Tuesday, 17 May 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. Mr Anthony Austin Street made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Corangamite, Victoria. Return to Writ Mr SPEAKER —I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a return to the writ which His Excellency issued on 7 April 1983 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Wannon in the State of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser, C .H. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that David Peter Maxwell Hawker has been elected. New Member Sworn Mr David Peter Maxwell Hawker made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Wannon, Victoria. Issue of Writ Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that on 13 May 1983 I issued a writ in connection with the by-election for the division of Bruce and that the dates fixed were those announced to the House on 3 May. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) will now represent the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in this chamber. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 distrubances 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 distrubances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cowan,Mr Hicks,Mr Lloyd and Mr Shipton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. 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 the current intention of Telecom Australia to increase the International Particular Person Fee and introduce a charge on the Ring Back Price service will : Substantially affect the ability of the manual assistance area of Telecom's operations to compete effectively with STD and ISD. Such pricing discrimination in favour of direct dialling and away from operator assisted calls will affect the future viability of a personalised, reliable manual assistance service. The ramifications of such a pricing policy will also ultimately affect the employment of thousands of Telephonists and Supervisors currently working in this area. Contravene the spirit of the current Prices and Incomes Policy which Telecom as a public authority should be a party to. We the undersigned believe that the provision of a personalised telephone service is an essential component in any Telecommunication system. Australia has a long history of service from the manual assistance area and we cannot now allow Telecom's pricing policies to endanger the continuation of this service. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed charges increase and so ensure the future viability of Australia's manual assistance telephone network. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. 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 (HSC) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) Noting that the 1982 National Budget includes increased taxes on beer and spirits, we draw attention to the fact that wines have a higher alcoholic content than beer and that wine consumption must be a significant factor in the mounting problems arising from the use of alcoholic beverages; we request that all alcoholic wines be taxed to a degree comparable to the taxes on other alcoholic beverages. (2) Whereas non-alcoholic wines do not cause social problems we request that no tax on these drinks be imposed. (3) That government imposts on all alcoholic beverages be adjusted annually so that the real price of the beverages remain constant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembed. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care Cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To The Honourable, The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of podiatry service for lower fixed income members of the community. Podiatry is an essential health service especially in preventing greater dependency of older people. It would be much more cost effective to maintain the mobility of older people through adequate and effective services than to force them into premature institutional care. The fees for repeated podiatry consultations to provide essential ongoing care are well beyond the means of pensioners. Considering that Department of Veterans ' Affairs pensioners are entitled to podiatry care, and this scheme is already operating successfully, we strongly urge that this service be extended to cover all pensioners. We believe this could be best achieved through including podiatry along with the existing concessions on the Health Care cards. This would enable a flexible system of care through private practice, community health or rehabilitation services. It would also be essential in negotiations with the Podiatry Association to ensure assistance would be available to the housebound and those in institutions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners threfore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the lack of effective Federal environmental protection legislation and urge that suitable legislation be enacted immediately. Your petitioners are concerned that National Estate areas such as South West Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef and the Western Australian Jarrah Forests cannot be fully protected until adequate legislation exists and is enforced. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the House of Representatives to ensure that all provisions of the Heritage Act and the Environment Impact of Proposals Act are fully complied with in respect of National Estate Areas. In particular your petitioners call upon you to adopt the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment of South West Tasmania. Your petitioners believe that this is a national issue and must be resolved by the action of the Federal Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of three Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefor pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. 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 Mackay respecfully 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 personalised 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, personalised 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. We, the undersigned citizens of Swan Hill and district in the State of Victoria respectfully show: That a F.M. radio transmitter has been scheduled for installation at Telecom's repeater T.V. station at Goschen (11 miles from Swan Hill) for well over twelve months. That the money for such installation was allocated for the current financial year but, due to lack of funds, was deferred to next financial year. That the population within a fifty mile radius of Swan Hill would be approximately 35,000 thus quite sufficient to justify such an installation. That the F. M. Transmitter itself has been at Goschen in excess of six months just awaiting the command to go ahead with the installation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government through the Minister will urge Telecom to complete the above installation as soon as possible. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Victoria respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. 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-Holden's, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's 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'. 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-Holden's to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand led by Mr D. M. J. Jones, M.P., Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House: (1) Notes- (a) the $986m balance of payments surplus for March 1983, compared with $217m surplus for February, and that this upturn was largely accounted for by increased capital inflow; and (b) that housing loans in March 1983 were 14 per cent above the level in February and 40 per cent higher than the figure for March 1982; and (2) congratulates the Government for its obvious ability, so early in its term, to inspire such confidence, both local and overseas, in the economic future of this nation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House: (1) condemns the previous Government for allowing the housing industry to slide into recession, with- (a) its consequent damaging effects on the building industry; and (b) the social distress caused to the homeless and those paying mortgages; and (2) urges the current Minister for Housing and Construction to pursue early assistance to the housing industry. Mr GROOM —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House in claiming that Mr David Combe and his solicitor had a full chance to view the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation tapes and transcripts, or is it Mr Combe who is not telling the truth? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker I assure the House that this is not a Dorothy Dixer. I would remind the House of the answer I gave on this matter on 12 May last. I ask all honourable members, including particularly the honourable member who directed this question to me, to listen carefully and understand what I said to the House . I hope that when he has heard what I have to say he will retract any imputation in his question. This is what I said to the House: 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 unprecendented 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 . . . Now, Mr Speaker, nothing could be clearer. Mr Groom —Keep going. Mr HAWKE —Sure, I will keep going. I continue: 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-- Mr Groom —The facts! Mr HAWKE —That is right. I continue: as we, the Government, knew those facts. Mr Groom —He didn't see the facts. Mr HAWKE —As the honourable member wants to go on with it-he has a masochistic streak-let me repeat exactly what happened; honourable members either believe it or they do not. On the morning in question Mr Combe had lengthy discussions with the Attorney-General and for part of that time, as I said, the Director-General of ASIO was present. Then Mr Combe, with his lawyer-Mr Combe having talked to his lawyer-had full discussions with the Attorney-General. At any point in those discussions, as was made clear by the Attorney-General, if Mr Combe wanted any further clarification it was open to him. No impediment was put in the way of what Mr Combe could see, if he was not satisfied with all that had been read out . Mr Combe had every opportunity with his lawyer in those discussions with the Attorney-General which followed Mr Combe's discussion with the Attorney-General and the Director-General of ASIO. At the end of those proceedings Mr Combe agreed with the statement as given. Honourable members will see that everything I said in the House was strictly in accordance with the facts. I conclude by saying that later this day I will seek leave to make a statement to this House announcing the appointment of a royal commission under Mr Justice Hope. I make it clear that I will be saying in that statement that one of the terms of reference will put before the royal commissioner all the actions of this Government in regard to this matter. I look forward to all the actions of this Government in regard to this matter being studied and examined by the royal commissioner. I trust that in the reference that will be given to the royal commissioner not only will the actions of this Government be examined, but also all the actions of all members in this House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Given the importance of home interest rates to the electors of Australia and, of course, to those in my electorate of Stirling, can he advise the House of the likely impact, if any, on home interest rates of the latest sale of $400m of Treasury notes at yields below 10 per cent? Mr KEATING —It is true, as the honourable member for Stirling says, that the latest Treasury note tender did reveal a substantial drop in rates-a drop, on average, from about 11 per cent to 9 1/2 per cent. This is a most welcome decline, as indeed has been the general decline in other categories of interest rates-bond yields, bank deposit rates, secondary market rates and prime interest rates. I pick up the point raised by the honourable member for Lilley in the notice of motion she gave earlier. This does indicate a degree of confidence in financial markets in the Government's policies, not only in domestic markets but also in international markets, particularly in respect of capital inflow. It is true that rates have declined in a period of relatively easy liquidity occasioned by the effects of the Commonwealth Budget deficit in the second half of the year and also substantial capital inflow in April. I indicate again that I think the confidence factor is permeating abroad and I hope it will continue. If there is a general continuing decline in interest rates, there is, of course, the possibility that rates in the controlled area could also come down. This is an issue which the Government is keeping under review. I am keeping in touch with the banking community on that issue. Given the fact that in January rates in the controlled area declined by about one per cent, the banks have indicated that the first time they believe it is commercially possible to do so rates will decline. That matter will be kept under review. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Special Minister of State advised the Prime Minister of the extreme pressure to which he is subject because of the very sensitive and very confidential matters coming across his desk almost every hour of the day, his being expected to be at meetings morning, noon and night, doing a lot of travelling and trying to keep up with the material that is put before him? In view of this pressure, I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the only breach of security during the course of the 3 1/2 hour luncheon in a restaurant attended by the Special Minister of State, Mr Rod Cameron of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd and several leading Canberra lobbyists was the advice that the Government was about to kick out a Russian? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Gwydir for his laudatory question in respect of the Special Minister of State. He indeed accurately reflects the great deal of work which is so effectively undertaken by my colleague. The Special Minister of State is a model of industriousness and, as we all know, of joviality. It is a matter of public record now that this joviality and spontaneity of my colleague did lead him to make an observation-he was referring to the fact that he had not been contactable for some two days by Mr Cameron-at about 12.30 on the day in question that we were about to kick out a Russian. I have indicated to the Minister, with an appropriate degree of reprimand, that that was not an appropriate thing for him to say. I accept without any question whatsoever the accuracy of what the Minister told me-that from the moment he made that comment at about 12.30 p.m. to the point at which the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced, about two hours later, the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, Mr Cameron had been with him at all times. Mr Porter —He went off to answer a telephone call. Mr HAWKE —There was no opportunity for Mr Cameron to take any action. I know that the honourable member for Barker would not imply this. I trust that he is not implying that in fact Mr Cameron would take such action. I turn to the rest of the honourable member's question. He asked whether I was satisfied that in the rest of the period nothing was said in that conversation which in any way went to questions of security. Obviously the honourable member' s question is prompted by some observations and an article by Mr Toohey in the National Times, which carried the suggestion that my colleague the Minister had conveyed to Mr Cameron some relationship between Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe. That was said in an article which contained very many inaccuracies, and this was another of them. That is attested to now by two subsequent facts which I know the honourable member, being indeed an honourable gentleman, will accept. The first is that Mr Cameron himself has issued a statement totally supporting the statement which has been issued by the Minister. Secondly, as indeed the honourable member will understand, Mr Combe himself has now said that Mr Cameron in that period did not convey this relationship or suggestion between Ivanov and Combe to my colleague the Minister and that it must have been an inference drawn by Mr Combe. I am sure that when the honourable member takes into account all the facts which I have just put to him he will understand, as I do, that while it was not appropriate for the Minister to have made the statement that he did, he has in all other respects acted as we, that is the honourable member and me, would expect him to do-with honour and propriety. Ms McHUGH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask him: What position will the Australian Government advocate to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the national wage case, which is scheduled to begin on 28 June? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Phillip will be aware that a conference was held on 28 April in regard to future proceedings. As I understand it a further conference is scheduled for 23 May. I know that the honourable member, as indeed would all members of the House, understands that it would not be appropriate for me in the House to detail all the submissions that we will be putting to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when a national wage case starts. Nevertheless, I am in a position to say something about this matter in terms of conveying to the honourable member and to the House the essential position of the Government. Firstly, the submission of the Government will essentially be based upon the consensus position that was fundamentally arrived at at the National Economic Summit Conference, and that is that there should be a return to a centralised system of wage fixation. I say parenthetically that, given the indications made in this chamber during the National Economic Summit Conference of employers and State governments, I would be very surprised if the position of this Government, of the essentiality of a return to a centralised wage fixation system, was not supported by the employers and by most, if not all, of the State governments. Secondly, I can say to the honourable member that we will be saying to the Commission that any increase that may be granted in the latter part of 1983 should be small because we believe, as we have said in this House, outside it and at the Summit, that current economic circumstances and the reality of the economic environment and the industrial relations environment demand that any wage increase be small. Thirdly, I can say that we will be stressing, as indeed the Summit did, that any wage rises outside the national wage case should be strictly contained. Now you, Mr Speaker, can see, and I trust the honourable member also can see, that in those three elements I have set out the essential nature of the Government's submission. In conclusion may I say that that policy, which is coherent, equitable and workable, is in distinct contrast to the position of the Opposition. I refer very briefly to an article on the front page of the Australian Financial Review of 5 May which, in relation to the Opposition's wages policy, stated: At a joint meeting of the Liberal and National parties in Canberra yesterday the issue-- A centralised or decentralised approach to wage fixation- was sent to an all-party committee after no senior frontbencher could lay claim to there being an Opposition wages policy. The scene is now set for months of manoeuvring between the decentralists, led by Shadow Treasurer Mr Howard, and the centralists, headed by Employment and Industrial Relations spokesman, Mr Ian Macphee. In these circumstances, where we have on this side of the House a clear, coherent, equitable wages policy, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition at least direct himself to and answer in this House whether the position of the Opposition is one of support-yes or no-for a system of centralised wage fixation and to clear up once and for all whether the Opposition has anything remotely resembling a wages policy. Mr SPEAKER —I am sure that the House will permit me to interrupt questions to inform honourable members that the New Zealand Parliamentary Delegation has been joined in the Gallery by the Hon. J. K. McLay, MP, New Zealand Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was Mr Richard Farmer briefed on the David Combe affair on or about 23 April? If so, why, and on whose instructions? Mr HAWKE —The whole question of the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, the involvement of Mr Combe, is, as I have said, going to be a matter which will be-- Mr Steele Hall —You are not going to answer. Mr HAWKE —I am attempting to answer the question, Mr Speaker, and if I am permitted, without interjection, I will do so. The position is, I repeat, that by the time I have completed my statement to this House, honourable members will understand, if they are prepared to listen, that the whole question of the expulsion of Mr Ivanov and what has happened in regard to Mr Combe will be a particular term of reference for consideration by Mr Justice Hope. I repeat what I said previously, that not only all the Government's actions in regard to this matter but, I trust, the actions of all members of this House will be capable of examination and report by the royal commissioner. Mr BILNEY —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of the widespread concern in the community about the ruthless exploitation of Australian native birds and animals by unscrupulous exporters, operating in many cases outside the law? Can the Minister inform the House of any action that the Government is taking to control this trade, particularly in endangered species of Australian wildlife? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the great interest of most Australians in their rich and unique heritage of plants and animals. I believe that Australians fully accept their responsibility to care for Australian wildlife and are concerned to ensure that its survival is not jeopardised by ruthless and illegal exploitation. Mr Carlton —Does that include national secretaries of the Labor Party? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr COHEN —Oh, that was funny! We've got a comedian now. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister continue. Mr COHEN —This matter is concerned with birds. This Government recognises the concern and is particularly sensitive to the conservation needs of Australian wildlife. Strict controls will be maintained on the export of native wildlife and every effort will be made to stop illegal trade. Prior to the proclamation of the Wildlife Protection Act a public information program is to be mounted seeking the co-operation of all Australians. Under the provisions of the Act very severe penalties will be imposed on persons or organisations convicted of offences. Such penalties are appropriate to the high rewards available for illegal trafficking in wildlife. Every effort will be made to enforce this new legislation and to stop illegal trade, which not only poses a threat to the survival of species but also results in cruelty and death after prolonged suffering to many smuggled animals. By seeking and encouraging the co-operation of all Australians to help stop this repulsive activity, I am hopeful that it will be stamped out. I assure the honourable member that the Government, in consultation with the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers from the States, will continue to work against the operations of smugglers of our native birds and animals. Mr FIFE —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I ask the Minister whether he recalls, when taking his oath as a Minister, swearing that he would not 'directly or indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to his secrecy'. I ask the Minister whether he regards his statement to Mr Cameron in relation to the expulsion of Ivanov as consistent with that oath? Mr YOUNG —I was so excited-I had just been shown the salaries of Ministers-that I forgot what really the commitment was when I was sworn in. I can understand why Malcolm cried when he lost the election. For three or four days we have listened to honourable members of the Opposition carry on around the country about what a threat it was to the national security that I happened to tell a person coming to lunch with me that in that afternoon we were going to kick out a Russian, and that that happened to be the explanation for my having been so rude to him for the past two days. It was honest, but it was a mistake. The Prime Minister has pointed that out and I have obviously been embarrassed by it. I wish it had not occurred. But to lay charges that in some way this was the gravest threat to national security since Federation, as did 'Scruffy' over here, the honourable member for New England-he is known to his close friends in Sydney as Scruffy-I think it is a great nickname for him-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —I ask that the Minister withdraw. Mr YOUNG —Let me just point out-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for New England finds the remark offensive. Mr YOUNG —I withdraw. It is not a name I thought up. Quite seriously, the Opposition devalues the currency of an important subject when it lays charges about the importance of my indiscretion, because when it cries wolf in future no one at all will listen. There is a difference of opinion between the parties in this country about the national security, what is in its interest and how it is affected. For instance, during the 1960s we happened to think it was in the national interest to stop the Vietnam war. Those who are now in Opposition thought it was in the national interest to keep burning down the villages. The Opposition thought it was in the interests of the national security of Australia to recognise Pol Pot, so that he could wipe out three or four million Kampucheans. We did not think that was in the national interest, but they are the sorts of decisions which the present Opposition then made. