Tuesday, 18 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses it deep regret at the death on 17 October 1983 of the Honourable Sir (Oliver) Howard Beale, KBE, QC, a former member of this House for the Division of Parramatta from 1946 till 1958, a former Minister of the Crown and Ambassador to the United States of America from 1958 till 1964, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Sir Howard Beale died last night in Sydney at the age of 85. He was born in Tamworth, New South Wales in December 1898. He was the son of a Methodist Minister, whose family had come to Australia in 1838. Sir Howard's parents moved throughout rural New South Wales until 1910 when they settled in Sydney. Sir Howard was educated at Sydney High School and at the University of Sydney, from which he graduated. He was called to the Bar in 1925, where he established his own practice. In 1927 he married Margery Ellen Wood to whom he later dedicated his book This Inch of Time. Sir Howard's legal practice flourished. In 1942 he undertook service as a sub-lieutenant on anti-submarine duties with the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. In the general election of 1946, Sir Howard succeeded Sir Frederick Stewart in the seat of Parramatta, New South Wales. From 6 June 1947 to October 1949 he served as a member of the then Standing Committee on Public Works. From 1949, after the election of the Menzies Government, he commenced what was to be an unbroken period of service as a Minister of the Crown until his retirement from the Parliament in 1958. He served as Minister for Information and Minister for Transport until 6 March 1950 and then served continually until 10 February 1958 as Minister for Supply. From October 1956 until February 1958 he also served concurrently as Minister for Defence Production. At various times he also served as Acting Minister for Immigration, Acting Minister for National Development and Acting Minister for Defence. Following his resignation from this House and from the Ministry on 10 February 1958 he took up his appointment as Ambassador to the United States of America, a position he held until 1964. In 1961 Sir Howard was created a Knight Commander of the order of the British Empire for distinguished public service. Following his retirement in 1964, he was Regents' Visiting Professor in the University of California in 1966. He was Regents' Visiting Professor at the University of Wisconsin in 1967 and 1969, and President of the Arts Council of Australia from 1965 until 1968. Sir Howard once said, Mr Speaker, that a man's influence upon his times depends a good deal upon the kind of man he is and this in turn upon the influences which shaped him. He was a man deeply rooted in Australian tradition, strongly committed to the advancement of Australian interests. Considering why he had entered politics, Sir Howard observed in his book that Australia had just emerged from a desperate struggle which had brought great challenges, exposed us to new ideas and created new social and legal problems demanding new thinking and new imaginative solutions. Sir Howard was not prepared to stand back from these problems. Instead, he sought to grapple with them. There was a real idealism in his approach. He looked to the Parliament as a place through which to attempt social change and he believed strongly that, as with the family so with the nation-not each for himself but unity and each for all. In this way he rightly believed Australia could have a place in the sun. Sir Howard had a long-standing interest in international affairs. In his maiden speech to this House on 14 November 1946 he addressed the implications of the changing alliance with Great Britain, the formation of the United Nations and the then perceived Soviet threat. Subsequently he exercised the role as Ambassador to the United States with great distinction. He saw that role as a solid, practical task of getting information and giving it, of persuading, of warning, of advising, of encouraging, of interpreting and of building up for Australia a reputation for goodwill, reliability independence of judgment. He served his country well. Sir Howard is survived by his wife, Lady Beale, and his son, Julian. On behalf of the Government and the people of Australia I extend our sympathy to the family. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and wishes also to express its very great sympathy to Sir Howard Beale's family on his death. The Prime Minister has already reminded the House that in his 85 years Sir Howard led a very distinguished life in the service of the law, the Parliament and his country. The Liberal Party in particular owes him a very great debt. After practice at the New South Wales Bar and service in the Royal Australian Navy during the Second World War, Sir Howard joined the Liberal Party soon after it was founded by Sir Robert Menzies. He was a delegate to the first New South Wales Liberal Party State Council and a member of the first State Executive. He was elected to the Federal seat of Parramatta in 1946 which he held until his resignation from the Parliament in 1958. Sir Howard was a Cabinet Minister in sucessive Menzies governments, serving as Minister for Supply from 1950 to 1958. During that time he presided over the development of Australia's defence production facilities and weapons research capabilities. Other portfolios included Defence Production, Information, and Transport and acting periods in Immigration, National Development, and Defence. Throughout his political career Sir Howard maintained an active interest in international affairs. Between 1958 and 1964 Sir Howard served as Australian Ambassador to Washington, a period which saw the cementing of Australia's relations with the United States. He performed his role as Ambassador with the same skill and flair that he brought to politics. He was certainly able to claim a close association with the Administration of the time, particularly that of President Kennedy, and I know from contacts with those associated with that Administration the high regard in which he was held. I also recall from my early days as Foreign Minister discussions with the then permanent head of the Department of Foreign affairs, Mr Alan Renouf, as to the value of political appointments to diplomatic posts and how highly Mr Renouf spoke of Sir Howard's work in the United States. It, of course, is attested to by the cementing of the relationship between our two countries while he was there. On his return to Australia, Sir Howard continued his active involvement in public life. The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that from 1965 to 1968 he was President of the Arts Council of Australia. He held visiting lectureships and received honourary degrees from a number of American universities. Of course , he held directorships of several Australian companies. Until very recently Sir Howard was a respected commentator and contributor on public affairs to journals and newspapers. Sir Howard published his memoirs This Inch of Time in 1977 which are an informative and entertaining account of his times in politics and diplomacy. Indeed, the Prime Minister has quoted extracts similar to those which I have before me. He was knighted in 1962. Sir Howard was a noted speaker and parliamentarian, an extremely competent Minister and a very gifted representative of Australia. As I said earlier, the Liberal Party in particular owes Sir Howard Beale a debt of gratitude. His loyalty and dedication to the Party will long be remembered. To Lady Beale and to Julian, who now lives in Melbourne and whom I know, like and respect, I extend my very heartfelt sympathy, and on behalf of the Opposition I indicate our support for the motion admirably moved by the Prime Minister. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of members of the National Party I support the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I extend our sympathy to Lady Beale and to her son Julian. Sir Howard Beale was a very distinguished Australian. He made an outstanding contribution over many years to the life of this country. He had a richly varied career as a serviceman , a barrister, a member of parliament, a Minister and an ambassador. Details of his career have already been stated, and I believe they say a lot about the man, his qualities and his character. He was a man who was intensely interested in public life and was always desirous of making a contribution to it. His considerable powers for shrewd observation and his ability to draw upon sound judgment were qualities from which the Government derived great benefit and put him in an able position to be an ambassador of this country. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and I are probably the only two members of this House who sat here with Sir Howard Beale. I remember him as a very good and keen debater and a good administrator of his Department. I remember his friendly approach to people and as a junior member of this Parliament I much appreciated the encouragement he gave me to get on with the business of government. A new member is always appreciative of that. Sir Howard Beale may not be known by many honourable members in parliamentary terms, but many honourable members knew him as an ambassador or for his involvement with the Liberal Party. He was also a keen writer of articles and letters to newspapers, and many honourable members knew him for those activities. I extend deep sympathy to his family. He was a great Australian who will be long remembered. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —I add my contribution to the condolence motion move by the Government and supported by the Opposition. I never met Sir Howard Beale, but as the present incumbent of the seat of Parramatta I know of the extraordinarily high reputation he developed in his period as member for Parramatta. On behalf of all my constituents, whom he served so nobly and so well, I mourn the passing of this fine and distinguished Australian. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to support this condolence motion. As honourable members would be aware, I previously served in the Parliament as the member for Parramatta. I had the opportunity of knowing Sir Howard Beale as a very distinguished Australian and a very distinguished representative of the area I represent in the Parliament. The seat of Parramatta was very much larger than it is now and covered a great deal of what is now the seat of Dundas. I can well recall in the early 1950s my first meeting with him at a function in his electorate. It is probably the first recollection I have of a parliamentarian. I met Sir Howard Beale when I was about six or seven at a fete at the Pennant Hills children's centre which I attended with my parents. He was visiting as a member of the Parliament, carrying out his official duties. Of course, it was an impression which remained with me for some time. Sir Howard served in this Parliament until 1958, representing Parramatta and representing the area in which I lived. He was greatly admired by many of the people with whom I still associate in the Liberal Party and within the electorates of Dundas and Parramatta, who recall well his contribution as their representative in the Parliament. They mourn, with all of us, his passing. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Bilney,Mr Cadman,Dr Charlesworth,Dr Klugman,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we women of Australia feel the threat of the nuclear arms race to our world, our children and our future. That the threat of nuclear war in Australia is greatly increased by the presence of foreign bases. That we affirm Pine Gap near Alice Springs is one such key foreign communication base. Is a crucial link in the arms race, used for locating targets and therefore a prime target in the event of nuclear war. That we support the national womens' action to oppose the presence of Pine Gap and call for the removal of all foreign bases in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that men and women are equal but different, convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, humbly petition that your honourable House will not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and we will always thus petition. by Mr Bilney and Mr Wilson. 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; And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. by Mr Fry and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possiblity of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally imporant wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia that the Motor Vessel 'Krait' remain as a Dedicated Operational War memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia. And that your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the 'Krait' for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the current proposal to remove the 'Krait' from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra A.C.T. would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid moneys were raised. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) that the Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women in Copenhagen in 1980; (b) that the Convention came into force on 3 September 1981; (c) that Australian women suffer serious disadvantage in employment, education, accommodation, membership of licensed clubs, provision of goods and services including services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans, credit or finance; (d) that this disadvantage could be overcome by (i) making unlawful certain discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the ground of sex and marital status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Marital Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Receive the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia. We the undersigned petitioners, being users of the Collingwood Community Health Centre, or citizens aware of the great value of that Centre to its users, urge the Government to restore funding of the pharmacy services at the Health Centre. These services have been an important part of the Health Centre for 113 years, and are integral to health care delivery from this Centre. They are also a major part of the social wage for citizens in this area. Collingwood Community Health Centre is the only community health centre left in Australia with fully integrated services, and this model of health care delivery will be destroyed if the pharmacy funding from the Government is not restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and that it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society' s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia. We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor government to the mining, processing or export of Australian uranium. We urge the Government not to permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to Australian Labor Party policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. 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 there is compelling evidence from the United States of America that legislation similar to our proposed Sex Discrimination Bill has been used to defend the alleged right to abortion and to abortion funding. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled should ensure that the proposed Australian Sex Discrimination Bill spells our clearly that neither abortion nor abortion funding is covered in this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. Petitions received. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the report of the Fraser Island Environmental Commission of Inquiry that the visual integrity of Fraser Island has not been adversely affected by carefully controlled logging operations, and that, apart from experienced ecologists, visitors to the island would be unaware that its timber resources have in fact been exploited for over 100 years; (2) recognises the importance of the economic well-being of the Maryborough District of the continuation of logging activites; and (3) affirms that conservationists' objectives not be permitted to outweigh findings of a properly established Commissionof Inquiry. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the First Home Owners Scheme introduced by the Government has resulted in substantial increases in housing contacts, building approvals and commencements; (2) applauds Governments, unions and the housing industry for their support in the introduction of the Scheme; (3) notes that the Scheme resulted in 35,000 inquiries from the public during the first 4 days following its introduction in October 1983; and (4) urges that, where possible, financial institutions consider further reductions in housing interest rates. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear). Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to provide adequately for legitimate protests and demonstrations against its many ill-considered policies in the precincts of Parliament House in that- (a) it has encouraged the continuation of the tent and canvas slum occupied principally by professional demonstrators to embrace the whole forecourt area of the Parliament; (b) it has permitted the erection of large marquees and other insecure timber and canvas edifaces against the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974; (c) it has failed to show appropriate pride in the maintenance of the environment of Parliament House and the Parliamentary Triangle; and (d) it prejudices the health and welfare of the people of Canberra in failing to provide the ablution or toilet facilities necessary in other permanent camping areas and caravan parks around Australia; and (2) recommends this canvas suburb be named 'Hawke's Folly'. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the arrogant and uncivilised attitude of the South African Government towards its neighbour country Mozambique, in mounting an invasion by its military forces on Mozambique territory, and (2) calls on the South African Government to provide compensation for the destruction of residential flats and the injuries suffered by residents as a result of the unwarranted military action. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott). Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) will second: That this House calls upon all Members of the Commonwealth Parliament to reaffirm their loyalty to Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, as designated in the Royal style and Titles Act 1973, introduced into this Parliament by the Whitlam Government. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the 150 plus employees of the Commonwealth Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, NSW, on their immediate response to an emergency call by management on Saturday, 15 October 1983, following torrential rain and hail storms, thereby allowing temporary repairs to be effected to the building, and (2) notes that such swift action by both management and employees reduced the extent of the damage by some $4-$5 million. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its alarm with the announcement by the ACTU to press for a uniform 38-hour week; (2) recognises the massive additional costs any such decrease in working hours would place on very shaky Australian industries, and (3) urges the Government to- (a) activate the provisions of the accord to prevent a 38-hour week, and (b) acknowledges that a reduction in working hours at this stage will choke off economic recovery and increase unemployment. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern the decisions of the Government- (a) to approve the establishment of an Arab League Information Office in Australia, and (b) to permit contacts between Australian Ambassadors and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and (2) condemns the Government for- (a) its exposure of Australian companies and individuals to the Arab boycott; (b) its increasing of the risks of further terrorist acts against Australian citizens; (c) its moving towards the recognition of the P.L.O. without any concession from the P.L.O. towards Israel, and (d) its discouraging those who seek peace in the Middle East and encouraging those who oppose peace. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that in the 6 weeks of the current Budget sittings of this House, there has been time allocated for only 198 questions on the 18 sitting days, or an average of 11 questions per day; (2) condemns the Prime Minister and his Ministers in their abuse of Question Time in giving extensive irrelevant answers to pre-arranged questions, and their refusal to give appropriate answers to the Opposition's questions, and (3) moves that Standing Orders be amended-- Mr Scholes-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The notice of motion is imputing improper conduct to the Chair of this House in that the Chair has not properly conducted the affairs of this House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will allow the substantive motion to continue and I will examine the aspect raised by the Minister for Defence later. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I continue- (3) moves that Standing Orders be amended to provide that answers to questions be limited to 3 minutes each (any answer of longer duration to be regarded as a statement and handled accordingly) so as to prevent the continuation of this abuse and that answers be relevant to the question at all times. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government for its in principle decision to proceed with the building of a convention centre and hotel complex with casino in Canberra to boost the tourist and construction industries. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Premier of Queensland for bringing to the attention of the people of that State and the nation that- (1) the Australian Labor Party wants to remove the words 'God' and 'Queen' from the national Oath of Allegiance; (2) the Australian Labor Party would ignore the most important part of living, namely the ethical and christian part; (3) half of the Australian Labor Party would not take an oath on the Bible, and (4) the Australian Labor Party and the Prime Minister want to make Australia a Republic. Mr Baldwin having given a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Bearing in mind the tattered state of Australian relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations, as borne out by Indonesia's expressed disillusion with the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the United Nations regarding self-determination in East Timor, criticism by the Singapore Foreign Minister of the Australian Government's refusal to co-sponsor the ASEAN sponsored resolution on Kampuchea, the biting criticism of the Thai Foreign Minister that 'if Australia did not want ASEAN as a true friend ASEAN would have to consider that', the rumblings within the Malaysian delegation to the United Nations both before and after the Foreign Minister's address, and the Philippines' disappointment at the deferral of defence supply contracts with the Philippines, all contributing to the unprecedented suspension of ASEAN- Australian officials' talks and the reported consideration again today by ASEAN economic Ministers of economic sanctions against Australia, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade whether he recognises the real threat of these developments to Australia's trading interests. What action is he taking to ensure that damage to Australian business and Australian industry does not reach massive proportions as a consequence of this Government's abject handling of regional affairs? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In keeping with those on this side of the House, I will give a short answer. Those matters concerning the thrust of the question relate to the portfolio of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I want to tell the honourable member that I have no worries at all about trade with ASEAN. It is increasing. It is doing very well. If he looks at some of the recent statistics he will find that investments by Australians in the ASEAN area have risen by 25 per cent. It is a very important area for trade. I have had discussions with a number of representatives from the ASEAN area. All are anxious to improve trading prospects with Australia because that would be to their advantage as well as to ours. By the same token, a number of Australian companies are entering into joint ventures. In other words, all signals indicate that there will be even more rapid progress in the next six months than there was in the last six months. Mr STAPLES —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns the Minister's recent address to the United Nations General Assembly. Has the Minister noted criticism of his failure to condemn the manner in which the Vietnamese entered and remain in Kampuchea? Why did he fail to follow what was presumably a standard practice of previous Foreign Ministers in this regard? Mr HAYDEN —It is most fortuitous that I can answer this question immediately following the question of the Leader of the Opposition, the Narcissus with a suntan lamp and his own Carmen hot roller set. One would gather from the- Mr Anthony —Why the dorothy dixer? Are you worried? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to answer the question. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the National Party is interjecting. His numeracy was cut in half when he came into this House and he was forced to wear boots. One would gain the impression from certain comments which would be made, not the least from the implications of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, that there had been certain conventions or practices in relation to statements at the United Nations General Assembly, but more specificially in relation to statements at the United Nations General Assembly concerning the situation in Kampuchea. I note that I have been criticised for apparently not being sufficiently severe in my condemnation of the manner in which the Vietnamese entered and remain in Kampuchea. I think I will put the record straight. Kampuchea was invaded by Vietnam in December 1978. In 1981-82 Kampuchea was not even mentioned by the then Foreign Minister, Mr Street. In 1979 it was referred to by the then Foreign Minister who is now the Leader of the Opposition, but he did not refer to Vietnam's invasion or occupation. He did no more than say 'all external forces' should be withdrawn . In his speech on 25 September the then Foreign Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, referred to the 'Vietnamese occupation troops' and the 'fundamental question of the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops'. He said-honourable members should listen to this-'we accept that Vietnam has legitimate interests to safeguard in relation to Kampuchea'. I never said anything like that. This is what I said: Australia favours a political solution in Cambodia. We do not support any approach based on a continuation of the present military activity. Any resolution of the conflict will need to include such basic requirements as the withdrawal of foreign forces from Cambodia and a former self-determination for the people of that country. Unfortunately, I expect no quick solution. So that we can keep these matters in perspective, let me remind the House of what Foreign Minister, Professor Dr Mochta of Indonesia said recently, according to the Australian Associated Press rip-off or tear-off service-I am not sure which it is; it is probably both actually. The report is dated 15 October and states: Australia's concern at the possible return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime in Kampuchea was 'well founded', Indonesia Foreign Minister Dr Mochta Kusumaatmjada said here tonight. He also said he hoped a rift could be averted between ASEAN and Australia. The report goes on: Dr Mochta said ASEAN members differed in their assessment of Australia's attitude. We feel that it is not always necessary for friends to have the same attitude on certain things. I think that some of the reasons for Australia's attitude, especially the one expressing concern over the possible return of Pol Pot as a consequence of ASEAN policy, is well founded. It goes on: It is a concern that others also feel. On the other hand, Kampuchea is not the only issue between Australia and ASEAN, indeed, not the central issue. Asked whether differences between ASEAN and Canberra over Kampuchea could be ironed out to avoid a split Dr Mochta said: That is what I hoped. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should not exaggerate or distort for the quick political opportunity of the moment. There are more substantial interests at stake, including the national interests. I remind him of his own humiliation in 1978 and the clumsy way in which he and his Government responded to pressures from the Association of South East Asian Nations concerning civil aviation. We are seeking to avoid that humiliation. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has the Federal Police completed the major part of its investigation into drug trafficking which disclosed the covert relationship between a prominent racing identity associated with drug traffickers and the New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services? Will the Minister table in this House transcripts of the relevant tapes and the name of the prominent racing identity so that the New South Wales Minister may cease his association with that person? Will the Minister assure the House that all information, including photographs which are being gathered by the Australian Federal Police relating to the allegations against a New South Wales Minister, have in fact been passed to the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Police Commissioner? Mr BEAZLEY —I am not aware of the exact point reached in the investigations related to drug trafficking and narcotics operations which were in process when the telephone taps revealed information related to possible breaches of New South Wales law. I will look into that matter and give the honourable gentleman a reply on it. It is not my intention to table in the House the transcripts of telephone conversations. As honourable gentlemen will be aware, a very strict procedure has been established for the way in which materials garnered in the course of telecommunications interception in relation to narcotics offences are handled. It remains within the discretion of the Commissioner of Police as to precisely how they should be used. It is not my intention to interfere with the Police Commissioner's judgment in that regard. The same strictures would apply to the third part of the question asked by the honourable gentleman as applied to my answer to the second part of his question. If any further information can be made available I will let the honourable gentleman know. Mr GRIFFITHS —Is the Minister for Finance aware of the considerable flood damage to the western region of Melbourne, in particular in and immediately adjacent to my electorate of Maribyrnong? Will the Minister ensure that any requests for Federal Government assistance to those affected by flood damage are given urgent consideration? Mr DAWKINS —I am sure that all members of the House were distressed to read of the substantial damage which occurred in the electorate of the honourable member for Maribyrnong over the weekend as a result of extensive flooding. The honourable member for Maribyrnong has brought this matter to my attention and has indicated that the Victorian Government may be approaching the Commonwealth Government with a view to obtaining some assistance in repairing the damage. I was able to point out to the honourable member, and I do so now to the House, that there are long-standing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States relating to natural disaster relief. The primary purpose of the Commonwealth's role is to assist States in meeting the costs of the larger disasters, particularly as such costs are unpredictable and often have very damaging effects on State Budgets. There are arrangements, which are well understood. The triggering of the Commonwealth assistance is determined by the extent of the damage and the extent of State government expenditure to repair the damage. I can give the honourable member for Maribyrnong an undertaking that as soon as a request is forthcoming from the Government of Victoria, if one does come forward, I will certainly give it urgent and sympathetic consideration. If it meets with the long-standing guidelines, I will ensure that whatever assistance the State Government is eligible for will be forthcoming speedily. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the documents tabled on 13 October by the honourable member for O'Connor relating to the dealings of Coomel Pty Ltd and the Minister for Finance. Has the Prime Minister discussed these documents with the Minister for Finance? Has the Prime Minister confirmed that the documents are authentic? Will the documents be submitted to the Commissioner of Taxation to see whether a liability has been incurred under Part IV of the taxation Act? Finally, does the Prime Minister approve of the tax minimisation scheme outlined in those documents? Mr HAWKE —I have discussed the matter of the documents tabled on 13 October to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. I understand that at the end of Question Time today my colleague and friend the Minister for Finance will be making a full statement to the House which will cover the matters contained in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe from the conversation I have already had with the Minister that at the end of that statement I will be able to express my full satisfaction with the position of the Minister. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it is appropriate that he wait until that statement is made. Mr CROSS —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House whether he has made a decision concerning the funding of projects under the community youth support scheme for the 12-month period commencing 1 November 1983? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Brisbane for his question. Yes, I can inform the House that the Government has made decisions regarding the funding of CYSS projects for the 12-month period commencing on 1 November this year. As honourable members will be aware, in the Budget context we announced an increase of $4 1/2m or some 27 per cent in the funds available for CYSS projects . That enabled us, so we said then, to fund some 30 new projects. In the event we have been able to fund 31 new projects. We have upgraded 38 projects. There are no downgradings of projects at this stage, although some projects may be downgraded if they do not lift their game in the next few months. We have increased the standard grant levels. There are three grant levels and they all have been increased by 17 to 21 per cent which means that most projects have had increases of that order. Some projects, however, which were not on the standard grant levels would have received little or no increase if no other funding arrangements had been introduced, so to ensure the continuance of CYSS at least at its present level in all areas of the country we have applied a minimum increase of 10 per cent for any CYSS project which would not otherwise have achieved that increase. The overall impact of that, I believe, will be to improve considerably the performance of CYSS in the community. The Government regards it as an important project. The level of youth unemployment, of course, is extraordinarily high. The CYSS program is one small way in which the Commonwealth seeks to address that very severe problem. The additional funds which have been made available enabling us to upgrade the level of most of the projects and to provide for a substantial number of new projects will greatly improve its capacity to assist young people. In addition we have also provided for some $350,000 to be available for training of CYSS project officers so that they can obtain some training in a way which is not currently available. I think all honourable members would agree that there is a need to improve the level of the CYSS program. It has considerable variation from area to area, but overall I believe the whole Parliament sees this as a worthwhile program. I am sure that in the community at large the funding arrangements, which I will announce in detail in a letter to all honourable members this afternoon, will be well approved. Mr ANTHONY —I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. I draw the Minister's attention to Press reports in Brisbane on Sunday quoting the Queensland Secretary of the Australian Labor Party as saying that a member of his Party had complained to the Minister's office that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news service in Queensland was giving equal time to the three major parties contesting the State election. Is the Minister aware that following that call the ABC management instructed its journalists in Brisbane to give the Labor Party almost twice as much coverage as either the National Party or the Liberal Party? Is the Minister also aware that following that directive ABC journalists in Brisbane met and carried a resolution objecting to it, describing it as interference and saying that it threatened the integrity and the independence of the news department? Has the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland or any of his colleagues or party officials contacted the Minister or his staff on this matter? What guidelines now apply to ABC news coverage of the Queensland elections, in Queensland and elsewhere? Can the Minister assure the House that neither he nor anyone under his authority had any part in this attempt at political interference in the ABC news service? Government members interjecting- Mr ANTHONY —I do not know why they are so sensitive, Mr Speaker. Mr DUFFY —I answer the last part of the question first by indicating to the Leader of the National Party that there has not been, nor will there be, any interference in the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have read the Press reports to which the Leader of the National Party referred. Two figures in the Queensland National Party were mentioned-Sir Robert Sparkes and Mr Evans. They are reported to have alleged that an Australian Labor Party person or persons contacted me to complain about the allocation of broadcasting time available to the ALP in Queensland and that, in response to that, I took steps to pressure the ABC to alter its current policy in order that the ALP be favoured. That allegation is a baseless and disgraceful lie. No person whatsoever had spoken to me about anything remotely connected with this allegation until Monday last, 17 October, when the Press reports to which I refer were brought to my attention. I made inquiries of my staff. They advised me that none of them was asked by anyone to request, direct or otherwise influence the ABC to change its current policy concerning the allocation of broadcasting time. They have further advised me that none of them has spoken to the ABC on any matter connected in any way with the Queensland elections. Further, my Department has advised me that the Board of the ABC, at its August meeting-I stress, August meeting-determined that the Labor, National and Liberal parties should be granted 60, 40 and 40 minutes respectively of free time for election announcements in the forthcoming election . My Department has also advised me that it is the ABC's policy that the proportions of ABC news coverage of the election, by party, will reflect those for the allocation of free time; that is, that the duration of news coverage be, as close as is practicable, in a ratio of 3:2:2 for the respective parties. There has been no interference by this Government in the Board's decisions. There will be no interference by this Government in the Board's decisions. Those decisions are completely and properly for the ABC to determine pursuant to its Act. The independence of the ABC is a matter that the Opposition has failed to understand for a long while. I know that conservative politicians in Queensland are attracted to the notion of governing without a parliament. May I suggest that this is a double-edged sword for the National Party in that these sorts of offensive libels are unable to be clothed in parliamentary privilege. Accordingly, I am instructing my solicitors to issue defamation proceedings immediately. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I ask that the Minister table the document. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Was the Minister for Communications quoting from a document? Mr McVeigh —He read it. He read his whole answer. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members on my right are not assisting me in getting on with Question Time. I inform the Minister that there is a request under the Standing Orders for him to table a document. I am required to ask you whether you were quoting from a document. Mr DUFFY —I was speaking from notes, Mr Speaker. I am not at all concerned about tabling those notes. Mr SPEAKER —You have now answered. Dr EVERINGHAM —I ask the Prime Minister: Has the Federal Government approved, after careful inquiry, controlled timber logging on Fraser Island? Has the logging been responsibly limited to preserve this unique island and its ecology? Can the Government assure those involved in that logging that the Government will not terminate this controlled industry? Mr HAWKE —I can give an assurance to the honourable member for Capricornia, to the people of Queensland and, most particularly, to the people of Maryborough that the Federal Government has no plans at all to terminate the present controlled timber logging industry on Fraser Island. Selective logging and reafforestation undertaken by the industry on the island has been a success, and it will continue. I remind the House that the logging referred to provides direct employment for about 180 people in sawmills. It provides a further indirect employment for about 300 people in associated industries such as plywood plants and timber finishing. Those valuable and desperately needed jobs will continue; they will not be abandoned. I am very pleased to be able to give these assurances to the honourable member for Capricornia in response to a totally dishonest advertising campaign by the Queensland National Party in the context of the Queensland election. It has been claiming that the Federal Government will terminate controlled logging on Fraser Island. I must say that the behaviour of the National Party in that respect is contemptible. I hasten to add that I exclude from that observation the honourable member for Wide Bay, who today has listed a motion in temperate and reasonable terms. The observations I make about the contemptible nature of National Party advertising in the Queensland election campaign certainly excludes any reference to the honourable member for Wide Bay. I ask members of this House to note just how contemptible this course of behaviour by the National Party has been in the context of the Queensland election. The National Party has deliberately and without any basis whatsoever engaged in a campaign of fear and scaremongering amongst the workers in this industry. It has made totally baseless claims which have caused these workers and those dependent upon them to worry quite needlessly about their livelihood. In conclusion, I repeat that there is absolutely no basis for this contemptible campaign by the National Party in Queensland, and I believe that on 22 October the people will respond accordingly. Mr KATTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to a statement recorded in the Queensland State Hansard. Mr Simmons —How many years ago? Mr Peter Morris —Which year? Mr Howe —He will need a long memory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Kennedy will resume his seat. When the House comes to order I will call on him to ask his question. Mr KATTER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sensitive; I respond very easily to these things. I repeat that I will quote from what was recorded in the Queensland Hansard. Are honourable members opposite afraid of what I will say? Mr Wright said this: It always pleases me that we can go to the people of any State or nation and say 'this is our policy'. It is Labor Party policy to eventually achieve and maintain full ownership of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium and all other energy resources of the nation. Mr Staples —Why not? Mr KATTER —I thank the honourable member. The statement continues: It is our policy to put the ownership of those into the hands of the Government on behalf of the Australian people. What do you say to that? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he is not to provoke interjections; otherwise I shall ask him to resume his seat. Mr KATTER —The honourable member for Diamond Valley-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member had better continue asking his question or he will be sat down. Mr KATTER —Will the Minister say whether this Government supports this policy of Mr Wright and the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party? Mr BARRY JONES —I, of course, immediately pricked my ears when I heard a reference to a Hansard from Queensland. I did not know whether it was an historic document covered by the 30 years rule; I would like to have further details on the matter. It might be appropriate to place the question on notice. It can then be referred to my colleague in another place. I simply say that what is quoted is not consistent with Federal policy. I am curious about the accuracy of the report. I would like to see the original. I see that the honourable member does not appear to have a copy of the Hansard with him, and there are not too many of them around! It is quite clear that the policy of the Labor Party was set out in the Labor Party's Federal Conference document of July 1982. There is a consistency between the Commonwealth Government's policy and the Labor Party policy as adopted in the various States. I think the use of the material is taken out of context. It is intended purely-- Mr Katter —Come on, Barry! Mr BARRY JONES —It is taken completely out of context because it is quite inconsistent with the Federal policy document. The Federal policy document-- Mr Fisher —What does it say? Mr Ruddock —Have you read the context? Mr BARRY JONES —I am on the platform committee of the Party in this area. I am very well aware of the policy. We are concerned about the question of social ownership. We want to ensure that the benefit of our natural resources accrues primarily to Australians and to the Australian community. Whatever would have been said by Keith Wright would be in consistency with that principle, and that is a principle we stick to. If the honourable member wants further details, he should put the question on notice and I will get an answer from my colleague in the Senate. Mr GORMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. By way of preamble, I draw attention to the launching of the Labor Government's first home owners scheme on 1 October 1983, just 18 days ago. Can the Minister tell the House whether or not there has been a good response to this scheme? Mr HURFORD —It so happens that I have brought some information with me concerning the first home owners scheme and I am very pleased to be able to share this information with the House. I am happy to tell the honourable member and the House that I am able to continue to be a Minister for good news in this area and to join a number of my colleagues in the good news that they have. The response to the first home owners scheme has been excellent. More than 65,000 inquiries have been received by offices of my Department alone in only nine working days in most States. A Labor Day holiday interrupted in one State, but it has been nine days in the others. That is not all the inquiries there have been. We are working in close consultation with all the States and their offices have also received many thousands of inquiries. We are also working in close relationship with such bodies as the Master Builders Federation, the Housing Industry Association and the Real Estate Institute. They are all reporting that they are most pleased with the response to the Labor Government's first home owners scheme. It is not just inquiries that are important. I am very pleased to be able to tell the honourable member for Chifley that we have received 1,968 formal applications in those two working weeks, or nine days in most States. My Department is processing these applications swiftly. We expect most of them to be successful applications and we expect them to be able to stimulate the growing housing dwelling commencements which have already been reported. One swallow does not make a summer. We are not resting on our laurels. We think the activity-- Mr Hodgman —That is very original. Mr HURFORD —It is a phrase I like to use. It does not have to be original. I have used it before. For that reason I suppose it is not original. The trend is pleasing. What I have told the House confirms other statistics about housing which I would like to draw to the attention of the House. Permanent building society lending in the three months from August 1983-- Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. Mr HURFORD —I know that the right honourable member does not like to hear this good news because it reflects on the seven years of miserable government for which the present Opposition was responsible. But permanent building society lendings in the three months to August 1983 have increased by over 60 per cent when compared with the figures for the three months to August 1982. Mr Sinclair —I would like to hear it properly, not as an abuse of Question Time. Don't abuse Question Time. Make a statement to the House. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member does not like to hear it because it is a reflection on the previous Government's miserable administration. In addition, dwelling approvals in August were the highest for over 20 months. The figures for the three months to August 1983 were 28 per cent more than for the three months to August 1982. Mr Sinclair —Make a statement to the House. You are just reading it all. Write him a letter, if you must. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member is encouraging me to go further because I have more good news for him. The intervention by the Labor Government in the housing industry in our short period of seven months in office has been entirely successful. It has been a pleasing story to be able to tell this House and the people and I have been proud to be able to do so. Mr HODGMAN —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the fact that two out of three Australians do not support the proposition that Australia should become a republic? Has the Minister been correctly reported as publicly advocating the removal of all references to God and the Queen from the oath of allegiance? Government members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —This is not a funny matter. Lastly, how does the Hawke Government claim a mandate for these radical republican objectives? Are they the first of a series of proposals to convert Australia into a republic, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians? Mr WEST —I sometimes wonder when the honourable member will stop asking me dorothy dixers, because it is getting to be something of an embarrassment. I see that he has joined the fray with the Premier of Tasmania in trying to assist the embattled Premier of Queensland. Perhaps he would be better off trying to help the Queensland Leader of the Liberal Party, because Mr Gray does not seem to be getting on too well with him. I noticed in the paper today that they shared the same platform, which prompted Liberal Party officials to say that it was a great coup to get them together, in the same room. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to refer to the question. Mr WEST —With regard to the oath, the honourable member should realise that this matter is not new. It has been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, the former Government set up national consultations on this matter, that is, on the matter of multiculturalism and citizenship. I received a report to the previous Liberal Government, which is dated October 1982, which accepted that many amendments were needed to the Australian Citizenship Act. The reform of the oath is one of a number of questions which we have accepted because we want to make it easier for people in Australia to take out citizenship. The former Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs know all about this matter because the member for Balaclava made a statement that I read only this morning in order to refresh my mind about what the previous Government said it would do. But we want the 1.2 million people in Australia who are eligible to take out citizenship to do so, and we are trying to make it a bit easier for them. Perhaps I should quote from the former Government's report. Shall I do that? Government members-Yes. Mr WEST —The report states: The strongly-held and predominant view emerging from the consultations- This report is dated October 1982, which is just after the former Minister made his statement- was that swearing allegiance to a sovereign, and especially to a named sovereign resident elsewhere, was inappropriate in Australia at its present state of history. Mr Hawke —What was the date? Mr WEST —That is October 1982. It is the Zybrzcki report. It continues: This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of Imperial awards and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. No hostility was expressed towards her majesty. I should not go on, because it must be rather embarrassing for the Opposition. We want to make it easier for people to obtain citizenship in Australia. We are considering making the oath more Australian in character, just as we are considering removing the British subject criterion for definition of Australian citizenship. We said this last May in the Governor-General's Speech and it was recently reiterated by my colleague the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the Public Service. There is nothing new about all this. Honourable members opposite know that, the former Minister knows that, and Bjelke-Petersen knows it . The State Ministers have already been informed about what we intend to do. I have informed the Queensland Minister, as I have every State Minister in Australia, that our plan is to introduce in this session of Parliament these complex amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act and