue of independence. I move now specifically to talk about how this legislation strengthens the independence of the ABC. Firstly, there will be an expressed statutory obligation on the board to maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC; that is set out in clause 8 (1) (b). The Corporation will be given wide powers under clause 25 and will be able to make its own rules thereby lessening its dependence on government. There will be statutory recognition of the ABC's independent television news service. All Public Service Board controls on salaries and terms and conditions of employment will be removed. I dealt a moment ago with the other issues of the general benefits provisions, ownership of ABC transmitters and those issues arising in respect of the transmitting stations. The matter which seems to have caused some difficulty for the Opposition-a considerable number of aspects has caused it difficulty-has been that of complaints. I will now deal with the changes that were made in this Bill to the Bill which came forward from the then Government in September and December of last year. (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. An important change to the 1982 legislation is that the Government decided not to proceed with the appointment of a commissioner for complaints. One of the most important changes to the Bill that the then Government brought before this House in September and December last year is that decision not to proceed with a commissioner for complaints. The establishment of such a position outside the ABC with broad powers to investigate a wide range of complaints smacks of political censorship. However, the Government does accept that there should be some mechanism within the ABC to investigate complaints regarding errors of fact or invasion of privacy. The Bill, therefore, provides for the Corporation to establish positions for community affairs officers to deal with such complaints. Under clause 82, a national community affairs officer appointed by the Managing Director will co- ordinate the work of community affairs officers in each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory If a complaint is found to be justified, the Managing Director will be notified and will be required to arrange for a prompt apology or retraction to be broadcast. The ABC will also be required to include a summary of the activities of these officers in its annual report to the Parliament. As far as we are concerned, that matter has been dealt with in the fairest way possible from the point of view of the ABC and also from the point of view of the public who may consider it necessary to make complaints against the ABC. It is a far better proposal than that which was put forward last year. It is a far better proposal than the somewhat confused view that was put forward here last night which purported to be based on the British Broadcasting Corporation system and obviously is not. In any event, the BBC arrangement was introduced in 1981. There is certainly no indication that that is necessarily the perfect model to follow. The problem was that the Opposition got it all wrong and the proposal it put forward did not even follow the British model. The other matter which is causing some difficulty to the Opposition-I understand this to some extent-is the question of consultation in respect of appointments to the Board. At this stage, I point out to the Opposition that there will be consultations on a party basis in respect of the appointments to the Board. The Opposition spokesman on communications, the honourable member for Murray, last night asked whether his party would be included. I really do not know how anybody on the Opposition side could think that we on this side of the House would exclude them from consultation. I mean, I was somewhat-- Mr Lloyd —I did not ask whether we would be included. I just asked what your definition of 'parties' was. Mr DUFFY —The numbers of the National Party may have been depleted but it is still defined as a political party. Mr Lloyd —Not us so much. You might have been referring to others. Mr DUFFY —If the honourable member is worried about whether the Australian Democrats will be included, I assure him that they will be. Mr Lloyd —No, I was not. Mr DUFFY —I do not know whom the honourable member is worried about then. Mr Lloyd —I put those questions to you and I asked for your answers, not for comments on the way I asked the questions. Mr DUFFY —I have answered the questions. The political parties will be-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about the radio station at Charleville? Mr DUFFY —I will not leave out the honourable member for Maranoa. On the question of consultation, the honourable member for Murray does not need to suffer any paranoia. I have no doubt that he will be satisfied with the procedure. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) interjected just a moment ago and I certainly have not forgotten him. He at least showed some concern for better broadcasting facilities for the people whom he represents. I can assure him that the Government is conscious of the problems that he put forward here last night and puts forward regularly in correspondence. Mr Jacobi —But his Government did nothing about it. Mr DUFFY —The fact of the matter is that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) last night, of course, dealt with that issue. I note in passing, as has always been the case, that when an interjection comes from the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) it is always very much to the point and is accurate. As the honourable member for Grayndler indicated, it has been a long time since we were in government. In the whole of the post-war period we have interrupted the Liberal Party's reign of terror for only three years. In fact from 1949 to 1972 the Liberal Party was uninterrupted in government and then again from 1975 to this year. Nevertheless, that was dealt with last night. I think the honourable member for Maranoa was prepared to accept that the view put forward by the honourable member for Grayndler was a reasonable one. I found it rather interesting to hear that view put forward at this stage. The proposition put forward by honourable members opposite, that we cannot ignore the needs of the people they represent, particularly the matters they raised specifically last night, is reasonable. I assure members of the Opposition that we are conscious of the problems. The Charleville A.M. station is in the program for the next three years. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Killen, Sir JamesBraithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, 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. CHodgman, W. M. Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 45-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new Division 2A. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.42) —by leave-I move: (1) After Division 2 of Part V, page 28, insert the following new Division ( comprising clauses 45A and 45B): 'Division 2A-Failure to work as directed No work as directed-no pay. 45A. (1) Where an officer or temporary employee refuses or fails to comply with a direction given by a person having authority to give the direction, being a lawful direction with respect to work that he is performing or is to perform, the Managing Director may declare that the officer or employee is not to be paid salary. (2) A declaration under sub-section (1) in relation to the refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a direction- (a) shall specify the time (which may be a time before the declaration is made but not earlier than the time when the officer or employee refused or failed, or first refused or first failed, to comply with the direction) from which the declaration is to have effect, or is to be deemed to have had effect; and (b) has effect and shall be deemed to have had effect, according to its tenor, from the time so specified until it is revoked in accordance with this section. (3) An officer or temporary employee is not entitled to be paid salary in respect of any period in respect of which a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect, or is to be deemed to have had effect, in relation to him. (4) The Managing Director- (a) may, at any time, vary or revoke a declaration in force under sub-section ( 1) either wholly or in relation to a specified officer or temporary employee; and (b) shall, upon becoming satisfied that an officer or temporary employee in respect of whom a declaration under sub-section (1) is in force has been complying, or will comply, from a particular time, with all relevant directions with respect to the work that he is performing, or is to perform, given by persons having authority to give those directions, revoke, as from that time, that declaration, or that declaration in its application to that officer or employee, as the case requires. (5) A declaration made under sub-section (1) in respect of a refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a particular direction, or with particular directions, has effect in accordance with sub-section (2) notwithstanding that, at any time while it is in force, the officer or employee- (a) attends for duty and performs work other than work to which that direction, or any of those directions, as the case requires, relates; or (b) attends for duty and, in the performance of his work, complies with that direction, or with some or all of those directions, as the case requires, in part only. (6) A declaration under sub-section (1), and a variation or revocation of such a declaration- (a) shall be made in writing; and (b) shall be signed- (i) by the Managing Director; or (ii) by a person to whom the Managing Director has delegated his powers under this section. (7) Subject to sub-sections (8) and (9), the powers conferred on the Managing Director by this section are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other powers conferred by or under this Act on the Corporation, on the Board, on the Managing Director or on any other person in relation to an officer or temporary employee. (8) While a declaration under sub-section (1) is in force in respect of the refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a direction, or with 2 or more directions, proceedings shall not be taken against the officer or employee under section 64 in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee in respect of which that declaration was made. (9) Where proceedings are taken against an officer or temporary employee under section 64 in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee to comply with a direction, or with directions, of the kind referred to in sub- section (1), a declaration shall not be made under sub-section (1) in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee in respect of which those proceedings have been taken unless those proceedings have been finally determined or otherwise terminated. (10) Where a declaration is made under sub-section (1) in respect of an officer or temporary employee, or such a declaration is varied or revoked, the Managing Director shall cause such notice as he deems appropriate to be given of the making of the declaration or of the variation or revocation of the declaration, as the case may be. (11) The period during which a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect in respect of an officer or employee forms part of his period of service or employment under this Act for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 but does not, unless the Managing Director otherwise determines, form part of his period of service or employment under this Act for any purpose of this Act or of any other Act. (12) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears- ''direction'' includes an order and an instruction; ''salary'' includes wages or other remuneration and any allowances that are declared by the rules to be included in salary for the purposes of this definition. Declarations to prevail over awards 45B. (1) Section 45A has full force and effect, and declarations in force under sub-section 45A (1) have full force and effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any inconsistency- (a) with any other provision of this Act; (b) with any other law of the Commonwealth enacted before the commencing day; or (c) with any award made before, on or after the commencing day. (2) Section 45A shall be deemed to be a prescribed provision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1982 for the purposes of- (a) sub-section 22 (2) of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920; and (b) sub-section 41A (1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. (3) Except as provided in sub-section (1), nothing in a declaration in force under sub-section 45A (1) shall be taken as affecting- (a) the application of any law, or of any award, to or in relation to an officer or temporary employee; or (b) the terms and conditions of employment of an officer or temporary employee. '. I move this amendment for the following reasons. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), when he replied earlier, stated that there is a disciplinary provision still in the legislation. That is Division 4-Discipline. I remind the Minister, honourable members of the government and those listening to the debate that that disciplinary provision was still in the Bill that was introduced into this place by the previous Government. In spite of the comments that have been made by certain honourable members on the Government side, I want to remind everybody that the basic legislation that we are debating here today was introduced by the previous Government; so nothing new or revolutionary is being suggested. What we are doing with this amendment is moving for the reinsertion of the no work as directed, no pay provisions which were in the original legislation. The reason for that is that if one looks at the disciplinary provision, it will be seen that it refers to certain actions which are available to the managing director in relation to matters of discipline with individual employees in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That does not cover and was considered by the previous Government not to cover those actions which are now taken all too frequently by unions, whether they be in the public or the private sector, which do not come under the code of individual discipline but which come under the more general definition of rolling strikes. Perhaps it is not a case of actually not working but refusing to do the work which employees are instructed by management to do. This puts management in an impossible position. The point was made by the Minister that this particular provision has not been used very much since we, as the Government, introduced it into the legislation generally covering the Public Service. The present Government is obviously intent on removing all of these provisions in relation to the Public Service. This is the first time we have met this situation with the new Government. However, situations can arise in which, in spite of management being sensible- management must be sensible to co-ordinate, to co-operate, to talk and to discuss and work out problems as they arise-unless it has this added provision of no work as directed, no pay, with the modern approach of unions and staff associations to interfere with the work that they should be doing or not actually going on strike but not doing the work that they should be doing, management has no ability to manage. We are placing the management of the ABC or any other Public Service management-for that matter, any employer-employee relationship-in an impossible position. Therefore, we believe that this clause should be reinserted. I make the point in conclusion in regard to the comment earlier that amendments were received at a certain time that they were certainly provided as soon as they were available. I also point out that this morning we made no attempt to curtail the Minister's reply. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) 11.45)-I will take only a moment of the Committee's time. The Opposition seems to be obsessed with the clause it wishes to insert into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) rightly pointed out earlier today, there is really no need for it because just about everything is covered under clause 64 of the Bill. If this sort of clause were put into legislation or an award connected with private enterprise I am sure there would be a backlash not from the employees but from the employers. They would not want to wear this sort of thing. If we want better industrial relations and not confrontation then the sort of clause that the Opposition wishes to put in is just not on. The Opposition has an obsession with it similar to the obsession with confrontation which it had for seven years under the previous Prime Minister and which obviously it still does have under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who was for years a member of the Cabinet that brought in various draconian pieces of legislation and who was the Minister for Industrial Relations for a time. It still has that direction of confrontation. Obviously it has not learned its lessons and so will be on the other side of the House for quite some time. The honourable member for Murray ( Mr Lloyd) mentioned that the no work, no pay provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act has been used only a few times. My research says it has never been used. Mr Lloyd —I did not say it had been used a few times. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member said it had been used on only a few occasions. Mr Lloyd —I did not say in relation to the B and T Act. I accepted what the Minister told me. Mr CHARLES —I will relate it to the Broadcasting and Television Act. As far as my research goes, the provision has never been used. To insert it as a big stick to hold over people would be ridiculous. We are looking at the broadcasting industry in an attempt to get it off the ground with a right and proper charter and with an Act of Parliament, which it will have after today. For all those reasons we on this side firmly reject the amendment. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.48) —The clauses the Committee is discussing are very important because this is the first occasion on which this issue has arisen in this Parliament. Of course undertakings have been given by the new Government that it intends to remove in a number of areas-I guess that this is the first one-clauses that were inserted previously in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and in other areas of industrial relations requiring public servants to work in accordance with instructions. The reason for clauses like this in legislation such as we are discussing, and in other legislation is not in any way to be confrontationist. Mr Charles —Rubbish. Mr RUDDOCK —It is not in any way to be confrontationist. Nobody would desire to use legislation of this sort but it is a recognition of the changed attitude to industrial relations which has occurred in this country in recent years. One of the reasons for the change is the nature of the work place. We are now in a position where, because of the equipment that is being used and because of the often limited numbers of people with particular skills, workers can refuse to work in accordance with instructions so that a whole department, a whole range of work that needs to be done, can be brought to a halt not by all of the people involved in undertaking work but by a small number of people. Very often only one, two or three technicians need be withdrawn. This has changed the whole way in which industrial relations are undertaken. In the past there was a saying used in the trade union movement of 'one out, all out' on an industrial question. I think that had some justification because what it meant was that, when dealing with an issue of principle, the employer was denied his income and the employees, of course, went without their income. All work was brought to a halt and, on an important question of principle, both sides were bargaining essentially on an equal basis. Now what we have seen occurring is that a limited number of people go out on strike-maybe, only half a dozen. That can mean that thousands of people have nothing to do but they continue on the payroll and the trade union movement is its bargaining is substantially advantaged. Honourable members opposite may see that as being desirable. But in this case the Government is the employer. It needs to be understood that, in a situation where the Government is being held to ransom by one or two people who will not work as they are required, many thousands of other people who will benefit from whatever the industrial question is that is being argued, will still be paid when they are unable to work. I think honourable members will recognise that that puts the Government in a very difficult position. It has been said that clauses like this have not been used. They have not been used because they brought about a different situation. They put the employer and the employees essentially in an equal bargaining position and they negotiated more realistically. Of course, in the Public Service area these provisions have been used. I think they were used on about four occasions in relation to postal workers, telecommunications employees, ACTION buses in Canberra and the dispute involving the Department of Social Security. They were the four occasions on which I recall their being used. They were difficult questions but I do not think anybody would realistically say that it was inappropriate in those circumstances that the provisions be used. It meant that, where the Public Service was concerned, the people of Australia benefited. Just because a particular provision is not used is no reason for it not to be there. Assuming in criminal law that there was never a murder, would one want to legislate to say that there should not be a crime of murder? That is the sort of argument, the sort of logic, that is being used. It is appropriate to have a clause of this sort in the legislation. It is appropriate that in all the areas affecting the Public Service there be a clause of this sort, as was provided by the previous Government-not to be used, but to ensure that the Government employees and the Government are in a roughly equivalent position when negotiating-so that people will do exactly what honourable members opposite have argued, that is, sit down and talk realistically without resort to unfair practices on either side. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.54) —I have dealt with this matter in considerable detail in my second reading speech and again this morning in reply to the second reading debate. In order to save some time at the Committee stage, I do not propose to take much time on this matter at this point because, as I said, I dealt with it in some detail this morning. One thing ought to be said arising out of the contribution of the honourable member for Dundas ( Mr Ruddock). The equation of murder with industrial relations was extremely interesting in the sense that is probably does in some way indicate the state of mind of those opposite. The honourable member for Dundas puts forward a most extraordinary proposition by suggesting that, if the 'no work as directed, no pay' provision is not in a Bill, that in some way is analogous to saying that in fact there ought not to be a crime of murder because that crime is not committed very often. Quite clearly, the issue here is the basic philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government in respect of industrial relations. In outlining the views of the Government on that matter last night and again today-it was so well put this morning in the Committee stage by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles)-I assured honourable members that there was no way that the Government was convinced by the arguments that were put forward last night. I notice that the learned lawyer, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), has deigned to grace us with his presence again this morning. No doubt we will have a learned discourse from him later today on this matter. It would want to be better than his contribution last night. There was some confusion regarding sections 44 and 44A of the Broadcasting and Television Act. In order to clarify the situation and put it on the record, what I said in my speech this morning was that it should be poined out that the provision contained in sections 44 and 44A of the Broadcasting and Television Act was inserted by the Liberal-National Party Government-who else would insert them-several years ago. As far as I am aware, this provision has never been used by the ABC and it should be congratulated on not adopting such a confrontationist course. In reply the honourable member for Murray-I do not want to make a great issue of it but it ought to be clarified-indicated that he thought I said the provision had not been used very much. I think those were his words. Mr Lloyd —No. I accept that you said it had not been used by the ABC. I said that generally, meaning across the whole spectrum of the Public Service, it had not been used very much. That was confirmed by the honourable member for Dundas. Mr DUFFY —It is all right as long as the honourable member understands that. As far as the ABC is concerned, I stand to be corrected if he can find an example. Obviously the management of the ABC does not take the same view as those opposite that it is necessary. I ask honourable members opposite to consider this matter very carefully-not that they are likely to give it a great deal of thought because, as I say, it represents a deep philosophical difference between us-in the context of the Dix report. After all, the Bill is the start of the implementation of the recommendations of that report. Under the heading ' Personnel management' the Dix report referred to the emphasis being on co- operation and counselling rather than confrontation. That is basically what we are about in industrial relations. I have outlined that in some detail. I do not intend to repeat it unless it is necessary, unless we have another contribution by the honourable member for North Sydney, for which we all wait so eagerly, any time he decides to display his obvious knowledge which he thinks we are entitled to hear. I refer to the question of confrontation. This matter was raised also by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). They made a great point about the provision not being used but being in the legislation and able to be used as some sort of a threat all the time. It was interesting to note-when the honourable member for Dundas spoke he had no notes before him-all the instances in which the big stick had come out and had been used in industrial situations. He was aware of them all. They just clicked out of his mind automatically because it is something that he understands. If there is to be confrontation, that is the way he wants it. That has been the record of the Fraser Government in relation to industrial affairs. However sincerely the honourable member takes the view that he is correct on this issue it is my view that confrontation is what it leads to. That is the attitude of the Government and that is why we have in fact taken the view that we have in respect of this Bill. We will start with the ABC. Let the ABC deal with its industrial relations in the way that it thinks fit. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12 noon, I interrupt the Minister. In accordance with sessional order 101 (A) I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister give Mr Combe any opportunity to explain his position either to him, the Prime Minister, or to his Attorney-General before the Prime Minister directed that Ministers not have further contact with Mr Combe in his role as a consultant? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. The answer is no. I know that the honourable member will want me to go beyond that and I wish to do so. As I have tried to indicate to the House from the outset in this matter, the Government has attempted assiduously and with all the fairness that it can command to take into account at one and the same time the two considerations which we believe any responsible government must take into account in circumstances such as those with which we are dealing and to which the honourable member addresses himself in his question. Those two considerations are, firstly, the proper security considerations of this country and, secondly, in action taken to protect those security interests, the rights of individuals. It was apparent to me and to my fellow Ministers in the appropriate Cabinet committee dealing with these matters that in taking the decision that we had to take in respect of the expulsion of the KGB officer Ivanov the questions and rights of Mr Combe, the person who it has now emerged was implicated, were in issue. I and those of my fellow Ministers who were in possession of the knowledge relevant in this respect determined that in our handling of it those rights of Mr Combe would be protected as far as it was within our capacity to do so. Therefore, in making the decision that we did in respect of the position that no Ministers should have further dealings with Mr Combe, I did not rely, in the discussions with Cabinet and the full Ministry, on those points relating to the relationship with Mr Ivanov but, indeed, referred to matters which I think all members of the House, and certainly members of the Opposition, would agree were appropriate. I said that my Government should not be in a position where there could be seen to be some improper relationship or due advantage given to people in respect of relations with us being channelled through a person who had previously held high position in the Australian Labor Party. We deliberately-I say this quite straightforwardly; I think the honourable member will understand- did not go to the full Cabinet and the full Ministry in terms of raising the question of Mr Combe's relationships with Mr Ivanov. I point out to the honourable member that all members of the Cabinet and all members of the full Ministry accepted the basis that I put to both the Cabinet and the Ministry as in itself a good and sufficient reason for the recommendation which I put to them and which they accepted. From that point I at all times, and I believe all my Ministers as well who were in possession of the information, did nothing at all in fact to prejudice Mr Combe's reputational position by making any public acknowledgement here or in any other forum of the relationship of Mr Combe with Mr Ivanov so that through no action of either myself or those Ministers with knowledge would Mr Combe's position be prejudiced by the knowledge that we had. I believe, and I hope that the honourable member will appreciate, that in those circumstances not only I as Prime Minister but also those few Ministers privy to these facts did everything that we possibly could to ensure his civil liberties. I know through the honourable member's history that that is an issue that he has a real concern about. We did everything that we possibly could to ensure that nothing that we did acted in a way to infringe those liberties and rights. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the fact that recent events have raised fundamental questions regarding the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the rights of Mr Combe, will he say what is the attitude of his Government to these matters? Is he in a position to indicate how he proposes to respond? Mr HAWKE —I trust that all members of the Parliament, including members of the Opposition, are interested in knowing the position on this matter and that I will be able to outline it to the Parliament in response to the very serious and proper question addressed to me by the honourable member for Burke. Let me say, in regard to Mr Combe, as has now been clearly established, particularly as a result of events of this morning, that I, as I have indicated also further in answer to the previous question, have done nothing and have said nothing, including in the Caucus, to mention Mr Combe's name. I trust that that is now fully understood and accepted. Once, however, the name of Mr Combe was introduced into this House as part of a carefully co-ordinated set of questions on the part of the Opposition, designed to introduce his name, it was clear to me and those with whom I consulted that we then must move to do what we could to give Mr Combe every opportunity to look at the decision of the Government and the basis for the decision of the Government. We proceeded to do something which has never before been done in the country in terms of protecting the rights of an individual affected by a decision of Government in a security area. We got Mr Combe, with his lawyer, to have discussions with the Attorney-General. May I say that this was done with the full concurrence, and indeed the involvement, of the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Mr Combe prepared his statement of his knowledge of his past associations and what he had been doing. Mr Combe was given then the opportunity-I repeat that this was done with the full involvement of the Director-General of Security; so let there be no spurious suggestions that the Government was acting in a way contrary to the proper security interests of this country-with his lawyer, of examining the basis of the Government's decision. As a result of being given that opportunity, which I repeat to the House had never before been given to anyone in this sort of situation but was done with the full co-operation of the Director-General of ASIO who, for part of the time was present, Mr Combe in those circumstances of knowing the basis of the Government's decision associated himself with the statement put by me to this House that he understood and accepted the decision of the Government. Mr Speaker , I suggest to you and to all honourable members of this House who are capable of looking at this in terms of the twin issues of the security of this country and the rights of the individual, that this Government, in the circumstances where Mr Combe's name was raised by the Opposition and not by us, immediately did every possible thing it could do to ensure that Mr Combe had an unparalleled and historically unprecedented opportunity of knowing why the Government had acted as it did. I repeat that once Mr Combe had had that opportunity with his lawyer, the Attorney-General and the Director-General of ASIO he indicated that he understood and accepted-the Queen's English is pretty plain-the decision of the Government that the Ministers of this Government would not have any further dealings with him in his capacity as a professional lobbyist. That decision taken by the Government was understood and accepted by Mr Combe. I repeat that, in the interests of Mr Combe, once his name had been deliberately introduced into this House and therefore to the public by the Opposition, this Government moved to do everything immediately within its power to see that Mr Combe had every opportunity to look at the facts as we, the Government, knew those facts. On the basis of those facts, we believed in terms of the interest of this country that we had to act. Mr Combe understood and accepted our decision. Mr Anthony —That he was a security risk? Is that what he accepted? Mr HAWKE —I will respond to this interjection -it is not something I always do- because it is relevant to this answer. The people opposite who are professing-I must not use the word 'hypocritically' and I will not, Mr Speaker-their great concern for the civil liberties of Mr Combe now, by interjection, say that he accepted that he was a security risk. What concern have these people now for the civil liberties of Mr Combe when, by interjection, they say that he accepted that he was a security risk? What legitimacy does the Opposition have to stand up and profess concern for the rights and civil liberties of Mr Combe when, by interjection, it puts in the forefront of the public's mind the suggestion that Mr Combe has accepted that he was a security risk. What sham! The Opposition ought to be ashamed of itself. I proceed with respect to the rights of Mr Combe in terms of what this Government is doing in this whole issue. As I indicated in an answer which I gave in this House on Wednesday of this week, I make it clear that we are moving in the area of review of the security organisations-- Mr Goodluck —You said no, didn't you? Mr HAWKE —I know it takes more than once for some members to understand. I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave with respect to this question of intelligence organisations. On Wednesday of this week in answer to the Leader of the Opposition I gave an indication of what we were proposing. It can be found on page 412 of the Hansard. In these circumstances I take the matter further because it goes to the issues raised by the honourable member for Burke, and that is the rights of Mr Combe and the question of the security organisations. Not moved by the events of yesterday but in terms of our overall consideration of this matter, last week I had discussions with Mr Justice Hope as to his availability to undertake a new judicial review, a new royal commission into the security services of this country. That discussion that I had with Mr Justice Hope had followed discussions that I had had with members of the security organisations. This is not something that is being imposed. I made it clear to them that it was appropriate that there should be a judicial review-a point which has been accepted by them. Mr Justice Hope properly put to me-I remind you, Mr Speaker, and the House that this took place last week, not this week-that whether he would be available did not lie within his area of discretion but properly was a matter which would have to be referred through the appropriate channels to Chief Justice Street. I point out to the House that these proceedings were under way last week-that is, proceedings to initiate a judicial review into the operations of security organisations. I now say to this House that I have also instructed the Attorney- General to draw up the terms of reference of such a royal commission. But I now want to inform the House of something of which, in the nature of things, I could not inform the House when I gave the answer on Wednesday because at that stage the duplicity of the Opposition had not been revealed. But let me say that now that Mr Combe's name has been mentioned the first term of reference and the matter upon which we will be seeking the royal commissioner to report first are these things: First, the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov; secondly, Mr Combe's involvement in that issue; and, thirdly, the actions of this Government in respect to those matters. There will be a full judicial inquiry by the Government into the security organisations. The first term of reference will be a request that there be an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, Mr Combe's involvement and the actions of this Government in this matter. Mr DRUMMOND —Does the Prime Minister intend that the criteria outlined on page 3 of his statement of 11 May with respect to future contacts between Ministers and lobbyists be applied equally to all former Labor Ministers, staff members and party officials? Mr HAWKE —If the Opposition would like a full inquiry into the relationship of previous members of this Parliament as lobbyists with the former Government and with this Government, I am quite prepared to accommodate it. Indeed, I will ask Cabinet when it considers the matter to which I will refer in a moment to consider whether it is appropriate that that inquiry should take place. I am more than happy for a full inquiry to be held into the relationship between previous Liberal or coalition members of this Parliament as lobbyists with the previous Government. I think it is a good idea. As I have already indicated to this House I have asked the relevant Minister to prepare a submission to the Cabinet as to the question of the registration of all lobbyists. This is something which the previous Government had full opportunity to do but did not do. We have already acted to put this matter on an appropriate basis. It may well be that, in the process of doing that, it is worthwhile to conduct the sort of inquiry to which I referred. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government has given appropriate assistance to Father Brian Gore? Is the Government continuing to keep closely in touch with the situation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The House knows that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken a very close interest in this matter. In fact, he was in the Philippines recently and saw Father Gore. The Government, through the Minister, is closely monitoring the situation in the Philippines. I am assured by the Department of Foreign Affairs that there is close contact with Father Gore virtually on a daily basis. The Department will be able to monitor the legal proceedings that are taking place in the Philippines. On that note, it is of some concern to report that there has been a series of legal proceedings against Father Gore. Some time last year he was charged with an offence, that he was inciting rebellion and was in possession of explosives. That matter was adjourned and he was released on bail. Pending that matter he was again the subject of a hearing as to whether he should be deported because of charges that were apparently either then being made or likely to be made. That matter was also adjourned. Recently a further charge, of murder, was laid against Father Gore and others, including a Father O'Brien and a Father Dangan, six church workers and six others. In other words we have three charges, none of which has yet been finalised, the last one being laid only in recent days. In respect of the latter proceeding, I am advised that Father Gore has obtained release on house arrest. He has sought bail. The bail application was before the court on 10 May and I understand will be heard on 17 May. It is a matter of record in Australia that missionary priests are not likely to be involved in the sort of action for which these people are now the subject of charges in the Philippines. It is of concern to Australia that the issues of justice should always be applicable to all citizens . We are able to say, as far as we can follow the information, that the due process of law has been followed in the Philippines to the present. We are very mindful of the human rights interests because missionaries work in areas which are usually deprived. Obviously one motivation would be to try to improve the lot of those with whom they work, and they are not likely to be involved in any criminal activity. I assure the House that the Australian embassy has full consular access to Father Gore, and embassy officers are attending all hearings. Mr WILSON —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did he, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Aviation and Mr David Combe have discussions on 5 April this year on the subject of the development of Australia's uranium deposits? Mr HAWKE —I cannot speak for my other Ministers. I suggest, therefore, that the honourable member seek, by whatever processes, to direct the question to them. I can speak only for myself and answer in the negative. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. It is a follow-up, in a way, to the answer of the Prime Minister to the honourable member for Forrest. In view of the recent problems regarding an alleged lobbyist for a foreign country, will the Government consider United States or similar legislation requiring the registration of all those receiving benefits from foreign countries in exchange for trying to influence government policy on behalf of those countries? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Prospect touches on the most important aspect of this whole matter, and it is obviously one which honourable members opposite would be conversant with, that in the United States any person representing a foreign country and its interest in Washington-some States have complementary legislation-must register as an agent for that foreign country. That is one point. Those of us who were in Canberra during the 1970s certainly would have witnessed the great blossoming of what we now term the lobbying industry. Most of those people who have been attracted to the industry have been ex-politicians , ex-public servants and ex-journalists. I suspect that honourable members on both sides of the House could claim not only to know many or all of them but also to have among their ranks some personal friends. The problem of dealing with this question of lobbyists and their influence is not a singular matter. Some people, of course, wish only to have, and direct their attention to, influence on the Executive of government. In the United States, of course, there are great pressures and influences on the legislature. There the discipline of the party vote is not so great as it is in Australia. Problems associated with this situation are not encountered in this country. Nevertheless, we have witnessed a great number of people, some who work independently for a number of companies, and I suspect, in some cases, for foreign countries, as against others who may be classified as single industry lobbyists who represent, say, the Confederation of Australian Industry or some of the various chambers that have directors. Those problems also have to be looked at. Let me give notice to honourable members-obviously discussions will be held on this matter before any final resolution is put to the House-that it is my hope to seek the views of Opposition members, who have been in government for a lot longer than we have and have had to deal more with lobbyists, because lobbyists tend to take a lot more interest in the Government than they do in the Opposition. It may be that the ranks of lobbyists will be added to now by the 18 Liberals who lost their seats at the last election. The other difficulty that we have in this House, as honourable members opposite would know, is that if an ex- member of parliament becomes a lobbyist he has access to the facilities of the House. It is an added advantage to anybody representing a company if he has access to members of parliament in areas which are set aside just for members of parliament so that they may carry out their work. Those sorts of things will also have to be looked at. If honourable members opposite have any ideas on these questions that they think would be beneficial to the proper recognition of the role being played by these people in Australia, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them. I hope that we never face the day when the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) is a lobbyist here. I could not imagine him calling on us to give us his views and telling us a few things about what he wanted done for Australia. I think that he has done enough damage. However, as the Prime Minister has said, the matter is being looked at seriously by the Government, and it is hoped that we will be able to bring forward recommendations in the not too distant future. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to continue to seek to intervene in Australian Broadcasting Commission programming, as it is alleged he did in his telephone conversation with Dame Leonie Kramer on 8 February? Does he agree with her account of that conversation, and, if not, in what respect? Mr HAWKE —The fact is that on the day in question, following an approach to me by Senator Button and the putting before me of information in regard to events on an AM program of 4 February, and other matters, I rang Professor Kramer at about 4 p.m. and put to her my concern. Let me go to one aspect which personally concerned me-but which, I assure the Leader of the Opposition, was not the matter upon which I spent most time talking with Professor Kramer. On the AM program of 4 February, at the end of a long piece about the rather unusual events of the previous day, there was an observation, which obviously referred to me, that perhaps the Australian Labor Party may not be entitled for too long to proceed with some euphoria about the changed circumstances that flowed from the previous day, because there existed in a safe somewhere around the country something in the Costigan report involving me. I am sure that, despite some contretemps which the Leader of the Opposition and I might have had which were not too pleasant, he would regard it as appropriate, if, say, in his case something had been said on an AM program which implied that there was something in the records of the Costigan Royal Commission adversely affecting him and he knew it to be untrue-as in my case I knew that what had been said was untrue-that a complaint should be lodged about it. But I point out to the honourable gentleman that that was one of a series of matters. It seemed to me that it should not go unchallenged that the person who set herself up as the spokesperson for the ABC should regard a comment about me as not a matter for concern but should regard an interjection put in by one of the staff of the ABC in regard to President Reagan as something about which to be concerned. In the context of that juxtaposition, I certainly strongly complained to her about what I perceived to be a rather unfair treatment of matters which were involved in the election. I spoke strongly about it and I said that that ought to change, that the coverage of the campaign should not proceed like that. The report that Professor Kramer has given that I spoke to her and spoke strongly is accurate. I did. I repeat to the honourable member that I believe that he would regard it as proper, and certainly I think he would act in the same way, if a program on the ABC impugned his integrity as the AM program did mine. I think he would be very upset about it and I would certainly understand that, in the circumstances, he would strongly complain, as I did in the context of the other matters. Mr REEVES —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it a fact that tensions have arisen between the Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government over issues such as the Yipirinya school and the proposed recreation lake in Alice Springs? What effect are these tensions having on the process of good government in the nation? What steps does the Government propose to take in view of these tensions? Mr HOLDING —I think it is true to say that there have been some tensions. But due to an understanding now existing within the Northern Territory Government of the view of this Government that we will assert our constitutional prerogatives in these matters, not in any heavy-handed way but with a view to trying to produce rational and sensible approaches which are in the interests of all the citizens of the Northern Territory, many of the tensions have been reduced. In saying that I am bound to thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his very sound contributions and advice. The two areas which at the moment are a matter of negotiation are, first of all , in respect of the proposal by the Northern Territory Government to create a recreational lake on the Todd River which would have the effect of flooding sacred sites-sites which are very important to local Aboriginal people. As a result of this proposal, I have written to Mr Everingham and suggested that there ought to be an inquiry to look at the environmental issues, an inquiry in which the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory Government and local Aboriginal people are represented. There has been a very positive response to that. In respect of the Yipirinya school, for those honourable members opposite who perhaps are not aware of all the facts, I state that the matter is very close to resolution. The position in respect of this school is simply this: Some Aboriginal children were living in very difficult circumstances on the Todd River. These children simply could not fit into any of the existing educational institutions that were provided by the Government of the Northern Territory. As a result of the initiative of the local Aboriginal community, with the assistance of some churches and some teachers, their own independent school was established. This was a legitimate attempt by an Aboriginal community in Australia to provide educational facilities for its children, and I believe it deserves the encouragement and support of every honourable member in this House, particularly having regard to the commitments given by the Leader of the Opposition and some of the spokesmen opposite when they hawked themselves around Australia talking about their commitment to the rights of parents to educate children in the schools of their choice. How was it, when the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts were making those statements, that the position in respect of this small Aboriginal school was such that the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part had refused any funding at all for it? When the Aboriginal parents chose to exercise their legal rights and establish their rights by going to law, the former Minister refused that group of citizens any legal assistance at all and in fact told the Central Aboriginal Legal Service that if it provided these people with legal advice its funds would be cut off. Because I know honourable members are interested in the rights of parents to educate their children, I am happy to table the file so it can be examined by any honourable member opposite. If they do I think they will reach one conclusion. I would not be permitted to say that it would show the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts as being the pack of political hypocrites that they are. Mr Speaker, as you would rule that out of order I will not say it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw; he has already said it. Mr HOLDING —I withdraw that which I would not have said. I happily lay the file on the table so that honourable members, members of the Press and the people of Australia can see the kind of double talk and double standards which the Opposition and some of its spokesmen, including the Leader of the Opposition, are prepared to engaged in on an issue of such importance. Mr CADMAN —Does the Minister for Communications share Senator Button's regrets about the appointment of Dame Leonie Kramer as the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? I want a precise answer. Mr DUFFY —I am not aware of Senator Button having expressed regrets that Dame Leonie Kramer had been appointed Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. What progress has been made on further Government declaration to extend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? In particular, what is the state of negotiation between the Federal Government and the Queensland Premier? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his excellent question. First of all, I welcome the call by the Premier of Queensland to declare the whole of the Great Barrier Reef to be within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Since 1975 when the Whitlam Government passed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, only 14 per cent of the reef region has been incorporated in the park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has submitted to me in the last few days reports on the declaration of the majority of the Great Barrier Reef region not already in the park. The Government will be examining those reports and will decide on the declaration in the next week or so. Although the Federal Government is not dependent on the approval of the Queensland Government, and there are still some inshore areas which the Queensland Government is not enthusiastic about including in the park, it is my wish that these differences can be ironed out amicably. Thanks to the co-operation of the Queensland Government and the Premier's obvious enthusiasm for the park, the way has now been cleared-- Mr Dawkins —Consensus in action. Mr COHEN —That is right; bringing Australians together. The way has been cleared for 80 per cent of the reef to be included in the park. That is why I look forward with a sense of excitement to the forthcoming Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council meeting on June 3 in Townsville, in the honourable member's electorate. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and I will meet the Premier and the Honourable Tony Elliott, Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts to discuss the future of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is true that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has had some differences with the Queensland Premier over Australian fauna and introduced species. But he has had some support recently from an American entertainer with regard to his dispute about koalas. At the conclusion of the meeting we shall undertake an inspection of the reef, including the Low Islets off Port Douglas in the electorate of the honourable member for Leichhardt and Lizard Island which is a continental island with fringing reef, where the research station is located. We shall also undertake an inspection of the northern parts of the reef . Mr Connolly —Will the Minister kindly table the documents from which he was quoting? Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr COHEN —I table the document. Mr IAN CAMERON —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: What action does the Government intend to take following the decision of the New South Wales shearers not to return to work as a result of this week's decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission concerning the wide comb shearing dispute? I wish it would show the same sort of concern about the shearers as Joh does with respect to the reef. Mr WILLIS —The shearers' dispute is a dispute which the Government has viewed very seriously indeed. I have previously spoken to the House at Question Time about this matter. I indicated then that initiatives were being taken to try to bring the matter before the Arbitration Commission for rehearing and, indeed, subsequent to my statement to the House on Tuesday of last week, that application came before the Arbitration Commission on the initiative of the Australian Workers Union. There was some negotiation in the suspension period during those proceedings earlier this week. The Commonwealth put various propositions to both parties-the AWU and the graziers. That resulted in an agreement between the parties which included agreement that there should be a return to work on the basis of the present award-that is, the award including the provision with regard to wide combs-that the union would have the right to direct its members not to use the wide comb, and that the employers would do nothing in this period to expand the use of the wide comb. That agreement was reached by all parties and the Commission therefore left the matter in the position that it would hear a full case from the union if there was an immediate return to work. The union therefore recommended to all its branches that they return to work. As the honourable member has indicated one State, New South Wales, has not done so. I am pleased to say that all other States have seen fit to abide by the union recommendation and have returned to work. The Government regrets very much the decision of the New South Wales shearers not to abide by their union's recommendation to return to work. This means that this serious dispute continues in New South Wales. I view that matter very seriously indeed and I will have meetings with the AWU in the near future to try to persuade the New South Wales shearers to take a different view of the position. It is not something that the Government will tolerate. We will not sit back and let the dispute go on as it is. We will take every step possible to get the New South Wales shearers back to work. If that happens, they will get the rehearing which the New South Wales branch officials passionately told me they desire. If the New South Wales shearers do not return to work, I can presume only that they are not so confident in their case. They expressed to me full confidence in their case. If they have that confidence, they should return to work without any hesitation. Ms MAYER —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: What progress has there been in the Government's initiatives to achieve lasting stability in the building industry? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for that question. I have previously indicated to the House my great concern about the state of industrial relations in the building industry. A major element in that bad industrial relations situation has been the totally unacceptable behaviour of the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia. The previous Government responded to that behaviour some two years ago by moving to deregister the BLF. That case is still before the Federal Court. It is our belief that deregistration would be unlikely to result in a satisfactory resolution of the industrial situation in the building industry, simply because, even though deregistration would still be there, we would be likely to see a very bloody period of industrial disruption following that deregistration which may or may not result in some long term solution. Having that view, when I became the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I moved to establish a national building industry conference under ex -Commissioner Vosti. That conference had terms of reference which required it to try to obtain a binding agreement from the BLF in regard to future industrial behaviour and to abide by an agreed dispute settling procedure. I am pleased to say that I have had a report from Mr Vosti which indicates that substantial progress has been made. The deregistration proceedings are to come before the Federal Court next Monday. When the Court resumes a statement will be made on behalf of the Commonwealth regarding the agreement which has been reached to this stage. It is not appropriate for me to reveal the details of that agreement before it has been revealed fully to the Federal Court, but it does provide the basis for real optimism about the BLF's future industrial behaviour. I note also that when final agreement is reached it will enable the setting aside of the deregistration proceedings which have so far cost the Commonwealth almost $2m. Mr HAWKE —Before I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper, I wish to add very briefly to an answer which I gave to the honourable member for Sturt. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. Mr HAWKE —The House will recall that the honourable member for Sturt asked me whether, on 5 April, I had discussions with Mr Combe and a number of Ministers about uranium development. I said correctly, speaking for myself, no and that he would need to direct the question to others to find out about them. I do not want to be in a position where anything I said could have left any misunderstanding in the House. I am reminded that on 5 April the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory came to see me. The arrangement was made through my office that I would see him on matters that he wanted to talk about. When he came into my office Mr Combe was with him. I had no idea that Mr Combe was coming with him. He came in there-- Mr Anthony —He was there. Mr HAWKE —I think the Leader of the Opposition is listening to me. I give the House and particularly the Leader of the Opposition my clear undertaking that Mr Combe was not involved in the discussions. He sat next to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Mr Anthony —Oh! Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will have the opportunity of checking that with the Chief Minister. I trust that the honourable member will get on his phone and do so. I want to assure the House that my agreement to see the Chief Minister was not involved in any arrangement that I had made with Mr Combe. At any stage when the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory wishes to have appropriate discussions with me, of course I will seek to make myself available. I want to assure the honourable member for Sturt that the answer I gave was a totally accurate one. When I was reminded of the fact that it was on 5 April that I saw the Chief Minister and that Mr Combe was with him, I did not want to leave any misunderstanding or any possibility of giving a misleading answer to the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has requested that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that he wishes to correct a matter of fact. I indicate to other honourable members who have sought to make personal explanations that they will have the opportunity of doing so after the presentation of papers. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition indulgence to make the correction. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to advise the House that in my personal explanation earlier this morning, after detailing correctly the dates 21 April, 5 May and 10 May, I inadvertently referred at a later stage to 6 May. As will be clear from the earlier part of my explanation, this date was of course 10 May. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation 1981-82 annual report. As the report was printed in final form prior to the change in government, the Chairman's letter reproduced therein is addressed to the former Minister for Trade and Resources. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977. I present the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council 1981-82 annual report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I present the High Court of Australia 1981 -82 annual report. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members I present the schedules of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 July 1982 to 31 December 1982. Copies of the schedule are available at the Bills and Papers Office. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Queen's Fellowships and Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee on marine sciences and technologies grants and Queen's Fellowships for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority interim annual report for 1981-82. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said in answer to a question I asked today that I was not aware of the facts. I just wish to draw to the Minister's attention the remarks made by his supervising Minister as reported in the Australian dated Monday, 9 May. I will quote briefly from that article. The article stated: Speaking after the program, Senator Button said that although he had- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell was claiming a personal misrepresentation. Mr CADMAN —Yes, my word was impugned, I think, by the Minister in regard to-- Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member is going beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. Mr CADMAN —Perhaps the Minister would like to read the article in the Australian . Mr Duffy —Mr Speaker, would you like me to clarify the matter? Mr SPEAKER —The Minister says that he can clarify the matter. I will grant my indulgence to do so. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —I did not indicate that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) was not aware of a view having been expressed by Senator Button about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I said I was not aware of it. How would I know what the honourable member was aware of? The honourable member is an extremely clever man and he obviously may have knowledge of which I am not aware. I indicated to the honourable member that if Senator Button had expressed the view attributed to him, I was not aware of it, not that he was not aware of it. He might be aware of anything. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr CHARLESWORTH —Yes, most heinously. Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member for Perth to make his personal explanation. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I refer to an article which was published yesterday in the Australian. Honourable members on the Government side of the House would not, of course, recognise that newspaper as one being noted for its fidelity. The article is entitled 'Standing orders revoked by the member for Perth'. Your sensitivity, Mr Speaker, would, of course, allow you to appreciate the rather veiled reference to your ability to officiate in the House. But let me pass on to the substance of the article. The article states: . . . Ric Charlesworth will put aside his parliamentary duties for the next fortnight. Instead, the ALP member for Perth will attempt-- The article goes on to say that I will be involved in some sporting contest which is presently under way in Perth. I would like to inform all honourable members and all members of the Press Gallery that in fact I am here. I have no doubt that those of my constituents who are listening will also draw the same conclusion from my explanation. I reject the statement that I will put aside my parliamentary duties for the next fortnight. It is one that is without foundation and is very misleading. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member. Mr TUCKEY —At page 327 of House of Representatives Hansard of Thursday, 5 May 1983, and consequently in the Age newspaper of 9 May, there are published statements of an insulting nature to me, as expressed by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) on Thursday, 5 May. On that occasion I was present in the House but there was a fair degree of noise and I was unable at the time to get a clear idea of the statement made, although in fact some of the words that I believe I heard are now not recorded in Hansard. However, I imagine the noise would have made it difficult for the reporter. Since then I have been absent from the House and this is really the first opportunity that I have had to raise the matter. The statement questions first my intelligence, then my appearance and again makes what is a rather constant reference to the circumstances of my association with and involvement in the Liberal Party of Western Australia. I believe that the circumstance of intelligence can only be relative and I would imagine that the Minister concerned, considering his background, would accept an academic level as some measure; so I table for his information the highest educational certificate that I ever received, which was my leaving certificate. Unfortunately, I lacked the financial resources to do any more. Mr SPEAKER —Order! May I remind the honourable member that he cannot table the document. He has read the fact into Hansard. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister might like to pick it up later and tell me whether his was better. Further, when we talk about appearance I guess that is also relative . I am skinny and scarred. I do not know whether it makes any difference if you are fat and flaccid. Finally, I would like to raise the issue of my involvement with the Liberal Party of Western Australia and remind the Minister and the honourable gentleman sitting next to him, firstly, that when I was endorsed by the Liberal Party, it certainly was not as a result of the efforts of some backroom operation. I had to stand for endorsement on two occasions. Secondly, I would quite happily-- Mr Dawkins —It was because you told a fib the first time. Mr TUCKEY —It is amazing that the interjector-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to ignore interjections and deal with the matter that he is raising. Mr TUCKEY —The point has been made on numerous occasions in this place to try to denigrate me personally. The evidence of its lack of success can be seen in the results of the last elections, when my personal vote increased by nearly 9 per cent and the Opposition parties failed to increase their vote relatively to mine , on a two-party preferred basis. So I will stand on the decision of my electorate and will in future ignore the references of the twins sitting over there. I think that is the way it should be. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the nomination of senators and members to membership of the following Joint Committees: The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. In view of the length of the list of names I do not propose to read them but will have them recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House and in Hansard. The document read as follows- Senators Giles and Reynolds have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Lajovic and Reid have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House. Mr Fry, Mr Hollis, Mrs Kelly and Mr Snow have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Ruddock has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr McGauran has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Senators Ray and Richardson have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick has been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House and Senator Macklin has been nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Mr Griffiths, Dr Klugman and Mr Scott have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Hall has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Hunt has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Senators Elstob, Jones, Sibraa and Tate have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Hill, Lewis and MacGibbon have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House. Mr Bilney, Mr Charles, Mr Cross, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Gayler, Mr Jacobi, Dr Klugman and Mr Morrison have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Coleman, Mr Groom, Mr MacKellar and Mr Shipton have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Katter and Mr Lusher have been nominated by the National Party Whip. Senators Colston, Georges and Sibraa have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Martin, Reid and Teague have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House. Mrs Kelly, Mr Leo McLeay and Mrs Mayer have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Dobie, Mr Lloyd and Mr Ruddock have been nominated by the Opposition Whip. Senators Evans and Georges have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators Jessop and Rae have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House and Senator Macklin has been nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Mr Griffiths, Mr Holding and Mr Barry Jones have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Adermann and Mr Spender have been nominated by the Opposition Whip. Consideration resumed. Proposed new Division 2A. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Killen, Sir JamesBurr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, 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. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Johnson, LesBilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 46 to 77-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new Part VIIA. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(2.24) —by leave-I move: (2) After Part VII, page 49, insert the following new Part (comprising clauses 77A to 77Q): ''PART VIIA-COMPLAINTS ABOUT PROGRAMS Division 1-Preliminary Interpretation 77A. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- 'Commission' means the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission; 'Commissioner' means a member of the Commission; 'complaint', in relation to a program, means a complaint as to any one or more of the following matters: (a) that the program was unjust or unfair; (b) that an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a person took place in the course of obtaining matter for inclusion in the program; (c) that the program constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a person; 'person affected', in relation to a complaint, means the person by whom, or on whose behalf, as the case may be, the complaint is made; 'program' means a broadcasting or television program of the Corporation broadcast or televised, as the case may be, after the commencement of this Part. Division 2-Establishment, Functions and Powers of Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission. Establishment of Commission 77B. For the purpose of this Act there shall be an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission Functions of Commission 77C. The functions of the Commission are to consider and adjudicate upon complaints with respect to programs. Making of complaints 77D. (1) a complaint made to the Commission shall be in writing and shall identify the person affected. (2) Subject to sub-section (3), a complaint shall not be entertained by the Commission unless made by the person affected or by the person authorized by him to make the complaint. (3) Where the person affected is a deceased person or is a natural person who for any reason is both unable to make a complaint himself and unable to authorize another person to do so for himself, a complaint may be made by the personal representative of the person affected, or by a member of his family, or by some other person or body closely connected with him. Entertainment of complaints 77E. (1) The Commission is not required to entertain a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission- (a) the complaint is with respect to the broadcasting or televising of the relevant program on an occasion more than 5 years after the death of the person affected; (b) the subject matter of the complaint is the subject of proceedings in any court; (c) the subject matter of the complaint is a matter in respect of which the person affected has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court, and in the particular circumstances it is not appropriate for the Commission to consider the complaint; (d) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or was not made in good faith; (e) the person affected does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint; (f) in the case of a complaint made under sub-section 77D (3) by a person other than the person affected or a person authorized by him-the complainant's connection with the person affected is not sufficiently close; or (g) the complaint has not been made within a reasonable time. (2) Where the Commission does not, for any of the reasons specified in sub- section (1), entertain a complaint, it shall, as soon as practicable and in such manner as it thinks fit, inform the complainant and the Corporation of the Commission's decision and of the reasons for the decisions. (3) Where the Commission does not entertain a matter that is the subject of several complaints, sub-section (2) does not require it to notify each of the complainants if the Commission is of the opinion that, having regard to the number of complainants, it would be unduly burdensome to do so. Consideration of complaints 77F. (1) Subject to section 77E before proceeding to consider a complaint, the Commission shall send a copy of the complaint to the Corporation. (2) A complaint may be considered by the Commission at a hearing or without a hearing, as the Commission thinks fit, and, at a hearing, the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit. (3) A hearing under this section shall be held in private, and each of the following persons shall be given the opportunity to attend and be heard: (a) the complainant; (b) the Managing Director or an officer of the Corporation authorized by him in writing for the purpose; (c) any other person who, in the opinion of the Commission, is responsible for the making of provision of the program concerned. (4) Where the Corporation receives from the Commission a copy of a complaint, the Managing Director shall, if so required by the Commission- (a) make suitable arrangements for enabling the complainant and any Commissioner or member of the staff referred to in sub-section 77K (1) to view or hear the relevant program, or any specified part of it, if and so far as the Corporation has in its possession a visual or sound record of it; (b) provide the Commission and the complainant with a transcript of so much of the relevant program, or of any specified part of it, as consisted of speech, if and so far as the Corporation is able to do so; (c) provide the Commission and the complainant with copies of any documents in the possession of the Corporation, being the originals or copies of any correspondence between the Corporation and the person affected or the complainant in connection with the complaint; and (d) furnish to the Commission and the complainant a written statement in answer to the complaint. (5) Where the Commission proposes to consider a complaint, the Corporation shall, if so required by the Commission, arrange for one or more of the Directors, officers or employees of the Corporation to attend and assist the Commission in its consideration of the complaint. Reports by Commission 77G. (1) Where the Commission has considered and adjudicated upon a complaint, the Commission shall furnish a report on the complaint to- (a) the complainant or, if there is more than one complainant, each of the complainants; and (b) the Corporation. (2) Where the Commission has considered and adjudicated upon a matter that is the subject of several complaints, sub-section (1) does not require it to notify each of the complainants if the Commission is of the opinion that, having regard to the number of complainants, it would be unduly burdensome to do so. (3) Where the Commission furnishes a report to the Corporation under sub- section (1), it may require the Corporation to publish, in a manner specified by the Commission, a summary of, and of its findings on, the subject matter of the complaint and may, if it thinks fit, require the summary to be in a form prepared or approved by the Commission. (4) The Corporation shall comply with any requirements made of it by the Commission under sub-section (3). Duty to publicize Commission and its functions 77H. The Corporation shall make ( by means of broadcasting or television or otherwise) regular announcements publicizing the Commission and its functions of considering and adjudicating upon complaints. Delegation by Commission 77J. (1) The Commission may, by resolution, either generally or as otherwise provided by the resolution, delegate to a Commissioner or to a member of the staff referred to in sub-section 77K (1) all or any of its powers under this Part (other than this power of delegation and its powers to consider and adjudicate upon complaints and to furnish reports upon complaints). (2) A power so delegated, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Part, be deemed to have been exercised by the Commission. (3) A delegation of a power under this section- (a) may be revoked by resolution of the Commission (whether or not constituted by the persons constituting the Commission at the time the power was delegated); (b) does not prevent the exercise of the power by the Commission; and (c) continues in force notwithstanding a change in the membership of the Commission. (4) Section 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies in relation to a delegation under this section as if the Commission were a person. (5) A certificate purporting to bear the signature, or a facsimile of the signature, of the Chairman and stating any matter with respect to a delegation of a power under this section is, upon mere production, prima facie evidence of that matter. Staff 77K. (1) The staff required for the purposes of this Part shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922. (2) The Chairman has all the powers of, or exercisable by, a Permanent Head under the Public Service Act 1922 so far as those powers relate to the branch of the Public Service comprising the staff referred to in sub-section (1) as if that branch were a separate Department of the Public Service. (3) For the purposes of sub-sections 25 (5) and (6) of the Public Service Act 1922, the Chairman shall be deemed to be a Permanent Head. Division 3-Constitution and Meetings of Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission Membership of Commission 77L. (1) The Commission shall consist of not less than 3 nor more than 5 Commissioners. (2) A Commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor-General on a part-time basis for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. (3) The Governor-General shall appoint one Commissioner to be the Chairman of the Commission and another to be the Deputy Chairman of the Commission. (4) The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Commission is not affected by reason that there is no Chairman or Deputy Chairman or by reason of the number of Commissioners falling below 3 for not longer than 6 months. Remuneration and allowances 77M. (1) A Commissioner shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal but, if no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed by the regulations. (2) A Commissioner shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed by the regulations. (3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Leave of absence 77N. (1) The Minister may grant leave to the Chairman to be absent from a meeting of the Commission upon such conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Minister thinks fit. (2) The Chairman may grant leave to any other Commissioner to be absent from a meeting of the Commission upon such conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Chairman thinks fit. (3) References in sub-sections (1) and (2) to the Chairman shall, if a Commissioner is acting as Chairman, be construed as references to the Commissioner so acting. Resignation of Commissioners 77O. A Commissioner may resign his office by writing signed by him delivered to the Governor-General. Disclosure of interests 77P. (1) Where a Commissioner has or acquires any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of his functions in relation to a complaint made to the Commission- (a) he shall disclose the interest to the parties; and (b) except with the consent of the parties, he shall not take part in any deliberation or decision of the Commission with respect to the complaint. (2) Where the Chairman becomes aware that a Commissioner has, in relation to a complaint, such an interest as is mentioned in sub-section (1)- (a) if the Chairman considers that the Commissioner should not take part, or continue to take part, in any deliberation or decision of the Commission with respect to the complaint-he shall give a direction accordingly; or (b) in any other case-he shall cause the interest to be disclosed to the parties. (3) In this section, 'party', in relation to a complaint, means the complainant or the Corporation. (4) References in this section to a Commissioner shall, if a person is acting as a Commissioner, be construed as including references to the person so acting. Termination of appointment of Commissioners 77Q. (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. These clauses basically put into the legislation, in place of the community affairs officers it is proposed that we have in this Bill, a complaints arrangement which is completely independent of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. When the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) closed the second reading debate, he said that there was confusion on this side of the House. I suggest to the Minister or to those who have advised him that he or they are the ones who are confused. During the second reading debate, I referred to the British Broadcasting Corporation complaints procedures and the formula it used. I pointed out that I thought that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should adopt the same formula. I have in front of me a document relating to the British Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I acknowledge that it covers commercial and non-commercial broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It was made quite plain in the amendments that have been proposed and in the Opposition's approach that obviously it applies only to the ABC and, in commonsense, can only apply to the ABC because that is what this legislation is about. If one examines it further, one will note that in the legislation before us complaints can be made to community affairs officers only if there has been an error of fact or an invasion of privacy. The British Broadcasting Complaints Commission which commenced on 1 June 1981 in the United Kingdom can investigate complaints of unjust or unfair treatment in sound or television programs, unwarranted infringement of privacy in or in connection with the obtaining of material. If honourable members examine our amendment, they will see that basically similar words are used. In part, our amendment states that the program was unjust or unfair or that there was unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a person. Today the question has been asked: How are these things defined? I point out to the honourable member who asked that question that the Complaints Commission structure has been operating now in the United Kingdom for a couple of years and obviously it is able to handle complaints concerning programs. The main point I make is that the complaints procedures which were contained in the original legislation introduced by the previous government would have been passed by the Parliament before the date of the last election if the coalition Government had remained in office and an election had not been called. I say once again that those amendments are based on the experience of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the United Kingdom. I understand that, if the Australian Democrats had been given the opportunity in the Senate, they would have moved amendments basically identical to those the Opposition has moved here . Their amendments would have reflected the British Broadcasting Complaints Commission procedure. I draw to the attention of all honourable members the very clear distinction between the legislation that the new Government has introduced, what we are suggesting and what we would have put in place if we had remained in power. The major difference is whether there should be an internal complaints procedure or an independent complaints procedure. In relation to the community affairs officers for whom this legislation provides, the Managing Director of the Corporation shall appoint community affairs officers in each State. In addition, the Managing Director shall appoint an officer of the Corporation-that is, an employee of the ABC-to be known as the Principal Community Affairs Officer whose duties will include the co-ordination of the activities of the community affairs officers. Other powers are given to the Principal Community Affairs Officer, including the right to decide whether a complaint is justified. In other words, the whole complaints procedure being proposed by the Government will be dealt with by officers within the ABC. I wish to make two points in this respect. I recall honourable members on the other side of this House after asking how policemen investigate other police officers and how the people of this country or the people of a State can be shown that justice is being done when an internal inquiry procedure is being undertaken. I think that more than ever now, because of the attacks on the ABC by certain members of the Labor Government there has to be-- Mr Charles —Rubbish! Mr LLOYD —I agree that the attacks were rubbish but, nevertheless, they were attacks. More than ever there must be independence so that complaints can be followed through and the people of Australia have to be able to see that there is independence. The only way that there can be justice for the ABC itself and justice for the people of Australia who pay for the ABC is to have a completely independent complaints procedure so that not only will justice be done but also will justice be seen to be done. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(2.30) —I support the amendment. In relation to the question of complaints, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983, without this amendment, is feeble to the point, as it were, of pointlessness on two grounds. The first, that of organisational grounds, has been covered by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). The Bill provides no independent or outside adjudication and no right of appeal. This is in contrast, for example, to what was proposed in the former Government's amendment to the original Act and in contrast to the British Broadcasting Corporation model. I remind the House that a person is disqualified from being on the complaints commission in the United Kingdom as long as he is an employee of the BBC or appears to be concerned with or has an interest in the preparation of programs. That is for the obvious reason that independence and the appearance of independence are of great importance. That provision is completely removed from this Bill. I have nothing further to add to what the honourable member for Murray has said about that point. I wish to raise another point which I think is important. It concerns the definition of 'complaint'. I raised this matter last night and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) interjected. I would like to deal with this now. The definition of 'complaint' in the former Government's Bill included inaccurate, unfair or biased programs. A complaint could be about bias or unfairness. In the new measure before the Committee, reference to bias or unfairness has been removed entirely. No complaint is to be permitted on the grounds of bias or unfairness. In other words, it is a nugatory proposal, a trivial proposal, whereas in the Bill proposed by the former Government-indeed, this applies to the BBC's arrangements and to the arrangements of any comparable country-one can complain on the grounds of unjust or unfair treatment in a program. The Minister last night intervened by way of interjection and said: Would you like to define bias and unfairness? Of course, that has an obvious, superficial and immediate appeal because people do disagree. Nevertheless, the point I am making is that not only do other organisations such as the BBC solve this problem but so do the Minister and the Government because in clause 8 (1) (c) which outlines the duties of the Board, the Bill states: to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is . . . impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism; . . . I put it to the Minister-I do not see how he can avoid dealing with this matter- that he cannot say that there is no such thing as unfairness or bias when every fool and his brother knows that there are such things even if they are difficult to define. The Minister recognises that fact. Clause 8 (1) (c) places a duty on the Board to see that programs are impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. That duty is imposed upon the Board but when a citizen wants to complain he may not even complain in terms of the duties imposed on the Board. He cannot go to the community affairs officer and say that the Board has not carried out its duties of ensuring that the programs are impartial according to recognised standards of objective journalism. He can only complain about an error of fact-that a program got a date wrong, an initial wrong or something like that or that there was an invasion of privacy. I have no complaints about the invasion of privacy provision. That is fine. But I object to deleting any reference to bias and unfairness when they are the main grounds of complaint about programs. This applies to commercial television and broadcasting as well as to public broadcasting. They are repeated and predictable. But even if they are not repeated and not predictable, the main grounds for complaint are bias and unfairness. The citizen is to be deprived of the right of complaining about that despite the fact that that right is incorporated in the statement of the duties of the Board. The amendment will meet that need. It deserves the support of this chamber. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.35) —I do not propose to take much time on this matter because it has been dealt with twice already-in the second reading speech and again this morning. I inform the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) that the question last night was not who will define what is unjust and unfair, but what the definition is. There has not been any definition come forward today as to what is unjust or unfair. The duties of the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in presenting programs in an impartial manner are entirely different matters to allowing people to make complaints on the basis of something being unjust and unfair. As this Bill now stands, the provisions cover these points: Inaccuracy of fact, the truth of statements which give rise to a complaint and invasion of privacy. As the honourable member indicated, there is no dispute about the latter. One of the most interesting aspects of the amendment is that it brings some consistency at least to the Opposition's argument. One of the objections to the amendment is the same objection as we and many other people had to the proposal that was put forward in the Bill presented by the then Government last year; that is, the fact that an outside body will control these sorts of matters so far as the ABC is concerned. We on this side of the chamber are prepared to allow the ABC to run its own affairs. That is one of the issues which have been discussed by honourable members opposite quite extensively over recent weeks when it has suited them. It goes to the basic argument that has been going on, that is, the question of the independence of the ABC. With the community affairs officers and the obligation on the national co-ordinator to report to the ABC on the officers' activities, we are confident that the complaints provisions which have been provided in this Bill will meet any concerns that the public has. The Opposition seems to have some fetish that for some reason we should take that away from the ABC. As I have said over and over again in this debate, we have attempted to start down the long road of implementing the recommendations of the Dix Committee of Review into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The handling of complaints within the ABC-as we proposed last year and as is now proposed in this Bill-is in line with the Dix report. For all of the reasons that have been pointed out, the amendment is not acceptable. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(2.37) —I would be interested to learn the problem the Government has with the definition of 'fairness' because my understanding is that the Government is looking very hard at whether there should be a fairness code for commercial radio and television. I think fairness and unfairness could easily be defined in such a code. I conclude by quoting from an answer by Senator Button in the Senate on Tuesday, which adds to the confusion that he seems able to create in the area of the Australian Broadcasting Commission at present. He said: . . . if the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as the national independent broadcasting service, makes statements which are untrue and defamatory of members of this Parliament, those complaints will be investigated by an independent officer . . . I repeat: . . . an independent officer and, if necessary, the ABC would be requested to retract. That is an appropriate procedure which is identical almost to the procedures of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Senator Button's understanding of the legislation is rather different once again from the responsible and, I believe, more accurate description which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has been giving the Committee. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.38) —The question of untrue and defamatory statements being investigated by an independent person has been raised. Under the proposals regarding the complaints provision that we are providing, people will be appointed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Clearly if the complaints are not going to be investigated independently they will be investigated impartially. There is no doubt about that. We are not saying that someone will wander along to somebody in the office of the ABC and make a complaint and that is as far as it will go. We agree that the complaint has to be properly investigated. There does not appear to me to be any contradiction in that. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has a problem concerning definition . It may well be that the fairness code is a matter the Government will have to look at. Unlike some people who have this enormous confidence in their capacity to define these things, it will be a matter that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will look at. As I said earlier, it is not necessarily a matter we would have to be committed to as a government because the ABT has been asked to look at that fairness code. It may come back and say it is extremely difficult, for the sorts of reasons we have raised here today, but that is a matter we will look at when we get the report. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(2.40) —I support the comments of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The Opposition seems to have some paranoia about this clause. I suppose one should not be too surprised about that. Last week the Minister put before the House comments that the former member for Gippsland made about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Mr Nixon said: Never in its history will the ABC be under such close scrutiny as during the coming election campaign. That was the 1975 election campaign. Mr Nixon tried to interfere in the affairs of the ABC on several occasions. Notwithstanding that, the former Government is back again trying to get passed several pages of amendments that will bring about a body to look into all sorts of complaints in regard to the ABC. One has to look at the ABC as a part of the whole industry. In the commercial industry if one has a complaint one goes to the station. Unless it is a monumental complaint that one is past the post with one does not really get anywhere. One then has to be shuffled off to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Here the Opposition is asking for a body to be set up with all sorts of powers to look at all sorts of things in regard to the ABC, and I think it is ridiculous. I do not think one can look at one clause in isolation, as the Opposition has done. We must look at the whole Bill that we are introducing for the setting up of the Corporation. I think the Bill the Government has put forward is a very sensible one. All of the clasues are highly commendable. We will be rejecting the amendment. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.42) —The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) raised the question of someone independent looking at a matter which was untrue or defamatory. Certainly that would be the case because that would not be a complaints procedure. The independent person who would be looking at that would, of course, not be within the context of this Bill. It would be a court, as has happened. At this stage we do not know the ultimate result of the case. That seemed to be the right which was being denied to the Premier of New South Wales when it was suggested that the action which he took should not have been taken. In fact if the ABC makes some statement on either television or radio that is untrue or defamatory, for example in relation to me, I do not think I would go to the Commissioner for Complaints whether in the context of this Bill or of an outside monitoring body that the Opposition obviously favours . I would certainly be going somewhere else. As far as that is concerned it would be an independent body; it would be a court. Mr Lloyd —I thank the Minister for trying to help-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The honourable member for Murray has spoken twice to the question. He cannot be called again. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.43) —I think the last statements on this clause by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) have further confused the situation. He talked about an independent body. He said that it would be a court. Yesterday Senator Button, in another place, in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission said that the complaints would be investigated by an independent officer. The clause we are discussing today nowhere has a provision as to the definition of independence. I think we need to hear the Minister's views on that . Senator Button also says that the procedure-I assume that he is talking about the Government's Bill; we hope that he is-is almost identical to the procedures of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I should like the Minister's views on that, because the clause that the Government has presented is nothing like the BBC provisions in relation to the independence of the complaints officers. How will the complaints officers be independent? That does not appear from the legislation itself. What are the criteria of independence? There is no reference to those. What is the composition of this complaints procedure as compared with the BBC procedure? The Minister owes us an explanation, particularly as I understand that Senator Button is the Minister assisting this Minister. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(2.45) —If the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) cares to look at the clause on community affairs officers, clause 82, he will see that the appointment is by the Managing Director and that the complaint is referred to a community affairs officer in accordance with proposed subsection (1), which relates to an error of fact or an invasion of privacy. Clause 82 states: Where a complaint is referred to a Community Affairs Officer . . . he shall, as soon as practicable after the complaint is referred to him, inquire whether the complaint is justified and report his findings to the Principal Community Affairs Officer. The community affairs officers are within the ABC, the Managing Director's appointment of them does not mean that they are not independent on this issue. The fact is that the community affairs officers are going to examine complaints in an independent way. That is why complaints will go to them and not to management. That is the whole principle of the matter. The honourable member for Higgins is now claiming that some answer that Senator Button gave in the Senate yesterday conflicts with that. No doubt one of his colleagues will be able to ask Senator Button what he meant. What was specifically in Senator Button's mind at that time is something that I ought not to be expected to be able to relay here today. I am not clairvoyant. That is a matter that can be questioned. But, as I say, the community affairs officers appointed by the Managing Director will be acting independently. They are not going to be told by the management of the ABC how to conduct the operation. They are appointed within the structure. What we are saying is that we do not want imposed on the ABC somebody from outside who is going to take over the complaints procedure, because we have confidence in the ABC conducting its own affairs in relation to complaints that will be made against it. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.47) —I note that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said that he was not clairvoyant in relation to what Senator Button may have said in another place about the Minister's portfolio. However, I return to the point about independence. I admire the Minister's attempt today to define what independence means and what his colleagues, he thought, were saying in the Senate. But the point remains that, notwithstanding the Minister's hopes about the independence of the Principal Community Affairs Officer and of the community affairs officers, there is no provision in the legislation for independence in the sense that Senator Button mentioned in another place yesterday. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(2.48) —It is quite clear to me that what the Opposition is looking for is an independent inquisitor to hear complaints against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. From the previous Bill which the Opposition introduced last year, it is clear what it is after. The Opposition wants an inquisitor to be able to enter the homes of employees of the Corporation. That is quite clear, because-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are not discussing the Bill introduced previously. We are discussing the amendments that we introduced today, which are completely different. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Murray will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr MILTON —For the information of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the reason I am drawing attention to the previous Bill is the fact that he, too, mentioned that Bill. I shall refer to just one or two of the clauses of that Bill, because they show what the Opposition is obviously after. Opposition members want inquisitorial powers over members of staff of the Corporation. Clause 84 of the previous Bill states: The Commissioner may administer an oath or affirmation to a person required to attend before him pursuant to section 83 and may examine the person on oath or affirmation. Let us look at the clause 85, which the Opposition was proposing. That states: For the purposes of an investigation under this Part, the Commissioner or an authorized person may, at any reasonable time of the day-- I wonder what that means- enter any place occupied by the Corporation and may carry on the investigation at that place. It is very clear what members of the Opposition are after. They want an inquisitor. They want to be able to put employees of the Corporation on the rack . We can see through this. It will not be approved. Question put: That the Part proposed to be inserted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) be so inserted. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Killen, Sir JamesBraithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Hayden, W. G. Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 10 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I call the honourable member for Stirling. I remind honourable members that the honourable member for Stirling is making his maiden speech and should be accorded the usual courtesies. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.4) -May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker on your election to the distinguished positions which you hold. I am sure that we on this side of the House are confident that the House will flourish and prosper under your leadership. The Governor-General's Speech reflects the enormous trust and responsibility given to us by the electors of Australia. In this respect, I acknowledge with gratitude the trust and consideration given to me by the electors of Stirling. I want to say more about the electorate of Stirling shortly, but may I say at this point that I stand ready and am proud to represent all electors of Stirling in this, the Australian Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, with my background previously in economics, education and industrial relations, and having had contact with business, government and union organisations, I am looking forward to using these skills in my efforts to represent the electorate of Stirling in the Australian Parliament. It is important, Mr Deputy Speaker, to emphasise that the election of 5 March represented a significant departure for the Australian electorate. The electorate chose to move towards a more co-operative and humane set of policies, away from the more divisive policies of the past. I add at this point my particular appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the effort that he gave in the electorate of Stirling to secure the vote that I obtained. I can assure the House that the vote we obtained in Stirling is a reflection of the support and trust given to the Prime Minister. On the question of co-operation and leadership, I wish also to thank most warmly my family and my many friends and supporters who supported me most thoroughly during our 14-month-long campaign for the Federal seat of Stirling. Honourable members will understand when I point out that one cannot build co- operation and support without a loyal family and selfless friends and supporters . That I am here today is a recognition and acknowledgement of their contribution and the trust of the wider electorate. I also add that members of the Government and of the Opposition have a collective responsibility-I emphasise that I believe we all have this responsibility-to ensure that the national crisis we face is resolved in the form of good government for all Australians. One thing that we gained during that 14 month long campaign was the knowledge that the people out in the electorate were saying that they did not want spectacles in the Parliament where we engaged in a lot of sideshows. They want genuine solutions to their economic and social problems. After the extended period of government under the previous administration, it is quite evident that we have to confront many problems, and it is our job to try to do something to resolve them. It is pointless for us simply to stay here and score points without attending to these major issues. To some extent the events of the last few days might reflect on that as well. I cannot let this occasion pass without reflecting on the personal pleasure I gain from being the first Labor member to represent the Federal seat of Stirling since Harry Webb, who held the seat until 1972. Some honourable members here would remember warmly the contribution that Harry Webb made. One of the things that also have to be acknowledged in the game we are in is that many of us here had prior to our election candidates who, so to speak, ran the ball up for us. In this respect, in Stirling Mr Graham Reece and Mr Grenville Pitts had previously unsuccessfully contested the Federal seat of Stirling but to some extent they whittled away the vote of the Liberal Party. During our campaign we had the opportunity to meet and listen to a large number of electors. Over 14 months one really does get that opportunity. One of the things I want to say in respect of the speech I am making today is that I believe my role in the Federal electorate of Stirling is to try to react to, reflect, and to some extent convey the aspirations and wishes of the electors of Stirling. That is a major responsibility because one thing that does happen in the process of government is that very often electors feel quite shut out of the whole process of government. The job of many of us here-there are many honourable members on the Government back benches-is to try to make sure that our electors are brought into that process of government. Therefore, I particularly want to talk about two themes in my speech. One is the theme of access and the other is the theme of participation. It seems to me that whenever we look at Australian society we are looking at two very key issues. I would like simply to read through these. There is clearly a demonstrated need to improve people's access to jobs, to housing, to financial stability and security as well as to social justice, educational opportunities and clean environment. I now turn from the notion of people having access and look at the fact that people have a right to participate. One of the clear things in Australian society is that we must create opportunities for people to participate in employment, in housing, in education and in the conduct of their work place. I want to say more about that shortly. Particularly important is that women should be enabled to participate equally in society, as should people in the ethnic communities of Stirling such as the Yugoslav, Macedonian, Greek and Italian people. That is very important. I emphasise the view again that I am conscious that as the representative of the Federal seat of Stirling I must be a person who affords where I can the opportunity for our electors to have access to me and thereby access to the Government, and also at the same time to participate in that process. That is a very serious and thorough process through which we must go. These goals of access and participation have been foundational in our whole campaign. We spoke to many thousands of electors and asked them their opinions. We surveyed them, knocked on their doors and spoke to them at shopping centres. Many of the things I am saying this afternoon reflect the observations that they made but also, obviously, they reflect the policy and philosophy of the Australian Labor Party and of the Government of which I am proud to be part. I go on to talk briefly about the electorate of Stirling. It is a very interesting electorate. It contains suburbs that lie to the north of the city and stretch from the coastal areas of Scarborough, Wembley Downs, Trigg and North Beach through Innaloo, Karrinyup, Gwelup, Carine, Hamersley, Stirling, Balcatta, Osborne Park, Nollamara, Balga, Tuart Hill and Mirrabooka in the east. It has been said about this electorate that in many ways it is middle Australia. It certainly does have those characteristics but importantly, under the economic impact that we have recently experienced, it also reflects much of the poverty and housing problems, problems that women face and problems that migrant groups face. It is essential in our process of government that we do something to try to redress those problems. It is also, interestingly, the electorate which has the distinction of being the residential area of the new Premier of Western Australia, Mr Brian Burke, and of the previous Premier, Ray O'Connor. I know that the electors who live in Balga, where Brian Burke lives, are particularly proud to have their Premier living in their midst. In the whole change of politics in recent times one of the things that we are hoping to do in Australia is restore some pride and some dignity to people because I believe that some people, who have recently left this place, have sought to downgrade pride and dignity in the Australian society. The fact that many of us are here as new members is a reflection of the fact that we believe those values are important. I would like to re-emphasise that. The electorate contains substantial numbers of people who have chosen to make Australia their home and the electorate is much the richer for their having joined us. I am privileged to have been welcomed by many of these people, among whom the late Herb Graham was a well recognised and worthy friend. I take particular pleasure in sharing the friendship of people such as Mr Len Girando, Alec Damos, Vic Radis, Sam Adamos, Mick Martinovich, Barry Udovich, Vladi Radalj and Sam Vincuillo. I also recognise the late Tony Marcon. I say this particularly because very often many of us make statements about the worth of people in other communities without being able to say whom it is we know, whom it is we relate to and why they are worthy. I choose to point out that there are many who are very worthy in those communities. We must ensure in our society that those who choose to join us are given the right to participate fully in the wider involvement of our community. Another aspect of the electorate is the importance of small and medium business . The industrial area of Osborne Park, in particular, and all the service industries in the electorate have been particularly hard hit by the recession experienced by the Australian economy. Some of the responsibility for this can clearly be laid at the feet of the previous Government but, to be fair, other influences are at work. I go back to what I said before-our business here must not be to lay blame; our business here must be to offer solutions. I would like to direct many of my energies towards that. Importantly, the National Economic Summit Conference afforded the opportunity for many of us to look towards genuine solutions for these problems, particularly in industries such as metal fabrication, motor vehicles, market gardening and the electrical and general retail industries in the electorate of Stirling. I believe that we must come up with some real solutions to those industrial problems. I turn now to the question of unemployment. As I have already remarked, this is a major issue facing the people of Australia and the electorate of Stirling. The policy pursued by what we might call the lamentable Fraser regime was designed to lay blame on the unemployed. It was also designed to lay blame on the education system. I think it is fair to say that there was a deliberate strategy to say that young people who could not get jobs were work shy-some people were known to use the term 'dole bludgers'-or that the education system had failed them because somehow it had not fitted them into the work place. But this completely slipped past the major question; that is, that somehow the society as a whole had failed young people. I think that is a clear recognition that we have to take. The fact that so many of us are members of parliament means that we must bear an obligation to young people to try to stop laying the blame at their doorstep and to try to offer some genuine solutions to their problem. If we were to approach the education system and the needs of young people with open minds we would cease laying blame and would begin to look for genuine solutions. I might add also at this point that I believe that the role of education can be considerably advanced. Recently I worked in the arena of business studies. I found that was an area in which vocational education was particularly important, where people could be enabled to get jobs. I signal the feeling that I believe that the technical and further education system offers a great deal of future. I had the privilege of working in the educational system in New South Wales. I believe that there is a lot to be said for that system. It is also worth noting that in many of the major areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and so on, the suburbs that are very deprived are the ones from which many of those who enrol in technical and further education colleges come. If we have an obligation to try to open up opportunities and access and to give people the right to participate, it is in those suburbs that we must have an obligation to do our best. I believe we can do it. Further to my theme on participation, I have a particular concern about the participation rates of young women in the tertiary education sector. I believe that one of the things that have happened in recent times is that young women have been led to believe that they ought not to have aspirations and that they ought to accept some of the blame for this economic damage and to curb, so to speak, their determination to get on. I believe that we have a major role to perform here. We have to make sure that that area of disadvantage is somehow remedied. In taking my point further, we as a government will pursue the theme developed in the Governor-General's Speech and in the National Economic Summit Conference communique to restore economic growth and stability so that all those people whom I have mentioned might experience reduced social disadvantages. The secret of the Summit was that it not only developed social, political and economic expectations about the proper and responsible role of government but also demonstrated that we in Australia can approach national problems in a bipartisan way. I believe that there is a clear message here for us and those who have gone before us. Housing represents a major social and economic necessity. I believe that we must increase people's access to and participation in housing. I wish to cite some interesting and, I believe, very damaging figures on the housing circumstance in the Federal electorate of Stirling. Let us look at the area of tenancies. Of the current stock of tenants that the State Housing Commission in Western Australia has, 58 per cent, which amounts to 27,951 tenancies, are in receipt of rebates. Let me explain what that means. In order to qualify for a rebate in the State Housing Commission one must be getting a gross family income of $180 a week or less. Fifty-eight per cent of the people who are in Housing Commission tenancies in Western Australia are, therefore, on a gross family income of $180 a week or less. If we look at the current new tenancy rate-in other words, those who are coming into the system-we see that in the last year 84 per cent qualified for some rebate in terms of State housing. In other words, 84 per cent of the people who came into State Housing Commission tenancies in Western Australia in the last year were on incomes of $180 a week gross or less. If we look at that as an indication of poverty, we have a major and damaging issue to face. I repeat: It is not one with which we ought to start playing and say: 'Let us try to lay the blame here or there'. Let us at least recognise that that is the dimension of the problem which we face. A solution to that problem, I believe, might well be to try to generate many more jobs and activities in the housing industry. In line with this, one of the recommendations I am making is that we try to extend the charter of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation so that we can provide insurance cover for those who borrow money. Currently the Housing Loan Insurance Corporation provides insurance cover for those who lend money. Clearly, if we were to extend that charter, many more people could get into the housing industry in terms of buying houses and we would certainly do much to increase jobs and people's access to housing. I move now to access and participation in industrial relations. We were all heartened by the Economic Summit and the theme that it stressed. I think it is clear that already we have under way in Australia a deal of access and participation in industrial relations. However, might I add that we have a major role to play in terms of getting unions and employers more involved in the solution of major industrial problems. One of the grave problems of the past, as has been pointed out, was that many of those who sit opposite sought to enhance industrial conflict. Clearly, our job must be to try to resolve industrial conflict. The electors of Stirling, in fact, suggested that one of the major tasks that we must pursue is to try somehow to resolve industrial conflict. Incidentally, one of the things that does stand out in this connection is that some 94 per cent of those electors who were surveyed said that there ought to be price surveillance along with wage restraint. What they are after is the sort of equity that I have been talking about this afternoon, that is, a degree of equity in the industrial relations arena. What we also need to do in terms of industrial relations in Australia is to advance the whole notion of what I would call project planning. When we develop major projects in Australia, we do not look simply at the engineering and construction aspects; we look also at the human aspects involved. We look at the access to child care in major development projects and we look at the array of social facilities to which people might have access. If we are sincere about this we will do much more to enhance the growth and development that is present, certainly in Western Australia, but it will be shared. People will have public equity or, if one likes, community equity in these major projects. We will not have the narrow and rather limited approach to projects which we have had in the past. The way ahead is clearly indicated. With the development of new technology in Australia-we can talk about the new sunrise industries-I believe there is a way ahead. If we are to pursue the policies of co-operation with respect to these industries, much can be done. Clearly and obviously we underinvest in research and development not only in terms of the Government but also in terms of the private sector. The comparisons between Australia and other countries are not good. We must do more to try to get research and development pursued. We have many people who have had distinguished careers. We have many institutions which offer high levels of distinction in terms of their work. It is our responsibility to ensure that that is supported. I believe that we have a lot to offer the rest of the world. In summing up, I draw attention to a matter which underpins all of which I have spoken, that is, the question of nuclear weaponry and the threat of war. We all have some access to the areas about which I have spoken. We can participate in and have a say in them. Now that we have done something major about changing government in Australia, we will get some responsible and reasonable decisions. But in the arena to which I have just referred, many of us are left out. Unless we face up to that question and unless we go about deliberately and humanely restraining the threat of nuclear weapons, all of which I have spoken before will be lost. I am encouraged by the support and trust which we received in the election campaign. I am warmly encouraged by my colleagues in the Federal Parliament. I am certainly encouraged by the support which I have received from the electors of Stirling. I can only say that I look forward to the task ahead. With the support that my family has given and the support which I am getting here in the Federal Parliament I am encouraged in believing that with optimism and good sense we will overcome. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.24) —I congratulate the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) on his thoughtful and constructive approach to the Address- in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech. I hope that his period as a member of this House will be not too long but that, while he is here, he can continue in this constructive fashion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also congratulate you on your election to your high office. I wish you well in the performance of your difficult duties. Today, in the Address-in-Reply debate, I wish to turn to the subject of health policy. His Excellency the Governor-General, referring to the Labor Government's intentions in the field of health, had this to say: My Government will proceed to fulfil its undertaking with regard to the proposed Medicare arrangements, to ensure that the costs of health care in Australia are fairly shared and that proper health care is available to all. The Governor-General went on: My Government will end the existing fragmentation of policies and funding for the aged through the creation of an Office of Aged Care. The Government proposes to modify the present over-emphasis on nursing home care for the aged and improve the availability of hostels and community care services. Dealing with the second paragraph first, let me say that the Opposition supports the creation of an Office of Aged Care, which was well under way during the period of the Fraser Government, and was announced formally in Mr Fraser's policy speech. The Opposition also supports the objective of improving the distribution of taxpayer funds for aged care across the spectrum, with additional emphasis on hostel and home care. However, I should point out that the flat statement that the creation of the Office of Aged Care will end the fragmentation of policies and funding for the aged is typical of the sweeping statements made by this Government that are misleading if not downright deceptive. The truth is that the creation of the Office of Aged Care will be but the beginning of the difficult process of co-ordinating policies at the Federal level only and, even there, exceptions will have to be made for war veterans. It will not, for example, end the inconsistencies between Federal and State policies, or the difficulties experienced by voluntary bodies and the private sector in the provision of aged care. The incoming Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will have the benefit of studies commissioned by the Fraser Government to assist him in the resolution of these immensely difficult problems which I regarded as the most complex in the health field during my period as Minister for Health. It does not help the present Government to begin by raising expectations well beyond its capacity to deliver, as it does in the wording of the Governor-General's Speech. However this instance of hyperbole is trivial when compared with the outright deception contained in the policy speech of the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) when he proclaimed in Messianic terms that 'nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families'. Even allowing for the literal impossibility of this claim, in that two out of 10 Australians already pay nothing for hospital and medical care, and taking the charitable view that what the Prime Minister meant was that of the eight out of 10 Australians currently required to make some provision for their hospital and medical care, nine out of 10 will pay less under Labor, the assertion is demonstrably false. The present Minister himself gave the lie to the Prime Minister's claims when he said in a document distributed privately to Australian Labor Party members in January 1983: For those who elect to pay the health levy only-nine out of ten will pay less or continue to receive free services under Labor's Health Plan. He went on: For people desiring extra private cover in a public hospital the total contributions (health levy plus private hospital insurance) under Labor's plan will still be less for approximately three out of four Australians than the after-tax cost of similar cover under the present scheme. The question I ask is: Why did the present Minister for Health countenance a claim in his leader's policy speech that was demonstrably false? Was he excluded from the preparation of the health section of the speech? If so, why did he not seek to explain publicly the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's claim and his own briefing to his colleagues? If he was consulted on the wording of the policy speech and condoned the use of deceptive and misleading words in that speech he has a lot of explaining to do to this House and the Australian people. Clearly, with this Government, it is necessary to examine the fine print. Of course even the claim that three out of four will pay less is over- optimistic, to say the least. During the election campaign I drew attention to a simple error of arithmetic in Labor's costings of $680m, in that it had assumed that it could make use of the money released by abolishing the income tax rebate on health insurance during the first year of the scheme. Labor had forgotten that rebates are paid out in the tax year following the year they are earned, and therefore during the first year of Medicare they would still be liable for the tax rebate from the previous year. The present Minister fudged the issue by talking about the introduction of Medicare in January, thus spreading the miscalculation over two years, but a gross oversight it remained. In any case the starting date has now extended to February and may well extend further. Another aspect of the costings I questioned was the administrative cost, which had been estimated at an additional $25m in the first year. A paper presented in March 1983 by the Health Insurance Commission-Medibank Private-states: . . . in the first year, the additional administrative costs to be incurred by the Commonwealth in respect of the Medicare program will be of the order of $75m . Thus, administrative costs are likely to be three times the original estimate, a trivial matter perhaps to the socialist reformer but an extra $50m to the person paying taxes. There are other aspects of the costings about which I have grave doubts too, but these two examples will serve to illustrate that the initial cost estimates of this scheme, despite the lengthy consideration the Minister claims to have given them, are yet another Fabian fantasy. What this means is that the proposed one per cent levy on incomes, increased from the 0.75 per cent of an earlier forecast, will not be enough to finance the scheme. Additional sums will be required from general tax revenues, making the levy itself merely an artificial basis for false comparisons of cost with that of the existing scheme. Let us make no mistake about this. The introduction of this new means of financing will not reduce the nation's health bill. It will, however, disguise the real size of it, and in so doing make it easier for providers and patients alike to expand it at an undesirable rate. So much for the Prime Minister's false policy speech claim that will dog this Minister for Health throughout his term of office. I will be watching closely as the sums unfold to document the full extent of this falsehood and expose it to the public gaze. Let me now return to the first paragraph on health in the Governor-General's Speech, which refers to the introduction of the Medicare program. In response to my criticisms of this program the Government will no doubt claim that it has a clear mandate to introduce such a scheme, on the grounds that it has been proposing it for some time under the label of the Hayden Health Plan, and although it eschewed the equally alliterative attractions of the title 'Hawke Health Plan' in favour of the term 'Medicare', it remains nothing more than a revival of the same old Medibank that was peddled in 1972 and implemented so disastrously in 1975. But despite the claim of a mandate, despite the long period of earnest salesmanship by the Minister for Health, and despite, it must be said with humility, the warnings put out by previous health Ministers, the public has not a clue what is in store for it under Medicare. In a survey conducted by Morgan polls 12 months ago, 78 per cent of those polled did not know what the Hayden Health Plan was all about. It is my belief that they still do not know. So much for the mandate. So let us examine exactly what it is that we are about to have thrust upon us. Why should we be embarking on fundamental and disruptive change to our national health program at this time, particularly when there is a need to concentrate on the key economic issues, such as unemployment? What substantial benefit will there be for the Australian people that would justify this change at this time? In the months ahead, the Opposition will demonstrate that if change is required in health care policy and practice in Australia, and I believe it is, the change by the Government is in exactly the wrong direction. The Minister often refers to Canada as a model for the ideal health scheme. After a decade of operation, the Canadian scheme is breaking down. We are about to repeat Canada's error despite 10 years of experimental evidence that indicates failure. We shall show that the Government is about to follow a profoundly mistaken course, which if implemented according to plan, will cause deep concern and dismay to patients, providers and taxpayers, and necessitate even more difficult corrective action than we were obliged to undertake after the last Labor health experiment. What then is wrong with Medicare, the scheme with the deceptive package and soothing name? Firstly, it will cost more than is claimed, even if the levy is set at the one per cent promised. Costs not covered by the levy will be met from higher taxation or higher deficits which have much the same effect on the taxpayer in the end. I have already given two examples of high costs, and will identify the remaining examples as soon as the detailed scheme is announced by the Government. Secondly, contrary to the Government's claims of greater simplicity, the scheme will in fact be more complicated for the majority of those currently insured. Instead of one-stop shopping with the one health fund, a person not content with basic cover-that is, without choice of doctor in a hospital, to take the simplest example-will need to shop at two places: Medicare for basic cover and a private fund for the extras. More than half of those currently insured do insure for extras, so far more than half the scheme will be more complicated, not less. Thirdly, it will damage to a much greater extent than have previous government interventions, the ideal of private professional medical practice. The Government is already a disturbing third party to the transaction between the professional person, the doctor, and the client, the patient. The increasing presence of the Government in the surgery has had a demoralising and in some respects corrupting effect on this relationship. Evidence of this has been presented to the Public Accounts Committee in its recent inquiry. Under Medicare , the Government will take a giant step down this road by making it possible for doctors to bulk bill the Government not only for pensioner health benefit and health care card holders but for all patients. If the doctor is prepared to accept 85 per cent of the schedule fee, the patient will have a so-called 'free' service. The implications of this proposal might not be clear at first sight, but they are far reaching. Patients will be encouraged by this anti-private-practice Government to demand that their doctor bulk bill. For most patients the doctor will not be obliged by law to comply, but he or she will be under pressure. Pressure will be applied through the ban on gap insurance, that is, the capacity of the patient to insure for the 15 per cent gap between the schedule fee and the amount paid by the Government for each consultation. With no gap insurance allowed, with the prospect of bad debts arising from the non-payment by the patient of the 15 per cent difference between schedule fee and government reimbursement and the threat of losing patients to nearby doctors who will bulk bill, doctors will be sorely tempted to give in and join the Government payroll. If they do, they will be sounding the death knell of private medical practice, and will be threatening the long term quality of health care. Bulk billing encourages the overuse of medical services. It will clog surgeries with those not truly needing assistance to the disadvantage of those in genuine need. It will encourage the less scrupulous practitioners to provide unnecessary services . And it will place the medical practitioner in almost total bondage to the Government, which will then tighten the screw. I hope that the Australian Medical Association and other professional organisations will conduct a major campaign to alert their private practice members to the dangers of bulk billing for the general patient. Fourthly, it will place additional strains on an already stretched public hospital system by discouraging the use of private hospitals. Not only does Medicare reintroduce the unfortunate concept of so-called 'free' public hospital treatment without income or means test, but also it loads the dice heavily against private hospitals in the competition for privately insured patients. There are heavy disincentives under Medicare against private hospitals in this proposed insurance and subsidy arrangement, and the proposal to provide the private hospital bed subsidies through block grants to the States will encourage Labor State governments to pursue their own vendettas against private hospitals. As public hospitals are already suffering queuing problems, they will be placed under further strain with the new weight of numbers wishing to transfer from private hospitals. It is ridiculous that privately financed facilities should be thrust into idleness at a time when every public dollar is being stretched to the limit. Before leaving the subject of public hospitals I should draw attention once again to the plight of Queensland, which already has a 'free' public hospital system. Queenslanders will be forced to pay a new levy for services they already receive free. After this outrage was pointed out by the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Austin, and myself during the election campaign, the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) made a hasty promise in Brisbane to make up the difference with a special grant. On my figures it would need to be at least $70m, as that is the amount that Queenslanders would lose in the first year alone under the scheme. Fifthly, the centralisation of all basic insurance under Medicare will increase costs and throw thousands of private health insurance fund employees out of work . In what must surely be one of the craziest acts of a government faced with high unemployment, Medicare will take away over 60 per cent of the business of the private health insurance funds, that concerned with basic insurance, and leave them with the scraps of 'extras' insurance. Not only will this action throw thousands of employees of the funds out of work, but it will also make the 'extras' insurance more costly pro rata than it now is because of the smaller scale of operation of the funds. The private funds have offered to operate the basic insurance of Medicare on an agency basis at good non-profit private enterprise rates, but the Government seems hell-bent on transferring this function to the more costly public sector, in line with its socialist inclination to have everything run by the Government. As we all know, private enterprise can do much better. Today I have in the time available been able to give only a broad outline of these profoundly mistaken proposals. I shall, in succeeding weeks and months, expose their fallacies in more detail. At the same time I shall be examining afresh the Opposition's approach to the problems of health care, in both its preventive and delivery aspects. As Labor takes an historic-to use the Prime Minister's favourite adjective-backward step, we shall be determining new policies that will take health care forward on the basis of individual choice, high quality, restored professionalism and greater encouragement for the private provision of services. Our aim will be to improve the standard of public and private provision alike. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before I call the honourable member for Perth I remind the House that the honourable member is delivering his maiden speech and should therefore enjoy the usual courtesies. I call the honourable member for Perth. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(3.41) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you well in the execution of what is a most responsible position. I trust that you will convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker also. There is a tendency for traditional thanks to be glibly uttered by speech makers in many forums. What I would ask is that Australian Labor Party supporters appreciate the depth of my gratitude for their efforts to secure my election to this Parliament. It is my task to justify their faith, efforts and idealism. If we accept that a political maiden is someone new, fresh and untried I would fall into that category. I earnestly believe that, as a maiden performer , I can bring to my electors a fresh approach and a new vigour. To be untried and ultimately succeed is preferable to being seen to have tried and quite obviously failed. My electorate has clearly perceived that to be the case in its assessment of the defeated Fraser Government. Fundamental to the task of solving the problems of Australia in general and my electorate in particular are the issues of true democracy and the restoration of economic growth. That our system of democracy is superior to many others is incontestable. True democracy underpins every activity pursued by this Parliament. The electorate of Perth is not anywhere near as well served as it should be in this area. The same can be said for the nation as a whole. In my electorate nearly 1,500 people voted informally on 5 March. Australia- wide that represents more than 150,000 Australians whose votes did not count, Australians whose votes in most circumstances were disallowed because of technicalities. The situation regarding the Senate is a travesty of democracy and is much worse. Optional preferential voting, the nomination of political parties on ballot papers and perhaps the use of new technology in time would make for a fairer and simpler voting system. In Western Australia and Queensland we still struggle under the confusion of dual rolls for the State and the Commonwealth. The state of these rolls is a cause of great concern. However, more so was the coalition's blatant use of political power to close the rolls 24 hours after it called the last election. Hundreds of thousands of Australians were thereby disenfranchised. We must legislate to ensure that in the future the rolls remain open for one or two weeks after the calling of an election. Young people, country people and many transient flat dwellers deserve most consideration in this regard. The right of Australians to vote must be clearly established. My electorate contains large numbers of migrants, who almost invariably are confused as to their voting privileges. We need to communicate better with these Australians. Finally, my electorate contains many hospitals, hostels, homes for the aged and nursing homes. There is an urgent need for mobile polling booths. The depoliticisation of postal voting is essential. Electoral officers rather than political parties should have responsibilities in this area. We will thus improve the conduct of our democracy and eliminate the abuses that presently occur. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has set in motion a joint select committee to investigate electoral reform. I applaud his initiatives. Honourable members on both sides of this House should see the fairness and good sense of such an approach. Competent and imaginative economic management will be fundamental to providing us all with the means to exercise the liberty and implement the reform that we all see as attainable and desirable. A misguided monetarist approach destroyed the capacity of our economy to grow. The short term reactionary decisions of the past were often without direction or useful economic purpose. Unquestionably, it will be extremely difficult to chart a course of economic management that will be smooth sailing. Many of my colleagues will, I am sure, address the complexities of the economy. However, I would like to tackle one of the more vital areas of this whole question, one which has far-reaching consequences for our country, our future and, especially, our children's futures. Manufacturing and primary industries, service functionaries and mining are the traditional areas of our economic base. The future of many of these areas, and many new areas, will depend on our ability to adapt to and embrace new technology. But more important than adaptation will be our commitment in research and development to the skills and minds of our fellow Australians, a commitment to our advancement and initiative. The ramifications go throughout the whole structure of industry, the economy and industrial relations. A well known lyricist of the 1960s and 1970s wrote that 'the times they are a changing' . Some of his words should echo in this House and in another place. He said: Come senators, congressmen, heed ye the call, Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall, For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled. I submit that this country has stalled. In many areas Australia's industrial base has barely changed since the 1950s. The steel industry has the technology of the 1950s. No wonder we cannot compete! We were on the winning side in 1945, but how do losers like Japan and Germany look now? As the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) pointed out so eloquently yesterday in answer to a question from the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi): . . . of 24 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Australia ranks twenty-third, and a poor twenty-third at that. He was referring, of course, to two indices, the value of high technology exports and the ratio of imports over exports. Our expenditure on research and development each year averages about half of that being spent by ten other nations of comparable affluence. Almost without exception high technology industries are in foreign hands. Ad hockery in decision making by successive governments-I point out that for 30 of the last 33 years they have been conservative governments-shortsightedness with regard to research and development, the extent of foreign ownership and a less than full commitment to education are among the reasons for this. I am not suggesting for a moment that we can compete in every area of new technology or scientific research, but if we choose our mark we can succeed in many different projects. The choice is very clear. We can remain the users, the buyers, the installers and the quarriers or we can commit ourselves to broadening the base, scope, efficiency and self- reliance of our economy. To be sure, there will be risks, but the greatest risk will be not to act and to do so will be to accept economic regression and eventual collapse. It is important that we plan our future very carefully. I will give an example: In 1981-82 Australia bought $410m worth of computers from overseas. Over the last three years we have spent more than $1 billion buying computers overseas. The ratio of imported to locally made computers and microprocessors overwhelmingly leans to the former by 30:1. We are exporting jobs overseas. Unless extraordinary initiative is shown by Australian governments, business and scientists in the next 15 years, it is unlikely that computer assembly will be a major employer here in Australia. I add that it is anticipated that the market will expand rapidly. The Government's role must be to monitor changes and anticipate trends. Using this information, we can suggest appropriate new technologies and expand our base where desirable. We should aim to expand in areas that have good employment prospects and are relevant to Australia's condition, culture, ecomony and environment. Computer hardware is an area in which we may have missed the boat to some extent, but the production of software is an area that is much more labour intensive and for which there is a great demand throughout the Pacific basin. We have a major language advantage over our Asian neighbours and certainly this is a very attractive area for expansion. Biotechnology is an area about which we often hear the Minister for Science and Technology talk. It has a strong skill base in Australia and the prospect of being a great growth area in the 1980s. Australia has to be there, get involved, support and encourage financially these frontier areas. The offshoot of success in this area could be vital to our industry, primary producers, mining, medicine and public health. In Western Australia research on genetic engineering is presently being carried out. It uses microbes produced by cloning deoxyribosenucleic acid-this process is part of the so-called recombinant DNA technology. These microbes might be able to clear up industrial waste, play a role in extracting metals for industrial purposes, unlock a cure for jarrah dieback, or help create a new strain of wheat. I am sure honourable members from the National Party would appreciate that. Development of water treatment and water recovery systems is vital to every State in the Commonwealth. Perhaps we should exclude Tasmania from this statement. It seems to have too much of the stuff and it seems intent on submerging itself in a proliferation of man-made lakes. But again, biotechnology is providing answers that are vital to water supply problems. Communications technology is an area needing urgent development. Scientific instrumentation, lasers, medical technology, industrial ceramics-the list goes on and on. All offer opportunities for investigation, expansion and development. All of this, of course, is underpinned by two key elements. The first is a fundamental commitment to research, development and education. The Government must and will expand research and development and assist in providing venture capital where required to new high technology enterprise. In the area of education, Australia has been sadly left behind. Seventy per cent of American, Canadian and Japanese children complete high school. Alas, the figure in Australia is about 35 per cent. We have about half as many young Australians completing tertiary studies as in those countries. Our tardiness in the area of education will greatly hinder the restructuring of the work force which must take place if we are to develop, remain competitive and expand. A bright light on the horizon is the planned allocation of funds to provide secondary schools with computers. Of course, Australian hardware must be used. It is to be hoped that in the future our total commitment to further equality and advancement in education will have its rewards in the long term. The second element which underpins our embracing technological changes is the planning that must take place. In consultation with industry, workers, unions, scientists and, most importantly, the public in general, technological advancement must be planned so as to reduce undesirable effects. Changes which are too rapid can completely disrupt the whole structure of the work force. The questions of job sharing, working hours, early retirements, incentives for increasing participation of young people, and retraining must be debated and solutions found. The greatest challenge between now and the year 2000 will be to institute changes in a planned and balanced manner, to be selective and aware when we make planning decisions. The right decisions can mean the creation and generation of wealth, new employment opportunities, increased productivity in established areas and expansion into new areas of expertise. Again, I quote from the Minister for Science and Technology in the answer he gave yesterday in the House: Science and technology is the greatest single factor in promoting high growth rates in modern economies. . . . New high tech industries . . . are not just valuable in themselves; they provide essential forward and backward linkages with our existing industrial structures which must update and diversify if they are to meet murderous competition overseas. We must accept this challenge, anticipate the problems and meet them face to face with humane and realistic solutions. Success in the areas of our democratic reform and economic management will provide the impetus for the pursuit of the great social measures which can benefit this country. Education will play a vital role, as I have already outlined. Health policy is an example of what we must tackle as a basic priority, even though the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) just minutes ago said that this is not a basic priority. It is an issue fundamental to the well being of all. For the past seven years we in the profession have endured five different health schemes that have been confusing, complicated, inequitable and discriminatory. No government should countenance the fact that approximately two million Australians are not covered by health insurance. It has been a conscious decision for some to gamble on good health. Unfortunately, for most people such gambling has been an economic necessity. I commend the concept of community sharing of the health burden and utterly reject the user or 'sick' pays philosophy of the former Government. Our Medicare proposal will restore equity, simplicity and universality to health care. Most Australians expect that their health insurance should cover the costs of health care and many recoil in horror at the extra outlays often incurred. The whole question of doctors' fees, Commonwealth schedules, Australian Medical Association lists and pharmaceutical benefits must be examined and brought up to date. I might add that such an examination must take place with the profession, and I commend the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for the attitude of co- operation that he has established with the medical fraternity. Medifraud must be examined and action must be forthcoming. Criminal fraud is deplored by all Australians and the medical profession is not immune. The delicate situation of overservicing must come under scrutiny. Again I emphasise that the medical profession must be privy to any assessments. This delicate balance between overservicing and careful medicine is very complex. Perhaps, however, the areas of greatest need lie outside the realms of doctors' services and therapeutic medicine. Our aging population, and one which increasingly creates its own ills, leaves us with many new challenges. Rehabilitation and prevention are key areas for action. Community-based nursing and health care are essential and of rising importance. Chiropody, physiotherapy , dietetics, occupational therapy and many other areas of care will be enhanced, encouraged and made available by the establishment of community health centres. The Mayo Clinic, perhaps the most famous centre of advanced medical science and research, has in its midst a community health clinic. The everyday problems of medicine cannot be forgotten. We will also emphasise the development of a community care program to provide support for those aged people who wish to remain at home. All honourable members have no more precious gift than that of health. The Australian Parliament has the capacity and obligation to provide for every Australian equal opportunity for adequate health care. Finally, I wish to make one broad comment with respect to my electorate of Perth. The most outstanding demographic feature of the Perth electorate is that it contains the largest concentration of migrants in Western Australia. The decision to migrate has often resulted from much deprivation and difficulty. Many have come here as refugees because of war, famine or political persecution. Others are in Australia to be reunited with their families. Whatever the reasons , these people represent one of the most socially needy and disadvantaged groups . Their unemployment is higher and the problems associated with beginning again in a new country are many. Special assistance is required for language study and teaching. Counselling and services with regard to unemployment and social welfare are vital. We must not fragment these Australians. It is their inalienable right to pursue their cultural heritage and, in so doing, they will continue to enrich the whole cultural framework of Australia. My electorate and in fact all Australians are looking for a long term approach to the issues and the problems that confront us. I have used my time today discussing just some of those problems which, in my view, are central to those whom I represent. Australians want and deserve to have a say in our democratic process. Their capacity to vote formally, their eligibility and the value of their vote must be simple and just. They deserve equality of opportunity in education, health care and social welfare. They deserve a planned approach to the new challenges in our economy. They do not want nor do they deserve division , political expedience and ad hockery. The Government's mandate is very clear. The Governor-General has outlined the program succinctly. I, along with fellow supporters of the Government, will strive conscientiously to give Australians a better democracy and greater equality of opportunity and direction. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(4.0) —I would like to compliment the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), who has just completed his maiden speech, and the many other honourable members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate. Their idealism is refreshing and is to be encouraged. I hope it is not too quickly dimmed. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I convey my congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his election, unopposed, to the high office of Speaker of the House of Representatives. I recall, as other members do, his previous occupancy of the office of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker during the previous Labor Government and the occasions since then when he has acted as Deputy Chairman of Committees. In all of those offices his capability and fairness has been evidenced clearly and consistently. We wish him well. I add my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to the office of Chairman of Committees. Indeed, in many debates when I was a Minister in charge of piloting legislation through the Parliament and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were chiding my political philosophies you nevertheless declared a number of times that I was a nice bloke. I thank you for that. I believe you too , sir, are a nice bloke and I wish you well. May I further say, as other members have said previously, that the previous Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), filled that office with great distinction. His outstanding capacity, impartiality and his delightful sense of humour added status and prestige to that office. He has, I am pleased to say, earned the respect and, I believe, the admiration of honourable members on both sides of the House. I would like to add my tribute to his splendid contribution. The opening speech by the Governor-General at the assembling of a new parliament is necessarily a broad blueprint of the direction proposed by the elected Government. Precision and detail is supplied as the foreshadowed legislation itself is subsequently presented to the Parliament. The program, however, in many instances is disappointing. It commences with excuse and apology. All the problems of unemployment, inflation and recession which in its policy speech the Australian Labor Party said would be remedied virtually overnight are now given as the very reason why the Government's promises will not be fulfilled. In the history of Australian government there has never been so rapid a turnaround. Taxes which were to be so definitely reduced in February' s manifesto are now predicted to increase. The Budget deficit which, in February , was not at all important-the Labor Party claimed that as a stimulus it could be increased for the nation's benefit-is now presented as disastrous and as the reason that the program, the mandate, has been so quickly abrogated. In Opposition in this place, day after day, we saw the Labor Party blame the then Government for the nation's ills. As the Westpac Banking Corporation review says, it is now a matter of facing up to reality. That is a good review. It is rather kind to the Government, I must admit, but it has got some good common sense in it. The principles espoused in it will be neglected by the Government to its detriment and at its peril. We knew when we were in government that the rate of unemployment was unacceptably high. The then Opposition said that we should and could create jobs. Scenario after scenario was painted involving massive expenditure on government job creation schemes. What a difference now. Small business, the manufacturing industry and the private sector were depicted as the villians making massive profits. The then Opposition conceded no blame to the escalation of wage and salary demands or the impact of deep world recession. Now it sees that crucial to recovery and reconstruction is the development of a strong, competitive manufacturing industry. Well, the Australian Labor Party has learned something. Mention of small business was made in the Governor-General's Speech, but only just. Small business was allocated four and a half lines in a speech of 15 pages which magnanimously recognises the vital contribution of the small business sector to the Australian community. However, in spite of all the election campaign blandishments this gives little comfort and little ground for any expectation that this section of the community which provides the vast majority of Australian jobs will not collapse yet under escalating costs, union demands which it cannot afford and increased taxation. Mr Braithwaite —I bet they didn't mention anything about the sugar industry. Mr ADERMANN —No, it did not rate a mention. Australia is a great trading nation but one would not think so from the Governor-General's address. There is no comment at all about the disastrous effects of industrial militancy which has threatened our reputation as a reliable supplier. There is no reflection on the demands for wage increases and reduced hours which have been translated into increased costs and which mean that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. What a facetious utterance the Government makes. Listen to it: Multilateral and bilateral trade policies will be pursued to ensure that markets for Australian exports are made secure and developed to their full potential. That sounds great but the obtaining, securing and developing of markets can be assured only if our customers can rely on delivery, if they can be assured that strikes will not close our factories and mines so that we cannot produce, that our sheep can be shorn, that our wheat and minerals can be shipped, that transport and rail carriage will not be paralysed, that armadas of ships will not be anchored for long periods at sea because our ports and wharves are closed by strikes. What does the document say about Australian primary producers securing markets for wheat and livestock and then union militants blacklisting those markets and refusing to handle the exports? In fact, what does the document say about primary industry? There are precious few words and very little of them is of substance. Similarly, I was greatly disappointed to see but four lines about something I regard as very important, the devotion to veterans affairs. In these few words in the Speech, I note the commitment of the Government to establish a royal commission to inquire into the effects of herbicides and pesticides on veterans of the Vietnam War. I do not think I can be justly accused from any side of the House of any lack of compassion or desire to find the answers which the Vietnam veterans desperately seek. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this chamber on this very matter. I do not propose to repeat in any detail what I said in the past. It will be known that I have reservations about this approach. I do not oppose any such commission or any other endeavour to find the answers, but I do say this constructively and with a lot of sympathy: We still need a thorough scientific and epidemiological study whether we have a royal commission or not. A royal commission cannot be a substitute for such a study. It may complement it; it may reinforce it; and I hope it does: But it is more than a question of compensation and pension, although those things are important. There must be a concentrated scientific and medical study. A judicial inquiry cannot as well or as completely answer the many questions which desperately worry veterans and their families. They have questions such as: 'Am I likely to develop a cancer or other delayed complication in later years? Is there treatment to best protect me against such an event? Should I father children, as I desperately want to do as a family man? What genetic defects can I transmit?' A judicial inquiry cannot answer those questions. I appeal to the Government- although never convinced that a royal commission alone can satisfactorily adduce such answers as that, I will never oppose any sincere endeavour to provide answers-not to forsake, overlook or neglect the scientific and medical study before it is too late and for which there can be no substitute. Disproportionately in quantity and ominously revealing the Government's real priorities in the Speech we find almost two pages devoted to what is euphemistically called electoral and constitutional reform, a top priority, involving changing electoral laws to the detriment of already under-represented country people, referenda to control election timing and the like, and other assaults on the Australian Constitution. I am not going to pick up the detail of those matters in this debate. We will robustly debate that when the legislation comes before the House. The matter of priorities that we see in the Speech is of concern to me. Almost two pages are devoted to excuses and alibis and almost another two pages to electoral reform-in total over 25 per cent of the address- yet small business, trade and primary industry, surely the areas of great concern in any economic discussion or recovery, in total do not even get one page. I believe that clearly sets out the priorities and the pedigree of the Government. I suppose we should not be surprised when we see how selective and largely unrepresentative of many sections of the community the National Economic Summit Conference in actuality became. Nor is there any commitment in this Speech, in this document or this program to a real continuation of the wage pause beyond a month or two. There is already talk about increases this year and speculation as to what the percentage might be. There is no firm statement that escalation will not be allowed to destroy the gains that a wage pause could bring. Indeed, in this House last week, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) virtually indicated to the Builders Labourers Federation that, if it fails to get what it wants in orthodox wage demands, there are all sorts of other special allowances by which it can, via the back door, end up with the pay packet that its members want anyhow. The Prime Minister's justification to the House was that these were special allowances which were confined to that industry and that they would not spread across the board. What absolute rot. If one industry circumvents the wage fixing procedures in that way, there is not an industry or union which will not employ the same tactic and the credibility and purpose of the central wage fixing commission or tribunal, about which we have been hearing in this place, will be absolutely shattered. If that is going to be the approach, where a wink is as good as a nod , the costs are still loaded, whatever they are disgusised as, on to business and industry. Profits, if there are any, will further disappear. Businesses will increasingly fail and our tragic army of unemployed will continue to grow. Any of the promises of tax relief-there were plenty of those before the election-and a reduction of the deficit, clearly now stand exposed as 'pie in the sky when we die' if that is the course that the Government is destined to follow. That is the definite indication not only of increased taxation but also of the Pandora's Box of new exotic taxes we have heard extolled by Labor over the years and on which, during the campaign, there was a breathless hush. Now they are coming out of the mothballs, as we knew they would. Even indirect taxes , about which the Government protested and which it condemned, are now respectable, even most desirable and worthy and capable of increase. Mr Braithwaite —What about retreaded tyres? Mr ADERMANN —Yes, the sales tax on retreaded tyres is a case in point. It was raised in this House the other day. I was very disappointed in the response that we got from the Government benches. Nothing is safe from this taxation grab. This is also the formula which will ensure that the electorate will quickly become very disenchanted with this Government. That is probably why electoral reform has such a disproportionate and high priority in the very disappointing document we are now discussing. I have never hesitated in this House or in any place to stand up and examine critically the stewardship of even my own Government. I have no hesitation in saying that there would be bipartisan support for real endeavours to beat inflation, create jobs, bring down interest rates, reduce the deficit and reduce the burden of inequitable taxation which is also a major contributor to our present dilemma. Honourable members will find that I have been absolutely consistent in all of those contentions. But I cannot find any program or any blueprint that gives me any confidence that that is what the Government is about in the document that we are discussing today. If the Government follows the course of disaster, where militancy succeeds in destroying wage restraint and responsibility in wage fixing, where inflation and unemployment inevitably increase-that will be triggered by the program the Government is following-and the Australian taxpayer, in increasing proportions, has to pay for that economic folly, not only I, not only the other members of the Opposition, but also the whole Australian electorate will be totally unforgiving of this Government. Bland promises which are soon abrogated, platitudes and cliches may on occasions bring electoral success, but when they are exposed for what they are they become the very ropes which hang a government on its own gallows. In just weeks we have seen evidence of these ingredients. We have looked in the document of government proposals at the convocation of the Thirty-third Parliament for a clear battle plan for the defeat of inflation, unemployment and economic recession. We looked for development of the grand designs of the election policy statements. We looked with hope and expectation. We got-what? Mr Braithwaite —A lot of broken promises. Mr ADERMANN —Yes, that is true. We got an apologetic account of alibis and excuses. We got a vague and very disappointing treatise underlining a different order of priorities which are blatantly partisan. We looked for a battle plan which every section could support and promote. This was to be the great accord. This was to be the consensus manifesto. We got a paper which will not curb greediness and militancy; indeed, it may encourage them. We got a blueprint which has as many loopholes and as many qualifications as our taxation Acts, which I have consistently criticised for such a long time. I hope that the Government will do something about those Acts. One cannot be all things to all people and succeed in responibly leading this nation to recovery. I hope that the Government understands that. I hope that it has learnt that lesson, because soft options which placate one section are the additional weight in the saddle-bags, which become an intolerable burden for other sections. But this is the mud map that the Government has placed before us . It is in every sense a mud map. It bears all the signs of retreat. It is an abrogation, and the signs on the road ahead have a remarkably similar appearance to those which this nation followed to disaster in the period 1972 to 1975. It is a repeat, all over again. It is a disappointing exercise in vagueness, with very disturbing innuendoes. It is not the definite, courageous, determined prescription which can inspire this Parliament and this nation to accept, albeit with sacrifices, to support and to endorse in the best interests of our nation and every one of our citizens. It is a disappointing document altogether. If the Government declares that big government, big spending and big deficits will be attacked and reduced, we could all support that. If the Government says that inflation, unemployment and economic recession will be firmly and resolutely attacked and defeated, we could support that. If the Government says that it will reduce the load of taxation, and bring to book the cheats, we could support that. If the Government says: 'We will commit ourselves to strengthening the federal system and not undermine State and local government rights' we could support that. But we have seen the reverse of that. That would be accord. That would be consensus. But this document says none of those things. If the words are there, the intent is quickly diminished, qualified or altered somewhere else in the context. I would much rather have been able to stand here and congratulate the Government and indicate support for its economic program. If this is the document and this is the basis, I cannot, sadly, do either, because this document is the most disappointing and most indecisive of any of the addresses which a government has asked a Governor-General to present since I was first elected 10 years, or six elections, ago. It will not give the encouragement and the lift in spirits which people looked for, hoped for and, perhaps, voted for. It will do nothing to stimulate confidence. It commences with a roar and ends with a whimper, and it was the very vehicle which could have brought purpose and direction, but it got hopelessly lost somewhere along the way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before I call the honourable member for Flinders, I remind the House that the honourable gentleman is about to deliver his maiden speech. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(4.19) —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I offer you congratulations, and ask you to convey, at your earliest convenience, congratulations from the people of Flinders to the Speaker on his elevation to that high office. We trust that he is granted health and happiness for many years to come to enable him to occupy that chair. I have risen to speak on the Speech given by the Governor-General. I must state here and now that the speech that I heard was definitely the best that has been given by a Governor-General to the Australian nation in the last seven years. My thanks go to my wife, Anne, and my children, Alan, David and Jane, who have given me love and support during the hectic election campaign and through this most difficult period of learning as a parliamentarian. I thank the people of Flinders for the trust and honour that they have bestowed on me. As the electorate of Flinders has not been represented in the Federal Parliament by the Australian Labor Party for 29 years, I trust that I can fulfil the responsibilities and the obligations placed upon me. As in the normal Address-in-Reply debate, I should like to take this opportunity to talk about the electorate of Flinders-however, with this difference: I have risen to speak about conservation; conservation on a grand scale. I should like to describe the electorate of Flinders after it has been obliterated by a one-megaton atomic weapon-a small one. If the city of Frankston is the target, those living within a six-kilometre circle will be incinerated immediately. These people are the lucky ones. Those approximately six kilometres out who happen to be looking in the direction of the blast will be blinded instantly, fractionally before any exposed skin is burnt off and they are set alight. They will then be hit by the shock wave, and, if they are fortunate, this will kill them. If it does not kill them, they will die within 10 minutes in excruciating pain. Those within a 10-kilometre radius will suffer third degree burns and probably die. There will be no doctors, no hospitals, no drugs. They will die in agony over a period of days. Most property will either burn or be destroyed by the blast. The people on the rest of the peninsula will be exposed to radiation and may die within a short time, through vomiting, diarrhoea, shock and other radiation- related illnesses. Any who happen to survive the first month will undoubtedly die of cancer or leukemia in the ensuing years, that is, if they survive the fighting for food and shelter which will occur. The electorate of Flinders will have scattered over its once beautiful countryside decaying and rotting corpses. These will be infested by rodents and insects, many of which will survive the blast. The possibility of this scenario is rapidly drawing closer, not only for the people of Flinders but for everyone on this exquisite and wonderful planet. In 1972 the Doomsday Clock was showing 12 minutes to midnight. In 1980 it was showing seven minutes to midnight. Today it is set at four minutes to midnight. We must not allow the time to run out. The Sir Basil Zharhovs of this world are starting to beat their drums. The arms dealers are peddling their wares with dollar signs in their eyes. The arms build-up is well under way. The factories are already increasing production. The bomb is primed, the finger is already on the trigger. A conventional war, a war within someone else's country, is a great way of getting the economy moving again and I am afraid that some countries have this contingency already well under way. Flash points set up and ready to go are the Middle East, Cambodia, El Salvador, Afghanistan and Korea. The economic correlation between a conventional war and buoyant economic conditions is well known. However, a conventional war can easily accelerate into a nuclear war. Expenditure on weapons of destruction is about $2,000m per day or $104,000 per minute. In the 20 minutes that I will be speaking, about $2,080,000 will be spent on weapons of destruction. That figure excludes many millions which are spent on arms and hidden from public scrutiny. In 1982-83 we in Australia spent $4,662m on war. How much has been spent on peace? I believe the figure within Australia is very close to zero. We have, in the leaders of the super-powers of this world, a trio of belligerent people-Andropov, Reagan and Thatcher. These are the people who will give the order for their automatons to press the button. How stupid are we as a species to allow ourselves to have a method of destroying humanity 20 times over , developed and put into a state of readiness? Yet we still have people who want to develop even more atomic weapons. What has taken nature millions of years of evolution to construct, we now have the ability to destroy within hours. Who knows, in another million years, the only record of our existence may be written on a satellite which has just left our solar system. Others will wonder why this unknown, intelligent species has disappeared. Will they guess that it was because of our own stupidity? We in Australia can play a unique and important part in bringing about peace. We are a nation which has a high standing with most nations on this planet. We are in a position to put forward ideas and proposals which I am positive will be acceptable to many people. We have in our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a man whose reputation as a conciliator has won world recognition. If the cause of peace was taken up actively by our Government, using the United Nations as a forum, I am certain that our Prime Minister could do a great deal that would go towards breaking the impasse on disarmament and the headlong rush to oblivion that we are now moving towards. As a first step towards the goal of peace, an institute of peace studies must be established. Its aim would be to provide a critical evaluation of a variety of proposals in peace and development areas, in response to requests from government agencies, parliamentarians and non-government organisations; to collect, publish and disseminate information and ideas in relation to peace; to have an educational role within the Australian nation by inviting discussion amongst educators, researchers, policy makers, government and non-government organisations. The funding of such an institute has been estimated at just over $1m per annum. It is indeed a very small price to pay. The second step towards the goal of peace would be the establishment of a ministry of peace. A ministry of peace within the Government would provide an avenue for the expression of people's desires for peaceful conflict resolution. All people have the undeniable right to be assured that no armed defence is invoked until other means of achieving a non-violent resolution of conflict has been explored. A ministry of peace would be responsible for mediation, conciliation, arbitration, international aid, peacekeeping forces, civil service as an alternative to military service, arms reduction advice, peacetime occupation of the armed forces and studying the implementation of successful peace initiatives and the ultimate goal of universal peace. The planning and establishment of a ministry of peace must commence immediately. Time is running out very quickly. The world peace crisis transcends all other problems. We must bring to an end the madness which is engulfing our world. Albert Schweitzer said : Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing. Within Australia, we have the leaders, we have the people, we have the resources to set an example now for the rest of the world. Let us act now. If we compare the planet earth-a beautiful green, blue and white jewel-with photographs of other planets, is it any wonder that it is written in the Bible that the Creator loved this world-my world, your world, our world-a world that can easily be turned into a dead radioactive waste by man's stupidity. We must act now. I beg honourable members from both sides of the House to unite for the love of humanity and act to resolve this grave crisis now. To the people who are listening to this debate and those people who will read this speech, I say that they know in their hearts that what I have said is true. I ask them what they will do to help solve this crisis. I ask them to spend some time thinking about it and the consequences to them and their families and to remember also the generations to come. The future will be decided by them. I implore them to act now. Our world is relying on them. I conclude with this prayer for peace: Lead me from death to life, from falsehood to truth; Lead me from despair to hope, from fear to trust; Lead me from hate to love, from war to peace; Let peace fill our heart, our world, our universe. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling the honourable member for Wakefield, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask that he be afforded the usual courtesies. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.34) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I join my colleagues in this House in conveying to you my congratulations on your elevation to office. May I ask you to convey to Mr Speaker my congratulations on his elevation to office. I want you to know that these are not merely the obligatory words of courtesy but that I particularly appreciated the role of Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in ensuring that both the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and I were very much a participating part of the recent new members' seminar. I stand in this place acutely aware of the fact that the electors of Wakefield have placed on me both an honour and a responsibility. My predecessors in this seat have been both individualistic and colourful men who have served their parliaments and this nation with distinction. I make particular reference to Mr Geoff Giles, my immediate predecessor, who joined this Parliament in 1964 and who made a real contribution in rural matters on the national scene. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, of Mr Giles's participation as Deputy Chairman of Committees, as Deputy Government Whip and as the Opposition nominee for the position of Speaker. Such is the fibre of the people of Wakefield, such is their inherent strength, that even in the face of flood, bushfire, frost and hail, Wakefield continues to be where the rest of the world would like to be. Even in drought, Wakefield is a significant part of the food bowl of our nation. Whether one dines on fast foods or fine cuisine, entree or main course, hors d'oeuvres or sweets, from the fine wines that complement the meal to the clothes adorning the diners, chances are that one of my constituents is a part of the national industry that makes that function possible. Occupying 36,000 square kilometres, from the border with Victoria to the tip of Yorke Peninsula, and embracing not only the industrious wheat, barley and sheep areas of mid-northern South Australia and the peninsula but also the fertile Barossa Valley, Adelaide Hills and Riverland, Wakefield primary producers have one common necessity-an assured supply of good, clean water. All South Australians, especially my constituents, recognise the need for their share of our national resource, the River Murray. In spite of all the rhetoric that I have no doubt has been uttered in this chamber about Australia being a dry continent, too few people realise that if the run-off from rainfall precipitated over Australia were contained within the continent we would cover Australia with 5 centimetres of water. If the run-off from rainfall precipitated over the next driest continent, Africa, were contained within that continent it would be covered with 17 centimetres of water. Water conservation initiatives in the face of a disastrous drought are urgently needed. I welcome the reference in the Governor-General's Speech to the commitment to considering a water research institute. But that is not enough. Consideration will not do. Far too much has already been said and far too little done. We do not want mere consideration of a water research institute; we want action on water quality. The $640m scheme proposed in January this year, if implemented, would provide the type of capital works we need to employ people. Just one section of that scheme, the installation of tube wells between locks 2 and 3 to intercept natural saline inflows, would take 60,000 tonnes of salt out of the river system every year. The Governor-General's Speech outlines the Government's commitment to capital works as part of its job creation strategy. If we can in a bipartisan sense be committed to a new Parliament House and if the Government can find $115m to inject into Trans Australia Airlines, then I suggest that the capital works to ensure fresh water in the driest State of this nation would be a far better monument to this Parliament than the self-aggrandisement of a contemporary home. Before we launch into public funded, public managed capital job creation programs, we would do well to administer them with due regard to the experience of the past. If the Government is to be truly accountable it must be prepared to put proposed works up for tender, bring in contractors, and so engender a sense of responsibility, purpose and fulfilment among employees. A sensitivity to the natural balance that small business gives the economy would be well advised. Sadly, my electorate has in it all too many examples of well-intentioned counter-productive government intervention. Let me illustrate that. It is popular to regard irrigation farmers as subsidised, unable to meet the capital cost of the reticulation schemes installed for them. This is arrant nonsense. I could take honourable members on to numerous farms, involve them in numerous schemes, where growers are pumping water out of the river through their own reticulation schemes, and their properties are in demand. It is true that even these enterprising growers do not contribute directly to the locks and barrages that have been provided so they can pump water. But those locks and barrages were not provided exclusively for irrigation. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) could tell the House that the locks and barrages that maintain water levels in the Murray River are essential to industry in his Iron Triangle, essential to give Adelaide the 300 litres that every member of each household consumes every day and essential if the river is to be a national playground. Government irrigation areas were set up with the best intentions in the world as job creation projects in the face of a depression but they continue to be uneconomic while private schemes alongside them flourish. While I am on the subject of the Murray, the Governor-General's Speech made particular reference to our national heritage and to the protection of fauna and flora. Any government prepared to engineer the power it needs to intervene in an issue over which the States have sovereignty should be prepared to take positive steps to end the rape of the river system by upstream users. Only the agreement negotiated by the now honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) over a decade ago ensured anything like adequate water for South Australia during the drought. The River Murray Commission needs further powers to give teeth to its resolve to have both quality and quantity of water as part of the consideration for South Australians. The presence of governments of the same political persuasion in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and federally, gives a unique opportunity for there to be consensus on River Murray management. But I advise the Government to act promptly; the monopoly will not last long. Another illustration of the tragic paralysis that follows government intervention in areas of enterprise is the canned fruit industry. This labour intensive industry, besieged by our high cost structure and the preferential trade agreements of the European Economic Community, has just been decimated in South Australia by well-intentioned but counter-productive government intervention. The decision of the Dunstan Government to close the smaller of two co-operative canneries and expand the larger has been disastrous. The growers of canned fruit have been left reeling while enormous injections of government revenue have failed to provide relief. Mr Deputy Speaker, should I go on, illustrating the honourable member for Grey's clothing factory or illustrating the frozen food factory? No one in this House would deny the Government its right and responsibility to dictate the terms in areas such as quarantine or defence. No one would deny the Government its responsibility to intervene to protect industries against dumping or unfair practice and no one would deny the Government its responsibility to protect the exploitable from being exploited. Unfortunately, even when governments act with good intentions they intrude on the individual's responsibility to achieve privately his own aspirations and destiny. This intrusion confers on the Government powers not even God allows himself. With the noblest of motives we are being exhorted to fund job creation programs. Bipartisan agreements can easily be reached in this House, for unemployment is the scourge of our nation. What in reality we offer the unemployed is not job creation but work experience. Only productivity creates permanent jobs. Only by increasing our output without increasing our expectation of reward will we increase productivity in the nation or in my business. The paradox of all this is that the more intrusion there is by government into the affairs of an ostensibly free society the more that society stagnates, forcing greater government intervention. My electors-my constituents in the seat of Wakefield-are principally farmers who are forced to buy in the high cost structure of Australia and sell in the cold climate of overseas reality. They have been doing so for decades. Only increased productivity, as everyone knows, has kept them viable. Their viability is the nation's prosperity. The wages of my farmers are indexed-indexed by the weather, by the reality of overseas prices and by what the drought did to them. In spite of it having rained we will expect them to carry the nation's economic recovery. The lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable; productivity produces wealth. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand before you as the member for Wakefield, but I recognise, as does every honourable member in this chamber, that I am not here solely as the representative of that geographical area named after a founding father of the State. I am here also as a member of the Australian Parliament. Ours must be a national perspective. From this Parliament the nation is entitled to expect leadership and integrity. We do that nation-our people-a gross disservice when we create the impression that we can solve all its problems. If governments held the key to relieving the frustration of the world we would have entered Utopia long ago. Sometimes it seems we see ourselves as problem solvers. We project ourselves, on either side of the House, as having a philosophical potion to end the world's ills. Such a stand is criminal, for first we must recognise that we are an inseparable part of the world's ills. If, as suggested last week, simply redistributing often presumed wealth was handing out happiness, we should by now be ecstatic-nay delirious with joy. Ironically it is often those humble souls who have little-those in Holy Orders- who radiate contentment. We invite our electors to see us as problem solvers. It is small wonder that they become disillusioned and cynical. At best we can be problem minimisers. Uncomfortably and inescapably the only resources we have are those we take-those generated by our taxpayers. What any government earns of its own is inconsequential. No matter how wise the Government, how well intentioned its intervention, all that it has to spend belongs to someone else. It is generated by people who have stood sweating in the sun, dipping sheep, painting buildings, working on building sites or construction teams or picking fruit. It is generated by people who have exercised some self-discipline in technology and by people who have been prepared to commit both their labour and their capital to some risky venture. We politicians on the floor of this chamber and public servants all depend on those enterprising people for the revenue we spend. Our lifestyle is funded by fellow Australians. Every additional resource we acquire, every dollar of revenue raised, is a dollar earned by a constituent and given in trust to us. The disservice we do our constituents every time we intervene unnecessarily is further compounded when we remember that we take not only their revenue, their hard earned capital, but also their accountability. This would be excusable if, as a Parliament, we had a monopoly on wisdom, but this has not proved to be so- not even under coalition governments. Even governments with the most honourable of intentions cannot be wiser than men. With great respect I suggest that the Thirty-third Parliament has two urgent tasks. First, it must minimise the demands it makes on its taxpayers. Essentially this will mean a reappraisal of our welfare system. No one would challenge the need for a welfare net or suggest that commitment to sensitive welfare programs is inappropriate. But we dare not endeavour to eliminate risk. To take no risk is the greatest risk of all. No society can hope to breed a spirit of achievement and independence, a commitment to excellence and the preservation of long held values while a welfare program exists which shields its beneficiaries from every risk they are likely to confront from birth to death. In 1971, four people worked for every person receiving support. Today only two people work for every person receiving support. I suggest that in that decade steps were taken to install an adequate welfare net. In conclusion-by the way I was reminded to say 'in conclusion' and conclude and not 'lastly' and last-we need to hand back to State and local governments more of the responsibility and resources we have taken unto ourselves. This must be done unconditionally. Greater, even total, responsibility for health, education and welfare could be placed in the hands of State and local authorities. Of course it is risky. It is also the only way to allow individual Australians to have a direct input into the communities in which they live. Most of all, this decentralised authority increases the opportunity for each taxpayer to be accountable for the resources he earns and asks governments to spend. After all, freedom is political power divided into small fragments. Debate (on motion by Mr Gear) adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.53) —The Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 results from the acceptance by the previous Government on 27 October 1982 of a recommendation of the Temporary Assistance Authority. It provides for a bounty of up to $1.5m to be paid between 27 October last and 30 June 1983. The Bounty (Steel Products) Bill results from a decision of the Temporary Assistance Authority and was announced on 1 February 1983. The Bill endorses the action taken by the previous Government and, as such, we concur with both Bills which are before the House. I think it is worth saying at this time something about the troubled steel industry because a lot of capital has been made out of it. I am sure the former honourable member for Macarthur, who suffered at the hands of some of these actions, would welcome my quoting from a couple of newspaper articles. The editorial of an Illawarra newspaper stated: On February 15, in his pre-election campaign, Mr Hawke told Australians in the bluntest terms that a Labor Government would maintain steel jobs. . . . He pledged that an ALP Government, within 100 days of taking office, would prepare a 10-year development plan for the future of the steel industry. The editorial continued: Yesterday BHP sacked almost 600 steelworkers at Port Kembla and Newcastle-only 14 days after Mr Hawke took office. An article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 16 February stated: 'BHP may be less than perfect,' Mr Hawke said. 'But it can hardly be blamed for the Government's inability to make a decision. That is hardly prudent these days. The article continued: He said a Labor Government would be committed to the maintenance of an Australian steel industry. It would: Review import quotas in order to increase BHP's share of the local market. Provide import tariff quotas and bounties to boost the local market. This is being done in this Bill- View sympathetically BHP's request for extra tax benefits in return for its expanded investment program. The result of that is that the Government has reneged on the Fraser Government's plan to grant a tax ability within a corporation to offset profits in one sector against losses in another. The article continued: Establish a co-operative monitor of BHP's performance and programs. That would be quite something- In choosing job-creation schemes, give priority to those which require steel inputs. Within the first 100 days of government-- As I said before- devise with BHP a 10-year development plan for the industry. Well, time is certainly running out. We have not heard much. We continue to hear of retrenchments within the steel industry. We continue to hear that the associated industries, particularly the coal industry, are in the same position as the steel industry. Once again we have propositions put up during an election campaign and walked away from subsequently. We know full well that the general approach that the Government has taken is that it is all very well to walk around Australia in an election campaign and promise the people everything, but when it comes to performance we find that the promises are put off because the National Economic Summit Conference, as I heard one Minister say, instructed the Government to do so or is put off because it is too hard or because of the sheer incompetence of the Government to get around to the decision making process while it is chasing spies around the countryside. This is a bizarre performance. It is the sort of thing we would expect from a Government which is rapidly showing signs of a few cracks around the countryside. In dealing with the two Bills before the House, I draw the nation's attention to the steel industry as a whole. The steel industry is one of the great industries of this nation. This country has unlimited resources in terms of iron ore and coal. With the appropriate management and identity of market, I am sure that the prosperity of the industry can be restored. However, it will not be restored without appropriate incentive to BHP and to other firms which may wish to operate in the industry. This is the only way in which the jobs of people employed in this industry will be protected in the longer term. In the short term, the propping up of the industry by the use of artificial quotas and import levies will do nothing to encourage the sort of investment that is necessary to ensure the future of this industry. The Opposition supports both of the Bills. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(4.59) —I have been trying to work out the point that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) was putting to the House. On the one hand, he said that we should be supporting the payment of bounties in respect of the steel industry. Then he seemed to launch into some kind of attack on the Government. In fact, the legislation before us does precisely that; it provides new further assistance to the steel industry. It was interesting to hear the honourable member talk about how much more supportive we have to be to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. One has only to look at the record of mismanagement of his own Government in relation to the steel industry and BHP to see that the previous Government did not know whether it was coming or going in relation to these matters. Mr John Brown —It was going. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It was going all right. The jobs of BHP workers were lost and that loss started under the previous Government. We have a situation in which the honourable member for Ryan comes into this House and tries to tell us what we should be doing about the steel industry. I suggest that the honourable member and his colleagues ought to study matters concerning the industry for a few months before they have the impertinence to come before us in this way. The only area in which the honourable member differed with the Government was in respect of his proposal that we should allow BHP to claim its losses in the steel industry against its profits in other areas. In other words, he wants to increase the overall profitability of BHP and increase the subsidy in an indirect way without any assurances whatsoever that that support would go into the steel industry. This is the kind of economic thinking that we are getting from the Opposition. It is no wonder that honourable members opposite have become the Opposition if that is the kind of approach which they suppose is going to solve the problems of the steel industry. To answer that point-and this was the only point of relevance that was raised by the honourable member-any support that we give to the steel industry will be direct support which will be conditional on action to increase efficiency and to ensure that the steel industry is modernised. I will come back to that topic a little later. However, before I do so, let me just say something about the Bill which, of course, the honourable member completely failed to talk about. This Bill arises from the Temporary Assistance Authority's report of 23 December 1982 which recommended short term assistance to the local production of certain high alloy steel products. The previous Government announced on 1 February 1983 that it had accepted the Authority's recommendation for a bounty to be paid at the rate of 5 per cent of the value of sales, to a limit of $3m. The bounty is to apply from 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983 or the date of implementation of the Government decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the iron and steel industry, whichever occurs first. Let me explain some of the background of this situation. High alloy steel is used in applications where strength, corrosive resistence, resistence to chemical attack or other special attributes are required. The Authority's recommendation covers flat stainless steel produced by Commonwealth Steel Co.- Comsteel-a subsidiary of BHP at Unanderra and bar products produced by Comsteel at Newcastle and by two smaller firms, Overall Forge and Atlas Steels. Production of the goods under reference is at present assisted by a duty of 25 per cent, phasing to 15 per cent by 1988. Comsteel requested tariff quotas for two years, limiting imports to 15 per cent of the market. It should be pointed out that Comsteel accounts for over 95 per cent of the industry and is in a serious and worsening situation. It has been making losses on goods under reference of $0.37m in 1981-82 and $1.97m in July-November 1982, with sales, production and employment all falling significantly and continuously since 1979-80. The Temporary Assistance Authority considered that the worsening of Comsteel's position had not been due solely to imports but to a combination of factors, including a deterioration in domestic and international economic conditions. Nevertheless, the Authority recognised that there had been a severe price competition from imports and considered there would be a significant movement of resources out of the industry if temporary assistance were not granted. The extent of the problem can be illustrated when we consider the following: Firstly, Comsteel's share of the market has fallen from almost 80 per cent in 1979-80 to 45 per cent in the September quarter of 1982. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table illustrating this fall in the market share. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -Is leave granted? Mr Goodluck —No. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Secondly, the major import sources have been Japan and the European Economic Community with what appears to be a major market struggle between the two with a consequential increase in imports overall in Australia. In addition, the Authority took substantial notice of the Defence Department's view that the retention of high alloy steel production capacity is important to our national interest and security. I repeat, it is important to our national interest and security. That was one of the reasons the Authority, which is not well known for making determinations of this kind in regard to protection, decided in this case that it would give temporary assistance. The various reasons have been taken up in a scientific way. As I have already mentioned, they relate to the dramatic fall in the market share and to a situation in which there has been a great struggle between importers, resulting in increased imports. They also relate to the need for an Australian capacity to produce high alloy steel for our own defence purposes. Consequently, the Temporary Assistance Authority recommended a bounty of 5c in the dollar on domestic sales, pending implementation of the forthcoming IAC decision, with a ceiling of $3m. However, it was the Authority's view that tariff quotas, which were requested by the industry and especially BHP, or increased tariffs, would be ineffective in view of estimates of substantial stocks already held by importers in Australia. It is estimated that at least six months stocks for sale are held by importers. In that situation it was decided that a bounty would be appropriate. Another reason was that going to tariffs could have had adverse effects for user industries. In supporting these proposals I and the Government are not in any way committed to providing endless assistance to the steel industry in terms of pouring money down the drain. We expect results as a consequence of the money which the taxpayers are putting into these industries. We accept that in these circumstances special assistance is required but it should not be assumed that we will continually act to prop up BHP and its subsidiaries, irrespective of management practices of BHP and its treatment of the work force, especially its readiness to sack workers whenever a problem arises. The Authority said in its report that it did not expect that this extra protection would retard efforts by BHP to restructure its operations to become more efficient. We certainly hope that that is so. We do not believe that, by granting tariffs and bounties, we are creating a situation where people can take the benefits without also taking action to restructure, to become more efficient in production, and to produce and sell more steel in Australia at a good price. As I have mentioned, the Authority indicated that other factors were involved in Comsteel's loss of market share. I would not be surprised if one of these was the market practices of BHP, which is firmly convinced that it is maximising its sales by what appears to me to be, and what representations appear to me indicate are, dubious forms of sales practice. I refer to the situation in which BHP sells steel only to a select group of distributors, excluding many others who want to distribute it in Australia. Representations have been made to me on the matter and I have spoken about it to the management of BHP. I have also referred the matter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I am not satisfied that BHP's sales practices, as carried out at present, do maximise sales of Australian steel. The situation needs to be looked at in much greater detail. In the meantime, I repeat the point that I made earlier. Labor is not slow to grant support and protection for Australian industry. That is fundamental to our philosophy and we will continue in that vein. However, we expect the protected companies to use this support in a positive way-to become more efficient, to have pricing policies which are reasonable, to increase the opportunities of the work force and to provide a better situation for the Australian market as a whole. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.10) —in reply-Perhaps I should respond to some of the remarks that have been made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) about the steel industry and refer to the rather interesting table that the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) tried to have incorporated in Hansard. I admit that he had not shown the table to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who resisted the attempt, as convention might have decreed. However, perhaps it might be reasonable if I were to read it into Hansard because it goes to the very heart of the reason for the introduction of this bounty bill. The table is related to local producers and gives the percentage rates of the imports market share of competitive market supplies. It shows that for high alloy bar products in 1979-80 the local producers market share was 77.6 per cent. By 1980-81 it had shrunk to 66.6 per cent, by 1981-82 to 60.2 per cent and by the September quarter of 1982 to 47.8 per cent. The corollary was that imports market share had risen from 22.4 per cent in 1979-80 to 52.2 per cent in September 1982. With regard to stainless steel flat products, the same decline in the local producers market share is very evident. In 1979-80 it amounted to 76 per cent. By September 1982 it had shrunk to 42.3 per cent. Of course, imports had risen in the same period from 24 per cent of the market to 57.7 per cent. The result of all that was that local producers' market share of both high alloy bar products and stainless steel flat products had been reduced from 76.9 per cent in 1980 to 44.6 per cent in the September quarter of 1982, while imports market share had risen from 23.1 per cent in 1979-80 to 55.4 per cent in the September quarter of 1982. So those of us who are interested in the shrinking market shares of local manufacturers in the steel industry, in comparison with the imports share, will now be able to read those facts in Hansard, because I have read it in, despite the best efforts of the honourable member for Franklin to make sure that that advice was not available to honourable members and to interested readers of Hansard. The honourable member for Ryan had some quite uncomplimentary remarks to make about this Government's handling of the steel industry. Indeed, the remarks of the honourable member for Burke were quite relevant to that aspect. It ill becomes any member of the Opposition to make jibes at the Government about the running down of manufacturing whether it be the steel industry or any other part of the manufacturing industry. Remember that the Australian Labor Party has ruled for only three of the last 33 years. That means that if any blame is to be apportioned, 11 times as much should be apportioned to the Opposition as to the Government. For the last seven years, the former Government presided over the running down, to an extraordinary extent, of what was a very viable manufacturing industry when it came to office in 1975. Apart from manufacturing, if one wanted to go into the full record of the former Government's absolute destruction of the Australian economy one could do so, but for the moment I will spare it that ignominy and simply restrict my remarks to the steel industry. The Fraser Government had no long term plans for the steel industry. It was just as happy for it to disappear-as it rapidly was until the advent of the Hawke Government. This Government is firmly committed to maintaining a viable, internationally competitive steel industry, not just because of its importance to the Australian economy or its capacity to employ people, but for a few other reasons that the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House may not yet have recognised. The fact that the steel industry is localised in certain areas- in Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla-and the economies of those cities are, to a great extent, intertwined with the steel industry has escaped them. The rundown in the steel industry has led to enormous difficulties and dislocations on both the employment and social sides of people's lives in those places. In Wollongong unemployment rates are reaching 40 per cent. It never struck the gentlemen of the Opposition when they were in government to what extent they were destroying the social fabric of those cities by letting the steel industry wind down. As I said, this Government will not see that happen, for one other very important reason, as the honourable member for Burke so eloquently pointed out. The importance of the steel industry to our national security and defence arrangements is paramount. For those very important reasons, we will be taking steps very shortly-steps that the previous Government did not take in its seven years of mismanagement of the nation's economy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), whom I have the honour to represent in this House, has been having discussions with the industry and the unions over the last month and he will be continuing those discussions over the next few weeks. As a Government, we are very aware of the need to announce a long term policy for the steel industry as soon as possible to provide job security for employees in the industry and some degree of security for the industry to invest in its future. We are moving very quickly to finalise our steel development plan by the end of June. One of the basic mistakes of the Fraser Government in its seven years of office -not just in the steel industry but in the breadth and width of its dealings with industry-was its failure at any time to develop a long range plan. All its decisions were ad hoc. The decisions it made overnight affected so many industries so vitally; yet it never had the wit to realise that the main thing that an industry looks for from a government is some long range plan it can work to in its forward planning in terms of economy, scale and employment. It wants a government in whom it has some confidence. That will not be the pattern followed by the Hawke Government. The steel industry can look forward with confidence to the end of June, when our steel development plan will be announced. It will be a forward-thinking and long range plan that will restore some viability to the industry. We expect that all parties involved will make a contribution to the discussions on the development of that plan. The Federal Government is only one of the network of bodies that need to be involved in this forward planning. The Government has already met with representatives of the industry and the steel unions and it will be intensifying these discussions within the next few weeks. Matters presently being discussed with the industry and the unions include future demand prospects, investment, technology, work force requirements, productivity, work practices and manning levels. Meetings will also be arranged with State governments which have basic iron and steel operations. The major inputs in this Government's deliberations on the long term steel policy will be the one-to-one meetings that we are having with the industry and the unions, and which we will eventually have with the State governments; the Industries Assistance Commission's final report on the steel industry; and the reports of the Steel Industry Advisory Council and an inter-departmental committee. Our prime objective will be to create the environment for Australian industry to return to its once highly efficient competitive position in the world's steel industry. We firmly believe-I hope that there will be some sort of bipartisanship on this particular point-that this is the best way to create job security for the industry's employees and to create some security for investors in industry, particularly for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Australia's biggest company, as it has a monopoly in this area. Therefore, it strikes me as being very odd that members of the Opposition-in the first few weeks of dealing with a government that promises so much in terms of reconciliation and reconstruction of not only the economy but also the total fabric of Australian society-could cynically pour buckets on this Government over the steel industry that they allowed to deteriorate almost to the state of bankruptcy and oblivion. We are equal to the task now that we are in Government. We will take up the challenge to restructure the steel industry, to make it viable, profitable and the source of high employment which it should be. Our purpose is not only to restore people 's jobs, but also to promote a steel industry that is very vital to our national security. Mr Shipton —How will you do it? Mr JOHN BROWN —If the honourable member for Higgins were not so thick and so busy running around with toy koalas and if he took a more responsible attitude to the fact that his Government left a legacy of 800,000 unemployed in this country and a deficit of $10 billion he might be more aware of what I am talking about. While he is poking fun at me about koalas, I am worried about the fact that a little promotion of the tourist industry can provide 100,000 extra jobs. It will never be promoted by koalas, but by people with vision and understanding -something that honourable members opposite never had. The fact that the honourable member is running around with toy koalas under his arm, trivialising important things such as the opportunity of getting a real growth industry off the deck, is a fair testimony to the sort of government that those opposite provided for seven years. The country will not get that from us. It will get leadership and co-ordination- Mr Shipton —I wanted to know how you are going to restructure the steel industry . Mr JOHN BROWN —I have been telling the honourable member for 10 minutes. If he were not so thick he might have understood. Mr Shipton —You did not explain. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will explain in monosyllables next time so that the honourable member will be able to understand. Any word bigger than four letters he has difficulty with. It is very obvious that the problems the steel industry faces are those created by the Fraser Government, largely as a result of its inactivity, mismanagement and lack of any sort of vision. That vision will be forthcoming from this Government. Honourable members can rest assured that at the end of our first term of office the steel industry will be viable again because we will deal with all the factors involved. I hope that I do not again hear the honourable member for Ryan ranting and raving in this place about the steel industry, because nobody will listen to him. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill now be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.26) —I move: Clause 14, page 11, line 17, omit paragraph (1) (c), substitute the following paragraph and words: '(c) officers included in a specified class of officers, to be an authorized officer, or authorized officers, for the purposes of this Act.'. The purpose of this amendment is to correct a minor printing error in clause 14 of the Bill. It was found in the final print, after the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill was introduced. The clause to be amended empowers the Minister to appoint an authorised officer or authorised officers upon whom certain administrative functions are to be conferred. Such a provision is standard in bounty legislation. The responsibility of these authorised officers would be to have the right to enter a place of industry and to inspect the books to make sure that the bounty that is being paid in that case was being properly earned by the company involved. It is a very uncomplicated amendment. I am sure that the Opposition will accept it. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(5.27) —I support the amendment that has been moved by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown). As the Minister has indicated, the purpose of the amendment is simply to correct a minor printing error. It is, of course, important in connection with any type of legislation that errors of that kind which sometimes inadvertently find their way into legislation should be identified and corrected before they become a matter of some confusion and some dispute, perhaps in the interpretation and the application of the particular provisions of the legislation. It is important in connection with the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 because many of the matters that have had attention drawn to them by honourable members who spoke during the debate on the second reading of the legislation. The importance of clarity and clear definition is indicated by the general nature of this proposition which is currently being considered. The Minister referred to the fact that the steel industry, of course, is one of the major industries in Australia. It is necessary for any government which happens to be charged with the responsibility of providing administration and determining policies in relation to Australian industry to be cognisant of that fact. But the whole question is not simply a question of the relationship of government policy to the steel industry at the present time. What Australia is concerned about doing is identifying the nature of the secondary industrial structure in particular which Australia, as a nation, would like to see in place . Also when we are making decisions along those lines it is necessary for governments to determine the nature of the industrial protection which will be provided. Of course, providing a bounty to the steel industry for the steel products which have been indicated in this particular piece of legislation is extremely important. It was indicated during the second reading speech of the Minister that these steels are essential for a very wide range of direct defence applications and they also underpin general support capabilities for defence activities. When we realise the extent to which questions of this kind impinge on our defence capability and on the capacity of Australian industry to provide the special types of steels which are necessary for Australia's defence capacity , the Minister's care in making sure that the precise details of the legislation were appropriate is borne out to us more clearly. It was indicated as well that the bounty was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report No. 57 of 23 December 1982. That report was entitled: 'Certain High Alloy Steel Products'. The previous Government had earlier announced on 1 February this year that it had accepted the Temporary Assistance Authority's recommendation. This Government was prepared to accept that same recommendation. Of course, this particular Bill results from the Government's decision in this respect. The Minister also referred to the fact that at the present time, in the immediate past and in the future very important discussions will be taking place . Very important discussions have been taking place within the Steel Industry Advisory Council. I have indicated previously that I have very serious reservations about the industry advisory councils which had existed and operated under the previous Government and the usefulness and the effectiveness with which those industry councils were pursuing their particular responsibilities. I have been privileged to be a participant in the discussions that have taken place within the Steel Industry Advisory Council. I feel that those discussions have been extremely fruitful not only in identifying the types of problems that exist within the steel industry but also to make it possible for major interests which are involved in the steel industry to come together collectively around a single table, facing each other, and present their assessment of the problems as they see them and to give some indication of the type of solutions that they consider should be put in place. This particular Bill-its clarity has been guaranteed as a result of the amendment which has just been moved by the Minister-is of critical importance. The steel development plan which I am sure will be completed by the end of June means that at least we will be providing a more important indication of the direction this Government will take in relation to the steel industry. It has been a very important question to have resolved. We are all aware of the fact that the steel industry needs assistance. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in particular, in its submission to the Industries Assistance Commission, made three particular applications. The first one was that it be guaranteed 85 per cent of the domestic market on a volume basis rather than a value basis. The second proposition was that it be given the opportunity to participate in a type of group tax arrangement between the various divisions of BHP. The third proposition which BHP put to the IAC was that it be allowed to write off in the first year of any investment the full amount of that depreciation. They are important considerations. The question of bounty assistance to the steel industry is part of that total picture. I have very serious reservations about the future of the Australian steel industry but certainly this Government now has put into place very effective machinery to make sure that at least the types of problem that exist are dealt with more effectively than was the case before. I accede to the concern which was expressed by at least one member of the Opposition to apply more effectively the machinery which had been in place previously. There is no doubt that as a result of all of those considerations that have been given to this extraordinarily important industry in Australia some sensible and constructive decisions will be arrived at. It would be absurd if Australia, of all developed countries, were to be the only country to wind up its steel industry. It is a proposition which the private owners of the steel industry, the Government or the Australian community should never contemplate. It is necessary for wide and deep consideration to be given to some of these issues. The particular Bill with which we are dealing at the present time and the amendment which has been moved so ably by an extremely competent and successful Minister of the Hawke Labor Government should meet with the approval of the whole Parliament. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.35) —I support the amendment and congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for the way in which he, with the one or two notable exceptions, has been carrying out his duties. I agree in substance with a lot of the remarks made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). My remarks will be brief. I wanted to place on record the fact that, at the time the last Government was considering the problems of the steel industry and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in particular, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Sir Phillip Lynch, was absent due to illness and I, along with the then Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Fife, was responsible essentially for presenting the case to Cabinet. There will always be disputes when governments have to make decisions on the question of balancing competing interests, but I take heart, and express this view personally, at what appears to be on the part of this Government a genuine commitment to the Australian steel industry. Let me spell it out bluntly: That means increased protection. I do not in any way pre-empt my colleague sitting alongside me or my party, but I simply say that the advice of economic experts, as to what is necessary to protect and maintain the Australian steel industry, in my view has fallen far short of what it should have been. I invite the Minister at the table, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), through his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Senate, to clear one bogey which will hang over the head of this Government unless it is immediately-I repeat immediately-put to death and that is the continuing rumours that this Government is contemplating a repeat of its 1973 performance of a 25 per cent across the board cut in tariffs. I have to say that ghosts do come back from the past and Banquo's ghost is coming back to haunt the Hawke Government. I invite the Minister to take the bit in his teeth here and now and give a guarantee that there will be no across the board tariff cuts by the Hawke Government during its present term of office. If he does not do that the manufacturing sector will always remember that having done it once the Government is likely to do it again, and that will not be in the interests of this country, the manufacturing industry or the steel industry in particular. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling on the honourable member for Tangney I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask that the House extend to him the normal courtesies. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(5.37) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I join my colleagues in congratulating you, and through you Mr Speaker, on your election to office. My presence here today was made possible by the electors of Tangney who through me expressed confidence in the policies of the Australian Labor Party for national recovery through reconciliation and reconstruction. I thank them for their trust , and assure them I will work to the utmost of my ability for their benefit. I must pay special thanks to a very dedicated campaign committee and supporters who helped me achieve the tenth biggest swing recorded in the March election, and especially to my campaign manager Garry Kelly. It would not be fair if I did not also thank my predecessor, Mr Peter Shack, who took a keen interest in his electorate duties. It was unfortunate that he supported a party which did not show the same concern for individuals. Tangney is a swinging electorate. Its member has always sat on this side of the House. What this Parliament does about the problems of unemployment, poverty, social disadvantage, electoral disadvantage, education, the role of women and nuclear disarmament will determine how the people of Tangney will vote in the future. The Tangney electorate is mainly suburban and is south-east of Perth. Its residential areas range from strips of million dollar, river front homes backed by expensive suburbs to some of the cheapest housing in the city. There is a State Housing Commission area developed for World War II returned servicemen, and another of high density units occupied mainly by disadvantaged people. Contrasting with these divergent residential areas, Tangney takes in a significant rural sector in Canning Vale. This includes a specially zoned kennel area where many of the State's top dog breeders live. Tangney includes the three industrial areas of Myaree, Welshpool and Canning Vale which offer a wide range of employment opportunities. Within Tangney we have the State's only brewery, with its lead brand Swan Lager achieving significant international sales. Tangney is also the proposed site for the National Police Training Academy. Due to the efforts of local government, church and other groups, Tangney has become a major retirement area offering specialised accommodation and care at complexes including Tuscan Street Retirement Village, Swan Cottage Homes, Rowethorpe Settlement and Sherwin Lodge, plus Weeronga Homes and the Air Force Association Estate just on its borders. Tangney is well endowed with educational institutions and this pleases me because I firmly believe that the future prosperity of our nation will reflect the commitment we show now to training and increasingly the retraining of our workforce. We could learn a lesson from the Japanese experience. Faced with a lack of physical resources they were forced to import these but made up by improving use of their human resources. By contrast in Australia we export our wealth of material resources and import our skills. As a former technical and further education trades lecturer I have a keen interest in expansion of vocational education. For too long we have allowed our vocational institutions to become underutilised while we have chosen the soft option of importing skills. The results are evident in our unemployment figures and the general state of our economy. In the good times of full employment we may have got away with such an approach. Today, to restrict the contribution of TAFE colleges to job creation by not giving them the resources they need would be a waste of our opportunities. I am not talking about the cultural luxury of an academic education, or even invoking some principle of the right to be educated; I am emphasising the vital link between vocational education and employment and between vocational education and national economic health. Austria's Chancellor Bruno Kreisky recognised this when he said: We have developed more professional schools during the past decade than in all our previous history. These educate youths for the skilled labour market. That's why General Motors is bringing a plant here-because of our skilled labour pool. All this reduces the dangers of unemployed youngsters. Austria has achieved a remarkable economic recovery since Soviet and Allied occupying troops withdrew in 1955. Unemployment then was 5.4 per cent, now it is 3.5 per cent, and inflation is only 4.1 per cent. The successful economies of the future will be those that make the best use of new technology-and that requires trained people. To gain a long term economic recovery we must devote more of our resources to vocational education, not take the razor to it as did the previous Government, acting like a short sighted barber cutting his customer's neck because he could not afford to pay for a full shave. In Tangney we have the vital educational resources of the Western Australian Institute of Technology, the Bentley and Thornlie Technical Colleges and the Bentley Senior College. All are vocationally oriented institutions. WAIT in particular has the potential to create new employment opportunities by its Technology Park, soon to be put into operation. I hope this Parliament will increase spending in such vital areas, for unemployment in Tangney is a critical problem, as it is throughout Australia. From December 1981 to December 1982 the number of unemployment benefit recipients in Tangney rose by 75 per cent and in some areas by over 100 per cent, while nationally unemployment rose by the lesser but still staggering amount of 56 per cent. The legacy of seven years of Liberal neglect of the unemployed in Tangney is a heart rending group of normally productive members of society who cannot pay their home mortgages and hire purchase commitments out of their meagre dole payments, and are faced with the prospect of losing all that they have worked for as their savings are exhausted. All this has been in the name of uncaring monetarist policies. Chancellor Kreisky had a more compassionate and more practical point of view when he said: I am a relatively old man who was deeply impressed in youth by massive unemployment and its political consequences. I always resolved not to allow unemployment to grow again. It is more expensive to have 100,000 unemployed than to keep them working. In 1974 we, as a Socialist Government, began a series of measures which private enterprise didn't like. Thus the Government went into the market and helped people build houses. At the same time we concentrated on developing State resources. An aspect of unemployment that I feel does not receive the attention it deserves is the consequent loss of experiential education. This is a significant loss to the collective level of skills held by the Australian work force, and I urge more attention to work experience projects for unemployed youth, in the short term. Those collecting unemployment benefits are not, however, the only people living in poverty because of the insensitive economic incompetence of the previous Government. For the hundreds of thousands of Australians dependent on social security benefits, the last seven years have seen a steady decline in their real income to a level which has forced many of them below the poverty line, crushed by the weight of Government indifference to their suffering. This is the Liberal legacy throughout Australia, and it was directly responsible for the people's outright rejection of the Government that foisted it on them. Fortunately, we are not alone in facing the major task before us. The great Australian people are with us. This was well demonstrated at the recent National Economic Summit Conference when groups from many walks of Australian society with quite different and often conflicting interests met in a mood of co-operation in pursuit of national recovery. That was the first step forwards national reconciliation. This process will continue. In Tangney I am proud to say that there are many community groups achieving positive things by their own effort. Too often they are not given the recognition they deserve. I must at least pay credit to Communicare, a large volunteer-based welfare group giving emergency and on-going help in the hardest hit areas of Tangney, backed by several local churches and service groups and only recently by small Government grants; to Workforce 80, which is a community- based employment service seeking out casual jobs for the unemployed; to the City of Melville Citizens' Emergency Relief Fund, which is probably unique in its endeavours to establish a $100,000 investment fund to earn interest for distribution to people in distress with donations and interest-free loans coming from local business, service clubs and individuals; to the Gosnells Information Centre and the just opened Law Centre; to the Vaudevillians Club, which is devoted to regular charity performances; to the Queen Park and Melville Toy Libraries; and to the many service, youth, parent, church and self-help groups which have helped build a unique community. Sporting and cultural groups have also made a big contribution to the quality of life in Tangney, continuing a self-help tradition that has been backed by local councils which are very sensitive to the needs of their citizens. I mention the Willetton Sports Club, the Melville Community Arts Association, the Rossmoyne Arts Group and the Canning Agricultural Society as examples of these. Many people in Tangney are working, voluntarily, for the good of all. They are deserving at the very least of praise and, where possible, of financial support from this Parliament. A problem which no amount of local effort can alleviate, however, is that of rising interest rates. It is a problem of great significance in my electorate, where many people are struggling to buy and to keep their homes. For people on an average income the home is the single greatest investment they will ever make . It is their only chance to get into the heady, tax-free world of capital gains , in which many wealthy members of our society seem to move all the time. It is their security in old age. Small wonder, then, that home loan interest rates are such an emotive subject for most people. The electorate uses interest rates as a measure of a government's success, and its concern. In 1975 savings bank loans for new housing could be obtained at rates as low as 8.75 per cent. By 1976 that had crept to 9.25 per cent, and by 1980 to 10 per cent. By 1981 it was up to 11. 5 per cent, and in 1982 it reached its peak at 13.5 per cent. Our task must be to continue to accelerate the drop in home loan interest rates begun this year, and undo the damage of a seven-year assault on the average family. While discussing interest rates just now I touched on another topic which concerns me immensely-tax evasion. I recall the words of Professor Russell Mathews, consultant on taxation to the previous Government, when he said in 1981 : The essential problem is not to make the rich pay higher rates of tax than the poor. It is to make the rich pay any income tax at all. Of employed members of the Tangney work force 86 per cent are wage and salary earners. Pay-as-you-earn tax deductions leave them little scope for defrauding the Australian people, but the same restraints are not applied to paper shuffling millionaires who are in no way productive, but, who bludge on the benefits of our society, by avoiding to pay their share. It seems that the comradeship that characterised Australia when we faced external threat during the World Wars has been replaced by an 'I'm all right Jack' and 'Up yours' attitude. This is a threat to the fabric of Australian society today. It is an internal threat from the socially irresponsible tax cheats whose desires to accumulate more wealth than they need condemn two million Australians to living below the poverty line. Last year Eric Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association estimated the loss of revenue through tax evasion and avoidance at $7 billion. Ponder for a moment what help we could bring to millions with that money; what hope we would have for the prompting of an economic recovery; and how closely that amount parallels the deficit we face next year. I fully support the moves of this Government to use retrospective legislation and whatever other methods are necessary to recover from the tax bludgers what is not rightfully or morally theirs. The implementation of a fairer taxation system that provides revenue based on ability to pay and does not rely on unfair and inflationary indirect taxes is one part of what I believe the Australian Labor Party stands for. This goal is subsumed by the urgent need for a more equitable distribution of national income . That is what the Labor Party is all about and I believe our success as a Government will be measured in part by the degree to which we accomplish that redistribution. A fundamental difference between this Government and the conservatives is, I believe, one of approach to measuring costs borne by the community. The narrow view of those opposite is that they are measured in dollars and cents. The broader view of this side of the House is that the social costs are the most important. They manifest themselves in the alienation from society of the unemployed, their loss of self-esteem, the anxieties of the disadvantaged and family breakdowns exacerbated by uncaring economic and social policies, to name a few. Personal suffering cannot be measured in monetary terms, but we must consider the social costs first if we are to pursue the true object of government, and that is the social benefit to the community. The two sides of the House also differ in their commitment to basic fairness, a fact most graphically illustrated at the recent Constitutional Convention when the Liberal Party joined with its cohorts, the Queensland Nationals, in an attempt to destroy agreement by unfairly stacking their delegations. In the minds of the Opposition and perhaps in their fondest dreams shades of the disgraceful tactics of 1975 linger on. I would remind honourable members who sit on the other side that they are no longer in government. The people of Australia have rejected that confrontationlist approach. If those honourable members have any care for the will of the people they purport to serve, at least they should recognise the wishes so clearly expressed at the national elections and the State elections that preceded them. Differing concerns for fairness are also apparent in the issue of electoral reform. In my State of Western Australia, the right of electors to choose fairly has been destroyed by the outrageous gerrymander created and maintained by the Liberal Party. There is a blatant absence of democracy in the Western Australian Parliament. The size of electorates for the State's lower House varies from 3, 000 to 18,000 voters, a malapportionment factor of six. Politically inspired manipulation of the boundaries, which in large part are set by the Parliament, has ensured that this gross imbalance greatly favours the conservative parties. In Tangney we have the worst example of gerrymander in the State seat of Clontarf. The electoral injustice in the lower House, however, pales into insignificance when we consider the Legislative Council, the so called upper House. Electorates for upper House seats vary from 6,000 to 86,000 voters-a weighting for some Liberal and Country Party voting areas of up to 1,500 per cent. The weighting and the gerrymander is so great that in the entire 95-year history of responsible government in Western Australia the Labor Party has not once gained control of the upper House, despite being in government for a total of 35 years. At the recent State election Labor achieved 54 per cent of the popular vote, but gained only eight of the 18 Council seats; a mere 44 per cent. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Western Australia the conservatives preside over the most undemocratic House of Parliament in Australia, a national disgrace which will reflect on this Parliament if it is allowed to continue. The only body which can reform the Western Australian Parliament is the Western Australian Parliament. There is no provision for referendum or other appeal to the people without parliament's-and that means Liberal-consent. The impetus for reform may have to come from this Parliament. Throughout its history the Western Australian Legislative Council has always vetoed Labor proposals for reform, while rubber- stamping Liberal decisions on re-arrangement of electoral boundaries. I speak on behalf of all fair minded citizens in wishing Brian Burke every success when he moves to bring the voting procedures for the Western Australian Parliament to embrace the one vote one value principle. Before I close my maiden speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to refer to a trend which I hope will introduce a new sense of reason and fairness to our nation's parliaments; that is the growing involvement of women in politics. In the past Australia has been the poorer for their absence. In the Western Australian State elections five new women, all of them Labor, were elected, equal to the total number in the previous 95 years. Federally, Wendy Fatin won the seat of Canning, adjoining Tangney, with the third largest swing in the nation. We look forward to Heather O'Connor joining their number on 28 May. This bodes well for the process of national reconstruction. To regain our economic growth we need all the human resources of talent, skill, enthusiasm and determination we have, and women possess slightly more than 50 per cent of our national stock of human resources. To under-utilise them in any field from parenting to politics is to waste an essential opportunity. Certainly I am proud to represent an electorate named after the first woman member of the Senate, Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney, a Senator for Western Australia for 25 years from 1943 to 1968-a very great lady of Australian politics and of the Australian Labor Party. In closing, I want to make brief reference to what is probably the greatest challenge facing all nations today, that is averting the threat of nuclear war. Today the human race holds not only its own destiny in its hands but also its very survival in delicate balance. I believe that the road to peace is not paved with ever more powerful or more numerous nuclear weapons; nor is it built on notions of limited war or winnable nuclear exchanges. These concepts are an affront to the intelligence. The road to peace and security of continued existence is in nuclear disarmament. This Parliament should use its influence to promote that aim. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.56) —May I congratulate the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) for a good maiden speech. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who spoke a little while ago. I think we on this side of the House could take a very close look at the way in which the honourable member for Wakefield laid down a creed which could well be followed for Liberal philosophy. The Hawke Government was elected to office on the promise that it would end, as it put it, the politics of confrontation and replace them with the politics of consensus. This is an ideal that should be applauded. The promise was translated into one of the objectives of the Government and it was expressed in the Governor-General's Speech as follows: My new Government has pledged itself to the pursuit of national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstructiion. The spirit of co-operation which marked the National Economic Summit Conference last week has, my advisers believe, laid good foundations for a renewed national effort to enable Australia and its people to surmount the present grave crisis and indeed emerge from it a more united, stronger, and better nation. The comprehensive program I have outlined is designed to further the great national goals of reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. How has the Government measured up to keeping this promise? In the case of its policies, its actions and its attitudes over the South West Tasmania dam issue, the answer has to be not at all. In fact, if one were a Tasmanian, one would be entitled to believe that both the Government's rhetoric during the election campaign and the objectives which were framed through the Governor-General's Speech were nothing more than a cynical fraud. In fact, if one looks at the jackboot actions of the Government and the way in which it has put the boot into Tasmania, one sees that its attempts at national reconciliation and unity are nothing more than humbug. Let us look at the Government's sorry record. We can look at it in three distinct areas. First of all, the Government has failed to carry out any real or meaningful negotiations with the Tasmanian Government; secondly, a succession of ministerial actions and blunders reveal that there never was a fair dinkum desire to have realistic negotiations at all; and thirdly, the fierce anti- Tasmanian feelings exposed in the tirades of a succession of Government speakers in this House meant that there never was any real hope of negotiations taking place at all. Let us look at these three things one by one. The Goverment pleads that it has attempted to negotiate with the Tasmanian Government. What rot! What rubbish! The truth is this: Not one Minister has been to Tasmania or has sought to be briefed by the Tasmanian Government or the Hydro-Electric Commission. Not one Minister has spoken to his counterpart in the Tasmanian ministry or has tried to understand the Tasmanian view at all. Not one Minister has been there to talk to the Tasmanian Government or its statutory authorities. Worse than that, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been invited five times to come to Tasmania to speak to the Premier, to visit the area, to try to understand the Premier's view on the matter and to understand what the issue is all about. He has not accepted one of those five invitations. A number of letters have been sent to the Premier by Mr Hawke. They were obviously sent to create a public relations atmosphere for the Government to be able to plead that it was trying to negotiate. But these letters were nothing more than a sham, because in every case the bottom line was along these lines: Sure we will negotiate; sure we will try to see our way round this problem but we will do that only when you stop building the dam. Mr Hawke has said that he would come to Tasmania and talk to the Tasmanian Government, but first of all it must stop the dam. That is some attempt at negotiation, some consensus, some attempt at national unity and some attempt at national reconciliation. Let us move on to the second point I made, the disgraceful actions of a succession of blundering Ministers. First of all, Senator 'It seemed like a good idea' Evans. Let there be no mistake about it. When Biggles sent off the Royal Australian Air Force to spy on Tasmania, he did it deliberately, he did it without regard to any attempt at reconciliation; he did it without regard to the fact that he was really setting Australians against Australians, that he was using the RAAF in a mean and disgraceful way. If he had gone to the Tasmanian Government and said 'I would like to send my officers into the South West. We want to know what you are doing. We want to know what you are up to in your construction plans and we want to record the actions that you have taken' the Tasmanian Government would have allowed him to come. Instead he sent RAAF aircraft and pilots into the Tasmanian area to spy on the Tasmanian people. Surely nobody can pretend that this was an act of reconciliation, that this was an act of consensus or that this was an act that was designed to bring Australia together. Of course it was not. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes)-known as 'Drongo' to some of the commentators in the Gallery who have observed what has been happening-just went along with the Attorney-General's actions. He has pleaded that he did not quite understand what was involved. This is a senior Minister in a government which pretends to be committed to trying to see its way round this issue in a spirit of reconciliation. Does anybody honestly believe that the Minister did not know what he was doing when he acceded to the disgraceful request of the Attorney- General? Again there can be only one answer to that question. Of course he knew and he did it without regard to the effect at all, because the Hawke Government has only one aim in mind, regardless of what the Tasmanian Government wants to do, regardless of what the Tasmanians have asked it to do, and that is to stop the dam. We move on to the next Minister in this disgraceful charade, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Even before attempts at negotiation had begun with the Tasmanian Government by the Hawke Government, what was Mr Jones saying in Tasmania? Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not referring in the correct manner to honourable members. He has called Mr Barry Jones 'Mr Jones'. He has used the word 'Drongo' and he has used the word 'Biggles' in referring to Ministers. I ask that you request him to use the proper terminology. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The point of order is noted. I would ask the honourable member for Bass to take note of the usual courtesies. Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course I am only following a pattern that was laid down by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) in the very first hours of the Thirty-third Parliament being called together in this place. So let there be no mistake about who is setting the practice in the House. So, as I was saying, we move to the Minister for Science and Technology. At the very time that these charlatans on the other side were pretending to negotiate with Tasmania-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I take offence at the honourable member for Bass referring to members on this side as charlatans. I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Bass not to exacerbate the problem. He should ensure that he addresses the House in the appropriate manner. Mr NEWMAN —The Minister for Science and Technology, at the very time that the Government was pretending to negotiate with Tasmania, was in Tasmania himself, really stirring up the pot. What was he saying? He was saying that when his party got into office he, if he was a Minister, would come to Tasmania and bring Australian Federal Police officers with him. He said he would take them into the area of the proposed dam and challenge the Tasmanian Government and its police force to remove him. What an act of reconciliation! Despite a need to ensure an appropriate atmosphere in order to try to see a way through this problem the Minister was set on a deliberate course to make sure that no such atmosphere could ever exist. Then we come to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). He is a man who is supposed to have responsibility for the carriage of this very delicate negotiation. The debate in this House last week revealed one thing very clearly-that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has no idea whatsoever about the details of his Government's policy on declaring, proclaiming or acquiring the South West National Park area or a buffer zone. He has absolutely no idea at all. He was asked a series of questions about how much of the area would be proclaimed, how much might be acquired and whether it would be a park or a buffer zone. He was asked a series of questions about what would be involved in compensation for Tasmania. He was asked whether we would be compensated for lost future dam potential, the stands of timber, the minerals or Hydro-Electric Commission work on services of which contractors would be deprived? He could not answer one question. Although the debate went on for several hours and he had every opportunity to answer, he did not. We must ask: Why did he not answer those questions? Probably it was because of ignorance but in effect he let the cat out of the bag. He made it absolutely crystal clear to everybody that there was no point in knowing the detail of the Government's policy because he knew that the Government had only one policy-to stop the dam at all costs. If the Government had a negotiating position he would have known the details that my colleagues and I asked for. But he did not have one answer. I state again: If the Government seriously had a negotiating position, the Minister responsible for the negotiations would have had the details at his fingertips. He did not know one single fact. The reason he did not know was that he knew that he did not have to, that the Government was not going to negotiate; the Government was only intent on stopping the dam. Now we come to the third point that I made about Government attitudes. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who has been taking points of order, might like to take a note of some of the adjectives and nouns that were used in relation to not only my colleagues beside me now-the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)- but Tasmanians as a whole. They are not just Tasmanians; they happen to be Australians. Instead of taking irrelevant points of order just to waste a bit of time he might care to go to Hansard and check what his miserable colleagues had to say about Tasmanians. A list of insults has been compiled from the speeches of practically every Labor member who spoke on the matter. Every Labor speaker loaded his debate with insults. They left no room at all for an acknowledgement that many of us have honest views about this matter. The level of mockery and ridicule which speaker after speaker on the Government side levelled at Tasmanians was disgraceful. I hope the honourable member for McMillan takes note of the list. Tasmanians were called maggots, vandals, treacherous, Noddies-- Dr Charlesworth —You said it. Mr NEWMAN —There it is again. Let all Tasmanians listening note the list, which once again confirms the Government's attitude to Tasmania. If the Government really believes it is creating a climate in which the Tasmanian Government will talk to it, negotiate with it, why do its supporters create this climate of ridicule and insult? The list goes on. Tasmanians were called Constable Plods, rapacious, small minded, cheap, grubby and cowards. I did not notice any fair- minded or objective Government supporters taking points of order during the speeches that included those sorts of insults. Mr Cunningham —Maybe they are representative. Mr NEWMAN —No, that is where you are wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will ignore interjections and direct his comments through the Chair. Mr NEWMAN —They not only got stuck into Tasmanians as a group but they also had to use the poor excuse that the Tasmanian Press was the worst in Australia, it was not fair, it was not balanced and it was subject to the biggest monopoly in the country. They said it was the unfairest in the country. An analysis of all those speeches on 4 and 5 May reveals one common thread-that any Tasmanian who happens to have a pro-dam view is a criminal and that he is bewitched by the HEC . The Government attributes absolutely no merit to anyone who does not accord with its view, which almost entirely is taken from the publications of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. Some consensus! Some effort to understand the other bloke's point of view! Some resolve to achieve the grand and noble aims which the Prime Minister so often likes to talk about! Mr Uren —Give the other blokes a go. Come on. Mr NEWMAN —If the Minister for Territories and Local Government had not set such a stupid course for his Government-he is one of the prime people responsible-I might have sat down to let one of the members from his side have a go. But, because the Government is determined to cause disunity, far from conciliation, I am not going to. Finally, who really is responsible for this woeful and sad record? In the normal course the Prime Minister should have accepted some responsibility for it , but in this case he accepted all the responsibility. On election night, the very night that he was elected and was making speeches to the country, he singled out Tasmania. He assured Tasmania that he understood the effect of the vote in Tasmania and promised that he would make a special effort to try to bring Tasmanians back into the fold. He promised that there would be a special effort. Some effort! On 8 March his second news conference in as many days was reported in the Hobart Mercury and many other publications. He was reported as saying that the dam would not be built but that he hoped it could be stopped through negotiations rather than a legal challenge through the High Court of Australia. He said: I regard the question of Tasmania as so important that I will personally be assuming prime responsibility for the discussions with Tasmania. I think it is of such importance I shall accept that responsibility and I will act in association with relevant Ministers. There it is. Mr Hawke, by his own words of 8 March, accepts the bungling and the actions of his Ministers and all those honourable members on the Government side who have spent time in the chamber on a tirade against Tasmanians, their fellow Australians. The Prime Minister has ignored the pious election night statement that he made. He has ignored his declaration of full responsibility for the negotiations with Tasmania. Certainly, he has ignored the noble sentiments that were set out in the Governor-General's Speech. Constitutionally the Tasmanians have the right to build their dam. They have given to the Premier of Tasmania a clear mandate to build the dam. I ask only that the Hawke Government really believe in national reconciliation and unity. If it does, it will allow the Tasmanians to get on with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Bendigo, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I call upon the House to extend to him the normal courtesies. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.16) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the very high honour bestowed upon me by the electors of Bendigo, and publicly thank the substantial number of our party members and supporters who contributed so greatly to our decisive victory on 5 March. The policies we put before the people in the recent Federal election, entailing a program of economic growth and reconstruction, social reform and a vision of a more united and equal society, were overwhelmingly endorsed, not just by the people of Bendigo but by all Australians. The people of my electorate resoundingly rejected the anti- Bendigo policies of the previous Government, and chose instead to elect a government committed to getting Bendigo back to work. For the first time since Federation, Bendigo now enjoys a State Labor member of Parliament, a Federal Labor Member of Parliament, and at the same time a State Labor Government and Federal Labor Government. For the first time since Federation, Bendigo can be assured of a total and genuine commitment to the needs and interests of the electorate. Already, the Government has begun the process of getting Bendigo back to work. Already, our Government has shown its commitment to restore the Bendigo economy, generate local job opportunities and plan co-operatively and imaginatively for the future. The Bendigo Ordnance Factory, which was destructively attacked by the previous Government and its razor gang, has already been strengthened and supported by our Government. Not only have we rejected for all time the proposition that the factory be stripped down and sold to private enterprise, but projects worth more than $3m were announced two weeks ago by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe), with further projects to be announced in the latter half of this year. An amount of $14m has been allocated to upgrade and refurbish completely the armoured centre at Puckapunyal Army Base. The work will be completed by 1985 and will generate 500 direct and indirect jobs, with a peak on-site work force of 175 during 1984. Discussions between the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Bendigo College of Advanced Education have already taken place regarding the reinstatement and future development of the engineering course axed under the previous Government's razor gang. After lying idle for seven months because of funding conflicts between the previous Government and the Victorian State Government, the 60-bed Stellar Anderson wing of the Bendigo Home and Hospital for the Aged will now be opened, following constructive and co-operative discussions between our Government and the Victorian State Government. Importantly also, our Government has already confirmed its rejection of the Davidson Inquiry recommendations to dispense with cross-subsidisation of telephone charges and costs. Such a policy proposed for implementation by the previous Government would have doubled STD phone charges, increased rentals-by up to $900 for many of my constituents-and effectively destroyed our rural towns and decentralised industries. Before I comment on particular aspects of the Governor-General's Speech, it is important to emphasise the dual commitment of our Government to both economic growth and social reform. That dual commitment contrasts rather markedly with the policies of the previous Government, which achieved neither growth nor reform. Indeed, during the past seven years, Australians have witnessed a concerted and deliberate effort by the previous Government to stifle, postpone and in some cases reverse reforms achieved by past governments particularly Labor governments. Not only have social, parliamentary and legal reforms been postponed in the name of economic recession, but also deep and unnecessary divisions have been created in Australian society. Australians will not forget the overt and calculated efforts of the previous Government to reduce health standards and to create divisions between those who are healthy and those who are sick, and between those who could afford health insurance and those who could not. Australians will not forget the deliberate policy of the previous Government to undermine and divide our education system, not just by subverting the independence of the Schools Commission, not just by concerted attacks on the standards of our government schools, but also by providing the greatest percentage increase in funding to the wealthiest private schools at the expense of needy non-government schools and our government school sector. Australians will not forget the massive shift in the economic burden from those most able to pay to those least able to pay, or the unnecessary divisions created between those who actually pay tax and those who avoid tax. Only under the previous Government was the failure of that Government to provide work for almost 30 per cent of our young people used as a means of attacking our youth as dole-bludgers , denying their adult right to a basic level of income security, and propagandising against the right of women, particularly married women, to work. The people of Australia overwhelmingly endorsed our policies of economic recovery and our policies of social, economic, legal and parliamentary reform. The implementation of our reforms in relation to universal health care, widened access to and participation in the arts, the protection of Australia's national and cultural heritage, including South West Tasmania, the introduction of the principle of one vote, one value, the broadening of the Freedom of Information Act, the establishment of a royal commission into the effects of herbicides and pesticides on veterans of the Vietman war, the introduction of legislation dealing with discrimination on the basis of sex, and our firm commitment to genuine equality of educational opportunity, are all overdue reforms, and will be to the benefit of all electors in my electorate of Bendigo, as they will be to all Australian people. I now turn to consider specific aspects of the Governor-General's Speech and the programs of our Government. I welcome the establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, representing governments, business, unions, farmers and community groups, to advise on economic developments and provide a forum for community consultation on national economic and social strategies. With the exception of honourable members on the opposite side of the House, all Australians recognise the need for constructive consultation and co-operation as part of the urgent task of restoring employment opportunities and removing the acute deprivation caused by present massive unemployment. I welcome also this Government's commitment to a community works program including jobs on local roads. Throughout my electorate more than 4,000 persons are registered as unemployed. While very good progress is being made by the Victorian Government under its capital works program and employment initiatives program, there are still more than 50 excellent jobs programs submitted by councils and community groups throughout my electorate to the State Government, which remain unfunded, and thousands still without jobs. The municipal councils of my electorate are delighted by the Government's jobs on local roads program. Under the policies of the previous Federal and State Liberal governments, substantial sums of road funds were channelled into vast freeway developments in metropolitan cities at the expense of rural and arterial roads. Many councils have simply been unable to maintain local roads in a safe and serviceable condition, and in at least one Victorian rural shire the local council has been forced to take the extraordinary action of actually ripping up its local bitumenised roads because of these serious and long term funding shortages. Far more disturbing, however, than the loss of country roads due to lack of funds has been the misery of homelessness that I have witnessed in my electorate . Adequate shelter is a fundamental human right yet in my electorate of Bendigo homeless unemployed young people sleep in country railway stations and abandoned cars, low income families wait over two years for housing commission accommodation, and over 300 elderly people await local government sponsorship to obtain an elderly person's home unit. Such is the poverty of the previous Liberal State and Federal housing policies. It is the young unemployed and the single unemployed who are most vulnerable in times of housing shortage. St Luke's family care in Bendigo last year gave assistance to over 100 homeless young people, estimated as just a fraction of total youth homeslessness in the region, and the Bendigo Urban Emergency Accommodation Resource Centre dealt with 4,700 requests last year for emergency accommodation. One thousand of the requests came from single persons and 750 could not be met by the Centre. The very least that this Government can offer, to raise the standard of living of the individuals trapped in these circumstances, is adequate shelter. I commend our Government's intention to increase the public housing stock and I look forward to a renewed and increased commitment to vital youth housing services. Augmented by measures designed to bridge the deposit gap for home-buyers, I believe this Government will significantly redress existing housing problems, whilst directly creating jobs in the construction industry, and indirectly, in many occupations, through the economic stimulus provided by house construction. My speech would be incomplete without reference to the educational needs of the electorate of Bendigo. At all levels of education-primary, secondary, technical and tertiary-additional funding from the Government is required to honour our commitment to the principle of genuine equality of educational opportunity and the elimination of disadvantage or discrimination. The very comprehensive and much lauded 1982 Australian Teachers Federation survey of conditions in schools highlighted that in the electorate of Bendigo there are more large secondary school classes than in Victoria as a whole, and a massive 40 per cent of all primary grade sizes exceeds 30 students. Our primary school teachers have less preparation time than in other schools in the State, and immediate maintenance is required in 31 per cent of classrooms. Staffing and capital needs in non- government schools in my electorate are also very evident and 99 per cent of these schools will be more equitably assisted under our policy of stricter needs funding than under the policies of the previous Government. Serious funding difficulties also exist in relation to the Bendigo Technical and Further Education College and the Bendigo College of Advanced Education. This year more than 100 qualified students have been turned away from our Bendigo TAFE courses and an even greater number have been excluded from our BCAE course because of restrictive quotas. As a nation with one of the lowest tertiary education participation rates in the industrialised world, and a youth unemployment rate of 30 per cent, the exclusion of qualified and enthusiastic students is senseless and must be halted. Increased access to, and enhanced quality of, tertiary education will be a vital factor in the economic and social reconstruction of Australia. The rural sector is of fundamental importance to the economic base of my electorate both in employment and income, and equally fundamental to Australia's export earning capacity. As one with a family background in farming, I have been astounded by the frequent and often hysterical outbursts of the Opposition in relation to this Government's attitudes and policies for the rural sector. Our farmers and our people who live in rural areas demand no more from government than other sections of our community-the right to income stability and security and a fair and reasonable provision of transport, health and educational services. Yet by 1981, after some six years of the high interest rate and otherwise vacuous rural policies of the previous Government, profitability on farms had fallen to its lowest levels, and the ratio of farm debt to income had never been higher. Some 12,500 of our primary producers throughout Australia are now estimated to be living substantially below the poverty line. Honourable members opposite would do well to acknowledge that the only two policies guaranteeing any income stability or security at all to our farmers-the wheat price stabilisation scheme and the wool scheme-were both introduced by Federal Labor governments. Like the farmers in my electorate, I look forward to the introduction of the National Soil Conservation Program, to the new wheat marketing plan to apply from 1984-85, to commencement of work on the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline project, and to a concerted and vigorous attack by the Commonwealth in conjunction with the States to arrest the very serious salting problem destroying so much of our agricultural land throughout my electorate and Australia. I should emphasise that in addition to our policies for the rural sector our government is firmly committed to the development of strong, competitive secondary industries. Our program provides for short term protection, support for industrial reconstruction and development of new industries, and the introduction of incentive measures to stimulate industrial research and development. As indicated in the Governor-General's Speech, it is the intention of our Government to introduce a 'buy Australian' Act into the Federal Parliament. It is important that all Australians recognise that not all of our secondary industries can be internationally competitive on a cost basis. In my electorate of Bendigo, clothing manufacturers Stafford Ellinson produce a fine range of garments distributed throughout Australia and provide employment for more than 200 people. Stafford Ellinson is more than competitive internationally on the basis of output per person but cannot compete on a cost basis with low wage exporting nations. Who in this House would suggest that the Australian people employed in Stafford Ellinson should have their wages reduced to 50c per hour? Who also would argue for the abolition of protection for our clothing industries , with its consequent loss of jobs and subsequent social tragedy? My final comments relate to the field of communications. In this national public broadcasting week, our Government has expressed support for public broadcasting networks which provide information and access to diverse groups and individuals, and which strengthen our local communities. Just two weeks ago I was pleased to attend the first anniversary celebrations of my electorate's first community radio station-3CCC-FM. The people of my electorate are proud of the achievements of 3CCC. Broad community access is provided throughout central Victoria, more than 110 volunteers contribute to programming, and more than 1000 of my constituents in the electorate of Bendigo are paid subscribers. Station 3CCC enjoys the distinction of being the radio station with the highest percentage of Australian music content, and broadcasts via the strongest signal of any non-metropolitan FM radio station in Australia. I am confident the contribution of our Government in this year of communications will support and encourage community radio stations such as 3CCC, as well as guaranteeing the commercial media networks in my electorate-particularly regional television- freedom from encroachment by metropolitan and overseas interests. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great honour that I stand to support and endorse the program of our Government, which I believe to be one of compassion, economic restoration and growth, and social and legal reform. It is, I believe, a program of vision and optimism for the people of my electorate of Bendigo, and for all Australians. Sitting suspended from 6.36 to 8.30 p.m. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(8.30) —Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment . I assure you that you have the respect of this Parliament and I know that you will serve it with dignity. I also wish other office holders in this place well in the performance of their duties. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak generally in this House in my new role as shadow minister for sport and recreation. I would like to make some comment on that new role and what I consider ought to be the priorities for sport in this country. However, before doing so, I feel that I must make some comment on the Government's performance since coming to office. I am sure that I am not the first to complain, and I know that I will not be the last, about the Government's performance. I am becoming heartily sick of its use of that very tired and old chestnut of blaming the previous Government for just about everything. Since the Australian Labor Party came to office on 5 March, we have had a line of broken promises and sidestepped issues. Everything with perhaps the exception of the weather has been blamed on the apparent excesses of the previous Government. In a little over two months, just about every major undertaking given by the Australian Labor Party, and on which it was voted into office, has gone by the board. That surely must be some sort of record. Never before has so much been promised by so many and broken so quickly. Let me give some examples. The people of Australia were promised less tax in Mr Hawke's policy speech of 16 February, in the course of which he said: Immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers. Instead we have threats of more tax. Already we see proposed the introduction of a 20 per cent sales tax on retreaded tyres. This is despite a pre-election promise which recognised the disruptive potential of such a tax upon the economy of the road transport industry and upon, particularly, employment prospects for small business in many rural towns and cities. The people of Australia were promised petrol price cuts of 3 cents a litre. Mr Hawke said in his policy speech: Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the January 1 oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by the order of three cents a litre. This was the promise. The reality was a reduction of 1.5 cents a litre. In fact, because of State government policies in Victoria and New South Wales, motorists in those States will derive no benefit at all. We now face a proposal that motor car registration and third party insurance may be collected by way of a petrol levy. Such a levy would see a rise of at least 11 cents a litre occur in the price of petrol. Such a burden would fall heavily upon country people, who must travel long distances, and very heavily on low income earners and pensioners who generally own smaller and older cars. The question, what effect would such a significant rise in petrol prices have on the tourist industry, should be asked. The people of Australia were promised a united country. The Australian Labor Party preached consensus. 'Hawke: Bringing Australia Together' was the catchcry. But what did we get? On coming back to this Parliament we witnessed a High Court challenge lodged against Tasmania by the Government within days of coming to office. Consensus and harmony-tell that to farmers whose shearing sheds have been destroyed, whose workers have been attacked and whose lives and those of their families have been threatened by members of the Australian Workers Union, who cannot be brought under control, who have refused to allow shearers to earn their living and who are terrorising fellow Australians with guerrilla warfare tactics. But that is not the only example of neglect of rural people. Items as fundamental as water programs and conservation measures are also to be given the chop or, to be more accurate, have not been thought about at all. It is not a coincidence that electorates along the Murray River-Mallee, Riverina and Murray- all returned National Party members with an increased majority. The demands of people along the Murray River are not excessive. They do not want $200m grants such as Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines have had to help them with their tax problems. They do not want $46,000-odd spent on food and drink for them. That was the cost of entertaining the Economic Summiteers. In the last two months, we have heard of all the things that the Government will not now be doing. What the people of Australia would like to hear, especially those in my electorate of Mallee, is what is going to be done to help them earn their living, particularly now when rural Australia is facing very troubled times. Farm costs-wages, fuel, chemicals and fertilisers-have all been rising steadily and have now got out of hand. Recovery from the drought is certainly under way throughout most of Australia but its effects will be felt for many years and it is absolutely essential that existing drought arrangements should continue. The measures in that regard which were introduced by the former Government were appropriate and generous and will contribute to the emergence of primary industry from the disastrous drought with an ability to improve productivity. Therefore, it is important that those concessions, which allow primary producers to write off in full in the year of expenditure the cost of providing dams, bores and water reticulation facilities, as a means of protecting themselves against drought, should be continued in their present form by the Government. The previous Government had plenty of successes in relation to agriculture and assisting country people generally. It supported the beef industry and introduced the household support scheme. It provided many millions of dollars for drought relief and disease eradication. I might also refer to the continuing superphosphate and nitrogenous fertiliser bounties, the continuance and expansion of the wool floor price scheme, and the provision of research and promotion, better communications and the bicentennial road and water programs. It was also responsible for the introduction of tax averaging for primary producers. Moreover, the previous Government set the lead in abolishing probate and gift duty. It established the Primary Industry Bank and reintroduced the fuel freight subsidy that had been abolished by the Whitlam Government. At this time, I wish to congratulate all those who are new members of the Parliament and to mention particularly the two new members from my side of the chamber, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), both of whom have delivered their maiden speeches and have espoused a philosophy that has contributed greatly to the development of this country. May I also congratulate my other neighbouring colleague, the new honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). I look forward to working with him for the benefit of north west Victoria. I welcome the support that he gave in his speech to the establishment of the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline scheme. However, it was most uncharitable of him to suggest that the former Government intended to bring into effect the Davidson report-- Mr Hollis —You did. Mr FISHER —We did not; we rejected it before the last elections. Also, I challenge the honourable member to cite any member of this Parliament who has ever called unemployed youth or other unemployed in the community dole bludgers, or has denied the right of married women to work. The Murray and Darling water systems account for 46 per cent of Australia's agricultural production, 15 per cent of its wood products and six per cent of its minerals. The resources of the Murray-Darling have been estimated to support directly and indirectly some two million people and the value of its primary and secondary production is estimated to be in excess of $7,000m annually. The Murray River is regarded as the most important waterway in Australia. It also has storage, and severe salinity, problems. Its water flow has a high variability, with the result that in dry years and during droughts, such as we have had and are still experiencing, dams are down to as low as 10 per cent of capacity. Salinity levels vary greatly. I do not have to tell the House what effect salinity has on agriculture. It has been described in thousands of articles by hundreds of rural experts as the number one enemy of Australian agriculture. I cannot stress too much how important salinity control measures and water quality control measures are to the future of agriculture in Australia. I should not have to explain the necessity of research into salinity and of the establishment of projects that will reduce the salt burden in rivers such as the Murray. I should not have to explain, but it seems that Government members and some Ministers have still not got the message about salt. I have only to quote the former Opposition spokesman on primary industry, the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Walsh. Only a few days ago in the Senate, he said: . . . 170 tonnes of salt is a very minor addition to the existing load . . . He was referring to the salinity load of the Murray River. He was, of course, commenting on the decision of the Victorian Environment Protection Authority to grant a licence to a firm of wool merchants who wished to discharge effluent-170 tonnes of salt-into the River Murray from its plant in Albury. He should tell that to the farmers, to the two million or so people who are supported directly and indirectly by the Murray River. Add that attitude to the Government's absolute silence on the future of the $640m water resources program announced by the former coalition Government and we have a government totally lacking in any real concern for, and willingness to give priority to, the needs of agriculture. We have heard no concrete proposals for the management of the Murray from this Government. We have heard vague rumblings from the stand-in Minister, Senator Walsh, that he thinks there will be legislation, not in this session but probably in the Budget Session; not definitely in the Budget Session, but probably. We are able to get legislation passed that will give $200m grants to Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines, lift election blackouts, even provide bounty payments for air conditioners, but we cannot organise legislation that will get moving on some very real issues facing Australia. One wonders that the priorities of this Government are. I place before this Government a matter of national importance and priority. A problem of great concern is the 90,000 megalitre loss of water each year in the northern Mallee region of Victoria through evaporation and seepage. I have made constant calls to the present Government to honour the commitment made by the previous Government to provide funds immediately for stage one of the Wimmera- Mallee pipeline. The existing Wimmera-Mallee water supply system is the largest of its kind in the world. The water supply is derived from storages in the Grampians, from the river flows and diversions of southern flowing streams. Distribution of the water over an area of 28,500 square kilometres-almost one- seventh of Victoria-is by means of 16,000-kilometre earthen channels. Water deliveries are made to some 22,000 farms and to 51 towns annually during the winter and spring months. The future development of the system is such that it is certainly not likely to be economically justifiable to construct any major new storages as it is considered that the Grampians are now fully harvested for water supply. It has been indicated and anticipated, therefore, that in future the channel system, particularly in the northern areas where the soils are sandy , must be replaced by pipelines. these pipelines will provide water from the Murray River. This would relieve the Grampians catchment of a large proportion of its supply load. Thus this scarce and most valuable of our natural resources- water-can be harvested, conserved and used to the advantage of at least one- seventh of the State of Victoria which is deficient in rainfall and lacks natural reliable streams. We simply cannot affort the luxury of wasting our most precious natural resource to this extent. The pipelining of the first stage of the Wimmera-Mallee scheme is equivalent to the construction of another major reservoir in the Grampians system. This would service increased water demands for Victoria, inasmuch as it will greatly assist in safeguarding our existing resources. There is no doubt that the implementing of the pipeline scheme would result in increased productivity which would benefit all Victoria. As the scheme will be of benefit to both State and nation it was considered by the former Government that all capital works, except on- farm costs, must be totally government funded in a similar manner to the Millewa scheme in the northern end of the Mallee. It would not be possible, nor should it be necessary, for land holders to repay capital work costs as they will be incurring considerable expense in providing their own on-farm storage and the necessary reticulation schemes. It is suggested, therefore, that long term finance at concessional rates be made available to farmers to finance their on- farm works and to the municipalities in the area to meet urban supply costs. The inability of farmers to finance such costs without assistance of this nature would in many cases place extreme hardship on them, especially following the present drought. There must also be ample provision made in the scheme to ensure that the capacity exists to provide water for increased demands that could occur in major towns throughout the area. Another aspect that also needs to be evaluated in any economic considerations being put forward is that of the problem of increasing salinity in the Wimmera- Mallee area. At present hundreds of hectares are out of production because of the seepage from the channel. This seepage can occur up to one kilometre from the channel and it results in the formation of large numbers of salt pans which are totally unproductive. Victoria and Australian urgently need schemes such as this to proceed to boost our economy. The cost today will no doubt be the lowest that we will ever experience. I would welcome an announcement, therefore, that the Federal Government will give priority to the piping of the present Wimmera- Mallee channel system. I ask the Labor Government to state that it will inherit the $640m water resources program established by the Liberal-National Party Government in the same way that it intends to inherit our education and social service programs. Prior to the election the ALP launched a very weighty document on sport and recreation. While it had a commendable number of words, it said very little that was not already known or accepted. But I am concerned that much of what was relevant and pertinent-I refer here to specific Budget allocations-may be pushed aside, as with so many other pre-election promises, on the pretext of the inherited Budget blowout. Fortunately, to my knowledge, the National Economic Summit Conference did not discuss sport and therefore any reneging of promises in the sport area cannot be justified on any consensus at the Summit. I am concerned that funding for sport will be one of the first things to go. The grand schemes and words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he would spend $ 50m a year on sport to double immediately the direct allocation of funds to sporting bodies is unlikely to come to fruition if the Government's performance to date is any criterion. I accept that all governments must exercise restraint and should attempt to balance their books, but I urge that the ALP's commitment to the sportsmen and women of this country be not abandoned. In the last 10 years Australia has come a long way, and at a Federal level much has been done. The Australian Institute of Sport was certainly born of an ALP suggestion on a report commissioned by the late Frank Stewart. But it was under the previous coalition Government that this magnificent complex and training institution came to fruition. In the last few years many millions of dollars have been spent at the AIS. I hope that now that the majority of buildings and facilities have been constructed this Federal Government does not decide to forget about sport and its responsibility to the future world champions, the junior sportsmen of Australia. Already the Government has moved away from expanding the number of sports catered for by the AIS. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism ( Mr John Brown) just this week, in answer to a question I asked, told the House than the number of sports catered for at the Institute would not be increased in the immediate future; that the Government did not favour at this time the AIS's moving into cycling and rowing. What a time to take such a decision! We have the 1984 Olympic Games just around the corner, yet the Minister says it is too early to contemplate national assistance for sports such as cycling and rowing. Tell that to our oarsmen, to our cyclists who have no national training facility and who will not have one for some time. I accept and believe it is essential that our athletes who attend the AIS should expect adequate accommodation, education and employment opportunities. This Government will receive my support in its endeavours to create a just society and reduce the crisis in unemployment. However, I will continue to argue that only by restored growth and incentive to those who are productive and prepared to use their talents to increase this productivity can this be achieved . Mr SPEAKER —In calling the honourable member for Moore I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech. I hope he will be extended the usual courtesies. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.51) —Firstly, in accordance with convention I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to the most honoured position in this House. I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees on his election to that office. I would also like to offer my congratulations to the other new members of this House on both sides who, I think, have shown themselves to be a force to be reckoned with in this Parliament. I would also like to offer my best wishes to those new honourable members who are still to make their maiden speeches, because I know with what trepidation I stand here as I make this maiden speech. The electors of Moore have given me the honour and privilege of representing them in Federal Parliament, for which I sincerely thank them. I would like to pay tribute to the previous member for Moore, Mr John Hyde. I do so because whilst on the political spectrum Mr Hyde and I were poles apart he had that rare quality in politics which demands admiration-an honesty which allowed him even to attack his own party leadership on matters of principle. The seat of Moore has transferred its political allegiance in recent years, firstly from the National Country Party to the Liberal Party and now, for the first time, the voters of Moore have given their confidence to the Australian Labor Party. The electors of Moore in fact elected me to this House with the largest swing in Australia. That is an impressive condemnation of the policies of the previous Government and a definite endorsement of the aims and goals that the Australian Labor Party presented to them. Clearly, the electors of Moore have expressed their opinion about the direction they wish this country to follow. In population, Moore is the largest seat in Western Australia with over 85,000 electors and an annual growth rate of 5,000 electors. The main rate of growth is in the Shire of Wanneroo but both the Shire of Swan and the Shire of Mundaring have shown increased enrolments. It is a seat which will need to be redistributed before the next election, as within its boundaries the northern suburbs of Perth expand to incorporate 40 per cent of the total growth of the city's metropolitan area. The very nature of the seat is changing, and what was originally a rural area has now become an outer metropolitan electorate with a rural hinterland. The largest local government authority in the seat of Moore is the shire council of Wanneroo. When I first moved into the shire 12 years ago there were fewer than 7,000 persons in that area. In 1983 the shire has a population of 108,000 people. Population growth of this magnitude can produce significant social and economic problems. Moore is not an industrial centre. Fishing, agriculture and viticulture contribute to the regional economy, as does the enterprise of numerous small businessmen. However, the majority of the electorate work force commute to work, many of them travelling great distances to the central business district of the city of Perth. This daily travel, combined with the rapid growth rate of the area, has resulted in enormous strains on the road system, on public transport and, indeed, on the commuters themselves. These problems confront all outer metropolitan areas and highlight the need for greater concentration on the issue of decentralisation. The Shire of Wanneroo has encouraged the development of service-type and light industry but it needs the support of both the Federal and the State governments if decentralisation is to become a reality and not just another catch-cry. To illustrate the point, a former State government established the Joondalup Development Corporation to plan the development of a sub-regional centre within the Shire of Wanneroo. Unfortunately, the Corporation is now moribund through lack of public funds, a victim of the previous State Government's disastrous economic priorities. Over the last few years the electors of Moore have become disenchanted with governments which seem more concerned with featherbedding the rich and privileged in our society than confronting the real problems of the ordinary citizens of Australia. The ordinary citizens of Australia had a government-which fortunately has been defeated-which was bankrupt in ideas, policies and leadership. The inevitable result of such a government has been to lead this country to the verge of economic stagnation. The problems faced by the electors in Moore are a mirror image of the problems faced by the wider electorate of Australia over the past several years. The issues of housing-coupled with high interest rates- unemployment, cutbacks in education funding, the high cost of living, the decline in living standards and inadequate social welfare payments are the issues confronting not only the electors of Moore but the electors of Australia. These are the issues about which the people of Australia made their decision on 5 March. Within the electorate of Moore there is a high level of home ownership. Eighty per cent of people living in the electorate own or are buying their own homes. Among this community are many who have suffered financial and social hardship as the result of rising interest rates and the accompanying increase in mortgage repayments over the last few years. Although on the surface the seat of Moore appears affluent, with new homes and new suburbs, within these new suburbs are families struggling to cope with high mortgage repayments, families that by necessity make do with basic furniture and no winter drapes or floor coverings, families whose weekly income is carefully budgeted to meet basic requirements while they struggle to meet the great Australian dream-to own their own homes. A lowering of interest rates will have beneficial effects not only on the people battling to buy their own homes, but also on the building industry and the community at large. In the meantime, however, those with housing problems may also be confronted with the added burden of unemployment. In the electorate of Moore there is a growing incidence of chronic unemployment for those over 25 years of age which is additional to the high rate of youth unemployment. The latest figures from the only Commonwealth Employment Service office in the electorate-a lamentable situation as this requires the unemployed to travel great distances to register for work-indicate that there were 3,664 persons registered as seeking work; 32 unemployed people were competing for each job vacancy. These figures fail to express the full extent of the wastage of human resources in the elctorate. Firstly, many persons do not register to obtain employment. This includes women, many of whose expectations of obtaining work are severely restricted by the present economic climate, and those seeking part time employment as well as the young school leaver. Secondly, in an electorate the size of Moore it is easier for many of the unemployed to register for work at CES offices situated outside the electorate; so we do not know the true level of unemployment in the electorate of Moore. On the figures that we have, we know that 27 per cent of the unemployed are 19 years of age or younger and 55 per cent are over 25 years old. I would like to pay a tribute to the Wanneroo Community Youth Support Scheme. The two project officers in that organisation have worked tirelessly on behalf of unemployed youth and deserve greater community support for their efforts. I would like to say to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that the CYSS Scheme is one initiative which must not only continue but also be expanded alongside other initiatives to tackle this immense problem of unemployment. The former Government's attitude to CYSS was negative. It would have liked to disband the Scheme. Its attitude showed a deplorable contempt for the real problems of the unemployed. I am pleased that this Government places the highest priority on job creation schemes and will take action to alleviate the social disruption caused by unemployment. I am particularly concerned that the growth of the population and consequential urbanisation, often without adequate planning or community facilities, combined with rising levels of unemployment are reflected in increasing crime in this country. Experts differ, as only experts can, on the impact of urbanisation and unemployment on crime rates. I might add that having worked in the criminal justice system for over 20 years I too claim to have some expertise in this area . The overrepresentation of persons of Aboriginal descent in criminal statistics in this country is a tragedy. Figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that, whereas 2 per cent of the Australian population are Aboriginal, they represent over 30 per cent of the prison population. A survey in Western Australia in 1981 on the rate of imprisonment in that State showed that, as at 30 June 1980, 1,359 persons were sentenced to imprisonment, and of those 439 were Aboriginal. Let us illustrate those figures in another way. During 1980 Western Australia imprisoned Aboriginals at the rate of 1,300 per 100,000 as against 80 per 100,000 for other races. These figures clearly indicate that if one is an Aboriginal, one is much more likely to be arrested than a member of any other racial group and, having been arrested, is much more likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. There is another issue involved here-the overuse of incarceration as a sentencing option. In fairness, overall Australian imprisonment rates compare favourably with those of other countries. However, within Australia there are wide variations between States. According to recent figures supplied by the Australian Insititute of Criminology, the Northern Territory has the highest rate of imprisonment in this country followed by Western Australia, both of which have large Aboriginal populations. Imprisonment is an expensive luxury and only those who are a danger or a risk to the community should be locked away at the expense of the public. There is, therefore, a need to look at alternatives to imprisonment, such as the fine, the bond, probation and community service orders, particularly for Aboriginal offenders. As the President of the Civil Rehabilitation Council of Western Australia, I am very much aware of the effect of imprisonment on the family. It is often the spouse and children who suffer most from the imprisonment of the offender. They suffer in two ways: Firstly, in the loss of income through the imprisonment of the breadwinner and, secondly, through the social stigma suffered by the family. For both mother and children these effects can be traumatic. As a federation we do not have a criminal justice system. We have a number of systems based on the States and Territories as well as that of the Commonwealth. This has created a lack of consistency in sentencing policies which is reflected in the sentencing disparities noted earlier. I am well aware that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) is concerned with the problem and it is the Government's policy to implement reforms recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. I now turn my attention to aspects of the Governor-General's Speech on the occasion of the opening of the Thirty-third Parliament. It is clear that this Government faces the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. What is also clear is that this Government has shown a willingness, as instanced by the National Economic Summit Conference, to seek the co-operation of all sections, to meet the social and economic challenges ahead. The Government-and in particular the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-is to be commended for its initiative in this area. I note and welcome the Government's intention to proceed to fulfil its promise to introduce Medicare. It is hoped to introduce the scheme on 1 January 1984. In an electorate with a high percentage of its population under 14 years the Government's proposed initiatives in education are to be commended, particularly its goal of providing equal opportunities for all Australian children. I also welcome the Government's intention to end the present fragmentation of policies and funding for the aged through the creation of an office of aged care. The Government is also to be commended for its intention to establish a royal commission to inquire into the effects of herbicides and pesticides on veterans of the Vietnam War. It is now 10 years since the last of the 45,000 servicemen who fought in Vietnam on our behalf returned to Australia. It is a tragedy that almost all of these servicemen had some trouble readjusting to civilian life. Many succeeded, but many did not. The conflict in Vietnam was the first in the history of warfare in which huge quantities of toxic chemicals were sprayed from the air to defoliate the forest, destroy crops, kill pests and kill human beings . One possible result of the veterans' exposure to these toxic chemicals is a condition known as the toxic brain dysfunction. I trust that the royal commission set up by this Government will closely examine the medical evidence on this issue. I also welcome the Government's intention to introduce legislation dealing with discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status. The intention to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women is also to be welcomed. It has become evident already that the Thirty-third Parliament has benefited from the increased participation of women in its deliberations. I want to say, in conclusion, that I am an optimist who believes in the future of mankind, and I have a belief in Australia. I believe that under this Government we have the potential to make Australia great again. I should like to finish with these words: These things shall be! A loftier race Than e'er the world hath known shall rise, With flame of freedom in their souls, And light of knowledge in their eyes. Nation with nation, land with land, Unarmed shall live as comrades free; In every heart and brain shall throb The pulse of one fraternity. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the House for its attention. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.10) —I warmly congratulate the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) on an excellent maiden speech in this Parliament. He follows in the footsteps of a very worthy member of the Parliament. I congratulate the honourable member on his contribution. It is my great pleasure, Mr Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment to the highest office the Parliament can offer to any of its members. In so doing I am joined by your Presiding Officer colleague, the honourable member for Queenborough in the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Tasmania, and the honourable member for Huon. I wish you, Mr Speaker, every success, as indeed I wish your Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairmen of Committees success as they commence their duties during the current Parliament. I am indeed honoured to stand here again, having been returned as the Federal member for Denison in the House of Representatives. I would clearly be failing in my duty if I did not place on public record my very great gratitude to an electorate which is a great electorate to represent and which has shown me tremendous loyalty over the past eight years. In 1975, 1977, 1980 and 1983 the electors of Denison have seen fit to send me to Canberra as their representative . I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives from Tasmania when I say that I greatly appreciate this honour and that I shall do everything in my power to justify the confidence which has been shown in me by the electors of Denison. For the benefit of people all around Australia listening to the proceedings, I should mention that this is the debate on the Address-in-Reply, and it is appropriate to remind ourselves and the people of Australia that this is one of but two debates in the parliamentary year in which any member can speak on virtually any subject without restriction. The address to which we are replying is the Speech by His Excellency the Governor-General of Australia, Sir Ninian Stephen, delivered on the opening day of the session. When we criticise anything that is in that Speech, I think that people listening will appreciate that we are not criticising His Excellency, because the Speech is written for His Excellency by the Government of the day. But it is appropriate that we just ponder the words of the Address-in-Reply, the motion before the Chair tonight, which I wholeheartedly support. They are: 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. In the eight years during which I have been a member of this place, that is the first time that I have heard those words of the motion read during the debate, and it reminds me to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the motion before the Chair. But it also involves a question as to the content of that motion expressing our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign. Whatever else the people of Australia intended on 5 March, as a result of their votes Australia now has a centralist, socialist, republican government in office. I guess that tonight, and particularly after the performance of the last week or so, there will be tens of thousands of people around Australia scratching their heads and saying: 'Why did we do it?'. On the performance to date I have no hesitation in saying that the words of the Government's Attorney-General, Senator 'Biggles' Evans, are very apt when he relies on the streaker's defence and says: 'It seemed like a good idea at the time'. After the performance of this week I have to say that there are many people right around Australia saying: 'If this is what this Government is like after seven weeks, what on earth will it be like after three years?' In the light of that, I now predict that when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) goes to the people of Australia asking for referendum support for a fixed term of Parliament of three years, he will suffer a very substantial defeat. Why do I say that we have a centralist government? The plain fact of the matter is that the Labor Party has always been committed to centralising power in Canberra. It does not believe in the federal system. It does not believe in States rights. It regards the Senate as an unnecessary obstruction to the path of the socialist policies it wishes to implement. I can put it no more fundamentally than did the Prime Minister. If one cares to go back to the Boyer lectures of 1979-these were not extempore words; they were carefully prepared words with meaning and impact-one finds what the now Prime Minister of Australia had to say. He said: 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-which no longer serve their original purpose, and act-- Honourable members should listen to these words-- as a positive impediment in achieving good government in our current community. This would give us, like the great majority 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. I hear someone say 'hear, hear!' I hear words of support for that proposition. I would like people in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia to listen . I do not refer to people in Tasmania, of course, because they had the good sense to return five Liberal members for the fourth time running. The way the Labor Government is performing at the moment it will be a decade or more before we will see a Labor member for the House of Representatives from Tasmania. I now wonder what the electors of Western Australia will feel when they discover to their sorrow that those sitting on the benches opposite supposedly representing their States in this House are, in fact, centralists who believe that power and wisdom resides in Canberra and that the decisions for all Australia should be made in Canberra. The honourable member for Moore who spoke before me made, to his credit, what I regard, frankly, as a very fine speech. I would like, with respect, to adopt his remarks in relation to imprisonment. He had the good sense to refer to the federation. But he will find to his cost, as will the people of Western Australia, that the decisions of Western Australia which should be made by Western Australians will now be made in Canberra. The Prime Minister will get on the telephone to Mr Burke and that will be the end of it. I repeat that a country as big and diverse as Australia has become great in its first 83 years because it is a federation and because it recognises the devolution of power. Under the socialist centralists now in power the decisions would be made in Canberra. Why do I say that it is a socialist party? I do not have to prove my point. I admire people such as the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) who have never cringed about the fact that they are committed to a philosophy of socialism. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), to his credit, hoisted his colours to the mast and has stood by them throughout his entire parliamentary career. I can tell honourable members that in the previous Parliament quite a number of members of the Labor Party objected violently when they were called socialists. They call us conservatives. I am no conservative; I am a Liberal; I am a reformer. But I will tell honourable members opposite that by their own policies they are socialists and their impact on the economy and the standing of the Australian reputation internationally will be as disastrous as are the socialist policies of Monsieur Mitterrand and discredited former socialist leaders. The fact of the matter is that Australia now has a socialist government. Let not one honourable member opposite cringe from the fact that their own party policy and commitment is the socialisation of Australia. They take the oath of loyalty to the Queen. They support the motion for the Address-in-Reply. Yet they are bound by their policy to abolish the monarchy and to turn this country into a republic. They cannot shrink from that fact. I have never seen so many Labor politicians falling over themselves to shake hands with the Prince and Princess of Wales. When the Queen comes to Australia one cannot get within cooee of her because of Labor politicians. Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 76 which states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. The honourable member for Denison is insinuating all sorts of improper motives and making all sorts of personal reflections on members of the Government in relation to Her Majesty the Queen, to the heir apparent and to the Australian Labor Party, of which I am proud to be a member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —I invite the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) after I have completed my speech to make a personal explanation and to tell this Parliament and the people of Australia whether he is loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and the constitutional monarchy or whether he is, as he is bound by his party policy, a republican. We have before us a Government which is a oncer government. When I came to this place in 1975, after eight years in the Tasmanian Parliament, I heard for the very first time the word 'oncer'. It was used by the honourable member for Hindmarsh-not the present one but the former, distinguished, handsome, intellectual and extremely capable honourable member for Hindmarsh, the Honourable Clyde Cameron. He said that certain members of the Liberal Party were a bunch of oncers. I used to go home at night and think: 'What on earth does this mean?' 'It means', he said, 'that you will only be there for one Parliament .' We got back again in 1977; we got back again in 1980; and we were elected again in 1983. I welcome all new members. I hope their stay is enjoyable but brief, because amongst them are 13 oncers who will lose their seats at the next election and we will see the return of a Liberal-National Party coalition. I will not be unkind enough to suggest that the competition is going to be ' pick the oncer'. I will not nominate which honourable members will be in that 13 . But let me give them that figure because it will stick in their minds from this day until the next election. A swing of 3.2 per cent will put the Hawke Government out and the Peacock Government in. The way the two of them are going at the moment, I have to say that Andrew Peacock is shortening in the betting. I have never seen a Government crumbling so soon after its election. I do not have to remind Government members of the embarrassment which they all felt when the Prime Minister yesterday and today tried to talk himself out of one of the greatest bungles, one of the greatest examples of ineptitude in the handling of our national security, that I have ever come across in 18 years in parliamentary service. I wish the Prime Minister had a rear vision mirror so that he could have seen the looks on faces behind him as, minute by minute, he dug himself deeper into the hole today. Having sat down, he got up again and had another little dig. The Government is crumbling already. It is already in deep strife and it knows it. Honourable members opposite have made the greatest mistake of their lives by calling for a royal commission into the activities of Mr David Combe. Someone on the Government side of the fence apparently does not like Mr Combe. Having destroyed his reputation, having killed his profession, having put him into a situation of Purdah where he cannot even talk to Ministers, some Government members now want to dig a little bit further. I am afraid that they will dig up a few things which will fly back into their faces. Through David Combe, Khemlani will live again. The beginning of the end of the Government will come because a Prime Minister failed to recognise that there are proper principles and precedents. Again I have to say, look at the record. In seven weeks this Government has broken more promises than Malcolm Fraser broke in seven years. Let me remind honourable members of one. Ninety-six per cent of the taxpayers of Australia are waiting for the tax cuts which the Government promised would be immediately introduced. There are six million people out there and every day that goes past-- Mr Mildren —What about John Howard? Mr HODGMAN —Do not worry about the honourable member for Bennelong. He was a dashed good Treasurer and he will be back in the job very soon. We are wondering what will happen. Honourable members on the Government benches will find six million writing to them because these immediate tax cuts have not eventuated. They will not get tax cuts. They got a National Economic Summit Conference instead. That is marvellous! And when the Budget comes along, taxes will be increased. The Australian Labor Party is a socialist party. It has to tax hard and high to pay for its expansive and extravagant promises. I have to say, looking at the Governor-General's Speech, what went through my mind. I do not say this with any cruelty, because I do have a personal regard for the new Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. As I heard the Governor-General's Speech the other day I said to myself: ' Whitlam again only worse; Bob is not as tall as Gough but the thinking is there, the policies are there'. The Government has not learnt anything from seven years in opposition. The Government to start its career has picked a fight with the smallest State in Australia and put the Federation at risk. Even at this late hour, Mr Deputy Speaker, through your good offices, I say to the Prime Minister of Australia: 'Call off this case. What more are you going to do to Tasmania? Two letters, a writ, the Royal Australian Air Force, the biggest High Court case in the history of this country'. One does not know whether Gareth Evans will give one a writ or the RAAF. He is the writ and RAAF Attorney-General. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has had a remarkable string of successes in his first few weeks in government. He has changed the Royal Australian Air Force into the Luftwaffe as far as the people of Tasmania are concerned. He has amputated the Fleet Air Arm, after 50 years of experience. He is behaving, if I may say so, in a manner which indicates already that he will not be able to carry out his responsibilities. The Prime Minister has the same attitude to Tasmania as General Galtieri had to the Falkland Islands. Prime Minister Hawke has made it very clear that there will not be any goodies for Tasmania. Tasmanians had the tremendous cheek to return five good, strong Liberal Party members for the House of Representatives. In the time remaining to me let me make one or two comments on some matters on which, for the first time in 2 1/2 years, I have the opportunity to roam just a little without restraint. I say to the Government-I say it with the utmost sincerity-do not proceed with your attempts to destroy the Federation. Do not proceed with your determination to crush and trample on the tiniest but most beautiful State in the Commonwealth. Do not proceed with your determination to centralise everything in Canberra. Remember that there are Australians big and small. I am sorry that in the first weeks of the Hawke Government in this Parliament I and my fellow Tasmanians have been called such things as maggots and vandals. It is not funny. It is a tragedy that members of the Government are prepared to use that language. I say to the Government: 'Try to apply a little decency and responsiblity to what you are doing'. One member of the Opposition will watch the Government very carefully on one issue. I have stood firm and resolute on the issue and never wavered one inch, and that is East Timor. I am now going to watch what the Government does in relation to East Timor. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) can endeavour to interject but some four years ago his former leader, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Mr Hayden), out of all the members of the present Government had the decency to stand in this Parliament and pick me as having been consistent in my view in relation to human rights and East Timor. When I look at the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) I remember his distinguished father. If the Minister would not mind my saying it-I am sure that he would not-his father is one of the greatest Australians I have ever met. The Minister should ensure that what his father said in this Parliament is adhered to and the position of East Timor is not forgotten. In conclusion I want to refer to the remarks made by our Prime Minister over the last few days in relation to what has now become known as the ASIO-David Combe affair. It is an absolute tragedy that I have seen for the first time in a parliamentary career involving State and Federal politics a man's reputation destroyed in one hit by a statement made in the Parliament by the Prime Minister of this country. What we have today is a most extraordinary situation. Having destroyed Combe's reputation, taken away his livelihood and profession, we are told there will be a royal commission. I hope that the Press will print it up this way. It is the best example of a trial after an execution of which I have ever heard. Government members ought to be ashamed of themselves collectively if they do not stand up for the one inalienable right of every Australian and that is to be given a fair go. The jurisprudentialist who preceded me, the honourable member for Moore, would know that there is a basic and fundamental right that one should be heard in one 's own defence, but what the Government has done is to pick out one man and make him its sacrificial lamb. I believe it is still not too late for the Caucus to stand up and say: 'Principle, Prime Minister, is going to come above politics and pragmatism'. I hope one of you in Caucus is decent enough next week to stand up and say: 'We have wronged a very fine Australian who has been a very fine member of our party'. The Government can still repair the damage it has done. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish the new members well. I bear the 13 honourable members who will go out at the next election no ill will but I must say that the sooner we can get rid of this rotten socialist republican Government the better it will be for Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —I do. Because I took a point of order the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) became somewhat carried away. He implied that I was somehow disloyal to Her Majesty the Queen. That is untrue. I have taken an oath to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and I will stick to that oath. I believe in that oath and I thought it somewhat hysterical for the previous speaker to carry on as he did. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I do. Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) has misrepresented me. I just want the honourable member to indicate whether he is for the Queen or for the republic. If he does not answer he will be condemned, because-- Mr Beazley —A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not a personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN —The fact is that you are all republicans and none of you is loyal to the Queen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. Before calling the honourable member for Calare I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask that he be given the normal courtesies. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(9.32) —I enter this Parliament at a time when my fellow Australians, having lost faith in the previous Government, place their trust in the Goverment led by the Australian Labor Party's leader and now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He offered Australians new hope, he offered Australians a new perspective and he offered Australians a sense of national purpose. The spirit that characterised the recent election campaign presents an opportunity for me to recall the words of one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers, whose electorate is now substantially included within the federal division of Calare. I refer, of course, to Bathurst's most famous son, the late Mr Joseph Benedict ( Ben) Chifley. Mr Chifley said in late 1949: Labor stands for the people. Labor stands firmly against all who would take advantage of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, how true these words are in 1983. The 1977 federal redistribution dramatically altered the Calare electorate. Approximately 45 per cent of the pre-1977 Macquarie electorate was included in the new seat of Calare as the boundaries moved in an easterly direction. Therefore, while I have the honour to be the first representative of my great party to hold the electorate of Calare since Mr John Breen in 1946, it is important to place the history of the seat into a meaningful perspective. In this respect I must of course recognise the contribution to this House by two other great Australians who respresented areas now covered by my electorate. John England was the member for Calare from the by-election held on 5 November 1960 until November 1975. Mr England, though not a member of my party, was a highly respected man within both the Parliament and his electorate in his 15 years of service to this House. Anthony Sylvester-or, as he is better known, Tony-Luchetti served as the member for Macquarie following the death of Ben Chifley. He won the seat at the by-election on 28 July 1951 and retired prematurely following the traumatic events of 11 November 1975. Mr Luchetti appropriately referred to the late Mr Chifely in his maiden speech on 4 October 1951 in these rather glowing terms: The name of Mr Chifley is honoured in Australia, and is known and revered throughout the world . . . I come here this evening to honour that name. I represent those people who, throughout the years, have made their contribution to the development of Australia, and I pay tribute to honourable members of this Parliament who in other days, in various ways, inside the legislature as well as outside of it, made their contribution to its development and to its protection and security. I embrace these words tonight, and in doing so know that the present honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free), who also holds Mr Luchetti in great esteem, would appreciate the significance of the political representation of Mr Luchetti 's old seat of Macquarie. I acknowledge the overwhelming vote of confidence given to me by the people of Calare just over two months ago. During the election campaign I gave an undertaking to all people in Calare that I would endeavour to serve my electorate with vigour. The nature of the electorate will ensure that such a task will be demanding, exciting, frustrating at times, but nonetheless very necessary and fulfilling. Calare covers an area of nearly 25,000 square kilometres and is an electorate of socio-economic diversity. It includes the tableland cities of Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow, the slopes and plains towns of Parkes and Wellington as well as a number of other significant urban centres such as Wallerawang, Portland, Oberon, Blayney, Molong and Peak Hill. My electorate is diverse in many respects. While only 15 per cent of my electorate is classified rural, the rural component makes a great contribution to our national income. The western section is part of the State's wool-wheat belt. Fat lamb producers in the central tablelands are anxiously monitoring the effects the recently negotiated closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand is likely to have on the local industry. Beef cattle, too, make an important contribution to Calare's agricultural base throughout the entire area. In the central portion of the electorate intensive fruit growing, notably cherries and, I am pleased to be able to boast to honourable members from Tasmania, apples, adds to the area's diversity. Forestry also contributes to the regional economy of Calare. The drought of the last five years has now eased, but the post-drought period will be a trying time for the rural community of Australia. The severity of the drought will mean that there will be significant indebtedness amongst primary producers for years to come. However, I am sure that despite the dimensions of the task the rural community will once more begin to contribute strongly to our national wealth. Simple processing of many of these primary products takes place near the source of production. Timber mills, wool-topping, abattoirs and canned food production within the electorate provide suitable evidence for such an observation. Significant public and private manufacturing enterprises are located in Calare. The Small Arms Factory was initially established in Lithgow by the Fisher Labor Government in 1913. The Wallerawang power station has a generating capacity of 1 ,240 megawatts. A number of important railway establishments are located throughout the entire electorate. The largest manufacturing enterprise is the whitegoods manufacturer, Email Ltd Orange, which has continuously added to its original site following its establishment after World War II. High technology industry also exists in the form of edible collogen processor, Devro Pty Ltd, located in my home city of Bathurst. Many other small to medium sized manufacturing concerns add to the local, regional and national economy. However, in the face of the most serious drought probably in the last 100 years , coupled with the present economic recession, Australian based manufacturing has some serious problems. My immediate concern is to encourage our fellow Australians to support our local manufacturers. If we wish to maintain our high standard of living, which includes the payment of wages at levels significantly higher than exist in other countries within our region, the price we must be prepared to pay to enjoy such an amenity is to support Australian manufacturers rather than purchase cheaper imports. Unlike many countries that provide us with goods, Australia recognises the right of free trade unions to exist. Australia is a major trading nation that must, of necessity, be prepared to import goods if it wishes to export to the markets of the world. However, we need to recognise consciously that support for locally produced goods is beneficial to the nation as a whole. In other words, given the constraints of our trading obligations, Australians should encourage each other to buy Australian. As one of a number of new members with an occupational background in education, I point to a strong educational base in Calare that keenly awaits our Government 's approach to education funding. Pre-school, primary and secondary schools, both government and non-government, with varying resource standards, endeavour to meet the needs of an ever-changing society that gallops towards the next century. Technical and further education is another area in which significant progress has been made in recent years. Still, the task is a daunting one when we face the technological, vocational and relaxational demands of our times. The Mitchell College of Advanced Education at Bathurst has a distinguished reputation and boasts a significant enrolment of external students. It is an institution that developed from the former teachers' college of which I have many fond memories-if I may say so-of my tender youth in 1965 and 1966. The Orange Agricultural College is a much smaller institution with a well-deserved reputation Australia-wide for academic excellence in farm management studies. Its foundation principal was my predecessor, Mr Sandy MacKenzie, who held the position prior to his election in 1975, and who has been my political opponent since the 1977 redistributution. Like so many other members in this place, I join the three times lucky club in getting into this place. The college has been the target of unneccessary attempts to destabilise its reputation, with strong indications of forced amalgamation being made in the last few years. I am delighted that assurances have been given by our Prime Minister that we will not accept further forced amalgamations in the college and university sector. In many cases the economic grounds in support of amalgamation have been shallow and little attempt has been made to assess the impact of these educational shotgun marriages. I strongly support the need to ensure that our tertiary education institutions are both economically and, more importantly, educationally viable. However, the interests of the smaller, specialised institutions, such as the Orange Agricultural College, need to be carefully assessed. Calare is a seat that has a great place in the history of our nation. The city of Bathurst is Australia's oldest inland centre. It was proclaimed by Governor Macquarie on 7 May 1815. the Orange area is the largest urban centre of Calare and is recognised as the site where the gold rush of the ninteenth century had its origins. Lithgow, the centre of the western coalfields, was the birth place of the Australian iron and steel industry. The town of Wellington was a significant location in the inland exploration of New South Wales. Parkes is named after one of the founding fathers of Federation, Sir Henry Parkes, and this year celebrates its centenary of local government in the area. Many great Australians were born in the area of Calare or have made a contribution to its development. I recognise these people and their contribution in this House tonight. Another aspect also warrants comment. Prior to the election only 12 1/2 per cent of recognised rural and provincial electorates throughout Australia were represented by members from my party. My party now holds one-third of all such seats, with the Labor vote in provincial centres almost matching the vote in metropolitan areas, whilst the recognised rural vote is over 44 per cent. I believe that this evidence is testimony to the fact that the Government's legislative program as outlined in the Governor-General's Speech was endorsed by all Australians, irrespective of their location, throughout our huge and great continent. The Government is truly a representative government. I am proud to be a member of the Government party but I am particularly conscious of the fact that I represent the 113,000 people who live in one of the most historic regions of non-metropolitan Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to to convey my good wishes to Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Committees. Like so many of my colleagues who have had the opportunity to wish you well in your important positions in the Thirty-third Parliament, I now add my voice to that chorus. I offer the occupant of the distinguished post of Speaker my congratulations and good wishes. In my limited, but selfishly optimistic, desire for a longer tenure in this chamber I am only too aware of the importance of their respective roles and the dignity that they both bring to their new positions. I look forward to a long and professionally satisfying association with them both as I enter my first parliamentary term as the member for Calare. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to add my congratulations to you on your appointment as a Deputy Speaker. You and I came to the Parliament together and we enjoyed each other's company during the time in which we were introduced to the workings of this place. It is interesting to see that the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) is in the chamber. As I recall, he was one of those who instructed us at that time. The Governor-General's Speech, as was said earlier this evening, is the policy document of a government. This particular policy document is more interesting because it is the policy document not only of a new government but also of a government with a different political philosophy from the one that has governed Australia for quite some period in recent times and, of course, over a great deal of time in the last 30 years. The Governor-General's Speech is a very wide-ranging document. I guess it could be said that it is somewhat like the policy speech put forward before an election which promises something to all people at all times. Of course, whether it will deliver the goods in the long term will be proved by history. The opening part of the Speech contains the sub-heading 'Economy'. Reference is made in the very first paragraph under that heading to the National Economic Summit Conference. I attended that Conference as an uninvited guest. I did so for a very special reason. I do not deny a government or its leader the right to hold conferences of any nature. However, I take strong objection when the Government chooses to hold a conference in this place, before calling together the new Parliament and the people who have recently presented themselves to the total voting population of Australia. I also take strong objection to the fact that the delegates attending this conference were presented to the Australian public as community representatives. In this day of the media one must take steps to draw attention to such a situation. I quite deliberately did that to make sure that the seat which I occupy tonight was mine by right-the right of being presented to the Australian public under the democratic laws that apply in this nation. I had been judged by the electorate because I had been its representative for a previous term of parliament. I had put myself before it with competition quite widely spaced among four opponents. I was re-elected with an increased majority and I believed that if anybody was to represent my electorate at the Conference that person would be me. I do not subscribe to the theory of American presidential style politics that we elect a leader by way of some great media event and then that person gathers around him a group of advisers who make up his Cabinet. This group basically runs the country and the elected parliamentarians are used as a rubber stamp. I saw the Summit Conference as the first step in that direction. I objected to what was happening. I took the steps which I am entitled to take. History will show that I established one thing of certainty-that a person elected to this Parliament has the right to be in this place at any time the doors are unlocked. It is a great pity that the newly elected members of this place, most of whom belong to the Labor Party, did not show similar courage. They did not feel insulted by their leader and, in fact, they were prepared to be subservient to the representatives of big unions, big government and big business. Mr Maher —It was a publicity stunt, the whole thing. Mr TUCKEY —That is quite right. I thank the honourable member. I agree with him completely. I presume he is talking about what the Prime Minister did. Mr Maher —Your publicity stunt. Mr TUCKEY —No, the publicity stunt was organised by the Prime Minister. I attended to represent the people who said to me: 'We are terribly concerned-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, my constituents said to me: 'We are terribly concerned that a Prime Minister who as Leader of the Opposition said to us during the election campaign that he was able to give us tax cuts and that he was able to reduce our tax burden all of a sudden, prior to calling together the people who had been elected to the Parliament, started to make statements on the Mike Walsh Show-a great forum for political debate-in which he said that if there are delays in the promised tax cuts they will not be because Bob Hawke has decided so but because the community, through its representative bodies, will have decided that that is basically necessary'. Let us look at the people the Prime Minister was talking about. No wonder my constituents were concerned. They saw the Summit as the biggest tax dodge in the history of Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) used it to get out of his tax promises. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) today gave us some very good advice about where the money comes from to run government. It was a great contribution by a new member. But what did the Prime Minister say? He said: 'It is your money and governments only spend your money'. A person seeking to handle that money said: 'I can manage with less; I will reduce your burden'. No sooner was the Prime Minister in a position to give tax cuts than he created a new forum in this place to give him an excuse not to do so. Whom did the Prime Minister call together? He said that he would call together community representatives. By coincidence, some 30 representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions sat in the seats now occupied by Government members. Members of the Labor Party can probably tell me as easily as I can tell them how many members of the Australian work force are affiliated members of the ACTU. Over two million people-a large number-are in this category. However, there are six million workers in Australia and I thought I had better come along to look after the other four million. Mr Reeves —Tell us about the Aborigines. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should lift his game because the party of which he is a member is in government now. If he wants to take the time I will tell him about that. What would he do if his wife was getting beaten up? Would he defend her? Anyhow, let us get off that subject. My constituents are worried because the National Economic Summit was a carefully engineered tax dodge. Firstly the Prime Minister laid the ground work. He told us that the community was represented. He said that the Confederation of Australian Industry was there. That confederation has 50,000 affiliates. I am told that there are 700,000 small businesses in Australia. Admittedly there were other representatives, but if the Confederation of Australian Industry can claim to represent 100,000 of those 700,000 small businesses then I will be surprised. The people who were elected by all voting Australians were denied a place. Honourable members opposite carry that burden more than any because they had the right through their Caucus which, we all know now is another rubber stamp, to say: 'We will attend, we will do the job first because we are the representatives of the Australian people.' But no, the Prime Minister sold the Summit on the Mike Walsh Show; it had to be right. But that was not all. It was not only a case of denying tax cuts, but also stating that taxes would probably have to be increased. How do we justify that? We call on the sorcerer's apprentice, a Mr Kelty. We know who the sorcerer is in trade union terms; I should not have to tell honourable members. In previous days his name was Hawke. The apprentice came into this place on behalf of the two point something million people he represents and said: 'I think my members should accept greater taxes'. I suggest two things on that issue: Firstly a proper referendum could be held, not a referendum with a muscle and a bit of elbow, but a nice clean cut one like we generally have held under the same auspices. That referendum can be held amongst the two point something million members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on a straight yes/no basis. We would then see how many of those members agree with Mr Kelty and would voluntarily accept increased taxes. When we have finished with that lot let us get to the other four million. Let us decide what they would do about increased taxes. I am a gambling man. The odds on those people voting against increased taxes would be a lot shorter than Maggie Thatcher is in the current polls in Britain. What was this tax dodge, this Summit, supposed to deliver? It is unfortunate for honourable members opposite that they were not here; they have to rely on what I tell them because I was here. That is their misfortune. They did not have the courage to attend. They subverted themselves to their new leader. They denied everything that the Labor Party stands for. They did not operate Caucus in the democratic tradition of the Labor Party. It is interesting that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), talked about Ben Chifley. We will look at that again. An interesting thing about the Labor Party is that Ben Chifley's demise and death saw the decline of the working man as an influence in the Labor Party. I would like honourable members opposite to stand up one at a time and tell me what their professions are and when they last had dirt under their fingernails. Mr Kerin —You have always got dirt under yours. Mr TUCKEY —Quite right. It has been achieved by hard work. The honourable member for Werriwa should not worry about it. Mr Chynoweth —I am a worker. Mr TUCKEY —Are you a worker? Tell me about it quickly because I have not got the time. Mr Chynoweth —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a turner and fitter by trade, and I am very proud of it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —I am pleased to hear it; there is one left. The facts of life are that the Summit was designed for a purpose, but what did it achieve? I listened to all those people speak. Mr Robert Brown —You were not there. I was. I do not know what you were up to. Mr TUCKEY —Can I tell the honourable member for Hunter something. The Prime Minister saw me. The honourable member must have been blind on the day. The facts of life are that the Prime Minister made a reference in this place and, by a strange coincidence, on the first day as I crossed the chamber because I wanted to go out the door opposite we actually bumped into each other and he said: 'G'day, I saw you sitting up there'. So I think he knows that I was there. It is a great pity that I did not contribute to that Conference because I would have told a few of the people present that they were falling over themselves to deny everything that they had been saying for some time. The great con trick was played on the working class. Bill Kelty stood there and said: 'We will accept increased taxes'. The sorcerer's apprentice! If the sorcerer can pull that one off he is not too bad. I invite Government supporters to put that to the people, to go back to them and say: 'I am sorry'. It does not matter whom they blame; it is history. They should just tell the people that they intend to run a government based on ever increasing taxes. I would like to see how the vote runs in those circumstances. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment to that office. The Governor-General's Speech addresses all these matters. Some great words came out of the Summit. I especially recollect certain words, which I quoted to the Parliament the other night, of Sir Arvi Parbo. When any one of us gets to his feet in the future and decides that he knows it all and can predict it all we should remember his words. People as senior as the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), with his great academic achievements, claim to be able to tell us all about what will happen in regard to aluminium, for instance, but let us remember what Sir Arvi said. Briefly, he said that if three years ago anybody in Australia had stood up and predicted the present economic circumstances he would have been not only the only person in Australia to do so but also would have been considered mad by all the experts. That should be a great lesson to all of us, it is something that we should not forget. Let me also touch on a few other things that occurred at the Conference. Certain scenarios were presented. They were quite good in that they attempted to lay out the situation under given sets of circumstances. The Press tells me that they were embarrassing to the union movement to some degree because the union movement was a party to them. The union movement knew that what was said was right but did not want to believe it. The scenarios were classified A, B and C. Scenario A is usually the preferred option. It would be reasonable in presenting the scenarios to those gathered here to have had them begin at one end of the scale of preference and end at the other, but that was not done. The soft option , the middle position, was expressed as category A. Government supporters may tell me why that was done, but I believe that it was a bit like the great tax dodge. We knew, and they knew, because they did a deal, that there would be a 3 per cent wage rise this year. We have a judicial system that is supposed to decide these matters. Mr Rocher —Five per cent. Mr TUCKEY —Is it to be 5 per cent? We have a judicial system and other decision makers but, as I have said, I am a gambling man and would dearly love to bet that, irrespective of the economic circumstances in Australia this year, that wage rise will take place, whatever the cost, because the deal has been made. During my election campaign I had reason to speak on the same platform as the Labor candidate, a young farmer who was a member of the Primary Industry Association. He wanted to talk anti-tariff. That is a catchy phrase in my electorate but I had to draw his attention to the accords and advise him that it would be in breach of contract. The contract entered into by the Australian Labor Party, states that there will be heavy tariffs, that there will be no reduction. The only requirement is that there be an increase in employment. Whatever the cost, that will be good enough. That is what the economic accords say. Accordingly, I had to tell him that he was in breach of contract. I repeat, the scenarios did not cover the range from the worst possible situation for Labor to the best possible situation for industry, or for the community. I happen to have the funny feeling that the welfare of industry and employers is very similar to that of the work force. Unfortunately we have been told differently for a very long time. However, a lot of unemployed people have eventually got the message. The soft option obviously is option B. That was just another little con trick. I do not propose to worry too much about that now and will proceed in the little time remaining to look at some other situations. Finally, to my mind, the Summit was the greatest publicity stunt one could ever dream up. Some day honourable members opposite will tell me what it achieved. It is interesting to note that a great group of unionists said: 'We will give this and we will give that', but that one group said: 'Like hell, we do not want to give anything'; and there is a good reason for that. The metal trades unions, the major union participants in the Summit, have done their dash. They have conducted so many caesarian sections on the golden goose that they will not get another egg for a long time. No one knows that better than their leaders. But the building industry sees it a little differently. The employers have a number of half-finished buildings. The building industry unions can screw hell out of their employers for a little longer, but they know that when the Christmas tree goes on the top of those buildings they will get no more eggs out of their golden goose either. That is why they want to get out of the system; that is why they want to cop out. The accords and the conciliation came about because necessity demanded them; there was nothing else. So much for the Summit! I would dearly love to cover a large number of other areas in this Summit document. I have marked them in yellow. I think I could have said many things about them. In closing, I remind new honourable members who have made maiden speeches and who have said wonderful things tonight that there is only one place for the representation of the Australian people. That is called parliament. We have State parliaments and we have the Federal Parliament. The members of those places are the representatives of the people. If honourable members opposite want to desert the people again and let their boss run an economic summit, let them do so; but they should tell the people they represent that they are secondary in the representative business and that other people can be picked up at their leader's choice and that those people will make the decisions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Newcastle, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask for the usual courtesies to be observed. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.7) —Firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I join with my colleagues in congratulating you, other Deputy Speakers and the Speaker on your elections. It is particularly significant that I make this speech under your chairmanship, and I appreciate the honour. In making my first speech in this place representing the people of Newcastle, it is appropriate that I thank those members of my party who encouraged me to become a member, those who supported me during my preselection, and those voters of Newcastle who placed their faith in me and gave me the honour and the privilege of acting on their behalf in these very difficult times. I also thank a loyal and trusting family who share not only the burden of responsibilities but also my confidence in the future of this nation. I would like to pay my respects also to the three previous members for Newcastle for the efforts they have contributed to the well-being of the people of Newcastle. I shall comment further on these men later. I would like to indicate at this stage why I am proud and privileged to represent the people of Newcastle. Newcastle, the sixth city in Australia and regional capital of the Hunter Valley with a population of over 600,000 people, is a city without peer in Australia for its contribution not only to the industrial, resource and shipping growth of our nation but also to the aesthetic , artistic and sporting growth of Australia. In the field of art, Newcastle of course was the birthplace of Sir William Dobell, John Olsen, John Molvig, William Groves and many others. Other famous Australian artists such as Tom Cleghorn, Paul Beadle, John Passmore, John Montefiore, Marilyn McGrath, Mario Ermer and many others have had part or all of the genesis of their artistic endeavours in the city of Newcastle. It may be surprising for honourable members to find that Marilyn Rowe, Assistant Artistic Director of the Australian Ballet Company, is a Novacastrian, as are other members of that company. There are authors, poets, sportsmen and musicians from Newcastle working and performing not only throughout Australia but also throughout the world. Newcastle is also quite prolific in the production of politicians. One of my delights on the night of 5 March was to see another Novacastrian elected to this House. I refer, of course, to the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) whose parents are still alive and well and very much honoured in Newcastle. Since it was first established as a penal colony to mine the first coal ever in Australia, Newcastle has known the richness of Australia's booms and the miseries of its depressions. Throughout our long and chequered history the strength and courage of our people have been apparent. We have seen the coal industry oscillate between unpredictable extremes and watched with apprehension as a once great shipyard was ground into a relic of its former years. Now, even as I speak, we must try to anticipate the intentions of BHP. Throughout all of this, the people of Newcastle have never been lacking. They have kept their faith in the future of their city and their nation. What Newcastle and Australia have lacked in the 82 years since Federation has been national governments with a vestige of a policy towards manufacturing industry. We have had national governments whose industrial policies have been those of simply ignoring our industrial future, whose policies were moulded to ensure that the future was totally unpredictable and whose policies on shipbuilding and shipping seemed to be to let other countries do both. The industrial strength that was Newcastle was built during two wars. Our industrial engines thrived on the demand created by monstrous events. Since the 1950s we have seen those engines corrode and fall silent, one by one, through lack of care and maintenance by a nation they had served so well. For the past seven years Newcastle has plunged further into a trough, with the government of the day sitting aloof and remote. Last year, when BHP commenced a contraction which for many people has been and is as devastating as the recent tragic bushfires in the south, not one Minister, let alone the prime one, came to look at our ashes. It has been very hard for the people of Newcastle to maintain their faith in a government which obviously did not care. In 1976 our State dockyard employed over 2,000 men. Its work force today is just over 600. The BHP has shed, to use a polite term, over 5,000 employees in the past two years. A great number of the 480 companies that depend for all or part of their income on BHP have closed with loss of jobs even greater than those of BHP. To add insult to injury, two years ago it was announced that our university and college of advanced education were to amalgamate. This amalgamation was to achieve no savings, nor were any benefits specified. It seemed just one more step in the humbling and degrading of a proud and caring community. I say 'caring' because, after the tragic bushfires of which I spoke, an appeal launched by the Lord Mayor of Newcastle raised $170,000. The fact that a community faced with such massive problems of its own can show that kind of compassion is justification for the pride that I feel in representing it. Newcastle does not have a history of begging. It has contributed more than its share to the wealth of our nation and we have never asked for more than we give. During these lean and barren years, we have asked for the same degree of concern and compassion that we have shown fellow Australians. We are a proud city, and rightly so, for we have a great deal of which to be proud. I speak on behalf of the people of Newcastle not only with pride and honour, but also with relief. Had the Australian people chosen otherwise and on 5 March given us a government of the kind that Newcastle has known and suffered for so long, this speech would have been of a vastly different complexion. I have spent more than eight years as an alderman for the City of Newcastle. During most of this time we have had as our Lord Mayor a lady of great talents, the first female Lord Mayor in Australia. During our most despairing moments she has managed to radiate a sense of optimism and faith in our future. I assure honourable members that during this time I have not always shared that faith and optimism. However, she has been proven right as she always believed that Australians would give Newcastle a government that cared about its future, was committed to our industrial manufacturing sectors, and believed in our people. It is with both pleasure and pride that I find myself part of this Government, a Government faced with one of the greatest challenges ever, but one with more commitment than ever before in the history of the Australian Parliament. I turn now from Newcastle the City to Newcastle the electorate. As an electorate, Newcastle is unique in that it has previously elected only three representatives to the Parliament. I would like to pay my respects to those three-Mr David Watkins who was elected at Federation in 1901, his son David who was elected in 1935, and my immediate predecessor the Honourable C. K. Jones who was elected in 1958 and who served as Minister for Transport in the Whitlam Government. Because of this uniqueness I have taken the liberty of examining the maiden speeches of my three predecessors. On 22 May 1901 when Mr David Watkins made his first speech as the first member for Newcastle he touched on a number of issues which included his support for the protection of Australian industry. He stated: I have always believed in excluding all the forms of cheap labour possible, I was at the same time prepared to go to the logical extreme, and refuse admission to the products of cheap labour. The story is very familiar. Newcastle in 1901 was a much smaller place. Our major industry then was coal mining. It was still a major port as the Year Book shows. It states: No seaport of the State can be compared with either Sydney or Newcastle. Mr Watkins senior was succeeded by his son David who spoke for the first time in October 1935. The population of Newcastle had by then almost doubled, but the issues were similar. He said: I cannot understand how the Government can forget that children, in order to become good citizens, must be brought up in decent circumstances, and under proper conditions. No doubt the Government will argue that money is not available for housing purposes, but if war were to break out tomorrow, ample money would be found for the destruction of human life. Why, then, cannot money be made available for the uplift of the masses of the people? Is it better to destroy than to build? That has a very familiar ring about it. Those comments are similar to comments that have been made in this debate. Mr Watkins junior stated further: I urge upon the Government the need for proceeding immediately with the development of industries for the production of oil from shale and coal. This is vitally necessary, not only for defence purposes, but also for the re-employment of our miners who, like the returned soldiers, seem to be an army of forgotten men. The decline in the mines between Federation and 1935 was, of course, dramatic and the coal fields around Newcastle had been in turmoil. However, the establishment of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in 1914 meant that Newcastle had become the major industrial centre of Australia and that shipping was still our second most important industry. I turn now to the maiden speech of my immediate predecessor, the Honourable C. K. Jones, on 24 February 1959. Newcastle had grown even more, but the issues that Mr Jones raised were remarkably similar. He said: I propose to deal with the effects of mechanisation on the coal industry and workers in the Newcastle district. Mr Jones said: So far this year five pits have closed down and 787 men have lost their jobs. Mr Jones referred to an aspect of the speech of Mr Watkins junior when he said: A committee was appointed to investigate the possibilities of a coal-based chemical and liquid fuel industry. Later he said: In Australia today 13 ships of the Australian National Line are tied up because there is no cargo for them. Mr Jones also referred to high unemployment and to a lack of a clear shipbuilding policy. My intention in referring to these three predecessors and their maiden speeches has not been to provide a session of nostalgia but more to indicate that the problems of Newcastle are not new problems. They are problems that have been endemic to our city since Federation. There has been a tendency for some people in Newcastle to interpret these continuing problems of our city as being ones of lack of care by a party they have always supported. It is clear that since Federation Newcastle has rarely had the kind of government that industrial cities need. I take particular heart at that part of the Governor-General's Speech in which he said that this Government will be committed to the development of a strong competitive manufacturing industry. He said: The Government intends to preserve a viable and efficient steel industry. I am more privileged than my three predecessors because I am making this, my first speech, as a Government member. I am the first member for Newcastle to have done so. It is not enough to be a Government member; what is important is the objectives and capacities of the Government to address the problems that Newcastle has faced since its birth and is still facing today. At present we have one of the highest unemployment rates in Australia. We have a floundering steel industry, a shipyard with no ships to build, coal mines producing more coal than we can sell, and a work force with more skills and more ability and more talent than ever before, but no jobs. In the few short days since election on 5 March much has been achieved. The BHP and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) are obviously coming to terms with their respective futures and there is emerging a steel policy to which both the industry and the Government will be committed. The unnecessary amalgamation proposed has been terminated and discarded. Within weeks of his election, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has seen fit to visit our area, and start talking to our people and looking at our problems. We in Newcastle recognise that the issues that are facing us will not be solved overnight. We recognise the structural changes that are needed and the difficulties that they pose. However, we recognise also that at least we have Ministers and a government who are paying serious attention to these problems. So where does the Newcastle of tomorrow go? If one looks at our past we can see where we do not want to be. We do not want to be faced with perpetual crisis, with perpetual unemployment, with constant concern and apprehension as to whether our industries are relevant or have a future. What we expect and need is a government to create a context in which solutions can be developed, a government with the courage to create the policies that will allow us to work again. Those policies must relate to the Australia of the future, because for the first time in our history our Government is looking ahead and predicting where we are going and trying to plan our objectives. For too long we have been the victim of other countries' economies and other countries' attitudes. If Australia is to have a future that is meaningful and significant and if places like Newcastle are to contribute what they are capable of contributing to the national economy, we have to know what role we can play in the years ahead. Newcastle has manufactured for Australia in the past. We want the opportunity to manufacture for our future. Tell us what Australians will need in the decades ahead and our people will produce it. I could not conclude this speech without remarking on these first few months of experience as a new member of parliament. It is more than somewhat disappointing , with so many real problems facing us as a nation, to find that so much of the time has been spent on trivial issues, on issues that are not relevant to where Australia will be going in the next decades up to the end of the century. I find it rather tragic that so much energy and ability are being wasted in so many trivial and meaningless exercises. On behalf of the people of Newcastle, I remind honourable members of the responsibility we all have not to ignore the plight of our people who are suffering. The hollow words that have been coming forth in the past few weeks about the concern for the unemployed and for Australian people seem to have a particularly cynical ring about them, when so much of the time of the Parliament has been wasted on issues that have no relevance to the suffering of those people or the insecurity of their futures. If it is nothing else, my task here as the member for Newcastle will be to ensure that I address myself to the real issues that confront us and avoid the quicksand of flimsy controversy and the trivial political exercises that seem to abound. I trust that these first two weeks will not be an indication of what the future of this Parliament holds. I and so many of my colleagues have come here because we want to help. We want to work at improving the future of Australia and it is with some degree of sadness and even resentment that I find energy being wasted on issues which are not relevant to the problems facing my city and our nation. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.24) —On behalf of the Opposition I would like to place on record our congratulations on the contributions made in this debate by maiden speakers. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Child Care Facilities: Parliament House-Drought Relief-Employment of Women- Department of Health-Australian Broadcasting Commission-Welfare Benefits-Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.25) —Last Saturday the people of Wannon decided who should represent them in this chamber, and we will all have an opportunity later to congratulate the new member. But I had the distinction of meeting and compaigning with the Australian Labor Party candidate, Mrs Nancy Genardini. She is a person who greatly impressed me with her sincerity, her compassion, her interest in all problems, her commonsense and her intelligence. I worked with her, as did other members, in Stawell, Ararat and other parts of Victoria. My reason for mentioning this outstanding candidate tonight is the fact that had she been elected she would have had a great problem because she has a three- year-old pre-school child. My wife and I also have pre-school children and she discussed with us last week the problems she would have faced had she been elected to this chamber because there are no child-minding facilities in this area. Her husband and she have other children and he could not have run a farm and looked after a three-year-old child at the same time. She explained to me that on a parliamentary salary she could not have afforded to employ a housekeeper. I told her that she would have only four occasions on which she could bring her child to Canberra if she wanted it minded here. Mr Leo McLeay —On three occasions. Mr MAHER —I am reminded by the honourable member for Grayndler that she could have brought her child here on only three occasions. She also said that she could not afford the fare for the child to come to Canberra with her. I raise this matter tonight because I am told that to date no provision has been made in the new Parliament House for child minding facilities. If anyone here tonight has a pre-school child he or she will know that it is extremely onerous and very trying for one to try to look after one's children while one's family is visiting. Honourable members know that the Magna Carta, one of our basic constitutional documents, guarantees that admission to parliament shall be free. It is a rather quaint expression but it means that no citizen will be hindered in his entry to parliament. I am raising this matter tonight because I believe that entry to parliament is not free for a candidate who has responsibility for pre-school children. We have to take cognisance of this fact and look at this problem as I looked at the problem in discussions with this candidate last week when she was confronted with the prospect of being elected to the national Parliament and then having to try to sort out her difficulty concerning her baby. I am very sympathetic and concerned about this matter. I am raising it tonight because more and more new candidates are being elected to the House. It is not only a problem for women but also for male candidates who are widowers or single parents. I trust that as the new committees get under way and we revive the committee for the planning of the new Parliament House action will be taken to ensure that some form of child minding assistance is made available to members in the new edifice rising on Capital Hill. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.29) —Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity, as it is the first occasion on which I have spoken since your election, to congratulate you on your appointment to the high office of Speaker of this House. It is certainly an appointment that I wholeheartedly supported. The matter I want to raise tonight is the serious concern I have about the time it is taking to process drought relief payments, especially the interest subsidy . As is the normal thing to do on occasions such as this, I advised the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that I would raise this matter but unfortunately I understand that as a result of his returning from Europe today he is not able to be here tonight. A number of farmers and farm advisers have approached me regarding the lengthy delays between the date of lodgment of applications and the date of payment. Clearly, as a result of the drought many farmers have had no income for a long time and some have had to borrow extensively to meet their day to day living requirements. In addition, following the recent rains, they need funds to be able to re-stock and to get back into production. Grain growers need funds for fuel, fertiliser and seed. Their position has been seriously aggravated by the lengthy delays they are facing due to the hold-ups in the processing of these applications. The Department of Primary Industry has been very helpful to me in cases which I have raised with it, but it appears that it is just not able to deal speedily with the number of applications it has on hand . I understand that the Minister may like to give us some information at a later date, but the figures I have show that some 3,000 to 4,500 farmers are awaiting payment. Of course, each farmer may have made more than one claim. In fact, I have heard that up to 30,000 claims are outstanding. I am not absolutely sure of those figures. I have received them second hand. I would welcome the Minister's verification or otherwise of those figures. Recently I was approached by a person who was assisting farmers in cases concerning the interest subsidy. Amongst those cases with which he is acquainted , four months is the fastest time in which an application has been processed. I therefore ask the Minister-I welcome him back to Australia-to take the appropriate steps to ensure that all these cases are dealt with before the end of this financial year. Clearly there is an urgent need to get this money to the farmers now. Some concern has been expressed that by delaying payments to farmers the Government has been able to fund the extra $260m it has spent this week on other projects such as the Australian National Line, Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines. I trust that the Government will not use this delaying tactic as yet another means in inflating next year's Budget deficit whilst blaming the Opposition, because it will not wash. Finally, I urge the Minister for Primary Industry to take action to speed up immediately the processing of drought relief payments, especially the interest subsidy, in order to help farmers recover from the disastrous drought. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(10.33) —Seeking to govern in these difficult times is an awesome responsibility and one which the Australian Labor Party does not take lightly. Now, more than ever, we must recognise that our most important resource is the human one and that women comprise half our population. We must ensure that they are able to contribute skills and talents to their fullest extent. During the early 1970s women in Australia experienced a sharp rise in their expectations for education, employment and equality in the many facets of private and public life. Unfortunately, many of these hopes have been disappointed by the deepening economic recession. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of the former Liberal Government, Australians face a bleak prospect in the 1980s. In its blind pursuit of the goal of lowering inflation it attempted to implement policies which are out of touch with the social and economic realities of the twentieth century and which are totally out of touch with the needs of the people. Now after 7 years of severe economic restraint the burden falls heavily on the unemployed and the disadvantaged in our community. It is a measure of the deep-seated inequality in our society that the largest disadvantaged group among the unemployed comprises women. This represents an unacceptable loss of talent, creativity and skill to the community at a time when these assets are needed more than ever. Over the post-war period, unemployment figures for women have been consistently higher than those for men. For young women the situation is now serious and it can be expected to worsen as schools continue to stream girls into subjects which prepare them for a narrow range of jobs, many of which are disappearing. Education plays a huge role in guiding and determining women's career options. In June 1982 women comprised 61.2 per cent of all social security pensioners and beneficiaries. Over 95 per cent of those on supporting parents' benefits are women. The total picture these figures represent is what some analysts have referred to as the feminisation of poverty. Lone parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are women, are in an especially difficult position and face an enormous climb to pull themselves and their families out of the poverty trap. More and more women are taking on the role of breadwinner for their families. Women in this position are in a double bind. The strains of lone parenting often make paid work less feasible than for a two-parent family but paid work may be their only escape from poverty. Few of them, however, have the necessary resources to get off welfare and very often the harder they try, the more they are disadvantaged. We need to broaden the number of services available in the community so that people in the no-man's land between total dependence and independence are not penalised for taking the first step to self-reliance. We need to create opportunities for employment, with special emphasis on employment for women. We need also to change our education system so that girls do not have their perceptions tailored by the education system into predictable narrow streams and their horizons and expectations restricted. Our pattern of life is changing very rapidly, and the idea of the male being the sole breadwinner of the nuclear family and the woman being the exclusive home-maker is very much under challenge. More and more women are both the head of the family and the breadwinner. We no longer have just the standard family unit. We also have the dual worker family, the no-worker family and the one- parent family and the reconstituted or blended family. These diverse family units all face different problems. In the single-parent family, though free from any marital conflict, there are the problems of an absent father, the problem of economic survival and the decision on whether to try working or to exist in poverty on welfare. Australian women deserve better than this. The gains women made in the early 1970s towards their own advancement have been seriously undermined by the neglect of the previous Government. The economic strategies pursued by the Liberal Government have led directly to high rates of unemployment especially among women. Unemployment leads to poverty and waste of human talent. It fosters anxiety, powerlessness and dependency, and the cost to our country in this loss of human potential is incalculable. I make a special plea tonight to our Government on behalf of the thousands of unemployed women: When job creation is discussed, let us give special attention to the girls and the women in our community who want to work. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.37) —Again I rise to inform honourable members of the high -handed and unaccountable behaviour of the Department of Health-though that is probably an inappropriate name, if ever there was one. Perhaps I should try to start again. I am talking about the high-handed and unaccountable behaviour of the Department of Medical Interference, particularly in the way it seeks to dictate which doctors may prescribe what treatment to which patients. Tonight's theme is total parenteral nutrition. Broadly, I understand this to mean feeding a patient intravenously when for some reason the digestive tract is out of commission. An example would be after major intestinal surgery. In April 1980, a decision of the Department, in effect, made total parenteral nutrition unavailable outside government hospitals. Doctors whose patients would be adversely affected by this decision objected to it, naturally, and later that year it was agreed that it should be reviewed. Two and a half years later the outcome of that review has not been made known. Before I go any further, it is necessary to explain, in accordance with my limited knowledge of the subject, a little more about total parenteral nutrition . Anyone who has been in hospital or who has watched M.A.S.H. or The Young Doctors-I confess that I have not-will know that fluids of one kind or another are very commonly given to surgical patients by intravenous drip. The usual fluids contain water, chemicals to maintain the electrolytic balance of the body fluids, and often glucose-I suppose that is a sort of intravenous Staminade. They do not contain other substances, such as fats, proteins and amino acids, for instance, that the body needs to maintain and heal itself. Ordinarily this does not matter because the average person has enough reserves of these things in his or her body tissues to last a few days, without any ill effect. But if the patient is malnourished or intravenous feeding has to be maintained for long , some of these substances must be supplied intravenously. The decision that I mentioned by the Department of Medical Interference in 1980 was to remove intravenous preparations of amino acids from the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits. The reason given by the then Minister for Health was: As hospitals other than public hospitals frequently do not have appropriate facilities and staff to provide and monitor such therapy, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended that preparations which provide amino acids for parenteral nutrition should no longer be listed as pharmaceutical benefits. This is remarkable reasoning, even by the Department's standards. Because many non-government hospitals do not have the facilities to provide this treatment properly even those with qualified staff and equipment are to be prevented from doing so. Using the same logic, since a proportion of government hospitals also do not have these facilities no government hospitals should be able to provide the treatment. Mr Speaker, we might as well say that because kidney transplants cannot be done at the woop woop regional hospital they should not be done anywhere. That situation is absurd. I know of two doctors in Perth who each work in the intensive care units of two major hospitals; they work half time in each. One is a government hospital, the other is not. In the government hospital they can prescribe and supervise total parenteral nutrition but once they enter the modern and well-equipped non-government hospital two miles away the Department says that they are no longer competent to do so. I am making two distinct complaints against the Department this evening. My first complaint is that it made an arbitrary decision based on fallacious reasoning. Secondly, it is taking a scandalously long time to review that decision. I recognise that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is new to the position and that he may be able to get on top of the situation very early in his career. I will draw this matter again to the attention of the Minister and I will ask him to act immediately on both the complaints I have made this evening. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.43) — Yet again the Australian Broadcasting Commission has shown its contempt for affairs in remote areas. Last Saturday it axed the Winners program without prior notice. I understand that the explanation being given by the Commission is that that program is not rating well down south . One might ask why the national television service is concerned about ratings in Sydney and Melbourne. After all, the people of Sydney and Melbourne have a choice. They have three of four channels at their disposal. In the Northern Territory there is no choice. One can watch either the ABC or nothing. The report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was completed some two years ago. The Dix Committee got the message loud and clear about the feeling of outback people on television coverage of sporting events. The report stated: The matter of televised coverage of sporting events, exclusive rights to which have been secured by commercial television stations, was never far below the surface of any of our outback hearings. It was a question raised by institutions as well as individuals. We were informed of resolutions on the matter by associations such as the Graziers' Association of Central and Northern Queensland . . . . In Port Hedland one citizen had organised a petition of 16 000 people in the Pilbara about the lack of the cricket and such events as the Melbourne Cup on ABC television, and had travelled to Sydney to pursue the question with the ABC . . . Sporting telecasts emerged as a talisman for feeling, amounting almost to resentment, in rural areas against the ABC's effective television 'monopoly' in many areas of outback Australia. One would have thought that by now the ABC would have got the message, but it seems not. This is the second assault the ABC has made on sporting coverage of remote areas in recent months. The rugby league coverage of Sydney and Brisbane events was axed this year. It is possible for the ABC to use its subsidiary rights even though the rugby league coverage rights are held by commercial stations. It is possible to use those subsidiary rights and to televise the rugby league in remote areas originating from Darwin, Townsville or other places such as that. But it does not do that. It is about time that the elitist and arrogant people in the ABC, from the Chairman down, woke up to the fact that there is a growing and deep resentment in Australia over this issue. The second issue I should like to mention briefly tonight is a statement made by Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, about the Commonwealth Government's subsidy for the Darwin Shipping Service. He said that this subsidy was to be axed by this Government. That is incorrect and the Chief Minister knows that it is incorrect. In other words, he has deliberately misled the people in the Northern Territory about the true position. The true position, and the Chief Minister knows this, is that the Federal Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) is still waiting for a proposal that he invited from the Northern Territory Government on the future of that service. The true position is-and Mr Everingham knows it-that the subsidy is due to expire in any case on 30 June. That was a decision made by the previous Government. The true position is that the Northern Territory Government originally agreed to accept responsibility for the service after 30 June. I sincerely hope that the Chief Minister is more careful with the truth in future. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.46) —I rise tonight to call the attention of the Parliament to some of the problems that surface in our welfare area. I do not do this to criticise the general concept of welfare or assisting the needy but I do believe that there are sectors of it to which we must address ourselves. I sincerely hope that the new Government, while attending to these particular problems, will look at some of the abuses when considering the assistance it would like to give in this area. Just recently a constituent of mine brought to my attention the case of a worker who promised two weeks hard work in return for dismissal. That is rather incongruous. My constituent is a farmer. He had a wheat crop to take off and he badly wanted labour to assist him in the task. He approached the Commonwealth Employment Service, and it sent him a man. He installed this man at his property , complete with family, at a wage of $200 per week, all found. The person concerned commenced work and he appeared to be a good worker. But then he became inconsistent. He started not to appear for work. The farmer was pretty concerned but he decided that the devil he knew was probably better than the devil he did not know and he wanted to continue to employ this fellow. He was eventually confronted by this individual, who said: 'I have done all these things wrong. Why haven't you dismissed me?' The farmer replied: 'I want to get my crop in. Why do you want dismissal?' His employee said: 'I have calculated that I am working for $25 per week. I would be much better off back on unemployment relief but I cannot get that immediately if you do not dismiss me'. The result was that the farmer and he had a good chat. They decided that probably the bulk of the crop could be taken off in two weeks and, if the gentleman concerned was prepared to work hard enough, at the end of the two weeks he would be dismissed. Who can we blame for that? We cannot blame the farmer; we must look at the system. We must address ourselves to a system which in many circumstances makes it as profitable not to work as it does to work. My Government did attempt to overcome that problem by introducing the $10 per week child support for low income earners. The other case I want to speak about is one which I know my Government was looking at. It has to do with the very worthwhile exercise of giving financial support to supporting parents. I heard a remarkable story of a European lass who was living in a de facto relationship with a European. Neither of them was an Australian. Another European lass appeared on the scene and the consequence was that, possibly to protect herself, the lass with the de facto relationship became pregnant. What she did not know was that the visiting girl also became pregnant. Both were pregnant to the same de facto husband. Mr Leo McLeay —I thought you were going to confess to being the father. Mr TUCKEY —No, I did not think you would. This is a true story. It raises an interesting issue. The outcome of this was that the fellow concerned, I am told, found a simple solution; he bolted. Two children were to be born, one of whom eventually was born in Australia and the other in a European country. The interesting fact is, so I am told, that the one born in Australia is now a burden on the Australian taxpayer but by an interesting arrangement the European country has managed to find this gentleman and make him pay support for the child for whom he is responsible and who is in that European country. It seems remarkable to me that good family people in Australia who are meeting their commitments on a daily basis are required to take on the responsibility of someone else's child when in fact there are probably financial resources available-the fellow is employed-to look after the child. It is time that the situation was considered. There is no such thing as a single parent. To my knowledge, it still takes two to conceive a child and as such the burden must stay. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.51) — Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am so used to talking in the adjournment debate to the Deputy Speaker . I am very pleased that you have placed sufficient importance on this debate, which is one of the few chances private members still have to raise matters of importance in the Parliament. I hope that you will give sufficient importance on this debate to ensure that when the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Committee looks at broadcasting the adjournment debate you will place your power and authority behind having the debate broadcast on the nights when the House of Representatives is normally broadcast. I rise tonight to support the remarks of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). Earlier in this debate, he quite properly raised the plight of members of this House, and indeed the Senate, who have young children. In the past, most members of this House and the Senate did not have young children. People tended to enter the Parliament of Australia in the latter years of their careers and their children were either teenagers or grown up. In recent years we have seen a marked change in the average age of members of this House, in particular, and we have seen an influx as members of this Parliament of people who have young children. It is high time that this House and the Senate took cognisance of that fact and started to change some of the rather outmoded responses to these problems that we have adopted today. It is rather interesting that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) arranged to have facilities made available in this House for members' wives. However, there are no facilities for members' children. There are no facilities for members who wish their children to partake in their parliamentary life. It is probably quite possible for wives of members who do not have young children to take part in the life that they play as a member of parliament. My wife and the wives of a number of other members around my age cannot avail themselves of that opportunity because they have young children who live in the cities which those members represent in Parliament. In my view, it is high time that many of these things were changed. For instance, I find it rather condescending that, when members' children come to Canberra on the three trips that they are allowed per annum, they have to fly economy class but members and members' wives fly first class. I do not think children are second class citizens. I find it fascinating that the Parliament and the Remuneration Tribunal consider that they are. Maybe that is because the Remuneration Tribunal is made up of old men. Maybe it is high time that the Government had a look at putting someone on the Remuneration Tribunal who knows about or remembers the problems of having a young family. I wonder what the new honourable members from Western Australia, for instance, who all have young families, will do when they commute to this city with their young children, as it is so far away. I find it rather obnoxious that there are no child care facilities in the House. I spoke to the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) this week. She is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, as I am. She will be taking the matter up at the next meeting of that Committee, which I understand will be held next Monday, to look at whether those facilities will be available in the new Parliament House. I think it is high time that we looked not only at providing those facilities for members but also for those people who work in this House, whose lives are interrupted because of the late hours this House works. I think this House should accept that the future of Australia lies with the children of Australia. There is no reason why, for too long, this Parliament has considered the children of members and of the staff are second rate citizens. I hope, Mr Speaker, you will add your weight to the movement which will be demanding that these facilities be made available in the new Parliament House which we are building not far from here. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.56) —I wish to address a few remarks tonight to the matter of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that will be looking at certain things. While I know that there are many matters of greater moment than what I might discuss here, I hope that the Committee will have a close look at some of these aspects. The first matter I want to mention is the 8 p.m. close of the polls on Saturday night. In most of the State electorates, and certainly in local government elections, the polls close at 6 o'clock. I fail to see why this extra two hours is required if the States and local governments can get their elections through by 6 o'clock. I think the extra two hours are a waste of time, particularly when we have daylight saving when some elections have been held so that we have the two extra hours and then an hour on top of them. It is not so much a matter of that. I do have certain feelings about daylight saving. For instance, in Canberra I can well see that the extra hour of daylight that one gets in the summer is not unreasonable when compared with areas closer to the Equator. But, as far as I am concerned, Queensland's attitude to daylight saving is legitimate, and I think the situation in the south is just as legitimate for other reasons. The other aspect to which I want to draw attention is that some States have a separate roll for State and local government elections, when compared with the Federal roll. I believe, particularly in Queensland, it is time we combined the electoral rolls, not because I think the Federal roll is any more significant than the State roll, but I have received complaints right up to election date from people whose names appear on one roll and not the other. Inevitably, the Federal roll has been correct and the absentee voters are those who look to the State rolls. I believe it is time that the Attorney-General in Queensland is prevailed upon to bring the two rolls into one. I understand that the situation in Western Australia was that there were two rolls but now the Western Australian Government is to make one roll. I believe also that in every other State of Australia we operate off the one roll. It is not only common sense but also economically sensible and legitimate to use the Australian Electoral Office 's roll. One other matter with which I have some concern is the manner in which electorates are divided into subdivisions. My own electorate has eleven. I believe some others would have more. At present a person voting outside his subdivision is regarded as an absentee voter and his vote is not counted until some time in the week following the election. There should be a better indication on the night of the election of what the results might be. Surely absentee votes in a subdivision could be counted as ordinary votes delivered on the day and counted on the night. We would certainly have a better indication of the situation before the day was over. The other aspect is one in which I believe Queensland failed prior to the last election. There should have been a redistribution of the Federal seats. I draw attention to the fact that three rural seats in Queensland have a greater electoral number than some of the Brisbane seats. Mr SPEAKER —Order it being 11 o'clock the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday next. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following paper was presented: Mr Cohen-Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-Minister's notes. The following answer to a question was circulated: Question No. 20 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What was Australia's contribution to the Special Account established by UNESCO to fund its International Program for the Development of Communication for each of the years 1980, 1981, and 1982. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia has made no contribution to the Special Account to fund the International Program for the Development of Communication over the period in question.