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr YOUNG —We did not think that was in the national interest. We did not think it was in the national interest for a major portion of the work of members of the security forces of this country to stand on top of buildings and take photographs of those of us who were marching against the Vietnam War. We did not think that was the proper operation of the security forces of this country. We did not think it was in the best interests of this country to take the names of decent Australians who happened to want to demonstrate against what they thought was an infamous decision by the former Liberal governments of Menzies, Holt, Gorton and McMahon, to involve ourselves in Indo-China. So there is a very big difference in the emphasis that we put on national security. I made a mistake and I have admitted to it. But for the Opposition to carry on about what is in the interests of national security and about how the national security of this country is affected is nonsense. I just wish it had the guts to do today what everyone said it would do, and move the censure motion. We would have given it plenty. Mr STEEDMAN —Mr Speaker, much as I do not like cutting off this debate-- Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member proceed straight to his question. Mr STEEDMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask: Is the Government presently undertaking a review of the forward estimates of expenditure? Has such a review been attempted in earlier years? Do the results of those previous attempts at pruning forward estimates square with the claims made since the Federal elections by the various leftovers from the former Government? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Casey for his question. Honourable members of the House will recall the massive deception which was perpetrated on not only the Australian Labor Party but also all the people of Australia at the time of the last election. They will recall that during the election campaign the then Treasurer, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said that he thought the deficit for 1983-84 would be about $6 billion. When, the day after the election, the Prime Minister was presented with Government estimates for 1983-84 suggesting that the deficit would not be $6 billion but $9.6 billion, the former Treasurer was asked how he came up with his $6 billion estimate. He said that he thought that that was a reasonable sort of figure that could be achieved under the circumstances. It took only a few days before he got a bit of gratuitous assistance from his former and esteemed leader who presented to an awe-struck world a Liberal Party document which purported to give the details of the success of former Liberal Treasurers in dealing with problems of deficits. It is with some great degree of hesitation that I refer to a Liberal Party document because we know about the authenticity of documents which come out of 'Menzies House' down the road. We recall, of course, the Liberal Party's trick to distort the prices and incomes accord by leaving crucial pages out as it leaked it to the Press. We also recall , of course, that it was Liberal Party operatives who broke into the advertising agency of the Labor Party and then cooked up a document which purported to be an official Labor Party document. So, we know about the authenticity of documents which come from the Liberal Party. But, let us accept just for a moment that the document that the former Prime Minister was referring to was, in fact, accurate. He said that that document indicated that in 1976 the then Government had been able to reduce a prospective deficit of $4.8 billion to $2.6 billion. Again, in 1978, he said that the Government had been able to reduce a prospective $6 billion deficit to $3 billion. It ought to be recognised that there are two ways in which one can deal with a prospective deficit. The first, of course, is to reduce the level of outlays; the other is to increase the level of revenue. Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what was the record of the former Government in relation to these two determinants of the prospective deficits. What we found out-- Mr Tuckey —Is this a message to us that you will put up taxes? Mr DAWKINS —Hang on a bit, my friend. Of course, the honourable member for O' Connor knows all about local government deficits and how to cook them. He knows all about the Carnarvon shire and how to put up taxes for selective ratepayers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister and the honourable member for O' Connor remember that they are in the House. Mr DAWKINS —In 1976, although the then Government may have been able to reduce the prospective deficit by $2.2 billion, it was able to reduce outlays by only $ 1.5 billion. In 1978 it may have been able to reduce the overall deficit by $3 billion, but it reduced the outlays by only $1.1 billion. That means, of course, that it increased the level of taxation in 1976 by $1.1 billion and in 1978 by $ 1.9 billion. It is little wonder that Senator Withers said of his former leader that he was much more of a taxer than an axer. We know that Senator Withers knows more than anyone about the use of sharp instruments. Let us look at the record of the former Government. In 1979-80 it was able to trim just $680m off the prospective deficit outlays, the next year a mere $105m, the next year $650m and then, of course, in the last year-the great year, 1982- 83-it was actually able to achieve an increase in outlays of nearly a billion dollars as it attempted the most disgraceful exercise of trying to buy itself back into office at the end of last year. Of course that failed just as the former Government was doomed to failure. Finally, what the former Treasurer had in mind for the unsuspecting Australian people when he said that he could reduce the prospective deficit which he admitted he knew about-the prospective $9.6 billion deficit which he said he could get down to $6 billion; that is, he could reduce it by $3.6 billion-was not a reduction in the outlays but in fact a massive $4.6 billion increase in taxes. That would have resulted in a $15 per week increase in taxes for every Australian taxpayer. That is the record against which this Government has proceeded with its expenditure review procedure. Mr SPEAKER —Would the Minister wind up his answer. It is rather long. Mr DAWKINS —That is the mess that was presented to this Government and that is the record which should be judged against the statement which will be made by the Treasurer on Thursday of this week. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: Is Mr W. P. Butler a member of the Government's ministerial staff advisory panel? Does he participate in decisions to select staff for employment in ministerial offices? Are applicants aware of the role Mr Butler plays and, in particular, does he sign letters to successful applicants? Is this the same Bill Butler who was an associate in a lobbying business, amongst other things, with Mr Richard Farmer and at one time a potential partner of Mr David Combe? Does the Prime Minister see any potential for conflict of interest in a situation where a lobbyist is involved in placing staff in ministerial offices? Mr HAWKE —I will answer the last part of the question first. To my knowledge Mr Butler has not been and is not a lobbyist. I say that subject to correction but as far as I know Mr Butler has not been and is not a lobbyist. Mr Hurford —Nor is Richard Farmer. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted for the assistance. As to this point in my Ministry there has not been-and so there shall not be now or in the future-any dissension between any of us. I make it clear that the intervention by the Minister for Housing and Construction accords with my understanding of the position. Therefore, as to the basis of the question from the Leader of the Opposition, I repeat that Mr Butler, to whom he refers, has not been and is not a lobbyist. The substance of the question disappears. I will now go on to say what is the position of the Government in respect of the selection of staff and what is the position of Mr Butler. It is the case, as is well known-a fact of which we are proud as a government-that the Government has appointed a ministerial staff advisory panel to assess the merits of all prospective employees before they are considered for appointment to ministerial staffs. In the context of that approach to this matter, the Government placed a general advertisement for ministerial staff positions to attract the best possible people to serve in those positions. I am pleased to say, and I suggest it is not a matter of surprise, that we had about 2,000 applicants for those positions. In those circumstances the applicants are considered by the ministerial staff advisory panel and recommendations are made for those positions. I have a final right to approve or not to approve those recommendations. I should also add that the same Mr Butler is chairman of that ministerial staff advisory panel. Dr EVERINGHAM —I ask the Prime Minister whether he can confirm the remark attributed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that Australia supports the proposed nuclear free zone in the Pacific but will nonetheless support United States warship and aircraft activity in the South Pacific. Are these two proposals consistent? Mr HAWKE —The countries of the South Pacific, including Australia, are strongly opposed to the testing and storing of nuclear weapons in the region and to the dumping of nuclear waste in the South Pacific. My Government is strictly of that view. At the same time as we have that view, Australia is concerned that we do not endanger our alliance relationship with the United States of America. In particular we do not wish to impede the passage of United States nuclear powered and armed vessels through the Pacific or port calls by United States vessels in the region nor, of course, do we wish to impede the right of United States aircraft in transitting international air space. The concept of a nuclear free zone has been discussed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. He has discussed it in a number of areas. I understand he had some discussions about this with the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, in Paris last Sunday. I want to make it quite clear, so that there can be no doubt about it, that we shall continue to have discussions on these issues with our Pacific partners. I believe that the concepts involved would be an important item of discussion at the South Pacific Forum which is to be held in this city later on this year. I stress the two points and I repeat them: We have a concern which we share with, I believe, all countries in this region about the testing and storing of nuclear weapons and the dumping of nuclear waste. We have that concern at the same time as we have the concern to maintain our relationship with the United States, which I have referred to in more detail. Mr ANTHONY —Did the Minister for Trade consult with any of his colleagues or take advice from his Department before making his weekend comments criticising Japan's role in the Australian coal trade? Does the Minister's criticism of Japanese equity participation in Australian coal mines mean that the Government will discriminate against foreign equity participation in the Australian coal industry? If so, will the Minister tell the House how this would benefit our coal exports and employment in the coal industry in this difficult period? Finally, will the Minister tell the House why, if, as he claims, Australia has been 'taken to the cleaners' by Japan on coal prices, he gave his approval to those prices? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I welcome the question. The reason I gave approval to the prices was that they were within the parameters set by the previous Government. I hope it admits that. I walked into office to find parameters that I could not improve because the previous Government had set them so low. Those parameters were $12 below the previous year's price. Therefore, how did the previous Government expect- Mr Anthony —You're the Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I came into government after the honourable member; I have to inherit the former Government's problems. Mr Anthony —You didn't have to give approval. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I did. Let me make it very clear. I ask the Leader of the National Party not to try to argue his way out of it. Mr Speaker, may I have a bit of silence? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party was able to ask his question in silence. I suggest that he respect the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member does not like the attack because he gave the parameters which guaranteed that we would sell coal at a loss. I can inform him that we sold the same amount of coal pursuant to his parameters which guarantees the Australian people receive $300m less than they did last year for the same amount of coal. Where was the honourable member's interest in Australia when he set the parameters so low? I make it very clear that because of the previous Government's idea of selling coal, the agreement that we had to inherit was that parameters would be set by the honourable member who asked the question and that the various people who own the coal-there are plenty of them-all went over to Tokyo and tried to negotiate the best deal possible. One can imagine what the Japanese did to them. They called them up one by one from their hotel rooms as and when the Japanese wanted to see them. That was the position. One can imagine Australians going there with individual ideas, because that was their brilliant concept, and meeting the Japanese who had only one idea and one price-that is, the lowest possible one that they could get for Japan, and they did it. I repeat: Good luck to the Japanese if they can put the cleaners through the likes of the honourable member. That is the problem. But it cost us $300m. We now have coal mines in Australia that have sold coal at a loss-at less than what it cost to produce. Mr Tuckey —What did you bring them home for? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, they had to come eventually. They went broke over there. What is the reason for that? Mr Tuckey —They went-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why does the honourable member not ask a supplementary question ? That would be a better arrangement. The previous Government had an attractive interest in what it called foreign investment. We do not mind foreign investment as long as it is not against Australian interests. Have a look at the foreign investment policies the former Government adopted. The former Goverment guaranteed that foreign investors who came in here could open up as many mines as they liked, and this is what happened. We have a surplus of coal. However, of course, the Japanese have revised their estimates for coal down 100 per cent on the previous estimates which the previous Government was gullible enough to expect we would have a market for. Mr Spender —Back to zero? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In percentage terms. Why does the honourable member not go back to the Bar; he would make a better living if he did. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point I am trying to make-- Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was asked a wide-ranging question. I want to make the point: The question of foreign ownership and control is very significant. We welcome foreign investment provided there is a guarantee that Australia's resources are not sold at a loss. The figures given to me by my Department-I knew that the honourable member might be thinking of asking me a question-clearly show that 51 per cent of the ownership of the 32 groups which participated in selling coal is foreign owned. I would also like to give the honourable member some further advice so that he does not ever make the same mistakes again, and I assure him that he will not get the chance to do so. Some of our unfortunate producers, apart from having Japanese equity in their own mines-and I might suggest the Japanese would know about this-have to negotiate sales with so-called Japanese trading companies when they go to Japan. I will not identify the companies but they are well known . Those companies charge a percentage on sales. So the final analysis-official- of my Department is this: It must be recognised that conflict of interest is inherent in the role fulfilled by the trading companies and there can be little doubt that in such situations the interest of the Japanese consuming companies has prevailed. Mr GAYLER —Has the Special Minister of State seen today's Press reports of a number of papers to be presented at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress by senior counsel to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, Mr Doug Meagher, Q.C.? What is the Government doing to combat organised crime in Australia? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen reports of the papers to be delivered by the senior counsel assisting the Costigan Royal Commission. I would like to inform the House that following consultations between Commissioner Costigan, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and me, the Government has agreed in principle to increase significantly the financial and staffing resources available to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is currently supported by a secretariat of approximately 70 people and financial expenditure to date has been approximately $6m. Additional professional legal staff, intelligence collators, research, records and automatic data processing staff will be recruited and the Commission itself will move into bigger premises . Sophisticated computer-based techniques are already in use by the Commission and these will be extended as part of the Government's thrust to ensure that Mr Costigan has all the resources he needs. It is expected that the cost for 1983- 84 will be in the order of $3.5m. Initially, of course, it was thought that the Commission's investigation would be confined to the illegal activities of painters and dockers in such relatively minor areas as ghosting, illegal payments and other fraud on their employers. However, interim reports from the Commission have highlighted Painters and Dockers' direct involvement in organised crime generally, and particularly in white collar crime like corporate fraud and the tax avoidance industry. In relation to the proposed national crimes commission, the Government is particularly concerned at the extent of organised crime in Australia, as identified in a number of recent royal commission reports, including those by Commissioners Williams, Costigan and Stewart. In this regard, the Government recognises that ad hoc royal commissions may not be the most effective way to combat organised crime. In a joint Press statement with the Attorney-General on 7 April, I stated that I believed that there was almost universal support for the concept-- Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister should use the appropriate form of the House to read statements, rather than Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —I support the concept of a permanent national crimes commission. However, there remains a good deal of uncertainty and disagreement as to the most appropriate functions, composition and powers of such a body. The Government has decided that a further process of consultation and review is necessary before any final decision is taken on the future of the national crimes commission. In addition to these matters, under its broad operational charter the Australian Federal Police accords highest priority to combating organised crime, particularly drug trafficking. In view of the widespread nature of organised crime which has been exposed in recent times, the Australian Federal Police effort in this area has increased rapidly. The AFP participates in a number of measures, both individually and in co-operation with other police and investigators. Over one-third of all the AFP's detective force is now deployed in support of royal commissions, special police task forces, and special prosecutors investigating special instances of organised crime. I assure the House that under this Government there will be no let-up in the attack on organised crime in this country. The immoral behaviour of people who are participating in this field of criminal activity is costing decent, ordinary tax-paying Australians hundreds of millions of dollars that ought to have been used for much better purposes in this country. We will not let up in our efforts to make sure that all these inquiries, both that being conducted by Costigan and those being conducted by other commissioners, are concluded. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Finance guidelines for the form and standard of financial statements of Commonwealth undertakings. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 63M (2) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority financial statements for 1980-81. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members I present the Curriculum Development Centre 1980-81 annual report. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 20 of the Coal Industry Act 1946, I present the 35th annual report of the Joint Coal Board, that for 1981-82. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Biological Resources Study 1981-82 annual report and commend it to honourable members. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —In the course of an answer earlier today the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) misled the House in two respects. Firstly, he falsely asserted that when, during the election campaign, I made reference to a figure of $6,000m in relation to the 1983-84 Budget deficit. I was aware, or had been informed, of the starting point figure of $9.6 billion subsequently referred to in his speech . That statement is wrong, misleading and a total mistruth. I reject it completely. Secondly, the Minister for Finance also misled the House in asserting that when I made the highly qualified reference during the election campaign to a figure of $6,000m I had in contemplation tax increases of $4.6 billion. The truth, of course, is that I made reference to a figure of $6 billion some five days after the delivery of the Australian Labor Party's election campaign promises which, incidentally, totally repudiates the proposition of the Treasurer that those promises were made in the mistaken belief that next year's deficit would be $6 billion. I point out to the House and to the Minister for Finance that all those promises were made by the Labor Party without the former Government having any reference at all to the figure of $6 billion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond a personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —They know that. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has gone beyond a personal explanation. He will resume his seat. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I claim to have been misrepresented and I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I draw attention to a newspaper article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 14 May. In this article the journalist, Mr Peter Bowers, discussed the events of 12 May, that is, the events surrounding the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of a royal commission into the so-called Ivanov-Combe affair and claimed, first, that the Prime Minister phoned me. The article stated: Hawke arranged for Theophanous to toss him a frienddly question during question time to start at noon. Secondly, the article stated: Bowen's office, alerted by a phone call from Theophanous, tells Bowen that Hawke will announce a Royal Commission in Parliament during question time, to start at noon. Mr Speaker, both of these claims are false. Let me deal with them in order. With regard to the first matter of the contact between myself and the Prime Minister it is interesting to contrast this account with the one which appeared in the Melbourne Herald on the same day and-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not contrast accounts. He should explain how he has been misrepresented; otherwise his comments could lead to a general debate. I invite him to follow the Standing Orders. Dr THEOPHANOUS —After substantial thought about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Combe affair on Wednesday night I approached the Whip early on Thursday morning and asked for a priority question to the Prime Minister on the problem of the accountability of ASIO and subsequent courses of action open to the Government. Soon after, the Prime Minister asked to see me and a discussion between us ensued regarding the matter. Although I urged the Prime Minister to make an immediate statement giving an indication of the Government's course of action I did not insist on the announcement of a judicial inquiry or a royal commission on that day. The Melbourne Herald inferred that I was aware that the Prime Minister would announce a royal commission on that day. This is not the case. It follows from this that the Sydney Morning Herald's claim that I phoned the office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) prior to Question Time in relation to this matter is completely false. The Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to confirm that I did not talk to him or to his office in relation to this matter. Let me say in conclusion that I completely concur with the Prime Minister's announcement of a royal commision on that day. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond the scope of a personal explanation. Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-A royal commission has now been appointed to conduct a major review of Australian security and intelligence agencies, with a term of reference relating to all the circumstances-including the actions of the Government-surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov and the involvement of Mr David Combe in those circumstances. The terms of reference have already been circulated to honourable members. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER —This demonstrates the Chair's flexibility in relation to incorporations in Hansard. The document read as follows- ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth: TO THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROBERT MARSDEN HOPE, C.M.G., Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales GREETING: WHEREAS it is desired to have a judicial review of the activities of Australia' s security and intelligence agencies, namely, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments (hereinafter called ''the agencies''): NOW THEREFORE We do by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and in pursuance of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and other enabling powers, appoint you to be a Commissioner to inquire into, and in relation to- (a) the activities of the agencies, especially since the completion of the inquiry made by the Royal Commission appointed on 21 August 1974 to inquire into matters relating to the intelligence and security services of the Australian Government (hereinafter called the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security ), with particular reference to- (i) the progress made in implementing Government decisions on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security and of the Protective Security Review; (ii) whether the agencies have efficiently, effectively and properly served the interests of the Australian people and Government, including whether effective arrangements exist for the establishment of policies and priorities, for the co- ordination of their activities and for the oversight of their work; (iii) whether any changes in existing law and practices are required ordesirable- (A) to ensure that the agencies are properly accountable to Ministers and the Parliament; (B) in relation to keeping the Leader of the Opposition informed on matters relating to security and intelligence; (C) to provide for proper safeguarding, including safeguarding against unauthorised publication, of intelligence, including information provided by foreign governments in confidence; (iv) whether there is adequate provision for effective redress for any persons who may be unjustifiably disadvantaged by actions of the agencies; (v) whether existing law enables effective oversight by the Auditor-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in financial matters; (b) whether the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization , especially since the completion of the inquiry made by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, have been carried out in compliance with the law, in particular the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979; (c) further to the inquiry in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) above, all the circumstances, including the actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the involvement of Mr Harvey David Mathew Combe in those circumstances; and (d) any other related matters to which the attention of the Commission is directed by the Prime Minister in the course of the inquiry: AND We require you as expeditiously as possible to make your inquiry and to furnish to Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia- (e) first and as soon as possible, a report of the results of your inquiry and recommendations in relation to the matters specified in paragraph (c); and (f) a report or reports as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 30 June 1984, of the results of your inquiry and recommendations in relation to the matters specified, or referred to, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d). WITNESS His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Ninian Martin Stephen, a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia , Knight Grand Cross of The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of The Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force. Dated this day of 1983. Governor-General By His Excellency's Command, Prime Minister Mr HAWKE —The royal commissioner is Mr Justice Hope, Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Counsel assisting the royal commissioner will be Mr D. M. Ryan, QC, of the Melbourne Bar. I wish to express my gratification at the availability of Mr Justice Hope, and His Honour's acceptance of the commission. As honourable members will be well aware, Mr Justice Hope has already inquired into and reported on the intelligence and security services of the Australian Government in a series of major reports in 1976 and 1977. The appointment of the royal commission initiates the implementation of my Government's policy for regular judicial audit of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and close scrutiny of the role and activities of the intelligence community generally. On the occasion of the opening of Parliament the Governor-General conveyed my Government's commitment to amending the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act of 1979 to define more precisely the Organisation's jurisdiction and to ensure its private and public accountability. As I have already indicated to the Parliament, this is not something that is being imposed on the agencies concerned. I have had discussions with their heads, making it clear to them that it was appropriate that there should be a judicial review. That point has been accepted by them, and indeed it has been welcomed by them. As foreshadowed in Parliament last week, the first matter on which the royal commissioner is being asked to report concerns the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, and the involvement of Mr David Combe in those circumstances. The terms of reference have been drafted to enable the inquiry to extend to the actions of all relevant persons and organisations, including the Government, in respect of these matters. The royal commissioner has been asked to make his report on these matters as soon as possible. Honourable members will see, when they read the terms of reference of the royal commission, that this inquiry goes far beyond the particular matter of the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, and that it will ensure that the commitment of this Government to a more effective intelligence system is advanced. Also, the royal commission is specifically empowered, by virtue of paragraph (3 ) of the terms of reference, to make recommendations as to possible changes to the processes and procedures available to Government for dealing with the kind of situation that developed in relation to Mr David Combe. The royal commission will have the full co-operation of the Government. I am sure it will also have the full support of all honourable members of this House. I present the following papers: Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies-Ministerial Statement, 17 May 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.23) —I propose an amendment to the terms of reference, therefore an amendment to the motion to take note of the paper, and I will move it at the end of this address. The Opposition's view is that these terms of reference are far too narrow. To say simply, as the Government does in sub- clause (c), 'the actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion . . .' that took place, after all, on the 22nd, is infinitely too narrow. The leaks evidently took place after that date and therefore the terms of reference must be enlarged to inquire whether a Minister or a senior adviser to the Government divulged secret or classified information in any way involving the decision to expel Mr Ivanov. The whole reason for this royal commission is the Government's own mismanagement of the Ivanov matter. I said last week that it was the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this House which created this problem. I said that he should have stuck to convention-that is, no public disclosure; a refusal to confirm or deny. That is what he should have done. That remains true today. However, we now know that his statements in the Caucus and in the Parliament only exacerbated the problem. We now know that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) commenced the innuendoes, and he has been rebuked. Rebuked-is that all that happens to a Minister who leaks matters of national security? This Prime Minister, by not widening the terms of reference to investigating the conflicting statements of Mr Combe and Mr Young, has shown that he will tolerate leaks of national security within his own Government. There can be only one greater or more serious dereliction of duty than a Minister leaking national security matters and that is a Prime Minister acknowledging and tacitly concurring in it. A rebuke? What is that? We have already had five Ministers rebuked. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was rebuked for criticising and dumping it on koalas. The same punishment is meted out in this matter. Koala kicking is equated with national security leaks. Some conduct! The Combe affair has undoubtedly brought disgrace on the Government. It has shown a callous disregard for the civil liberties of an Australian citizen. It has displayed extraordinary ineptitude. It has acted with quite astonishing indiscretion. The severity of this whole sorry affair has made this royal commission necessary. I should say that I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister was able to persuade the Cabinet to endorse his decision. He must have done it against considerable opposition. We hardly need to be reminded that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) described such a judicial inquiry as bizarre, and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) does not think it helpful to Mr Combe. So it comes as no suprise that the Cabinet, I suppose in the light of recent statements, has rejected the opinions of the Deputy Prime Minister. Although the royal commission will be empowered to examine the extraordinary circumstances of the Combe affairs, it is imperative that the royal commission examine two particular issues. First, it must establish the identity of the person or persons who leaked details of Mr Combe's involvement to Canberra lobbyists and the Press. It is that leak which, above all, has led to the public humiliation of Mr Combe. Secondly, the royal commission must examine very serious allegations that no less a person than the Prime Minister himself has misled this Parliament in an attempt to demonstrate that the Government has handled this matter fairly. These issues unquestionably strike at the heart of the Government's interpretation of fair, of just and, indeed, of democratic behaviour. It was made clear to everyone by reports which appeared in the Sydney Telegraph of 8 May and the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 May that a senior member of the Labor Party was considered a potential security risk by the Government and was linked with Mr Ivanov. Contrary to established convention, as I have said, the Prime Minister, on 10 May, confirmed the name of Mr Combe in the Parliament. What is extraordinary about this episode is the way Mr Combe's name leaked out of the Government. The Opposition believes that the royal commission should examine the inference in the National Times of 13 May that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) had been the source of the leak. In his statement of 13 May, the Minister openly admitted that he had acted unwisely and that the Prime Minister had expressed his 'concern'. The Minister accepted in that statement that he had, in effect, breached national security. The Prime Minister was only 'concerned'. A breach of national security by anyone, not least a Minister, is a most serious matter; and yet we have had simply the reprimand referred to today by the Prime Minister. The honourable course of action by the Special Minister of State is for him to offer his resignation to the Prime Minister immediately. Mr Combe's subsequent comments in an interview with Mr Max Walsh, which were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 May raise considerable doubts about the veracity of the Minister's statement of 13 May. In that interview, Mr Combe said: When I left the National Press Club, I was in no doubt that a major probable reason for Ivanov's expulsion was that he was too close to people who could influence the Government. Mr Combe's act of loyalty to Ministers who have destroyed his livelihood is probably a lesson to the Government. But Mr Combe has left very few doubts about the veracity of the statement of the Special Minister of State on 13 May. There clearly was a leak in the Government. That is apparent from other evidence and that evidence also needs to be examined. How, for example, did Mr David Barnett, a former Press secretary to Prime Minister Fraser, find out within half an hour of the ministerial meeting of 2 May that Ministers should not deal with Mr Combe ? Why was Richard Farmer, a Canberra businessman and close confidante of the Australian Labor Party-- Mr Hawke —A lobbyist. Mr PEACOCK —A lobbyist perhaps; you have ill-defined them to date-allegedly briefed on 23 April? Who briefed him? Answer the question. Who briefed him? You are silent and you were silent long before it, as you well know. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should address the Chair. Mr PEACOCK —Who briefed him on 23 April that Mr Combe had been denied access to Ministers? Mr Farmer evidently knew this before the Cabinet was told and if that is the case the matter moves beyond ineptness into deeper and infinitely murkier waters. What is the significance of the scuttle-butt that the Special Minister of State had lunch on 22 April not only with Mr Cameron but also with four other Canberra lobbyists. Are honourable members seriously meant to believe that, having leaked the national security matter to Mr Cameron, the Minister, during his shorter than normal luncheon of 3 1/2 hours-compared to his normal 5 hour luncheons in Sydney, at Government expense-said nothing to these lobbyists over that short 3 1/2 hour luncheon? All indications suggest that the Special Minister of State was at least one of the sources of the leak, soon to be known not as the Leader of the House, but the Leaker of the House. It is imperative that the royal commission examine this serious aspect. After all, had there been no leak Mr Combe would not have suffered the public humiliation he has had to endure. I turn to the second issue that the royal commission must examine. It must examine allegations that, to put it politely, the Prime Minister has misled this Parliament in order to attempt to show that the Government had acted fairly and with propriety. It is well known, of course, is it not, that one of the Prime Minister's favourite themes is his own avowed honesty. He is always telling us has how honest he is. It may come, then, as a great surprise that the veracity of some of his parliamentary statements have now been challenged. If those allegations are true, the Prime Minister's claim that the Government has acted correctly and fairly in this matter is totally spurious. The Prime Minister has misled the Parliament in at least two related matters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If I may interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, his statements with regard to the Special Minister of State and the Prime Minister imputing certain improper motives would be better spoken after he has moved his amendment. His amendment puts those matters before the House. At the moment they are not before the House and, strictly speaking, he is out of order. Mr PEACOCK —I am moving the amendment, Mr Speaker, and I will move the formal terms of it in a moment. First, he claimed that Mr Combe's lawyer was present when details of the charges against Mr Combe were made known to him. This was not a supposition; the Prime Minister said it. He said it on 12 May in reply to a question from the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous). I will read what the Prime Minister said: 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. The Prime Minister then repeated this claim on other occasions in the Parliament and at a Press conference also on 12 May. He told the Press: He- That is, Mr Combe- has been there in the presence of the Attorney-General and the Director-General of ASIO and with his lawyer. Let us have none of this pedantic nonsense that the lawyer and the Director- General met on separate occasions. The Prime Minister said: He has been there in the presence of the Attorney-General and the Director General of ASIO and with his lawyer. The Prime Minister, in his frequent reference to the first personal pronoun, after taking a deep breath, said: I mean I have have tried to make the point that in respect of Mr Combe I have taken a course of action which is unprecedented in terms of giving him access to material with his lawyer and in the presence of the Director General of ASIO. It has never been done before and I have done that in a way which I would hope would satisfy him and in respect of the statement that was made. There is great reference to the fact that here, through the use of the first personal pronoun-- Mr Wells —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the fourth time in recent times that these very words have been spoken in the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order, I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Wells —Mr Speaker, my point of order is-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member must realise that if he wishes to raise a point of order he must do so and not indulge in a preamble. I will listen to his point of order. Mr Wells —It is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House to engage in tedious repetition. I submit that the Leader of the Opposition is engaging-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Having projected himself as the man who had proffered all this and done all this, at that same Press conference the Prime Minister was then told that the lawyer in fact was not present. So, the Prime Minister decided that he would quickly pass the buck. He told the Press: The question would have to be, if you're to get absolute accuracy, directed to the Attorney-General. So the Prime Minister admitted, quite openly, that he is not a man to rely on for 'absolute accuracy'. That sits a little uncomfortably with his claims to high integrity. Mr Combe has himself completely contradicted the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament and has done so extensively on the Channel 9 program on Sunday, which I could quote at length, but time is against me. The Prime Minister has attempted, unquestionably, to convince the Parliament and the Australian people that Mr Combe was not only dealt with fairly but was also given an historically unprecedented opportunity. The evidence suggests nothing of the sort. His civil liberties were arrogantly ignored, his livelihood was ruthlessly destroyed and his future and that of his family were thrown into confusion and instability. A principled government would not have acted in this way; an honourable government would not have acted in this way. Yet, that is what the Government has done. What it has done demeans the Cabinet, demeans the Parliament, demeans the people and demeans the nation, and by such standards will this Government be judged. I therefore move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House is of the opinion that the terms of reference should be amended by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: (c) further to the inquiry in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) above: (i) all the circumstances, including the actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the involvement of Mr Harvey David Mathew Combe in those circumstances; and (ii) whether or not the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State or any other Minister or any senior Government adviser disclosed confidential information in any way relating to the decision to expel from Australia Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov; and.'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party)(3.38) —I second the amendment . The Opposition expresses grave concern that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Services are not wide enough to allow what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has repeatedly said-that all the actions of his Government will be thoroughly examined during this inquiry. We believe that there are grounds for including in the terms of reference the precise names of the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) or any other senior member of the Government, or their advisers, in regard to what their actions might have been relating to the exposure of Mr Combe being involved with the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. If this is not done the Australian people will have doubts about the veracity and integrity of this inquiry, which has been a matter of intrigue from the very beginning. This inquiry has come about because of the folly of the Government. It never intended anybody to know about Mr Combe. It wanted to destroy him and to keep it as secret as possible. Mr Barry Jones —How could it do both? Mr ANTHONY —That is a question that the Government ought to ask itself. That is what is so stupid about the whole matter. The Prime Minister told the Cabinet and the Ministry in secret that they are not to have any dealings with Mr Combe but did not explain or tell anybody about it. It was not until it leaked out of the Government a week or so later that we started to hear that Mr Combe was involved. I can understand why the Government wants to keep it a secret. Having stabbed a colleague with whom members of the Government have worked for years, they naturally would not want to expose the details of it. But it is quite obvious that there are leaks dealing with our national security at the highest level in the Government. It is quite obvious that in the national and international security sub-committee of Cabinet somebody started to talk and somebody mentioned Mr Combe's name. We know now from information that is dribbling out that at least the Special Minister of State erred. He mentioned, in advance of a public statement, that Mr Ivanov was to be expelled- Mr Hawke —No. Wrong again. When are you going to make a correct statement in your life? He did not. It is not a matter of record. That assertion has never been made. Why don't you withdraw it? Mr ANTHONY —Okay. I will withdraw. Mr Hawke —You cannot- Mr ANTHONY —I have withdrawn. Mr Hawke —And so you ought. Why don't you try the truth for once? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr ANTHONY —If this man, who claims such integrity and truthfulness, wants to get the full truth, why does he not include the amendment that we have brought forward? Mr Hawke —'All the circumstances'. Mr ANTHONY —Individual circumstances? Mr Hawke —'All the circumstances'. Can't you understand English? Mr ANTHONY —If he wants to have all the circumstances, why not include the amendment? Mr Hawke —'All the circumstances'. Don't you understand English? Mr ANTHONY —Then why not include the amendment? Is the Prime Minister frightened that he will be called before the Royal Commission and will have to answer questions? If the Government puts forward our amendment, the Australian people will have every reason to feel sure that it will be a proper and full inquiry. The Special Minister of State said that a Russian spy was to be expelled. Mr Young —A Russian. Mr ANTHONY —Okay-a Russian. Mr Hawke —Third time lucky. Mr ANTHONY —The Prime Minister seems to make a joke of it and to think it is funny that his Special Minister of State cannot keep a secret. He is like a schoolboy. He gets mixed up with all these Russian spooks so he has to go off and tell his mates. He has a dinner for about three and a half hours and we are told that he did not mention any more about it. Mr Hawke —Who did? Mr ANTHONY —We are told that he did not mention any more about the Russian spook but he made a passing comment. It was a serious error. It could have had implications. Evidence and information could be destroyed if a statement of this nature is let out in advance of public announcement. Mr Hawke —Ha, ha. Mr ANTHONY —It is all right for the Prime Minister to laugh. This seems to be his whole attitude to his colleague. But the fact is that his colleague erred and as a result we know that people were talking. We know from a series of pieces of information that have come out in the last few days that many people around Canberra knew that there was an association between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov and that that was one of the reasons for the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. That cannot be denied. The Prime Minister and the Government have reluctantly come forward with this judicial inquiry. On Thursday of last week I said that the only way to give any sort of natural justice to Mr Combe was to have an inquiry so that he could explain his side of the story. What happened? There was a reply from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) castigating me and saying that would be the very worst thing that could be done to Mr Combe if we wanted to help him. Two hours later the Government came forward and said that there would be a judicial inquiry. This was announced by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government. The previous day in the Senate the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) made the comment that it would be bizarre to have an inquiry into the matter. It is quite obvious that public pressure and pressure from the Opposition have forced the Government into having an inquiry. If the Government is not prepared to extend the terms of reference so that it can be a full and complete inquiry satisfying the wishes of the Opposition and the Australian people then it must be aiming to hide something. It is trying to protect somebody in its own ranks. As I have said, it is quite clear that there has been a series of loose talk which has brought forward the name of Mr Combe as being associated with Mr Ivanov. Let us look at the series of circumstances. In the weekend's edition of the National Times Mr Brian Toohey wrote an article in which he said that a Mr Rod Cameron had told Mr Combe that a senior Labor person had been involved. But, of course, that has been denied. There is a difference of opinion about it. Both Mr Combe and Mr Cameron have said that it was not accurate. We know that Mr Combe went to the National Press Club later that afternoon. He came away from the Press Club believing, in no uncertain terms, that somehow or other he was associated with Mr Ivanov's expulsion. Obviously he had heard some discussion and talk there. We now know that on the 29th Mr Farmer had told Mr Combe that he was suspected of being associated. So who told Mr Farmer? It seems that may have come from the Prime Minister's office. How will we find out the details of these matters unless it is stated in the terms of reference that these questions can be asked? Because of the way in which the terms of reference are drafted at the moment these matters could be glossed over. Mr Dawkins —You have plenty of time left; say it again. You are saying it again and again. Mr ANTHONY —Last week the Government tried desperately to blame the Opposition for the name of Mr Combe coming forward, and said that there was something wrong . Now that the world at large has realised that there have been lots of misdemeanours by Ministers in the Government-that there have been leaks; that they have been leaking like sieves-the Government has decided that there will be a judicial inquiry. It was common knowledge in the Press Gallery in the early part of last week-well before the Opposition asked the question-that Mr Combe was involved with Mr Ivanov's expulsion. If one cares to read the comments of Mr Paul Kelly last week one will see he clearly stated that no blame could be laid on the hands of the Opposition for exposing Mr Combe's name. Mr Lionel Bowen —Famous last words. Mr ANTHONY —Those are the words of leading commentators in the Gallery. I ask honourable members to listen to what Mr Paul Kelly said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May. The article states: Messrs Hawke and Bowen attacked the Opposition for mentioning Combe's name in Parliament. Yet the facts are that Combe's name was known throughout Parliament House, in the Government lobbies, within the Opposition and throughout the Press Gallery. There was no way the lid could be kept on the story. This was because the Government leaked it out. Mr Hawke has nobody to blame but his own Government. That is what Mr Kelly wrote. It seems very strange that the Government wanted to keep this quiet in the first place. Last week when I spoke it seemed fairly obvious that Mr Combe was, or could be, the scapegoat for a number of people involved in this whole issue. It is pretty obvious that some people wanted to inform on Mr Combe or dob him in. We do not quite understand what is behind it all. This is the reason there is to be an inquiry. This is the reason there should be a full and complete inquiry and why there should be full scrutiny of all the facts and statements made. Mr Beazley —So we can look at what you leaked to the National Times. Mr ANTHONY —If the honourable gentleman has something to say he can speak after me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the National Party address the Chair and ignore the interjections. Mr ANTHONY —This matter deserves the closest attention of the Australian people. They should find out the facts. That cannot be done unless we have proper terms of reference. What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has done is to try to make them complete, so the people can feel confident and satisfied that the Government is not hiding or sheltering behind something. If Ministers who are part of a national security committee have been leaking information they should go. Certainly they should not be part of such a body. It is far too important. I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is coming forward. He will probably say that this inquiry is a good thing. That certainly was not his attitude last week. He did not think it was a good thing then; he damned it completely. Mr Sinclair —You have to be flexible. Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes, you have to be flexible. Mr ANTHONY —He is certainly being flexible. We have witnessed this over the last few days regarding the Government's foreign and mining policies. The Government is certainly flexible in those areas. There can be no blame placed on the Opposition. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party seems to be receiving bipartisan support by interjections from both front benches. I ask that they desist. Mr ANTHONY —I support the amendment. I believe it is absolutely essential that it be included in the terms of reference of this inquiry. If it is not included the Australian people will be continually wondering why the Government has not done so, particularly when the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that all aspects will be included. If all aspects are to be included in the inquiry, why not put in this amendment? There is some cover up somewhere along the line if the Government is so worried about the amendment that the Opposition has put forward. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.53) —The Government rejects the amendment. That would not come as any surprise because it does not have any merit when one considers the terms of reference. All we have had this afternoon is an exercise in name-dropping on the basis that something, some confidential information, was given to somebody and it was obviously given by the Government. Let us look at the terms of reference. They make it very clear that all the actions of not only the Government but also the Opposition will be reviewed by the royal commissioner. We welcome the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to explain the situation. For example, he had a full two-hour briefing of the whole matter when it first arose. He told my Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he would be able to indicate the situation to his own deputy, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony). How about that for starters? We do not object to that. Let us look at the situation that now exists. A royal commission is to develop an investigation into all the actions surrounding the expulsion of the First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy and the involvement of Mr Harvey David Mathew Combe in those circumstances. There has been a long dissertation here today that something dreadful has happened because Mr Combe was inadvertently mentioned, perhaps in the course of some discussion in the corridors. Who mentioned the matter in the corridors? How many people in the Opposition knew of the situation? Why enter into a specious argument that a grave injustice has been done to Mr Combe by the Government when, in fact, there is going to be strong evidence-I hint it now-in the commission that perhaps the damage came from the Opposition or members associated with the National Party of Australia? Let me make that very clear, in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition. Who was involved in the leaking of names? I can say to the honourable member opposite that a lot will come out at the hearings of the commission. But this will not have very much to do with the issue that is really at stake-the security of this nation. The fact will come out that all the issues that related to the security of this nation were the problem of the previous Government. That will be the interesting concept. The hearings will also reveal that the facts that related to this expulsion would have really applied before 5 March. We will be able to make a judgment on the specious argument that was made here today that my ministerial colleague had a long lunch and broke some confidential arrangement. I make it very clear that all he said was that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was having a Press conference virtually to announce what had already been indicated. Mr Peacock —Is that all he said? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Oh yes, he did, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. He was a Minister for Foreign Affairs and he would know that there would be a fair indication in advance as to what was going to be told to the Soviet Embassy before a Press conference. So I very much doubt in terms of the time sequel whether there is any breach at all. Let me make the position very clear in regard to the rights of people under the legislation. I am very anxious to quote what I said in this matter because what I said was right. I want to quote what I said in August 1979. Mr Peacock —Tell us what you thought about the royal commission last Thursday. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member stops interjecting I will. This was the position. When the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill was before the Parliament in 1979 I moved an amendment to ensure that people's privacy, livelihood and civil liberties be protected against interference. These are some of the suggestions that were made by way of amendment at the time: That the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that a regular, periodic, judicial audit be conducted into the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; that ASIO complies with its charter and the law; that it does not unjustly infringe civil liberties; and that no person be denied notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment made about that person. Everyone of those points was rejected by the then Government which sits opposite now. Yet , members of the Opposition come in here crying what a dreadful thing this is. The Prime Minister was quite right and open with this House when he said that never at any stage did he disclose Combe's name. He was also right and acted honourably in saying that Mr Combe was entitled to have access to the information and that his lawyer could be present, whether or not he wanted him present. The position is that the lawyer was available. It is a matter for Mr Combe as to the situation. There is an obsession with the question of who first disclosed Mr Combe's name. None of the honourable members opposite can get away from what they did to Mr Combe on 10 May. On 10 May the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) stood up and asked a question. Do not tell me that the Leader of the Opposition forgot to suggest to the honourable member for Warringah, who is on the front bench of the Opposition, that as a matter of propriety he should not raise this matter as the Leader of the Opposition was fully appraised of it. In fact the Leader of the Opposition issued a Press statement soon afterwards saying that he was fully satisfied with the Government 's action. How is it then that one of his top troops gets up and asks this question? Was the Leader of the Opposition so guarded that he could not even confide in him? Is that the position? Mr Sinclair —You didn't read the weekend papers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member will get a mention in a moment. The second question I want to raise comes from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition virtually said: 'What a dreadful thing it is to think that the Prime Minister has gone and mentioned a Labor Party Official in the Caucus'. But in fact he had done no such thing. Mr Peacock —The Press report said he had. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Press report was false. The Leader of the Opposition was lucky to get a false Press report. But it did not happen. The Leader of the Opposition did not have enough courtesy to come around and check the position. It never happened. Mr Peacock —I referred to the Press report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition asked about a Press report which was also false. That, of course, really set the scene for the massive bomb that was coming from the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the gentleman they say is not able to do a street walk in Armidale in case he gets lost. The honourable member for New England asked whether the Prime Minister has instructed his members not to associate with David Combe. What a disaster the Opposition has committed here today. What a disaster it is to come up and suggest that we or somebody else raised the matter of Combe. The Hansard record shows that David Combe was named by some of the Opposition supporters. Why was the Leader of the Opposition able to convey to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) some confidential information to which he was entitled but he could not impart that to his deputy? This is an extraordinary set of circumstances. Mr Sinclair —What happened to the newspapers, Lionel? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not understand what you mean by that. But let me come to this point- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am having increasing difficulty. I am feeling rather lonely . I invite the Deputy Prime Minister to address the Chair because it seems as though there is a conversation going on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You are very interested, Mr Speaker, and I will address you. I am making the point that a series of arranged questions was asked on 10 May, three of which ultimately guaranteed that Combe's name was mentioned. These questions were based on confidential information that was given to the Opposition. Mr Peacock —That is not so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member says that is not so. Let us come to 12 May when the distinguished Leader of the National Party raised a matter of public importance concerning the grave damage to Combe as a result of his name being mentioned. In the course of the cut and thrust of that debate I said to the Leader of the National Party that surely he had been placed on notice by the Leader of the Opposition that this matter was confidential and that he was fully aware of it. He said: 'Oh, I was not told'. Mr Anthony —I was not told. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He was not told. The leader of the Opposition announced to my Prime Minister that he would communicate the situation to the Leader of the National Party and he did not do it. We will accept that situation. But let us have a look at this damning evidence of all honourable members opposite. When the matter of public importance was brought on for debate all honourable members opposite stood up in complete agreement that the matter should be raised. Are we to suggest that there was no discussion at all with the Leader of the Opposition about what happened before this matter of public importance was raised? Do honourable members honestly think that we can accept that situation? Can we accept the situation that the Leader of the Opposition stood up with all other members of the Opposition and said: 'I want to have the matter of public importance discussed now because what has happened has seriously affected Mr Combe'. Mr Speaker, you know very well that what we are saying here will be the subject of complete investigation by the commission. I would think that members of the Opposition would be able to go and give evidence. We invite them to do so . They will be subject to cross examination and we welcome that as well. The issue is a bit more fundamental than what has happened, particularly in the most recent days. The issue is about very serious questions relating to this nation's security all in the time before we became the Government. Is it surprising that we even hear Sir William McMahon complaining about what happened to him in the times when apparently the old Country Party had some influence with ASIO? Sir William says that his place was burgled because the Country Party was anxious to defeat his bid to be a candidate for the leadership of the then Government. Sir William went on television recently to say what he thought of some of the actions of ASIO. I am adding that there was a political interest in it. It would not hurt to think that some of that influence was really related to what was then known as the Country Party influence. But there is the issue of security. We are now finding that there are leaks all over the country of thousands of pages of highly classified documents. Where do these leaks come from? I tell honourable members now that they came before our time in government . Who was the mole in the former Government who leaked it all? Honourable members opposite will not find that out from John Fairfax and Sons Ltd; it just wants to print the material. The documents have now all been destroyed-we cannot even find out where they are. All the leaks relate to the time the Opposition was in government. It will not get away with it. Mr Sinclair —Are you sure? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. They all relate to the time when the Opposition was in government. The position is similar to that of my distinguished friend opposite, the Leader of the National Party, who let a house to a tenant and did not know anything about that tenant's occupation. He takes as much interest in his tenants as he does in David Combe. We make it very clear that we are aware of the situation. If the Opposition wants to make some political ploy of this, it will not get away with it. The issue will be the subject of a royal commission. I will answer the Opposition in one sentence: All the actions and circumstances brought up by the Opposition will be included in the terms of reference of that royal commission. If the Opposition feels that something has been the subject of a breach, it can leak its evidence. I suggest that other people will leak evidence against the Opposition, because it was on notice about the leaks from the beginning. The Opposition, it would appear, was not the only group given notice of the leaks that eventuated. These matters are of some concern to the Government. It is important that the nation and the Opposition get on with the business of economic management; not delve back into the past and the leaks and problems with security which all happened during the time the Opposition was in government. The matter will come right over the top of the Opposition. We are aware of some of the situations, as should have been the Opposition. If it was not it was negligent in its duty. I know that it will one day say that it is very sorry that it raised this matter in this way. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. 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, AllanCunningham, 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. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McMHollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Killen, Sir JamesAnthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.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. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Hayden, W. G. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. 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, AllanCunningham, 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. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. 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. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Killen, Sir JamesAnthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGavran, P. J.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. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Hayden, W. G. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr Cohen —Not another one! Mr SINCLAIR —It is my first for a while. Yes, Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —During the contribution of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) there was a suggestion that the information about Mr David Combe's name had come from leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). That is totally false. The Leader of the Opposition did not at any stage advise me of the name. Indeed, my question related not to a security matter but to advice from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Ministers regarding associations with Mr Combe as a lobbyist. I draw the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister to an article in the Sunday Telegraph by Mr Laurie Oakes of 8 May and to an article by Mr Paul Kelly in the Sydney Morning Herald on the morning of 10 May, both of which referred specifically to a senior Labor man. Any suggestion that I had prior knowledge because of information being divulged by the Leader of the Opposition is just not accurate. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I table the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Safety Standards at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Applied Organic Chemistry and Advanced Materials Laboratories at Fishermen's Bend, Melbourne, and the Death of CSIRO Employee Dr R. Bergamasco, or, to give it a more convenient name, the Andrew report, after its distinguished Chairman. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —On 3 April 1983 the Melbourne Sunday Press published the first of two articles about the death from malignant melanoma in December 1982 of a 33 -year-old CSIRO scientist, Dr Ron (Rinaldo) Bergamasco, who had worked in the Applied Organic Chemistry Laboratories at Fishermen's Bend, noting that three other scientists had died from cancer between 1977 and 1982, one from the Applied Organic Chemcistry Laboratory and two from the adjacent Division of Materials Science. On 4 April, I asked CSIRO to prepare an immediate report. I made a personal inspection of both laboratories on Wednesday, 6 April and, following my recommendations, on 12 April the Government commissioned a committee of inquiry, with the following terms of reference: (1) the safety of the working environment in the laboratories, the identification of factors which could put workers at risk and steps to be taken, if possible, to remedy such deficiencies, and (2) factors, if any, which link the death of Dr Bergamasco with his working environment in the laboratories. The Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry was Emeritus Professor R. R. Andrew A.O ., Director of Medical Education at St Frances Xavier Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, Victoria. Members of the Committee were Professor L. J. Opit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, and Professor W. R. Jackson, Department of Chemistry (Organic), Monash University. Secretary to the Committee was Mr J. A. Froude of the Department of Science and Technology. The Committee met six times between 18 April and 9 May 1983, including a visit to the Fishermen's Bend site on 21 April. All members of the Committee were present at all meetings. Mr N. K. Hart, CSIRO Division of Applied Organic Chemistry, Fishermen's Bend, Dr G. Ash, Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Canberra, and Dr J. B. Robinson, State Laboratories, Premier's Department, Victoria, were co-opted to the Committee for specialist functions. I want to express the Government's thanks to the members of the Committee who worked under extreme pressure to produce a report at the earliest reasonable time for the Parliament. Given the very short time between the setting up of the Committee and the presentation of the report-barely four weeks-it is an exemplary piece of work. A considered response by the Government will be brought down, after full consultation with CSIRO, in the Budget session. However, because of the widespread public concern and media reporting about safety standards in laboratories, and the death of Dr Bergamasco, the Committee' s findings should be summarised. The Andrew report concluded that in Building 53 , where Dr Bergamasco had worked: 1. the laboratories were severely crowded; 2. the exhaust from the house vacuum system is directly under and close to the air intake of the ventilation system; 3. the ventilation of the organic chemical store is inadequate; 4. the increase in number and efficiency of fume cupboards has led to a potential deficiency in the make-up air capacity of the building; 5. many fume cupboards did not achieve an adequate air flow velocity unless cupboard doors were opened only a minimal amount; 6. the exhausts from several auxiliary fume extractors had not been raised above roof level. Fumes could thus be recycled into the building through the many window-fitted air conditioning units or through the exhausts of fume cupboards that are not operating; and 7. that asbestos was still in use as bench sheets and in oven packing, being discarded and replaced by other material as it became necesssary to replace the equipment. It should be noted that the Committee was far more critical of the Advanced Materials Laboratory which was described as being: located in a collection of old buildings posing a severe fire hazard, and totally unsuitable for modern research. The report concluded: . . . the CSIRO Laboratories at Fishermens Bend must be regarded as providing a hazardous working environment. The Committee recommended inter alia that: 2.6.1 The planned transfer of the Advanced Materials Laboratory to Clayton be accelerated as a matter of urgency and high priority. The CSIRO Executive had already concluded in 1980 that there was no feasible alternative to construction at Clayton, and that continued occupancy of the present site is holding up research of national importance. 