leave them on the table for consideration. The former Minister knows they are long overdue; he said so last year. There will be ample time for State Ministers, including the honourable member's colleague in Queensland, in the unlikely event that he is re -elected, to make representations to me. Dr Charlesworth having addressed a question to the Minister for Finance-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. Mr ANTHONY —I ask a question supplementary to that which I asked earlier of the Minister for Communications. The Minister referred to Sir Robert Sparkes and Mr Mike Evans as making a disgraceful lie. I ask the Minister whether the statement by Mr Beattie, as reported in the Sunday Mail last Sunday, that he had contacted his office is correct. If it is not correct, will the Minister tell the House who is telling the truth? Will he also say whether it is correct, as reported in the newspaper, that Mr Beattie said there would be a change in the ratio? Is Mr Beattie correct or is he not? Mr Hayden —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This question is based on a newspaper report. It has been a long-standing practice in this House, covered by the Standing Orders, that anyone who directly applies a newspaper report as the basis of a question must be prepared to vouchsafe the accuracy of that newspaper report. Mr SPEAKER —Is the Leader of the National Party prepared to vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report? Mr ANTHONY —I have a copy of the newspaper report, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party may continue. Mr ANTHONY —If the Minister is prepared to sue Sir Robert Sparkes and Mr Evans, will he likewise sue Mr Beattie if his report is not accurate? Mr DUFFY —The Leader of the National Party has referred to a statement in the Sunday Mail, I think he said of the sixteenth. Is that correct? Mr Anthony —Correct. Mr DUFFY —The article stated: The National Party is to protest against ABC news coverage of the State election. The party's move, with a call for the sacking of the Communications Minister, Mr Duffy, follows protest action by ABC journalists on Friday . . . According to the article, Mr Evans went on to say: . . . the Minister was guilty of 'unwarranted interference in the autonomy of the ABC'. That is a blatant lie, as I indicated earlier. Mr Evans continued: A direction like that- A direction was never given by me. As I indicated earlier today, no direction was given by me or any member of my staff to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, nor will there ever be any such direction, as far as I am concerned , in relation to news coverage. Mr Evans went on: A direction like that is so frightening it is getting back to the days of Hitler and Goebbels the National Party . . . Mr Anthony —That is not in the Sunday Mail report. Mr DUFFY —It is in the copy I have of the Sunday Mail. The right honourable member must have a different Sunday Mail. Do they print one for the honourable member and one for other people? Mr Anthony —This is the one where Mr Beattie admits having contacted you. Mr DUFFY —Does the right honourable member have the Sunday Sun or the Sunday Mail? Mr Anthony —The Sunday Mail. Mr DUFFY —I am afraid that this is in the Sunday Mail that I have: The National Party's specific protest relates to news coverage on Thursday night . . . The article then goes on and on with this incredible diatribe of Mr Evans. What I want to point out to the right honourable member is that in today's Courier- Mail there is this report of a statement made by the ABC: Mr Prior said from Sydney he was unaware of any approaches by politicians or political parties to interfere with the editorial approach of the ABC . . . He had directed the Brisbane news staff to aim towards a ratio of roughly 43 per cent Labor and 28 per cent each for the Nationals and the Liberals . . . The right honourable member might not understand why that is. That is an attempt to reflect the vote in the preceding election. That was the statement made by the ABC. In respect of Mr Beattie's contact, Mr Beattie contacted my office to ascertain what the coverage was. He sought information. Mr Anthony —So he did contact your office? Mr DUFFY —Yes, he did contact the office; I did not say he did not. He contacted the office to seek information. That information was obtained for him. As indicated to the right honourable member earlier-I will repeat it because obviously it is very difficult for him to follow these things-at no time did Mr Beattie or any other person ask me to direct or otherwise influence the ABC in any way. Information was sought. That information was obtained from the ABC via the Department of Communications. That was it. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the study of living away from home facilities for isolated children. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for 1982-84 triennium, volume 4-Recommendations for 1984-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report . Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the wheat industry. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission 1982-83, which contains the recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the Local Government Grants Commission for New South Wales. The report for the other State grants commissions was tabled in May 1983. Payments to New South Wales were made in early September 1983 by the Department of the Treasury. Mr STREET(Corangamite) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr STREET —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr STREET —During Question Time the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) implied that while I held the office of Foreign Minister I did not show concern at the United Nations about, or that I ignored, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Incidentally, like the Foreign Minister, I prefer the name Cambodia to Kampuchea which, to my mind anyway, is associated with the Pol Pot regimes. What the Foreign Minister failed to say was that during my period as Foreign Minister the UN held a special conference on Kampuchea, as it is referred to in the United Nations, on behalf of Australia, I strongly condemned the Vietnamese invasion and continued occupation of Cambodia. In contrast to the present unhappy situation, I worked very closely with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations on the development of a resolution, which was adopted by the conference, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and free elections in Cambodia under the supervision of the United Nations. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAYDEN —I claim to have been misrepresented in a newspaper article appearing in the Age of this morning. It refers to the administration of my Department and I accept responsibility for that. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr HAYDEN —In the Age newspaper this morning there appeared on page 3 an article by Mr Ian Davis headed: 'Red Cross aid being blocked from Timor: secret papers'. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I have to quote four or five paragraphs from the article to make the point I want to make. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —The article states: Internal Foreign Affairs Department cables show that the International Red Cross is being prevented-- I stress the word 'prevented'-- from providing aid in East Timor during the present Indonesian military offensive. The cables say the Red Cross is being frustrated-- which is a considerably different word-- in its work by the Indonesian military. The article then states: The cables are dated between 16 and 20 September, two weeks before the Attorney -General, Senator Evans, assured the Senate that the Red Cross had not been denied access to East Timor. (Senator Evans represents the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, in the Senate.) I draw the attention of honourable members to what is stated there-that Senator Evans is supposed to have declared that the Red Cross had not been denied access to East Timor. The implication is that it had been denied access to East Timor and that the cables made that clear. That is the context in which the first paragraph-at least where the word 'prevented' is used-of this story is being presented. The article goes on to state: The apparent divergence between what the Government has been told about the present situation in East Timor-where Indonesia started a new military offensive in September against the Fretilin independence movement-and what it has said publicly, may further fuel concern in the Labor Party about the Government's handling of the East Timor issue. The quote for these purposes ends. That is a quite inaccurate report. It is mischievously inaccurate. It is unnecessarily provocative, given the nature of feelings on this matter in some quarters within this country. Of course, it will be provocative to Indonesia because it is mischievous. It is wrong in fact. The facts are that in the Senate on 7 October Senator Evans, quite accurately reflecting advice from my Department given to him, speaking in relation to a question on this matter, in summary, said: On 26 September the International Committee of the Red Cross representative in Jakarta denied media reports that the ICRC had been refused access to East Timor . He said that the ICRC still had access to the territory, although with significant restrictions of movement on the main island. That is, the Red Cross does have access but there is significant restriction. He acknowledged that. Senator Evans further said: He did, however, confirm that the ICRC- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am a little confused by the Minister. It seems to me that the misrepresentation is not so much misrepresentation of what he said but of what someone else said. Mr HAYDEN —No, the misrepresentation is simply this: Either Senator Evans misled the Senate or my Department misled Senator Evans. I am responsible for the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr MacKellar —You have not been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —The poor dope. He has not found that out yet and he is the spokesman for the Opposition on these matters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Warringah wishes to take over this Chair he had better take some action instead of giving rulings from the front seat. I point out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that personal explanations are allowed when he has been represented as a person. This really is more a matter for a statement by leave. I fail to find where the Minister has personally been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —I happen to administer the Department. I will not take any more time of the House. I will table an unclassified cable on this matter which amply justifies the answer which Senator Evans gave and makes it clear that, once again, Mr Davis of the Age can be dangerous when he is reporting on foreign affairs. He gets his facts wrong. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? If so, he may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —Yes. I refer to the exchange between the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). I am not aware of what was in the shadow Minister's mind in asking his question; nor am I aware of the contents of the report of October 1982. I may not disagree with that report but I have not read it. I am concerned to point out that I ceased to be the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in May 1982 and not as the Minister implied. I was not the Minister prior to October. I did, however, make a statement in this House on, I think, 6 May 1982, opening up for debate the areas mentioned by the Minister in his reply. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, I present the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement in relation to some misrepresentations and some additions to questions last week. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Notice Paper normally refers to ministerial statements being made by leave. We customarily expect two hours' notice of these ministerial statements. It is a practice which has normally been observed. I understand there are some exceptions. Surely this is not the occasion to seek your indulgence. If the Minister wishes to make a ministerial statement he should seek the leave of the House. Mr Lionel Bowen —Mr Speaker, I was under the impression-perhaps the Minister for Finance did not make it clear-that he wished your indulgence to add to an answer . It is not a prepared statement. Mr SPEAKER —I must admit I was a bit confused by the Minister. He sought indulgence to add to an answer, but then he said something about a statement. If the Minister for Finance seeks indulgence to add to an answer given to a question, that indulgence is granted. I think he understands the difficulty with a statement. Making a statement is not subject to indulgence from the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —That is understood. Opposition members should pay close attention. Mr Peacock —Are you adding to an answer or making a statement? Mr SPEAKER —What the Minister for Finance is doing is the subject of a ruling from the Chair. He has been granted indulgence to add to an answer given last week. Mr Howard —He should not abuse that indulgence. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bennelong is being presumptive in what he says. I call the Minister for Finance. Mr DAWKINS —Last week a number of questions were addressed to me relating to a number of matters. One related to the question of an allegation of involvement in tax evasion. I will-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You remember your ruling last week that this was a matter which was outside the province of this House during Question Time. I suggest that if it is outside the province of Opposition members to ask questions on this matter, it is also outside the province of the Minister to add to an answer which has been declared ultra vires. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the National Party that a number of questions were asked with regard to a certain company and the progress taken by that company which involved the Minister. If I recall correctly, only one question-addressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-was disallowed. I would have to hear the Minister for Finance further before ruling on the point of order. Mr DAWKINS —A number of questions relating to this matter were directed to me and another such question was directed to the Prime Minister today. A number of issues arise out of that about which I think I should inform the House. In the first instance, one of the questions asked last week was preceded by the tabling of some documents by the honourable member for O'Connor. The Government did not resist the request to table those documents, but I have since been able to ascertain that they were private documents not generally available to the public . It is perfectly clear that they were obtained by improper and possibly illegal means. Mr Peacock —That is not true. Mr DAWKINS —Just hang on a minute. I have since had an opportunity to survey the records in relation to the affairs of the company and I am satisfied that there is nothing in those documents which does anything more than confirm the earlier remarks that I have made on this matter. However, serious issues arise from the production- Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have tried patiently to explain to the Minister that he has indulgence to add to an answer. He is really now, in going into the documents, getting into a matter which is proper for a statement, not an addition to an answer. I suggest that it would be much more appropriate if he made a statement- about those documents. It really is stretching- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, the Minister may not be aware that the Opposition is prepared to give him leave to make a statement, should he seek it. Mr SPEAKER —The Chair is really in some difficulty in granting indulgence on this matter. Mr DAWKINS —To make your task easier, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —The production of these documents which, as I have indicated were obtained by improper and possibly illegal means, raises very serious questions. As I have said, there is nothing in the documents that provides anything other than a confirmation of what I have already said, but to provide open access-- Mr Howard —Are you claiming that the documents are inaccurate? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that leave has been granted to the Minister. I suggest that he allow the Minister to make his statement. Mr DAWKINS —To provide for the publication of these documents would in the first instance sanction the theft, if that is what it was, and it would mean that for the first time in this country commercial espionage would become part of the political process. Secondly, the publication of these documents would be a savage denial-- Mr Howard —Even Keating is laughing at that. Mr DAWKINS —You just wait a minute; you will be on your feet in a moment. Secondly, it would constitute a savage denial of the privacy of my mother and brothers, whose financial affairs are also touched on in those documents. Thirdly, it would pre-empt the consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of the matter of the disclosure of pecuniary interests. If the House decides as a result of considering the report of the Standing Orders Committee that we should publish the minute details of the financial affairs not only of honourable members but also of their parents and siblings, then it may be proper to have those documents published, but in the current circumstances it would be simply a distortion of the principle of the disclosure of pecuniary interests which has been introduced to alert the public to possible conflicts of interest. The system of disclosure is not intended to provide an opportunity for financial voyeurs to salivate over and pry into the affairs of others. Mr Speaker, a question has been raised about certain transactions which were undertaken by the liquidator. I have already addressed those matters in earlier statements and I have also produced statements from the liquidator and do not intend to add to them, except simply to remind the House that the liquidator indicated that in respect of those transactions there was at all times full and true disclosure to the Commissioner of Taxation. The question of my relationship with the liquidator has also been raised. So sure was the Opposition of its position that as late as yesterday the honourable member for O'Connor contacted Mr Colin Gardner, who was the liquidator at the time-he has since retired-to seek certain information about these transactions. Members of the Opposition were so well informed about this campaign that has been waged over the last week and a bit that they had to wait until yesterday for an opportunity to contact Mr Gardner to try to find any evidence that would apparently be difficult to me. The honourable member addressed to Mr Gardner the question of his relationship with me. Mr Gardner has indicated to me what he told Mr Tuckey. He said: . . . I was prepared to tell him in general terms that to the best of my recollection you had little to do with the liquidation and I believed you were not present in this State when negotiations were completed. I said your brother Roger took on the task of looking after your mother's interests and I recalled having most contact with him. He went on to say: Although I consulted with one or more contributories-- that is, the shareholders-- and I hope reasonably informed all of major decisions I made, the decision to sell this land was as with all other decisions my responsibility. I believed and still do that in the matter of the sale of this land I made the correct decision and accept responsibility for it. That should put beyond any doubt the points I have made and ought to add to and clarify the remarks I made on 6 October and 13 October. This discloses what the Opposition is up to in relation to this matter. Let me remind the House of where this matter started. It started with allegations of my involvement in tax evasion. When I said absolutely no, I had no involvement in tax evasion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) accused me of misleading the House on the basis that there was a connection between this company and Metro Industries Ltd, the directors of which sent Treamog Pty Ltd to the bottom of the harbour. I thought I would take a leaf out of the Deputy Leader's book. He has claimed on other occasions that the authority of the Australian Taxation Office is absolutely conclusive in relation to these matters. I have here a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia in which in the last few lines he indicates that Coomel Pty Ltd, in liquidation, will be relieved of any recoupment liability arising out of its holding in 1976 of the 600 shares in Metro Industries Ltd. This letter from the Deputy Commissioner indicates that there is no liability for this company-the company of which I was a shareholder-in relation to these bottom of the harbour activities. I would have thought that, in the circumstances, and given the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on Nationwide last week, he would be prepared to apologise to me for the accusations he has made, which are quite clearly unsubstantiated, as I have demonstrated today. I should also indicate that, in relation to a remark made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which was reported in the Age of Saturday, 15 October, about me having some association with Peter Clyne, I am referring that matter to my solicitors because that is a gross and unsubstantiated defamation of me. One other matter ought to be made perfectly clear. What this matter is really all about is an attempt to undermine the enthusiasm this Government has for the disclosure of pecuniary interests. Notwithstanding the events of the last week, notwithstanding the fact that the system has been abused and misused by the Opposition, and notwithstanding the fact that it may have provided the Press with an opportunity to report gross and untrue allegations about me and my affairs, I indicate to the House my absolute resolve that the process of the disclosure of pecuniary interests should be extended and should be formalised in a way in which all members of this House are required to disclose their pecuniary interests to this House and, through this House, to the people of Australia. Members of one group on one side of the House are misusing a system and making wild allegations on the basis of documents which I believe to have been stolen, although the honourable member for O'Connor has maintained that these documents are publicly available. I can absolutely assure the House that they are not publicly available, and there is no way in which they could properly be in his hands. The group of people who on the one hand are prepared to deal in stolen private documents about people's financial affairs but on the other hand resist the extension of those principles to themselves stand condemned by their actions . Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-First, an allegation has been made against me that I have been the receiver or the stealer of documents. I reject that statement wholeheartedly. I am quite able to prove that the documents were neither of the things that were claimed and that they came to me quite properly from an owner of these documents. Nevertheless, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) seems suddenly extremely concerned for the rights of individuals and their private correspondence. It is a pity that in the previous Parliament the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) did not follow the ideas of the Minister. I have already called his attention to the fact that page 1710 of Hansard of 22 September 1982 shows that the honourable member for Wills brought into this Parliament a private telex which had presumably fallen off the back of a truck. He thought he had the then Minister for Aviation cold because that private telex was about the employment of an American citizen. Mr Lionel Bowen —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Leave was given to the honourable member to address his remarks to the facts related to this issue. We have had four hours of debate on this matter. I do not want to reduce the legitimate time available to the honourable member for O'Connor, but there is to be no rambling debate as far as I am concerned. There are to be specific answers to what has been said. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House knows that leave was given to make a statement. It is not within the province of the Chair then to restrict the honourable member's remarks. Mr Lionel Bowen —No, but it is within the province of the Government to indicate that we have a lot of matters on the Business Paper. I do not mind the honourable gentleman speaking. In fact I have made arrangements for him to talk to a Bill later today. In no way is he being restricted, but I will not tolerate a wide-ranging debate on what happened last year or some other time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am allowing the Leader of the House indulgence, but I indicate that I cannot take action. Mr TUCKEY —I think I have made enough of that point. I now turn to the other point that seemed to represent the bulk of the Minister's case in regard to my charges of tax minimisation. I hope everybody realises that the letter the Minister brought from the Commissioner of Taxation deals purely with references to bottom of the harbour companies and certainly not to tax minimisation. At best the bottom of the harbour issue would have cost the revenue a few hundred dollars. In the case of the matters I raise we are talking of costs to the revenue of closer to $70,000. The Minister for Finance has raised the point that I contacted the liquidator. I did that to inform the liquidator of some of the statements that have been made in this place regarding him and his actions. In fact, I confirm that the liquidator said to me 'Yes, I did the negotiating and I made the arrangements regarding this matter'. What the Minister did not tell us was that he also said to me that he expressed great concern to the shareholders when they were prepared to enter a deal in which $40,000 was the sole deposit on a property of over half a million dollars, and that, of course, he was extremely concerned about that and would not have done that had there not been some support from those involved. What is more important is what the liquidator did not know. Like this Parliament, the liquidator was taken for a ride. Of course, the gentleman who might have been mentioned today and who may be giving a sworn statement would have been Graeme Robertson, who was the purchaser on behalf of Frenesi Pty Ltd, a company which I gather he owned. The fact is, of course, that Mr Robertson was a frequent visitor to the Dawkins's residences and , I believe, in the case of some of the shareholders, a close friend. It was he who was dealing with the Minister for Finance and others, discussing this scheme , its price and then contacting the liquidator by telephone on Monday morning saying that he wanted further