2.6.2 Funding for and a detailed plan for the transfer of the Applied Organic Chemistry laboratories to Clayton be provided as a matter of urgency and high priority. It is suggested that the plan should incorporate the transfer of individual research groups as accommodation is made available at Clayton. 2.6.3 Funding for and a detailed design to upgrade and maintain the present air supply system be provided. This is considered necessary as it is anticipated that even given a favourable program, transfer to Clayton may not be completed until 1987. 2.6.12 The Committee considered that the provision of only one CSIRO safety officer in an Organization of some 40 Divisions at over 100 locations with an expenditure of some $267m per annum was not compatible with the CSIRO's image of a world renowned scientific organization. The Committee recommended the appointment of safety specialists in at least the major industrial States plus a service of such expertise to other States and the employment of full-time safety officers at sites of high hazard potential such as Fishermens Bend. One model which the Committee noted was that being set up in the Department of Defence Support. 2.6.13 The Committee further recommended that the Safety and Health Organization of CSIRO incorporating the staff and facilities outlined above should be structured in such a way that there is a continuing program of surveillance, education, training and research on health and safety matters. Further that the Safety and Health Organization should be structured as a unit separate from and not accountable administratively to any particular Division of CSIRO but rather provide a service to all. 2.6.16 The Committee believed that the Commonwealth Government has an opportunity to provide leadership to CSIRO-and other Commonwealth Organizations- in the field of Occupational Safety and Health including education and training. On the question of Dr Bergamasco's death, the Committee concluded that it has: . . . not found any evidence that Dr Bergamasco's tragic premature death was related to his occupation, nor to his work environment at the CSIRO Division of Applied Organic Chemistry at Fishermens Bend . . . In addition we have no knowledge of any actual body contamination by chemicals incurred by Dr Bergamasco. In the absence of any measures of exposure level or of any existing evidence known to the Committee linking melanoma with specific agents, whether causative or as promoters of tumour growth, it is not possible to link his death directly with his work. The report noted that: . . . the occurence of malignant melanoma in relation to the imparted dose of UV (i.e. ultra violet) light is well documented . . . It is important to note that in men, aged 30-34 years, malignant melanoma is recorded as the cause of death in 23 per cent of all deaths from cancer in this age group in Australia. It has the highest incidence rate of all cancers in this age group of males-18.3 per 100,000 per year in 1977-and the chance occurrence of one such case in 500 male workers over five years is not improbable. I commend the Andrew report to the consideration of the House. I present the following paper: Inquiry into Safety Standards at the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation Applied Organic Chemistry and Advanced Materials Laboratories-Report and Ministerial Statement, 17 May 1983. Motion by (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(4.29) —Unlike the Government's actions in relation to the matters canvassed in the previous ministerial statement I am bound to say that in the context of the media publicity surrounding the death of Dr Bergamasco the prompt action of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in setting up so distinguished, independent and highly qualified a committee of inquiry, is to be commended. Further, the Opposition joins with the Minister and the Government in expressing appreciation of the work of the Committee of Inquiry into Safety Standards at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Applied Organic Chemistry and Advanced Materials Laboratories. It has worked very hard indeed to produce a report to present to the Parliament in the current sittings in view of the widespread public concern about safety standards at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's laboratories in general and any possible relationship to Dr Bergamasco's death in particular. The Minister in his statement has set out the main findings and the major recommendations of the Committee. That the Applied Organic Chemistry and Advanced Materials Laboratories at Fishermens Bend have many inadequacies is undoubted. The Committee recommends that remedying the situation be regarded as a matter of urgency and high priority. I know that my predecessor, the honourable David Thomson, was of the same opinion. In respect of the Committee's second term of reference, the tragic early death of Dr Bergamasco, the Committee reports that it could find no evidence that this was related to his occupation and work environment. This form of cancer is unhappily, I understand, most prevalent in this younger age group. Our sympathy goes out to the late Dr Bergamasco's relatives and friends. As the Minister has stated that a considered response by the Government will be brought down in the Budget session I seek leave to continue my remarks at that time. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That Mr Hawker be a member of the Library Committee. I congratulate Mr Hawker on becoming a member of the Library Committee so quickly. It is only a humble start but one never knows what it will lead to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The uncertainty created by the Government's confusing, contradictory and provocative statements in relation to South East Asia. 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 MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.33) —In the past 36 hours, as the result of remarks by the Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Lionel Bowen) the nation's international reputation and the reputation of this Government have been exposed to a negative public reaction and that negative public reaction has been mixed with concern and ridicule. In proposing an Australian-Japanese peacekeeping force for service in Kampuchea, without thought , without consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Cabinet, the Japanese and other interested governments, the Deputy Prime Minister, who, let me remind honourable members, holds the second highest office in the Government of Australia, has brought Australia's foreign policy into serious international discredit. This nation is faced this afternoon with a Press and electronic media virtually unanimous in its concern and condemnation at the disarray caused by this Government's amateurish efforts in making foreign policy. There is concern at the division within the Government, which this incident illustrates. The Foreign Minister was obliged to dissociate himself from the proposition. He denied knowledge of the Deputy Prime Minister's plan, saying: Anything like that would be a long way off. Thus this morning's headlines read: 'Bowen plan surprise to Hayden', in the Canberra Times; 'Hayden-Bowen Brawl', in the Australian Financial Review; 'Hayden and Bowen in Conflict', in the Daily Telegraph; and ' Hayden and Bowen clash over Troops', in the Australian. There is concern at the failure of the Deputy Prime Minister as Acting Foreign Minister to test his thinking with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Prime Minister consoles himself by reference to his motive-the motive of mobilising resources for a peaceful settlement. It is an estimable motive, but that is all the more reason why he needs to equip himself with professional advice-which is readily at hand, and I am quite sure would be given without fear or bias. Australia is fortunate in having a diplomatic service of skill and experience. The actions of the Deputy Prime Minister in making this 'off-the-cuff' foray are inexcusable when one considers that there was no public pressure for him to deliver this 'kerb-side' opinion. It is for him to justify his action; not in terms of his intent or the lack of intent on the part of others, but in terms of his failure to use competently the very sizable resources of advice available to him. This issue raises the question of his basic competence to act as Foreign Minister. Australia's international reputation has suffered a considerable blow. The result of his actions has left the public of Australia and the Opposition gravely concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister showed no understanding of the long and difficult history that surrounds the role of the Japanese Self Defence Forces. Many Australians are well aware of internal debate in Japan over the clause in the Japanese constitution which precludes the maintenance of Japanese armed forces for general defence use. The Japanese have only with difficulty reconciled with the constitution the establishment of a role for self-defence forces. I remind the House that in 1971 there was a proposal put forward for Japanese self-defence forces to be used overseas on humanitarian relief. This proposal was not received at all well and raised a great storm within Japan. If only a preliminary enquiry to the Department of Foreign Affairs had been made, the Deputy Prime Minister would have saved himself a lot of embarrassment and ridicule, and been put on the right track. Did this experienced politician follow this tried and tested procedure before he made his announcement? Not a bit of it. Mr Lionel Bowen —Wait till you hear me. Mr MacKELLAR —Consequently, we are left with a very unpretty picture-front page banner headlines in Japan, with consequences that we cannot at this stage describe or foresee. Public condemnation in Australia has been swift and direct. Let me quote some of the Australian editorial which is headed: 'This silly idea must be forgotten'. Mr Lionel Bowen —Who wrote that? Mr MacKELLAR —This is the Australian editorial today. It says, among other things: Not only is it impossible that the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal has the slightest chance of being accepted by the governments concerned, but the nature of his suggestion is such as to cause the rest of the world to have the gravest doubts about our government's understanding of the facts of international life. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a very severe comment indeed, and I shall repeat it: . . . but the nature of his suggestion is such as to cause the rest of the world to have the gravest doubts . . . That, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to say, is a general statement shared by many about the reputation the Government is getting for its foreign policy. This Government inherited a situation on foreign policy where Australia was held in high esteem internationally. Our relations with our friends in the Association of South East Asian Nations had never been brought into question on matters affecting basic security and regional relationships on security issues. ASEAN has rightly been regarded around the world as one of the most important and successful experiments in regional co-operation. Our policy gave priority to fostering its strengths. When it launched its successful international efforts to secure a majority United Nations position on Kampuchea, Australian diplomacy was very active in its support. We now call on the Government to give continuing support to the United Nations resolution of last year, supported by 105 nations, proposing arrangements for a peaceful settlement and a withdrawal of the Vietnamese occupation forces. But the Government is still evasive. It says it supports the United Nations process. In opposition it criticised our peacekeeping in the Sinai in the absence of a United Nations resolution, but it refuses to endorse publicly the ASEAN-United Nations endorsed resolution on Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. The Opposition believes, and a great majority of Australians believe, that close and effective relations with our regional friends in ASEAN is fundamental to our international relations. Australians have many links at all levels of contact with individual members of ASEAN. We have as a nation been greatly heartened by the stability of ASEAN and the contribution that ASEAN is making to the wider region of the Pacific. ASEAN's economic growth is important to us. ASEAN security is scarcely divisible from ours, and that is why the majority of Australians accept the value of defence co-operation with ASEAN. But this Government has by its public diplomacy-if that is an appropriate word for the process; and I doubt very much that it is an appropriate word-downgraded our relations with ASEAN. It has sought to give the impression that ASEAN has positions which are difficult for us. All of this is unfortunate, if it was unintended, because it distorts the true value which the majority of Australians have come to place on our relations with ASEAN. We all know that the concern expressed by ASEAN about the apparent change of emphasis in our foreign policy priorities had disturbed our neighbours. They have had put to them that Australia is upgrading relations with Hanoi. The implication has been put on them that their efforts to bring Hanoi to the conference table have broken down. They have been asked to accept that Australia is capable of building with Hanoi a relationship that has eluded them and out of this relationship will issue processes which will lead to a settlement. This Parliament needs to be reminded that ASEAN efforts with Hanoi, despite considerable provocation, have been outward-looking and constructive. Senior Vietnamese Ministers visited the ASEAN region. Malaysia's Foreign Minister and a Singapore trade delegation visited Vietnam in 1977. Then followed the refugee exodus of 1978-a problem not caused by ASEAN-and in 1980 Malaysia and Indonesia made a significant gesture towards Hanoi through a declaration called the Kuantan Declaration. This affirmed the need for Vietnam to be independent of both China and the Soviet Union. In 1981 ASEAN advanced proposals internationally which sought to accord some recognition of Vietnam's security interests in relation to Cambodia and which were intended to prevent the return of Pol Pot forces after a Vietnamese withdrawal. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, the questions this House has to ask are as follows: Why this switch in priorities by this Government? Why this public diplomacy designed to throw ASEAN into a state of concern about Australia? Why at the same time seek to deliver aid to Hanoi? Why this promotion of the idea that Hanoi is ready to negotiate? Why risk so much misunderstanding from our friends for the distant prospects of Hanoi? Why avoid the path of quiet exploration of the issues first? Many friends of Australia are led to wonder whether the high priority being given to relations with Hanoi is based on a technical estimate from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the time is now ripe to explore Hanoi's attitude to active negotiations, or whether the Government is deliberately creating a public situation to distance Australia from ASEAN-a situation which, of course, Hanoi would welcome. Far from encouraging settlement, such a result would lead Vietnam's hard-liners into the belief that international solidarity would be broken down. That is a serious risk to which the Government has exposed a very delicate situation for ASEAN. It is therefore very highly relevant to look again at the diplomacy of this Government on South-East Asia since it came into office. The whole program of action is dictated by the Australian Labor Party resolutions of 1982, resolutions passed at a conference when the Deputy Prime Minister was the Labor Party's spokesman on foreign affairs and the Foreign Minister was then its leader. Because one resolution said that defence co- operation with Indonesia would cease unless Indonesia changed its position on Timor, the Foreign Minister felt his first duty was to tax Australia's relationship with Indonesia with this issue. He got a flea in his ear. It could have been worse, but his skills avoided the worst results from this mistaken venture. Then followed a further expedition to sell the conference resolutions on Vietnam. This effort brings us to the present predicament of the Government. After an initial try-on, the idea of offering foreign aid to Vietnam has been put to one side. The Prime Minister, according to the Press, stimulated an emphasis on approaching Hanoi directly on the issue of Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. This was in the apparent belief that the Vietnamese would offer enough public cause to give credibility to the Australian initiative, sufficient to get the Government through a series of forthcoming Labor Party conferences, where the left-wing tail is thought to be wagging vigorously. These party demands have made impossible a quiet diplomacy which the issues require. But the sudden presumption by the Deputy Prime Minister that settlement was so close at hand as to introduce the complex subject of peacekeeping was an unexpected contribution. It was unexpected to everybody, particularly the members of his own party. It was complicating in every way. All of this, of course, is unwanted in the face of the two weeks of difficulty caused by Ministers poking their noses into other Minister's business. One recalls Senator Button's intervention on the Australian Broadcasting Commission issue; a failure of Ministers to handle, in an elementary, discreet way, a national security issue; in all a fundamental failure of Ministers to curb their tongues and act as members of a responsible government. All of this gives a disturbing picture, both nationally and internationally. In early June, the Prime Minister leaves for overseas on a mission to explain our foreign policy. His mission is now complicated by the disarray manifest in the Government's diplomacy. It is complicated by his Ministers' misunderstanding of it and the interpretation being accorded by international observers to the remarks of his Ministers. His absence raises the question: Who will be Australia 's Acting Prime Minister while he is away. Will it be the adept Foreign Minister or the impulsive Deputy Prime Minister? I hope this damaging excursion into international affairs proves instructive to the Deputy Prime Minister. He should now cease to torture his mind with conspiracy theories as advanced in Bathurst against Dame Leonie Kramer and the John Fairfax organisation. He should cease to blame others for the public predicament currently faced by his Government and instead he should get on with the task of governing. In the final analysis, the problems are problems of management. Bad management and bad relationships between Ministers have inflicted grievous wounds on the public's confidence in this particular Labor Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(4.47) —I welcome the initiation of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) into foreign affairs. He is a much travelled Minister, as we know. I have not travelled as much as he has, but I think I have come out of it a little better. Let us talk about professionalism in this area. Admittedly I made a statement during the weekend which spoke about Australia's initiatives in foreign affairs. I want to make the point that in the course of making that statement perhaps I made too vicious an attack on John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. That was the real issue. I started to ask why it was that a proprietary group which owns so many newspapers was so bereft of concern for Australia's standing in the world that it allowed to be published a whole series of classified material without looking at the damage it had done to Australia's image. I mentioned the protest notes that I had received as a result of that publication and I mentioned also the fact that across the world our ambassadors had done nothing but send us cables saying that it appeared that the Government was unable to maintain its secrecy, its efficiency and its intelligence services. What an indictment of that paper. So okay, I will accept the blast that I get now, that in the course of mentioning a number of other initiatives, I dared mention Japan. Would it have been all right if I had mentioned India? Mr MacKellar —It depends what you said about it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it depends what I said. The honourable member was not even there. We will have a look at what I said. I said this, and I will say it calmly , that I met Son Sann during the week and, as honourable members well know, he is the leader of one of the coalition groups opposing the Vietnamese. Not one word was mentioned by the honourable member about the meeting with Son Sann or his visit here. I spent an hour with the honourable gentleman. I was very impressed with his sincerity because he made that sincerity very clear to me. I have been in the refugee camps of Kampuchea and I have been in Hanoi twice. I have spoken to the Japanese on more than one occasion and I will not accept the view that the professional advice I receive is somewhere outside those limits. Mr MacKellar —How would you know; you have not asked for it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member would just listen, I will tell him the position. I spoke to Son Sann about the position. The Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) who, as the honourable member knows, is a good friend of mine, said: 'I am going to Hanoi and I will be putting propositions to Hanoi very soon'. I asked Son Sann what he thought of the concepts that the Australian Labor Party had in mind. He said that he was more concerned at this stage in getting aid for his forces. That was his position and I respect it. I said: 'Look, the issue has got to be on the question of trying to get a settlement in that region and there must be a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces. Have you any objection to our talking about that?' 'Not at all', said Son Sann, 'I welcome it. It is the only hope my people have got'. What an indictment of the people opposite to think that that man is able to say that, because he is talking about a peaceful solution without this rather difficult proposition of bringing Vietnam to its knees. The message is that Vietnam is economically stronger than ever. It has occupied that territory and we have to do something about peaceful negotiation. For the benefit of the honourable gentleman opposite, I should like to place on record a letter which I received this day from Son Sann. I refer to only a segment of it. He thanks me for the interview, and says: We trust Australia will endeavour to find a peaceful settlement to the Cambodian conflict-- I might add that he always refers to the area as Cambodia. He continues: We do not seek to hinder any such move. This is the position. The move will be made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the normal course of making diplomatic moves. He will put that Australia suggests that there be removal of the forces of Vietnam. I can tell honourable members, with regard to this professionalism that they think I lack, that I met Thach in 1980 in Hanoi. I spoke to Thach, the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, about the problems that I saw there. He said this: 'I am not going to withdraw from Kampuchea until such time as Pol Pot is disarmed'. I said: 'That is a no win situation. It is the chicken and the egg. Could there not be some prospect of some suggestion of a United Nations peacekeeping force?' He said: 'That is a matter of consideration, but I am not going to be in the position of being attacked by China from the north and west at the same time. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that there had been a surgical strike with massive casualties. The honourable member talks about professionalism. Massive casualties were suffered in 1979. Because his Government had refused or virtually discounted aid to Vietnam-I can understand that position-it meant that our Ambassador had no influence at all in Hanoi. The distinguished professional advice that I might get was not able to even cover the people I was able to meet and the honourable member talks about professionalism. At that stage, of course, Son Sann was not known to me. But I had been to all the refugee camps and I had spoken to all the refugees and their consideration was: 'Can we not get peace in our country; but we cannot go back under Pol Pot, this genocidal maniac who has slaughtered 3 million of our people.' This included two Australians. All through that time the Opposition recognised that regime. It recognised it all that time. Mr MacKellar —You initially recognised it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but that was in 1975. The genocide had not taken place then. Let us be honest about it. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) had to get out of the Cabinet, he was so horrified. Let us have a look at the Labor Party's policy in this area, for which I claim credit. It says this - Mr MacKellar —Tell us about the Japanese. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member never mentioned them at all. Mr MacKellar —I did. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He seems to hate the thought that I even mentioned them. The Labor policy on Indo-China states: The general abhorrence in Australia of the Democratic Kampuchean regime should be kept in mind when considerating Australia's attitude towards the region. Australia should discourage all support for the Democratic Kampuchea (Pol Pot) regime so as to create conditions favourable to a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces. Australia will not give any recognition, bilaterally or multilaterally, to any coalition or regime including Pol Pot forces. Another segment of that policy states: Australia should make strenous diplomatic efforts to promote regional solutions to Indo Chinese problems and, in the interests of peace and stability in the region, attempt to decrease the involvement of the superpowers. The Soviets are very interested in being in that region. The policy further states: Australia should also continue to lend its support to international efforts aimed at decreasing regional tensions. I claim credit for that. That is our party policy. When I was spokesman for the Opposition, how many times did I mention the matter that is so upsetting at the present time. It will be found in all my speeches made in this Parliament, or many of them, that on every occasion I spoke about initiative and on many occasions I spoke about the intiative being with Japan. There is no surprise. Honourable members will see that on every occasion that I had a chance to talk about solving the problems of Kampuchea I mentioned this matter. It goes against the grain to have it suggested to me that this was the first time that I had mentioned the matter. I assure the honourable member for Warringah that it is not news to me that this matter was mentioned. I mentioned co-operation with Japan on five occasions in debates in this Parliament between 1980 and 1982. Japan is the commercial super-power in that region and I suggested that it may be able to participate in bringing the parties to the negotiating table. The honourable member said, with all his innocence, that the matter was mentioned for the first time last weekend . What utter nonsense. I have been discussing this matter for some time. In Austria in 1981 I had a special conference with Pahr, the chairman of the United Nations committee relating to Kampuchea. He appreciated the fact that perhaps there should be some motivation to try to get a peacekeeping concept into that region. A United Nations resolution in 1981 stated that there should be an agreement on a ceasefire by all parties to the conflict in Kampuchea and withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea in the shortest possible time under supervision and verification of a United Nations peacekeeping force observer group. That occurred before I saw Pahr. For the benefit of the honourable member, that was also before I saw the Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr Sonoda, in July 1981. He and I discussed the question of a peacekeeping operation in Kampuchea. This did not mean Japanese would be involved but it meant that they would have to lend their weight to the issue. They welcomed the suggestion of an initiative. There is a record of interview of that meeting for that professional group which the honourable member is so concerned about and which he suggests that I might not have consulted. I mentioned a name; I mentioned the date; I mentioned the facts. I spoke about this matter in this Parliament all that time. Nobody objected to it. I purposely mentioned the good influences of Japan. The honourable member seems to think that Japan will march in there with an army; not at all. The question was: Would Japan lend its weight in terms of an international solution in the United Nations? It said it would. Thach also said he would have no objection provided, of course, that there was a guarantee from China that Pol Pot would no longer get support from China. If this matter is to be debated fairly, I do not think that any honourable member could disagree with those actions. Mr MacKellar —You said 'join in a peacekeeping force'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I said 'perhaps Japan would be interested'. Mr MacKellar —In a peacekeeping force. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In a peacekeeping force. As the honourable member knows, we have one in Cyprus. That does not involve the military. The Japanese could also participate in that. If the honourable member for Warringah is anti-Japanese, I am not. Mr MacKellar —I am not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Oh yes you are, because when I suggested it you asked: 'How could Japan do it?'. The honourable member mentioned the Japanese constitution. We are not talking about things that the Japanese cannot do; we are talking about things they can do. This is not a new innovation of mine. Our policy is to get a solution. The Opposition has the same problem as the Association of South East Asian Nations group has of needing some initiative other than its own of bringing Vietnam to its knees by war. In fairness to Mr Son Sann, he had the view that Vietnam had to be beaten in battle. I think that is crazy. I know he is not convinced that he could win that argument. The honourable member knows that there is a dreadful hate between China and Vietnam. I asked Mr Son Sann what were the priorities. He said: 'Well, Mr Bowen, choosing the priorities between Pol Pot and the Vietnamese is like having to accept the plague or cholera'. Those were his words. Why should I not get up at a conference of my party and say that I had met this honourable gentleman three days previously; that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was going to Vietnam; and that Mr Son Sann had no objection to Australia's initiatives that would mean the Vietnamese getting out of Kampuchea and also some solution which would involve the Pol Pot forces laying down their arms. I cannot tell the House everything that Mr Son Sann said but he had no argument with the suggestion that we might even consult with the Japanese about the matter. I emphasise Japan's commercial influence. I have mentioned that on at least six occasions in this Parliament. I mentioned it in terms of how we ought to be able to guarantee some co-operation with people who are not directly involved. Honourable members can look at the Hansards. It astounds me to think that the Press thinks that this matter was mentioned only last weekend. My interest is a matter of record. The professionals within the Department of Foreign Affairs, would have been able to read it; the professionals within the Japanese Embassy would have been able to read it. The record of the conversation with Mr Sonoda was available to the professionals from July 1981 when this matter was canvassed . He said he would welcome an Australian initiative. I can say that the initiatives of the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be a success. The Japanese do not have to be a military force; they can join another type of force. They may not want to join. I used the word 'perhaps' because it is a question of their considering the matter. But they could not be ignored. Mr MacKellar —We haven't. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, you have. The honourable member has come along with an indictment today that something dreadful was wrong. Mr MacKellar —You are ham-fisted and you know it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Look, let us make it very clear. It is a matter of record that I spoke to Thach in 1980. He agreed to withdraw providing Pol Pot was disarmed. I spoke to the Japanese Foreign Minister in July 1981. He thought there was merit in the proposition. All were going to the United Nations conference in 1981 where that resolution was passed suggesting that there be a United Nations peacekeeping force observer group. And the honourable member wants to exclude the Japanese from it! How dare he make that suggestion. All I can suggest to the honourable member is that he not get caught up in the Fairfax propaganda; he should think of this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.2) —We have heard a totally unsatisfactory response from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in this debate. He has asked us to play this important issue low key. He wants to trade on his reputation as a reasonable man. The fact is that last weekend he perpetrated a major foreign affairs gaff. His historical perspective put to us in this Parliament today does nothing to restore the situation. He did not refer to his indiscretions about Japan. He talks only of the peaceful solution. It is apparent that we all support that. Australians are entitled to ask: What is going on with Australia's foreign policy? Into what sort of shambles is Australia's foreign policy sinking ? What is the attitude of Australia's friends, allies and neighbours to this country following the fumbles, gaffs and other ill-considered actions of this 10 -week-old Government? My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) brought forward this matter of public importance following a series of confusing, contradictory and provocative statements which have created confusion not only in Australia but also abroad. The Government is not immune from this confusion. There is very little relationship between the policy of the Government and its actions. The Government is in clear disarray. Within weeks of the accession of the new Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), with the fire of reforming zeal burning in his belly, took off to Indonesia to redress the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia. Where were the normal, judicious and proper preliminary consultations about this matter? Where was the ground work? Where was the diplomacy? What happened? After causing considerable embarrassment all round, the Foreign Minister came home with his tail between his legs with the policy of the former Government in place-indeed, I might go so far as to say , endorsed. The linchpin of the left wing inspired foreign policy of the Australian Labor Party was in tatters. In fact, it is difficult to tell who is more confused or embarrassed-Australia, Indonesia, the Labor Party or the left wing of the Labor Party. All we can be sure of is that the policy of the former Government has been endorsed. With this triumph behind him the Foreign Minister took off to the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations to peddle the bankrupt proposal that Australia should resume aid to Vietnam while Vietnam continues to occupy Kampuchea. After a round of discussions, and very badly bruised, the Foreign Minister was forced to acknowledge that aid to Vietnam would not be resumed without full consultation with Australia's allies. Thus another prime plank of the Labor platform goes onto the back burner, leaving all those involved overseas confused and stunned by the ham-fisted approach of the new Government in Australia. Next, the Foreign Minister invaded Geneva and told the world that Australia will appoint an ambassador for disarmament. Even I was confused by that one. I did not know that that was in the Australian Labor Party platform. It certainly has not been discussed or debated in Australia. Most Australians support our structure of alliances and Australia's position as part of the overall Western alliance. They are confused by this proposal that we will now have an ambassador for disarmament. By this stage Australia's foreign policy was in a state of shock. By about week 10 of the life of the new Government it should perhaps not have come as any surprise that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Acting Foreign Minister should seek to embroil Australia in another major foreign policy embarrassment. Shooting from the hip, the Deputy Prime Minister floated the absurd proposition that Australia and Japan should jointly provide a peacekeeping force in Kampuchea. The Deputy Prime Minister's comments came as a surprise to the Government's advisers, not to mention his colleagues in Government, the Foreign Minister, the rest of Australia and the Japanese. Where, I ask, was the diplomacy? The Deputy Prime Minister has been backtracking ever since. Today in this House he has continued that ignominious withdrawal. His proposition has been soundly condemned and in the last day or two terms such as highly contentious, premature , naive, gratuitous, insensitive, bizarre, imprecise, rough, silly and impossible have been used to describe it. That is not a bad grab bag of plaudits . Are these the sorts of terms that a self-respecting country like Australia should welcome when they are used to describe foreign policy initiatives put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Foreign Minister of this country ? Quite apart from the insensitivity shown towards Japan, and for that matter the ASEAN countries, what about the confusion and uncertainty caused around the world by this ill-considered proposal? Obviously the world at large would be justified in questioning Australia's grasp of international affairs, of the real world. What about the blatant inconsistency between the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal that Australia should not contribute to the Sinai peacekeeping force and his canvassing Australian involvement in a Kampuchean peacekeeping force? What about the acceptability of the proposition to the Japanese, even if there were no constitutional barrier to such a concept? As has been outlined by my colleague this afternoon, it is clear that there is. What about the acceptability of the proposition to the other side in this argument-to the Vietnamese and the Soviet Union? What of the Foreign Minister? Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's protestations that the Foreign Minister agrees with him, that honourable gentleman declared that he had never heard of the Bowen proposal . No doubt the Foreign Minister is as confused and as concerned as are the rest of us. But it is one thing to have an internal Labor Party brawl about domestic policy; it is another thing entirely when a situation like this develops on a matter of foreign policy which is of great significance to Australia. What is the position of the Government? Do we have here the makings of another royal commission to clear the air? Or is this a re-run of the Whitlam style of foreign policy making, where Ministers make foreign policy pronouncements almost at will , usually from the hip and always outside their area of ministerial responsibility? I hope not. Australia has worked hard over the years to develop a credible foreign policy and to earn the respect of its allies. Australia is highly regarded in the world as a responsible nation and as a positive contributor to international affairs. We are highly regarded in our region-by ASEAN, by Japan and by the Pacific countries. That is a reputation which has been hard won. It has been put at risk by the irresponsible, ill- considered outbursts of the Deputy Prime Minister. He must put the proposition to rest. He must withdraw his statement and do as his colleague, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), has done admit his error. Only then can Australia go about the serious task of restoring the damage done by this injudicious Deputy Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON(St George)(5.11) —I never cease to be amazed by the sheer humbug of honourable members opposite. They come in here and talk about confusion and about contradictory and provocative statements. They are the very people who took Australia into Vietnam, the very people who misled this Parliament and the Australian people, as a result of which thousands of Australian young men were maimed and killed. The Liberal-Australian Country Party Government back in 1962 misled deliberately when it stated that Australia had received a request from the Vietnamese Government of the time. There was no such request and that is a matter of record. That record was displayed by a former Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, in this House on 19 August 1971. It showed the deliberate lies of the honourable gentlemen opposite. Honourable members opposite talk about contradictions! Some of us were here in the days when they refused to recognise one quarter of the world's population. They talk about policies in foreign affairs. What did they say at that time? Wherever electoral polemics were involved, they talked about red China. However, when members of the Australian Country Party-the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) is a bit young to remember but his predecessors in that seat will remember it-talked about trade, there was a great change in connotation; they talked about mainland China. These are the people who talk about the Government making contradictory statements. A little closer in time, some honourable members will recall the great traditions of the policy on Afghanistan. In the Parliament, and in statements outside it, the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, browbeat young Australian kids and insinuated that they were traitors if they participated in the Moscow Olympic Games. But at the very same time that man, the Prime Minister, was selling his wool from the Nareen station to Moscow. The second point is that trade with the Soviet Union quadrupled following the invasion of Afghanistan. Yet members opposite talk of confusion, of contradiction and of contradictory statements. Let us look at the record. Let us look at the credible foreign policy that is, once again, being put into place by a Labor government. I will talk about Indonesia. For seven years the present Opposition, when in government, did nothing about a whole series of questions on Indonesia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) paid his first visit to Indonesia. He did not go to the United States of America to get a little pat on the back, which is what honourable gentlemen opposite persist in doing. He went to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and through the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. That spells out our priorities. It spells out the need of this Government to understand the purposes of ASEAN and what its members interests are. Let me recapitulate what happened on Mr Hayden's first visit. First of all he arranged a family reunion program. Mr Lusher —Wonderful! Mr MORRISON —The honourable member said: 'Wonderful'. What did his Government achieve in seven years? The Opposition cannot claim that it achieved anything because it did not. The Minister for Foreign Affairs achieved the non- discriminatory treatment of entry by Australian journalists and the establishment of a permanent Australian Associated Press office in Jakarta. He received assurances on full and regular access of interested aid agencies in East Timor and also he achieved assurances about the resettlement of those imprisoned on Atauro Island. These things were achieved in the first couple of weeks of the Labor Government. In seven years of the Liberal-National Party Government nothing was achieved. Let me turn to Kampuchea. We have taken the point-it is a point long consistent with the Australian Labor Party view-that we have a responsibility. We are not merely observers in South East Asia. We do not stand on the periphery. We are involved in South East Asia. It is our part of the world. We accept a responsibility to play a role in the very complicated problems of Indo-China. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has laid down some component parts of a resolution of the Kampuchea problem. Let me spell these out so honourable gentlemen will understand what is involved in the making of an effective foreign policy. The elements involved are: The acceptance by Vietnam of an appropriate accommodation with its neighbours; a phased withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia; a form of self-determination for Cambodia; the creation of conditions for the peaceful return to displaced Cambodians; the acceptance by all parties that Cambodia is neutral, independent and non-aligned; and the restoration of normal relations on the part of Vietnam with China, ASEAN and the West. Is there any opposition to those propositions? Mr Lusher —Where does the Japanese peacekeeping force fit with that scenario? Mr MORRISON —Honourable members opposite had a chance to speak. Just because they duffed it they cannot get involved in further comments. Those elements are the essential basis of a foreign policy designed to overcome the very real problems that have occurred in Indo-China. Let me come to the question of peacekeeping. An international conference on Kampuchea was held in July 1981. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out, he was in Japan in July 1981. He had discussions with Japan's Foreign Minister, Mr Sonoda. He explored the attitude of Japan to this very real problem. Let us remember that Japan is also part of this region. He raised with Mr Sonoda the question of an opportunity for Australia and Japan to take initiatives at this international conference. Those are the sorts of views that are put forward in the normal consultation and discussion with friends, allies and with countries which can play an important role. The former Government never involved itself in taking initiatives; it had to wait until it received its instructions from elsewhere. We in the Labor Party do not work like that. We have taken the view all along that we have a responsibility; we have a role. The international conference on Kampuchea brought down a series of resolutions requiring a ceasefire and the withdrawal of foreign forces 'under the supervision and verification of a United Nations peacekeeping force-observer group'. This is still a possibility. As Mr Hayden pointed out, it is a long way down the track. But these are important components in the resolution of this very difficult and real problem in Kampuchea. One of the aims of any government- I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) would agree to this-is that these matters should be so arranged as to ensure that the Pol Pot forces do not get back into power in Kampuchea. Let us look at some of the other records of the Labor Party in government in such a short space of time. We have a credible foreign policy in which we are undertaking initiatives on our own part. Let us take the case of Cyprus. At the last vote that the previous Government had in the United Nations it took the coward's way out on Cyprus, a country which is a member of the Commonwealth and a close friend of Australia. The previous Government abstained on the resolution on Cyprus. Just a few days ago the Labor Government changed that vote. It voted affirmatively in favour of the Cyprus resolution. A special grant of $10m was given to Papua New Guinea because the former Government had failed to act on the request of Papua New Guinea which was submitted in June 1982. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.21) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr Jacobi —Why can't I listen to the Minister? Mr LLOYD —If the honourable member is patient it will all come in good time. The purpose of the amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which the Government has moved, is to lift partially the ban during an election period on the electronic media-that is, to lift the ban which presently exists between midnight on the Wednesday to the close of the poll on the Saturday. Under the Government's proposal news and commentary about the election will be permitted on the electronic media but advertising will not be permitted during the last three days of the election campaign. The history of the pre-polling day electronic blackout began in 1942 when a committee recommended to the then Federal Labor Government that a law applying at that time, I understand in Canada, also apply in Australia. The Government accepted the recommendation for the ban which, at that stage, was radio only and hence the ban began. In 1949 a State Labor Government in New South Wales passed legislation, which has since been repealed, for an identical blackout on Press coverage during the last three days of an election campaign. In 1954 the Royal Commission on Television recommended that the radio ban be extended to include television. In 1969 an amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act allowed the electronic media outside the area covered by that media to continue to broadcast during a by-election campaign for the final three days of the campaign. It is interesting to note that the electronic ban has never applied to elections in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. By 1979 breaches of this ban were becoming apparent both in the Parliament and outside in the electronic media. The then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the Hon. Tony Staley, indicated that in his view the law needed examination. Mr Duffy —Examination? Mr LLOYD —One would say examination and review. My understanding is that during the 1980 Federal election campaign all the leaders of the major parties, with the exception of the Australian Democrats-that is, the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party-were in favour of the ban continuing. It is my understanding that at that time the official ALP policy was that the ban would not be lifted until the introduction of public funding of elections which, to my way of thinking, indicates that it was the view of the Labor Party that when it was time to lift the ban on the electronic media, with the introduction of public funding, it would be lifted in its entirety because it makes sense only if public funding were to assist with that advertising. My source for the points I have been making is the Parliamentary Library Research Service. In 1981 the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters put forward a compormise proposal to try to break the deadlock that had existed for so many years. It had become apparent that there were differences within the parties on each side of the House as to whether or not the ban should continue. The FARB compromise proposal was that news and comment should be permitted for the last days of a campaign but not advertising. Early in 1982 Senator Macklin, a member of the Australian Democrats, introduced in the Senate a private member's Bill which had the intent of lifting the ban in its entirety on all the electronic media. In the last paragraph of his second reading speech Senator Macklin said: The electronic blackout must be removed. It is a democratic right for all Australian citizens to have access to all information from all sources. It is time this absurd and regressive ban was removed. This Bill will dispose of it in its entirety. So it is obvious that the Australian Democrats believe that the electronic ban on advertising, news and commentary should be lifted completely. Information provided by the Parliamentary Library Research Service indicates that the Australian Labor Party at its July 1982 conference appeared to have adopted or accepted the FARB compromise proposal of news and comment but no advertising and this is faithfully shown in the Bill now before the House. As I said, as the debate on this issue has raged over the years, leading politicans on both sides of the House have changed their positions and attitudes and there have been differences and swings in the numbers for and against within the parties. There are many in the Opposition today who doubt that the lifting of the ban, either in the form set out in the Government Bill or in the amendment that we will be proposing at the Committee stage-that is to lift the ban completely on news, comment and advertising-is the correct position to adopt. Therefore, they will be closely watching the position. A number of honourable members on both sides of this chamber will be closely watching what happens once the ban is lifted following passage of the legislation, either in the form proposed by the Government or in the form that we propose. The view of the majority of members of the coalition in the Opposition is very much that if the ban on news, comment and advertising is to be lifted, it should be lifted completely. The reason for this is, firstly, that if there is to be an equitable arrangement or comparision between the electronic media and the print media, if each is to be given an equal position of complete freedom, the ban must be lifted completely. At the moment print media advertising as well as news commentary is permitted right through to the close of the poll. It is argued that the ban on the electronic media should not be lifted because a breathing space should be provided for people in the last couple of days before the poll. However, we will not get a breathing space if news and comment are permitted. So the breathing space argument is a farce. There is no argument that allows or justifies the transmitting or televising of news and comment but still bars advertising being permitted at the same time. One can also question the basic assumption that a breathing space is required anyway in the sense that one can avoid physically opening a newspaper but the electronic media is beamed at one. I think that we have lived with the electronic media for long enough that people can turn off physically and mentally in the same way as they turn off in respect of the print media, if that is their desire. But an additional problem arises if news and comment is permitted but not advertising. There is no provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act for right of reply to a candidate or party subjected to attack in the last few days of a campaign. Section 116 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act states: If, during an election period, a licensee broadcasts or televises election matter, he shall afford reasonable opportunities for the broadcasting or televising of election matter to all political parties contesting the election, being parties which were represented in either House of the parliament for which the election is to be held at the time of its last meeting before the election period. That section of the Act contains two key points. The first concerns reasonable opportunity. Reasonable opportunity does not mean equal opportunity. There has been debate over the years as to whether or not the Act should specify equal opportunity. The second key point is that reasonable opportunity is to be calculated over the whole election period. The election period is from the time that the writs are issued until either the close of the poll or the blackout late on Wednesday night befor the poll. The point is that a station licensee could say quite justifiably that if one considers reasonable opportunity over the whole election period candidate A or political party A has been given a fair run, a reasonable opportunity, and there is no requirement to force the station to provide a right of reply to that person or that party which has been maligned or has been the subject of an attack in the last couple of days. However, even if advertising is allowed there is still an opportunity to buy time if time is not given. I can assure the House that this has occurred in the past. It has happened to me personally. The opportunity for one to reply even in the last couple of days before the ban applied on Wednesday night was still restricted in the way that I have mentioned. One still had the rights to advertise, of course; to try to reply by buying time on radio or television even when the opportunity is rejected by the station itself. The Opposition believes that if we are to have an equitable, comparable and logical arrangement for the electronic media in the period leading up to the polling day we have to lift completely the ban on news, comment and advertising. I suppose the final point I want to make about the attitude of the Opposition in this matter is that other countries have lifted their restrictions on the electronic media in the last couple of days before a poll. I think one or two countries might have some restrictions in respect of the polling day itself but that is about all. It will be of considerable interest to the House, and certainly to the Opposition, to see what the Australian Democrats do in the Senate. As I said earlier, the Australian Democrats introduced a private member's Bill and they have publicly committed themselves, over several elections, to lift completely the ban on the electronic media. If they are to maintain their position and their credibility on this issue, obviously they will have to support our amendment in the Senate. It will be very interesting to see whether the Australian Democrats maintain their stated position. The Opposition will not be opposing the second reading of this Bill. We will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to remove all restrictions on the electronic media during an election period. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.35) —The Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill is an important piece of legislation. Many people involved with the electronic media would agree. The Bill is designed to remove what I regard as a ridiculous situation which has occurred over a number of decades and especially since the introduction of television in this country in 1956. I refer to that situation in which on the Wednesday evening before an election there is a complete blackout of news. News readers and commentators come to us on Thursday with some peripheral news saying: 'Well, we cannot talk about that thing that is happening on Saturday because we will be prosecuted', or some such nonsense. That is a ridiculous position. I have always been against the blackout as such and I fully endorse what the Government is proposing in this Bill. The position becomes even more ridiculous when one considers a by-election. Unfortunately, we have had several by-elections in Victoria in the last 12 months. I say unfortunately because we have seen the passing away of three State members over a matter of nine or ten months. Yet on our radio and television sets in Victoria there has been no political news reporting during the ensuing by-elections. The first one, for example, was the seat of Keilor in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Although that seat has only about 30,000 electors the entire State of Victoria came to a stop with regard to political news reporting because there was to be an election for that seat. It was, in fact, a safe Labor seat. I remember that when Sir Rupert Hamer resigned from State Parliament the seat of Kew was a very safe Liberal seat but we still went through the same farce. During the last couple of days before the by-election, no one could talk about politics or mention anything in any way connected with politics. I believe that this Bill removes that blackout and continues to place the ban on political advertising. I may say a little more about that in the Committee stage when that point is brought up. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has really spoken already to his Committee stage amendment. I hope that this Bill is the first step towards eradicating political advertising in its entirety . The people who have read my maiden speech-I do not intend to go through the whole speech again- Mr Lusher —It was a good speech. Mr CHARLES —It was a very good speech. In it I mentioned a lot about political advertising. I mentioned how in 1980, in Melbourne alone, the Liberal Party had commissioned 192 spots-that is 10, 30, and 60-second advertisements-on Melbourne channels during the 1980 election campaign. What can be said in a 10-second commerical that is of consequence to the election of a national government is beyond me. I will take that matter up a little more in the Committee stage. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its annual report of 1974, its twenty- sixth annual report, stated: The Board has for many years been of the opinion that the relevant section of the Act (section 116), is in need of total revision in almost every area; indeed the Board has made representations to successive Ministers on the matter. In another section it said: That no restrictions shall be placed on coverage of election matters in news or current affairs programs, or in programs which may be specially produced for the occasion, provided that a reasonable balance is maintained between all points of view. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the forerunner of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, said that in 1974. Here we are about nine years later bringing forward the legislation to enact what was virtually the recommendation of that body. I refer now to the report of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters entitled 'A Proposal to End the Election Blackout' that was put out last year. On page 8 of that report there is mention of a New South Wales country commercial radio station that had to edit out references to some issues that were coming from the Melbourne and Sydney news bulletins. That also was during a by-election. I will mention only a few of the ridiculous things mentioned in this report that the television stations had to go to great lengths to edit out because of this restriction. There was a story on Queensland spa water which carried a quasi-political statement by the Queensland Government Health Minister. Another was a statement by the Victorian Government on Melbourne massage parlours in reply to some criticism by the Opposition. The report continued: Several stations in the by-election electorates had to suspend regularly scheduled feature programs because on audition it was found they contained electoral references. That is ridiculous in the extreme. I believe that this legislation eradicates that problem. It fixes up that situation-let us state it quite clearly-of a ban on paid political advertising being in force on Wednesday night, although all other current affairs programs and political content programs such as news bulletins can continue up to the day of the poll. I am sure that with the fairness that I am confident will be displayed by all licensees, we will see this legislation brought into effect in a very short time-in time for the next Federal or State election, whichever comes first. I think that it will benefit not only members of the Parliament-some of them are paranoid about the whole position; I can assure them that their paranoia is quite often bogged in their own minds-but also and most importantly the people of Australia who have to make the decisions come election time as to the party which is to govern them for the next three years. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.38) —The Broadcasting and Television Amendment ( Election Blackout) Bill moves to remedy a defect in the Broadcasting and Television Act which has annoyed broadcasters for many years-the blackout on political advertising and comment on radio and television for two days before voting day. I say that it has annoyed them for some years because it was not always so strongly objected to. In 1942 when the matter was debated and introduced in this House and in another place, there was very little objection raised to the measure. In fact, it passed almost without objection. There was much talk in that debate of Hitler and his misuse and abuse of radio. In some circles there was a distrust of the then still comparatively new medium of radio . Therefore, the Canadian model appealed; it is still the existing law in Australia. Since then, the early distrust of the political dangers of radio has dissipated. Canada has eased its restrictions to apply to the day before voting day. Australia is the only democracy that has such a severe restriction on the electronic media, a two day blackout before voting day. Broadcasters are quite unanimous now. The Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters has put out a proposal to which the honourable member for Murray ( Mr Lloyd) has referred. It is more or less that adopted by the Government. The proposal was endorsed with varying qualifications by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, Mr Ranald McDonald, of the International Press Institute, the Australian Newspapers Council, the Australian Journalists Association, the Rupert Public Interest Movement Inc., the Media Studies Department at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and distinguished academics such as Professor Henry Mayer and Dr Patricia Edgar. Might I say with due humility that some years ago I wrote a few articles myself denouncing this monstrous blackout. In the years since I have qualified my views a little because-this is the heart of the issue-the problem involves or is claimed to involve a balance, the desirable and difficult to achieve balance between freedom for broadcasters and the public interest. I think we should emphasise the public interest, because no one has asked the public what its view of the blackout is. Broadcasters, who tend to be pretty elitist people, claim they know that the public hates the blackout. But no one has asked the public and no one has taken a poll. From my researches in the library and elsewhere I can find no evidence of any pollster having asked the public what it thinks about the blackout. Of course, the public interest was said to be served by the existing law. This Government, with the support of the Opposition, intends to change that law. The public interest is served in two well-known and familiar ways. The two-day blackout gave a welcome break. I can only give anecdotal evidence. So many people have said at many elections over many years: 'Thank goodness it is Wednesday night. Tonight will be the last of all the propaganda and we will have a couple of days of peace'. It is a common attitude but I do not know whether it is as widespread as some people might think because it has never been tested. We do not know. It is certainly a welcome break to some people. The broadcasters who say that the public really wants the blackout removed could establish that very easily with the great resources available to them by having a few polls. They might well establish their point in that way. What I am saying is that at this stage we do not know. Another point is that the blackout prevents last minute deceptions. I think we have all had experience of them. I had one experience which, in perspective, was quite amusing. Before the by-election at which I was elected to this House a couple of years ago, at the eleventh hour as it were, on the Wednesday night there was a very extended segment in one news program which said that I could not stand as a candidate because my resignation as Administrator of Norfolk Island had not been gazetted; and therefore, I could not stand for Parliament and the people who were supporting me should reconsider because even if I nominally won the election I would have to be disqualified. There was a bit of a carfuffle among people who were working for my cause. The matter was given a great deal of air time. It was given a certain amount of space in the press next day. At least I did have a couple of days to point out the absolute folly and foolishnes of that eleventh hour deception which occurred on the Wednesday. That is something which happened to me. I am sure that over the years there have been more significant occurrences, as other members would know. If the blackout does not take place on Wednesday then at least if last minute deceptions arise the person involved has the Thursday and Friday to correct them. Of course, everyone sees the strength of the broadcasters' case. Weight should be given to the public interest argument in favour of the welcome break and the argument in favour of the prevention of last minute deceptions. There is a balance between the two arguments. It has been decided by the Government, with the support of the Opposition, that the tilt in this balance is now to go in the direction of freedom of the broadcasters. However, I do agree with the honourable member for Murray that if we are to tilt in the direction of freedom for the broadcasters we should do it properly. If we argue that the community is so mature and its handling of the electronic media is sufficiently sensible that commentary should be free, how on earth can the Government justify saying that political advertising should not also be allowed in the same couple of days, the Thursday and the Friday, before voting day? I also cannot see the hard and fast distinction between commentary and paid advertising. A good deal of commentary that I have heard on the media seems to be very similar to paid advertising in its prejudice. There is very little distinction at all. I cannot see the justification for distinguishing them on that ground either. But there is another consideration: In a situation where the commentators are unfair-this could apply to any political party at particular times when commentators tend to be unanimously unfair, and such situations have occurred-there is no way of getting the matter corrected on the electronic media except by advertising. I think that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) ought to take this into account. If a political candidate or political party has the right to advertise in the last couple of days before an election, and not only commentators have the right to comment, the chances are that last minute deceptions or last minute examples of bias or unfairness could be corrected by advertising. I think that consideration should be taken into account. When this legislation is passed the ABC will have a certain advantage because it does not, in any case, carry advertising. It is receiving a complete and unqualified bonus. It will be able to broadcast commentaries. It does not have to worry about the restriction on advertisers because that does not involve it. I wish to remind the House that under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill, which is still before the Parliament, ABC staff dealing with complaints are not and will not be permitted to receive complaints about bias and unfairness, only about inaccuracy or invasion of privacy. Last minute commentaries could be biased and unfair but nothing can be done about them. I think the political interest should have the right to advertise on the commercial channels to correct bias or unfairness, whether it be on the ABC or on a commercial channel. But the basic philosophic point is that if we are going to act on the assumption that the community has the right to hear free commentaries, there is no distinction that justifies not allowing parties to have the right to have paid advertising in the same period. I welcome the final abolition of the blackout but consider that the Government does not go far enough. The distinction on which the Government bases its amendments to the Act cannot be justified. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.52) —It is very good to see that there is a wide degree of consensus between the Government and the Opposition on this most important piece of legislation. One matter on which we have not yet reached consensus, of course, is the question of paid political advertising. I would like to address some remarks to that in a moment. It is important to understand- the community should understand this-that this particular proposal does have a wide degree of support. Previous speakers in this debate have canvassed that support. I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the points raised at this stage. I think it is important for me to speak briefly about the sort of support for this legislation which exists in my electorate of Stirling in Western Australia. I in fact have two commercial televisions stations in my electorate-TVW7 and STW9. I know that the current arrangements for election blackouts inconvenience them substantially in the days immediately prior to an election. Additionally, we now have two very good public affairs radio stations-6PR and 6KY. With the frequency of by-elections and the overlapping State and Federal elections a good deal of inconvenience is caused to them in the conduct of sound public affairs radio. This move certainly will advantage the two television stations and the two radio stations I have mentioned. I wish also to refer to a matter that was raised earlier. It requires a good deal of judgment by the broadcasters and, to some extent, places a great burden on them that if they transgress the current election blackout provisions they will face penalties. Quite obviously that hampers the activities of broadcasters . They have to decide what they should put in and what they should leave out of their news bulletins. Extraordinary situations can occur. For example, a by- election may be held in Western Australia and a major event involving the Federal Labor Government could occur. During the period of the by-election the people of Western Australia would not have access to that news. That is an extraordinary situation. It really means that a situation can arise in which people are denied the right to information. Many of those instances have occured in recent times. The community at large is more interested in the actitivies taking place in the political arena. It is also wrong of us to try to curb, in some way, their involvement and interest. How do we come to a clarification of the public interest? Our view of the broadcasting media is such that we believe a fairly full and free disclosure of events is important. This chamber is one forum in which those events can be disclosed, but we also support the notion than in the wider community the electronic media have the same right to a fairly free and full disclosure. I am pleased that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has already addressed himself to that matter. I know that he has long had an interest in that approach to the media. However, we must also deal with this question of last minute deceptions. How are we to deal with the fact that such deceptions may be practised in election campaigns? It is probably fairly important to recognise in this forum that the political arena does throw up last minute deceptions. I am sure that honourable members opposite are familiar with some that they may have been a party to or aware of over time. It is quite important that we address ourselves to that aspect. Can we therefore redress those last minute deceptions by the use of advertising? We did witness a last minute sensation, reported in the Melbourne Age, concerning the Flinders by-election. It might well be argued from this side of the House that that caused our candidate some disadvantage. Can advertising correct such a disadvantage? I suggest that exactly the opposite is true, that it cannot. What we have to establish about advertising-I believe that honourable members opposite are much more familiar with it than we are because they usually have more dollars with which to buy it-is that to some extent it does bend people's perceptions. It tries to take an image and present it in a way that does not necessarily inform the public. In the recent Federal elections, in which many of us were fortunate to be involved-I might say successfully-there was a major attempt by some in the then Government to spend a large amount on advertising in the last two or three days of the campaign. Fortunately the electorate is more discerning than that and because of its overall ability to realise the economic circumstances of the day the last minute attempt to change people's perceptions was not effective. We on this side of the House believe that advertising ought not to be permitted in the last few days of a campaign. We would be quite willing to allow the public affairs commentators and the news teams at the various radio and television networks to do their jobs but we believe that since experience has shown that advertising is involved in bending people's perceptions and in changing their judgments, particularly as honourable members opposite, I repeat, often have a larger bank balance with which to pay for election advertising, we ought not to agree to a situation in which people can have their views on politics distorted at the last minute, in those last few days, that in fact it would be well to protect the electorate from that sort of assault. We saw that sort of assault take place in the last elections. Many people in the electorate said to me that they were very glad that those kinds of advertisements were terminated on the Wednesday. But I do believe that if we have a very comprehensive electronic media-the evidence is that we do-it is very important that we give them the opportunity to develop their stories and analyses of news up to the last minute. At the moment they are severely handicapped by the restriction, but I believe this measure will do much to remove their burden. As I said earlier, with particular respect to the two television stations in the electorate of Stirling, plus the development of public affairs radio in Perth, the passage of this measure would be of considerable advantage. I conclude by saying that if there is one thing that we have to establish as a government, it is that the more people have a right, and free access, to information the better will be the kind of government that we can offer. Certainly, this measure should go a long way towards achieving that goal. Debate (on motion by Mr Duffy) adjourned. Small Business: Economic Planning Advisory Council-Nuclear Arms-Australian Film Industry-Consumer Price Index-Death of Mr R. Fazackerley-Museum of Australia Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 6 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.0) —Tonight I raise the question of small business representation on the proposed Economic Planning Advisory Council known as EPAC. The Government does not propose to have any small business representation on this body. The Council, we are told, is intended to continue the process of consultation and information exchange begun at the National Economic Summit Conference. The Government has decided to end the practice of holding formal pre-Budget consultations with major community business and employee organisations. Business groups now have to deal with an authority, rather than with the Government itself. This is not an adequate replacement for pre-Budget discussions with approximately 40 organisations representing many and various community points of view. Under the Australian Labor Party's proposals there will be less communication and consultation rather than more. The EPAC filter will act as a blockage to community views reaching the Government. It will stop the Government hearing what the community thinks. Small business will be further removed than ever from the Government. The Economic Planning Advisory Council is bureaucratic and, with its limited membership, it will not be a useful consultative body in a Budget context. Only one small business organisation, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, known as COSBOA, was represented at the Summit, and not one small businessman was invited, in spite of the fact that there were present 28 representatives of big business. Small businessmen and women were ignored-they were excluded from the Summit, excluded from consultation and consensus. At the Summit, the Government did not allow any discussion of the particular needs of small business following the address of Mr Gibbons of COSBOA . The Government deliberately did not allow the Summit to consider the question of the need and problems facing small business in the community today. It obviously is not interested in the needs and problems facing them. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) obviously prefers the company of big business tycoons rather than representatives of the most dynamic sector of the Australian economy-the small businessman. We are told that EPAC is to be the main vehicle of the process of co-operation and consultation, and that it will eventually participate in 'broad indicative planning'. I ask the Government: How is small business going to be 'indicatively planned'? What does the Government mean? Does it intend to direct and control the direction of small business? It is stated that EPAC will be a forum for consultation and communication, but there will not be any small business representation; small business will be ignored. The Economic Planning Advisory Council is to be a statutory authority with its own charter and it will be chaired by the Prime Minister. Its charter should refer to the importance of small business in the Australian economy. I urge the Government to recognise the importance of small businesses to the Australian economy in this way. Even if the Government gives such a commitment, I am not confident that it will be of assistance to small business. However, given the existence of EPAC, it must take into account the needs, difficulties and problems of small business. As I have said, I do not believe that EPAC will function effectively as a consltative body and one cannot be optimistic that it will understand or be sympathetic to the views of small businessmen. We are also told that 'balanced representation might require three to four representatives from each of union and business'. I call on the Government to have representatives of small business on EPAC. If EPAC is, as the Government says, to be representative of a wide range of views, small business must be included and represented. This Labor Government-the Hawke Government-is again failing to understand the nature and importance of the small business sector in the Australian economy. This is in contrast to the position of the Opposition. As its leader, the honourable member for Kooyong, Andrew Peacock, has said: The Liberal Party has recognised the importance of small business as a priority area and its crucial role in ensuring Australia's recovery from the recession. The voice of small business must be heard. I call on the Government to have small businessmen represented on EPAC. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(6.4) —I respond briefly to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) by reminding him that small businesses achieved their highest level of bankruptcy in Australian history under the regime of his Government. I also point out to him that the National Economic Summit Conference is in addition to the consultative mechanisms that Australia has experienced. The various small business groups and others he mentioned that want to consult with the Australian Government are most welcome to do so, and indeed did do so while we were in Opposition, through many avenues other than the one he suggests, which is a small coterie of Cabinet Ministers. We are happy to accept them in our day to day contacts as individuals. Ministers have been very open in making their time available to representative groups. Above all, our policy committees have on many occasions entertained representations from various delegations. I want to raise a matter which is, perhaps, the most important of all to this Federal Government in the long term, because it is of importance to every citizen of the world. If we do not solve this problem, we can forget all the others, because it threatens the extinction of all higher species. It is the matter of nuclear war and the alternatives to it. The history of war has shown that as we get new types of strategic capacity as high technology evolves, we eventually render obsolete the existing political structures. Some tribes could defend themselves with palisades, like the stakes around the Polynesian village in New Zealand; they had to defend themselves against spears and arrows and the like. Then, when firearms came along, tribes had to have something more substantial, such as castles. When cannon and the dreadnoughts became the order of the day, castles became obsolete. Instead of having baronetcies and principalities, we had to move to larger nations and empires. But now they have become obsolete. We have weapons that can destroy half the world, perhaps the whole world, in a matter of half an hour or an hour, not only in the way that we have seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also in destroying the ozone layer, which, on a conservative estimate, would increase ultra-violet radiation two and a half times-enough to blind virtually everything with eyes, unless special precautions were taken-and so wipe out most of the higher animals that might escape all the other deadly results of such an all-out war. There have been many initiatives to set up an alternative. Of those organisations that I was privileged to visit and consult last year, on my trip to the United Nations and thereabouts, the one that I particularly want to mention, in the minute or so available to me, is War Control Planners Incorporated. It was founded by a United States Air Force retired lieutenant- colonel. He has had extensive experience as a pioneer in aviation and in flight control mechanisms. He has pointed out the potential to use satellites to bring information to all citizens of the world, on a real time basis, to divert the high technology and the leading brains and researchers in science and technology , who are mostly at present concerned in devising better methods of construction , into constructive co-operative methods of surveying where our industry is going and where armament and disarmament are going, and to act as a practical and concrete demonstration that an international authority can enforce world law , settle disputes between nations and divert the waste of the arms race into constructive projects. There are many other organisations, about which I shall speak at a later date. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(6.9) —Tonight I want to talk about one of our great industries, an industry which has never received adequate recognition. I do so on a bipartisan basis. I refer to the Australian film industry. Prior to the recent election, the then Government indicated that it would extend tax deductibility to include films which were completed within two years and would allow 150 per cent tax deductibility at the point of investment. The Government decision was accepted by the then Opposition spokesman in this area, Senator Susan Ryan, and after the election the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) indicated that that concession would be granted. However, the disappointing thing is that at this late stage of the financial year no legislation to that effect has been introduced into the House. I appeal to the Government to introduce such legislation as a matter of urgency and to seek the Opposition's co-operation to ensure that it has a speedy passage in not only this House but also the Senate because, frankly, time is running out. We have a great film industry, which produces at least $40m worth of work each year. It is an industry which is based on the feature film industry, documentaries and the animated section. But as with many things, its great problem is lack of finance. The finance has not been forthcoming, notwithstanding the quality of Australian films, because investors have lost confidence. They need this legislation to ensure that the films that are waiting to be produced actually come on to the screen. It always disappoints me when we find in Australia that in matters of culture generally, we tend to undersell ourselves. We do not appear to be like so many other nations and get out and about and tell people about the peculiar qualities of Australian culture, which, in effect, is an honest culture because it reflects adequately and accurately Australian society. It reflects the fact that we have a particularly Australian rugged culture, a dependence and an outlook which indicates a concern for other people. To my mind, films in Australia should continue to have significant Australian content, because we have things to be proud of. In all areas of film production, we have people whom we might term prophets who are not unknown except in our own country. I should like to talk briefly about some of these people. We have come a long way since the early days of film production in this country. I have as a constituent of mine in Toowoomba a marvellous Australian person, Mrs Elsa Chauvel. She and the late Charles Chauvel were the pioneers in the development of Australian film production. Now we have continuation, people who have built on that wonderful foundation that these pioneers gave us. The film The Man from Snowy River netted for its producers over $9m and has been accepted overseas. Such films indicate the quality of our producers. We have people such as Pat Lovell, who not only produces films-the film Monkey Grip had a specific showing of Australian life-but also contributes as a member of the Australian Film Commission. We have directors of whom we can be proud, including Peter Weir. He was associated with The Year of Living Dangerously, which I understand was highly regarded at the annual Cannes film festival. We have great Australian script writers such as David Williamson, who is well known as a play-writer. We have good people in cinematography. Those who have seen The Man from Snowy River will appreciate the wonderful scenery that was filmed. But above all we have the sheer quality of Australian actors and actresses, such as Helen Morse, in Far East. Because of their close association with the theatre, these people know what it is like to work with other people, and they reflect this concern and expertise on the screen. Who will ever forget Angela Punch MacGregor's display in that typical Australian film We of the Never Never? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.14) —In speaking to the adjournment, there is one particular matter that concerns me. It results from the previous Government's occupancy of the Treasury benches and concerns the consumer price index. It will be noticed that we have given a fair degree of attention to the establishment of a centralised wage fixing system and, ultimately, we will be working towards a situation in which we will try to measure wages against the consumer price index . Under the previous Government, centralised wage indexation ceased in July 1981 . If we were to restore the system of wage indexation it would require us again tying wages to the consumer price index. It may well be that at some future date this Government might look at that question. I think it is important to put on record, however, that the consumer price index, as a method of measuring the increases in the cost of living of the average family, is quite ineffective in many respects. Let me talk specifically about what happened last year. In July 1982 the Federal Government announced the review that it had conducted of the consumer price index. It pointed out that in fact this review had looked at a number of areas of expenditure to see how representative the consumer price index is of the normal cost of living of the average Australian household. I should add also that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, whose members actually work in the Australian Bureau of Statistics, told me at the time that it felt that its members were quite understaffed when it came to doing that review and as a consequence the review was quite ineffective. This is also pointed out in the document that the Bureau put out, and which the then Treasurer tabled, which spoke about the consumer price index. Let me speak for just a moment about the items of expenditure that are excluded from the consumer price index. Those particular items, for example, are household mortgage interest, consumer credit charges, land purchased for housing , watches and jewellery, subscriptons to clubs and trade unions, veterinary services, legal services, optical services and gambling. Those items of expenditure have been excluded from the measurement of the consumer price index. I see that the former Treasurer is in the House. I acknowledge that it is very difficult to include every item within a consumer price index but I think that there are a couple of items in this regimen which deserve inclusion. I will focus attention for a moment on housing mortgage interest. Quite obviously, considering the pattern of interest rates in recent years-I am not trying to apportion blame between the previous Government and ourselves-this particular area of household expenditure has become quite severe. Many electors in Australia have had that as one of their major cost items in their regular weekly or monthly budget. To leave that item out of the consumer index is to leave out a quite substantial element and it is one that I believe we, as a government, ought to look at with respect to making the regimen more representative. Another item, of course, is the question of consumer credit charges. With the rate of inflation as it has been and with the access to credit becoming more and more important for people in this community, it is important to understand that within the fabric of people's household expenditure, again those kinds of consumer credit charges are quite important in the context of ordinary expenditure. If we are to keep faith with the union movement and with the wider community it is important that we as a government look at including that item in the regimen in any future review. Again acknowledging the process as it developed, if we recognise that the Australian Bureau of Statistics complained that it did not have the resources to complete the review thoroughly, due to staff ceilings and so on, and also the complaints of the ACOA at the time that it felt it could not conduct the review completely, I think it is important to say this in a spirit of consensus. I am not here to say what a terrible thing it is that the previous Government left these items out, but rather to say that these are items that it should have included and it is something that we ought to pay attention to. I might just conclude by commenting that some of the other items in the regimen are also important. One item that was included in the consumer price index, incidentally, was the cost of overseas travel. One wonders why a measure of Australian travel was not also included. Let us be a little realistic about it. Obviously, overseas travel is something that people on higher incomes have access to. Let us see whether we can include domestic travel in the consumer price index so as to also provide a more effective recognition of costs in the average household. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.18) —I should like to pay a tribute in the national Parliament to a very great Tasmanian who passed away last Saturday. I refer to Mr Reginald Fazackerley, who was born in 1893 and who was, without doubt, one of the best known and highly regarded boatbuilders ever to come out of Australia's maritime State. I want to refer to his long and distinguished career. As you will note, Mr Speaker, he died at the age of 90 years. I think there would be many honourable members in this House who would either know of some of his work or, indeed, there may be some honourable members in this House who were actually involved with some of the vessels which he built during his career. Mr Fazackerley left school at the age of 11 years and built his first boat at the age of 16 years. That was in 1909. He was particularly expert in the building of small boats and dinghys and in the use of huon pine and King Billy pine. He had a very long and distinguished career as a boatbuilder but also had been very much involved in motor vehicles and was a top-notch motor mechanic. He was a very great sportsman. He became involved in cycling. He also started in Tasmania-in Hobart, in fact-a roller skating rink and he owned a gymnasium. During World War II he was drafted to the Commonwealth as a shipbuilder at the Prince of Wales Bay shipyard and it was in that period that he built many of the lifeboats and small hospital ships which were used in Papua New Guinea. It has been said to me that probably many hundreds if not thousands of Australian servicemen owe their lives to those little boats which were built in Hobart, Tasmania, by Mr Reg Fazackerley and the staff he had working under him. He then worked for the Hobart Marine Board as a full time foreman and when he retired he took up work again as a full time boatbuilder. It is one of my most pleasant memories that as a very small boy I sold tickets at the Sandy Bay regatta raffling huon pine dinghies. Those tickets were sold at one shilling each. The dinghies in those days were valued at about #50. Today such a dinghy would be worth several thousand dollars. To give Parliament an idea, a huon pine suite, that is table and chairs-at one stage one was proposed for the Lodge; the new occupant might be very interested in having some genuine Tasmanian timber in the Lodge, some beautiful huon pine-would be valued at over $8,000. Reg Fazackerley made a number of boats which he then donated to charities, regatta associations and the like. I do not frequently in this House pay a tribute by way of an obituary to a person who has passed from the scene. But I think I am speaking on behalf of thousands of Tasmanians and many people in other parts of Australia in paying tribute to this man who was a great craftsman, a person who loved the water, a person who was a master in working with timber, and, as I said, during a long and distinguished career made hundreds of dinghies and vessels which were used both for pleasure and at times for national defence, particular in 1942. Mr Fazackerley lived at Duke Street, Sandy Bay, right in the heart of the Federal electorate of Denison. He was well known and widely respected and with his passing Tasmania loses a very great son, one of whom it could be truly said: He made it and he made it in Tasmania. Mrs KELLY(Australian Capital Territory)(6.23) —I rise tonight to speak in support of a proposal which would be of great benefit to the Australian Capital Territory and to Australia. I refer to the proposal to build a Museum of Australia. The Museum would be an Australian museum representing and researching many aspects of Australia's culture. It is not to be a museum of international culture. The collections will be based on three primary themes-Aboriginal culture, European settlement and the natural environment of Australia. The collection would be housed both indoors and outdoors and, as it would be necessary to have botanic and zoological displays, it would therefore be necessary to have a fairly large area. A site of roughly 80 hectares, 200 acres, is proposed for the Museum. It is located at Yarramundi Reach on the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin, just five minutes from the centre of Canberra. This project would not only be of great benefit to all Australians but be of particular importance for Canberra as an employment generation project. The project would provide significant employment for the construction industry at a time when employment on the new Parliament House project and the Australian Defence Academy will have peaked and be declining. A project of this scale and importance would probably generate employment in the building industry for about 200 construction workers for four to five years. That is very significant for members of the construction industry in Canberra. I have made the point consistently in this House about the need for the long term planning of Canberra's development. The Museum of Australia will be particularly important because when we peak with the building of the new Parliament House there will be employment for our skilled workers. Once the building is completed it will have a very beneficial effect on the local economy . On completion the Museum will provide new and continuing employment for skilled and semi-skilled people. It will be a major addition to the tourist industry of the Australian Capital Territory and the south west region of New South Wales. It will, of course, have very significant multiplier effects. If we can get a tourist to stay for an additional night in Canberra it will add an additional $50m annually to Canberra's economy. This means that in one year we will recoup the estimated capital cost of the project, namely $50m. The project is planned for completion by about 1990. So a considerable amount of expenditure is not needed at the moment. But the most important aspect is that a commitment is made to this project and that some money is made available in the next financial year to ensure that planning projects are under way. In that way it will be completed in very good time to take on many of the construction workers from the new Parliament House. It will add significantly to the tourist industry . Although it is a significant capital works project amounting to $50m, that amount of money can be recouped, as I said, in just one year by adding an additional one night's stay for every tourist who comes to Canberra. There has been a great deal of discussion about diversifying the employment base of the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that the tourist industry is our major industry. Anything we can do to encourage people to come here and develop the tourist industry must add significantly to the local economy. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 6.28 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 May 1983: Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 56. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- No. 124-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.* No. 125-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 126-Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. Nos 127 to 140-Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights Union and others. No. 141-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment and another.* No. 142-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 143-Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.* No. 144-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others. No. 145-Australian Journalists' Association. No. 146-Commonwealth Foremen's Association of Australia, Australian Public Service.* No. 147-Printing and Kindred Industries Union.* No. 148-Commonwealth Works Supervisors Association.* No. 149-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association. No. 150-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 151-Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia. No. 152-Australian Journalists Association. No. 153-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service. Nos 154 and 155-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia. (* Not accompanied by statement)