negotiations. When the liquidator went forward to make his negotiations the purchaser knew the bottom line. That is what occurred in regard to this shameful event. That is why I say that the Minister constantly has misled this Parliament. The Minister should produce evidence from the purchaser that he never ever took part in the negotiation of this sale. That is the type of evidence he possibly should have produced today, rather than that concerning the liquidator. Of course the liquidator will say and continue to say that he carried out his responsibilities and conducted this negotiation. Of course, he cannot say that this property represented about a third of the total estate or that it was not a compulsory liquidation. Quite naturally, as any liquidator would tell one in these circumstances, he would keep in close contact with the members of the company. It is a pity that the Minister did not tell us about the annual general meetings that have been held since the liquidation commenced and that are still being held. I hope to be able to bring some evidence of some of those meetings before the Parliament in due course. This Minister has told us time and again, on some six or seven occosions, that he had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiation of this sale and that, in fact, none of his brothers in the company or his mother had anything whatsoever to do with that negotiation. I say that they were in constant negotiation for over 12 months with Mr Robertson. It is time the Minister brought before the Parliament something a little more substantial than the results of a phone call from Mr Robertson who says that he denied ever having talked to the members of the family about this matter, he denies knowing them and he was not a frequent visitor to their home. Nobody can tell me that, even if he was not a frequent visitor to the home, he would not, of course, have discussed this half a milion dollar deal, which was probably one of the biggest things that had happened either to him or to the Dawkins family. The issue at hand, as I said, in regard to bottom of the harbour schemes is not the huge cost to the revenue. The issue we are talking about and the issue I have raised is that of capitalisation of interests. Some interesting situations arise from the documents I have tabled. I am sure the Minister would be interested in a few more I could table. I refer to the letter of final offer that Mr Robertson wrote to the liquidator. In that letter, which is one of those I have tabled, having made his plea for a reduced price because of the circumstances of his not being able to get the original yield out of his subdivision, he turned round and offered them $550,000 on $40,000 deposit. He signed the letter and in his own handwriting across the bottom-I remind you, Mr Speaker, that the reference to stealing these documents obviously authenticates them; there is no suggestion that they are not for real-he writes: P.S. The original asking price was $540,000. That might not seem very significant, until we look at the memo to members of Coomel Pty Ltd which, I remind you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance has yet to deny having received a copy of, and of which the liquidator informs me he would certainly have sent a copy to all members of the company if it was addressed to all members. When we look at that particular document we find that the liquidator is telling the members of the suggested sale price. He is referring to this letter. He also put a 'With Compliments' slip on it which says : Copy of letter received on 6.4.1979. May we have your comments as soon as possible? The letter to Mr Colin Gardner, the liquidator, is dated 6 April 1979. In fact, he gives them his advice and his summary. He says: The suggested sale price-- this is what is contained in the offer to which I refer- is $550,000 on $40,000 deposit and the balance over two years. The true present worth of this sum is approximately $438,000. According to my calculations, that is a differential of $112,000. He goes on to say: Under the existing contract the sale price is $680,000 on $40,000 deposit. The true present worth of that sum is $540,000-- exactly the price that the offerer suggested was the original cash price for the property. What do we learn from that? If we take the original cash price of $540 ,000 and we deduct $40,000-and, of course, I guess it is only coincidental that this leaves a nice round figure of $500,000; but that deposit figure stuck through the whole deal-that leaves us with a balance of $500,000. If we calculate interest at the rate of 14 per cent on $500,000, we find it is $70,000 per annum or $140,000 over two years. Again, by coincidence, if we add $140,000 to $540,000, we find that the figure adds up to $680,000-the figure mentioned by the liquidator when he sent this notice out to the members. Let us go back to the final deal that was struck. We find that by this time, of course, the arrangements were in place and all we had to talk about was the final price. The final price was $550,000. The liquidator points out that the true present worth of that amount is $438,000. If we deduct $438,000 from the $ 550,000, we get a difference of $112,000. When we divide that figure by two- because the terms are over two years-we find that the difference is $56,000 a year. If we deduct the $40,000 deposit from the $438,000, which is called the true present worth, and get $398,000 and calculate interest at 14 per cent on $ 398,000, we find that the figure is not $56,000, Mr Speaker; it is only $55,720. In fact, that is probably why the liquidator said that figure was only approximate. So in fact, in each case, there is a clear example that the interest rate was to be 14 per cent and that nothing had changed. What are the implications of this deal, which I suggest was worked out by the Minister for Finance, his brother and other members of the company? Let us remember that the opening statement of this liquidator, who never spoke to anyone and took all his own decisions, was: 'I spoke with Jeremy today'. Jeremy is the Minister's brother and also a shareholder and a beneficiary of this arrangement. To suggest that the liquidator could say in one breath 'I spoke to Jeremy' and that he was not seeking advice on what was going on is ridiculous. Jeremy is a town planner, of course. He happens to work for the city of Fremantle. I do not suppose he was getting professional advice from a council employee. He was talking to someone just as he talked to everybody else. It is probable that he did not talk to the Minister for Finance very often, because the Minister for Finance knew what he was about. The Minister for Finance was known to say: 'This is a great idea, but don't count me in on it. I can't be seen to be agreeing'. He probably then said: 'How much do I get? We have to look at the tax implications of this arrangement. The facts are that in the normal commercial transactions which go on when one lends somebody money- it does not much matter if it is built into a property sale or anything else- interest is paid. I have already drawn to the attention of the House that when the mortgage was drawn up it was suddenly decided that if the period was to go over that settled for this arrangement and the subdivider was unable to meet his commitment to repay the money, there would have to be interest. Natural commercial arrangements demand that interest be paid. Quite clearly interest was calculated in that arrangement. Usually the Commissioner of Taxation gets some protection from these types of deals because in the normal commercial transaction we find that the purchaser has the right to claim his interest payments as a tax deduction. He will therefore not agree to the capitalising of the interest, as has occurred in this transaction. I am aware of two occasions when this does not occur. The first is when a subdivider makes a purchase. He can claim both the capital purchase for the land and any interest paid, if there is any, as a cost of his development. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would know, he deducts it and what is left over after his other costs are covered is his profit. So he does not care if he pays more or less in interest for the land. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance were well aware of this arrangement. The second occasion, one about which the Treasurer must worry, occurs in the case of home owners. They do not get a tax deduction for interest and, as such, if sellers or vendors wanted to lend them finance to buy their homes, they too could be attracted to accepting the same type of arrangement whereby they capitalise the interest. It is possible that the vendor would sweeten it up a little by offering a lower rate of interest to be built into the capitalisation. When that happens, we have a situation where the income tax revenue is denied again because the seller puts his money up, he gets it back and he does not officially get any interest. Of course the Commissioner of Taxation cannot charge him tax on a capital gain. If that practice is to become widespread and if it is given the support of the Treasurer, as it will be when he supports the Minister, it will be good for all Australians and not just selected people who are smart enough to work it out. It should be publicised. It could be called the Dawkins scheme, or the Dawkins/Keating scheme, if the Treasurer is in it too. The situation will occur wherein all Australians can benefit from this arrangement. Let us look at what the case of Coomel has meant to the revenue. I think it is quite clear, from what the liquidator told the shareholders, that they were denying the revenue tax on $112,000 over two years taxed at the company rate. The company rate is about 46c in the dollar. It does not matter much whether we take 46c on $56,000 a year or $112,000. The facts are that company tax on the higher amount of money would have been $51,520. But that is not all. Under proprietary limited company-tax law the shareholders would have been obliged to distribute 90 per cent of their earnings for that year as dividends. After company tax that would have amounted to $60,480. In fact the beneficiaries-the shareholders-included a member of parliament, a city planner, a very highly paid doctor etcetera. It is clear that they would not have been paying tax on this sum at the rate of 30c in the dollar, they would have been paying it at the higher rate. If we pluck out a figure of 46c in the dollar, again as a fair average, we find that the revenue would be further denied $24,494. In fact, this scheme-if it is such, and all the evidence points to it-has cost the revenue $76 ,000. As I reminded the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) the other night, that would have helped a lot of poor people in her electorate and maybe people in the electorates of a few of the honourable members sitting on the Government side of the House. They seemed so anxious on Thursday night to stop debate on an important Bill in order to support a Minister who has been party to all this. We have heard the Minister tell us: 'I might have got this thing. I, of course, was carefully taking no notice of anything the liquidator was doing. It was not right for me to do that'. But considering his stand on taxation, going right back to his maiden speech in 1974, and his hate of the capitalist system, surely when he read that document and read that there would a capitalisation of interest he would have rung up the liquidator and said: 'Mr Liquidator, you have to count me out of this. I refuse point blank to be involved'. There will be questions in regard to the Minister's involvement. I am sure that if a proper investigation were carried out and sworn evidence were requested from the purchaser and from other people who have contacted my office, whom I can make available, as I said in the very beginning, we would find that some of the Minister's statements regarding his total lack of involvement and the total lack of involvement of his brothers and others would not be substantiated. I suggest that it has not really been substantiated by what he has tabled in regard to the statements of the liquidator. As I said, there is good reason for the liquidator to make the statements he has made, and that is all there is about it. The liquidator believed that he was carrying out the business. He did not know that the people who were employing him were running around behind his back doing deals. The Minister for Finance has done his best to mislead this Parliament and he could not help misleading the liquidator. The poor old liquidator, he believed all sorts of things. He really believed he was doing everything. The Minister knows that he talked to Graeme Robertson, and that is where the money was. The liquidator was the middle man. If we think this event was just a passing aberration which just happened to the poor old Minister for Finance and he just forgot to get out of it and to deny his brothers and other beneficiaries of the will the right to defraud the revenue, which surely he thought he had the right to do, it might be interesting to look at another meeting he attended quite some time before, in June 1975. The Minister is listed as being at the meeting of Coomel Pty Ltd. The purpose of this meeting was to establish a five-year plan. I do not know the real significance of a five-year plan but I know the Russians have them. The fact is that those present at that meeting were S. Geroff, Messrs, J. S., J. E., S. L. and P. A. Dawkins. They wanted to discuss the future of all the assets that their father had accumulated for them. They made certain assumptions and then looked at some options. They eventually concluded that they would probably sell the assets. They then looked at the options as to what they might do with the money. I thought option No. 5 was wonderful. It states: Investment in non-economic philanthropic ventures particularly with a view to benefiting or involving the shareholders. That is the old donate-an-over-valued-painting-to-an-art-gallery trick. It is no good the Minister for Finance saying that he was not there. There is no record of his protesting violently when discussing that matter. Who was Mr Geroff anyway? He was the manager of Coomel at the time. I am told he worked for that other great defender of the public revenue, Senator Walsh. I believe he was his research assistant at a later date. No doubt Senator Walsh's ideas on tax avoidance and evasion were greatly improved by the advice he got from Mr Spencer Geroff. If we do not think the Dawkins family's idea was to buy a painting, we find out that Spencer Geroff is now a part owner of an art gallery and has been for four or five years. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance, his wife or someone else has a share in that art gallery. I think it was the previous Treasurer who put a stop to that fancy little trick. What we are talking about is intent. We are talking about a Minister who was prepared to be party to all these events. He said: 'Oh, I was not in it. It was a nasty old highly-paid liquidator who did all these things to me while I innocently flitted around the country trying to destroy people's reputations'. That is not so. He constantly and continuously was in negotiations with the purchaser. He knew him as a friend. I think his brother Roger knew him as a close friend. If he wants to stand up and deny that it is a fact that Graeme Robertson was a visitor to Melaleuca, let him do so. I have suggested to the Minister once before that he should not ask other people to stick with him too far and to perjure themselves. The circumstances here are clear. Interest was capitalised consciously. Had the property value been other than the original asking price of $540,000 and had it been sold at $540,000 free of interest, it could have been suggested that because of that close friendship with Mr Robertson the members of the Dawkins family were anxious to assist him to get on with this business. The facts are that as soon as terms were mentioned the price jumped to $680,000. If Mr Roberston wants to deny that that is his writing on the back of that document, let him do so. If we need a little more support to show the intention of these people, we can look at another memo. I have already drawn the attention of the House to the fact that, prior to the signing of the $1.64m statement of solvency by the Minister and another one or two of his brothers when they went into liquidation, a lot of property had already left the company at what I believe were very low prices. That included Lot 553 which was transferred to one R. Dawkins in 1977 for $25,000. Then we find another little document. It has on it some handwriting which no doubt the Minister for Finance would recognise. It says: Replied agreeing 6/1/79. That is the only date on this thing. It says: Graeme Robertson has advised that Roger Dawkin's land will be acquired on a capitalised figure of $128,532. Robertson works this out on the following basis: (1) There is to be a deposit of $1,000-- That is again a magnificent financial transaction of $1,000 down on a $100,000 deal-- taken out against the original sum of $100,000 . . . So again it is quite clear what the asking price was-$100,000. Suddenly that jumps to $128,532. No doubt the Treasurer has already worked out what that was going to cost the revenue. To continue: . . . leaving $99,000 yet to pay. (2) Interest will run from the commencement at 10 per cent-- apparently things were getting tough-- and after six months interest on the $99,000 is calculated at $4,950. (3) The $4,950 is added to the $99,000, making a total of $103,950. (4) At the expiration of the six months period a further $9,000 is paid and this is deducted from the sum of $103,950, leaving a balance of $94,950. 10 per cent interest on the latter sum for a futher six months equals $4,747 which when added makes a total of $99,697. At the end of the second six month period Robertson will pay a further $10,000, leaving a balance of $89,697 and 10 per cent will accumulate on that over two years. An offer and acceptance is to be prepared allowing for this calculation and the purchaser will be Rekuna Pty Ltd, which is a company controlled by Robertson. When we finish the calculations on that amount outstanding at 10 per cent, we find that all those little bits that they added on by way of interest total $28, 532. That is not directly the action of the Minister. It just happens to be the adjoining block of land that his brother bought from the company for $25,000 and which two years later was to be sold for $100,000. Apparently they could not get the sub-division approved. These documents contain some lovely stuff on how they used to try to get sub-divisions approved against the Tonkin Government and a few little things like that, including little letters which they wrote to each other saying: 'Right'. Apparently that fell in a hole because the property, I am advised from my other inquiries, was later sold to brother Jeremy for $82,000, which was just 300 per cent of the original figure. All in all, it would appear that my charge of attempting to defeat State stamp duty stands up alongside my charges that the Taxation Office was consciously defrauded and that quite clearly every effort was made to ensure that no probate was paid. In a previous speech I mentioned that a loan of $73,210 was outstanding on the death of Dr Dawkins and that the will made a special provision that that would be forgone on his death. When we look into other public documents-not stolen documents-relating to the Death Duty Assessment Act, we find that a serious attempt was made by the solicitors, quite clearly authorised by the family. Let us remember that poor Dr Dawkins was dead. These were not his tricks. They were the tricks of the beneficiaries. They say in Schedule No. 11: Immediately prior to the date of his death the said deceased was owed a sum of $73,210.45 by Coomel Pty Ltd, such debt being released by the operation of his will. Accordingly, at the moment of death there was no debt owing and there was no gift. It is claimed that this debt does not form part of the estate of the deceased either as an asset of the estate or a notional estate for duty purposes . The sum is just $73,210! I can advise the House that that was not successful and that the assessor decided that the Bowen case no longer applied. But it was done consciously and quite clearly with the approval of a beneficiary, namely, the Minister for Finance. All this adds up to one thing-deliberate attempts to defraud the revenue. They were quite legal attempts. The best solicitors were engaged to ensure that the Dawkinses hung on to everything they could and that the Government got the least. There is nothing illegal about that. All the actions taken to get around probate were quite legal. They were a little unusual . Most people who put their affairs into a proprietary limited company or a trust at least have the decency to leave them there and to pay company tax or distributed profit taxes. But, of course, that was not the case here. Once the company had served its purpose, once Dr Dawkins was dead, action was immediately taken to get all the assets out of the company into the hands of the beneficiaries. That is what is unusual about this arrangement. That is what labels it a device-a legal device and a proper device which thousands of farmers and other people have used, except that most of them still have their properties in the company which goes on for generation after generation. I have been told that I am dishonest and that I got hold of some documents that maybe I should not have. The Minister tells us that I have raised this matter only because the Opposition is terrified of future disclosures. My understanding is that we have no objection to the Standing Orders Committee looking at this matter. It is quite clear that we took a lot more notice of that very experienced gentleman Nigel Bowen when he advised the government of the day of the great difficulties that can arise if there is not absolute and complete disclosure. I remind the House that the reason the Prime Minister was told that there was a company called Coomel was that the Minister for Finance was worried that someone was snooping around. That is what he said in his letter. He did not say: 'Sir, here it all is. I tell you the truth'. We have had to extract it from him like teeth. I hope that it is equally painful. The Government now has to make a decision. If it wants to back a Minister who, in my opinion has misled the House time and again, that is fine. Politically it does not want the problems of a Minister having to go. The question that the Government has to ask is this: Is capitalisation of interest on these transactions fair and reasonable? Does it approve that device? For that matter, in the circumstances I have brought before this House, does the Commissioner of Taxation believe it is fair and reasonable? Does he want to have another look at it? What was he told the first time around? I will bet that he got that memo. I will bet he saw the one that was addressed to everyone telling them in fine detail how they could set up the sale of the other block which they just could not get. Is that the advice to the Australian people? If it is, fine, we all know where we stand. Every householder selling his block will be well advised to go down the track of capitalising interest, granting vendor terms and then discounting the interest because a profit can be made on it. The fact of life is that sub-dividers around Australia would be advised to arrange deals of this nature. If honourable members go back to my first speech when I speculated on many things, they will find it amazing how they have all come true-right down to my speculation of a $73,000 debt forgone in the will. That was not done for nothing . It was done because the people involved thought they had a little perk. We also have to look at the fact that even after that probate was paid, probate was not paid on $2m. Good luck to the Dawkins family as far as I am concerned because, as I said, that was not an illegal device. It just happens to be associated with a Minister who day after day in this place has destroyed people who got away with $100 or $1,000. I hope I have an opportunity to advise the House at a later date what probate on $2m was in 1975, but the Treasurer will have no difficulty in telling us. He might even have the courage to tell us in his next speech what the figure is, for the information of some of his colleagues who, I am sure, would have preferred to spend that money on the poor people whose cause they frequently espouse. We have looked at these documents and at their references. I have shown quite clearly that 14 per cent interest was charged on the first and second occasions. Those documents support those claims. The Minister has not denied their authenticity. He has stated quite clearly that the private documents were stolen . He knows they are correct. There are many other matters that he has failed to tell this House. I am sure there is a clear answer; that is, that people should have the right of an inquiry. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that when I first raised this issue in the Parliament I did not name the Minister and I did not name the company. Mr Howe —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —It is no good laughing about it. I made an offer at the time to the Prime Minister. I said that he could have taken all of these documents, studied them and called a quite independent inquiry. But no; the Government decided it would bluff it out. Now the facts have been produced in this Parliament and they have not been denied. Contrary to the Minister's statements that all of these matters were not correct, that they are a pack of lies-'a litany of lies' was the phrase used-I challenge anybody to identify one thing on which I was wrong in what I have said in this Parliament in terms of money or a prediction of what the Minister and his brothers were about. Let us get this straight: He has not only misled the Opposition; he has misled the Government and his Prime Minister. Every time we raise this matter the Prime Minister has to have another one hour or two hour talk with the Minister. Mr Speaker, those facts clearly demonstrate that the papers that I have submitted to you are correct. They show the major matter that I raised-one of capitalising interest to avoid company tax, to avoid personal taxation. I believe it is time that the Commissioner of Taxation came up with answers on this matter because I still believe he has discretion when such a blatant decision is taken. Mr Howard —I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Lionel Bowen —Talk about it during consideration of the Appropriation Bill. Mr Howard —No, your colleague invited me to respond to something he said and I would like to take advantage of that invitation. Leave not granted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —He claims to have been misrepresented. I call the honourable member for Bennelong. Mr HOWARD —In the course of his remarks the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said that on this matter I had misrepresented his position and he invited me to apologise. I inform the honourable gentleman that if at any stage I do misrepresent his position I will be only too happy to apologise to him. But the explanation he gave the House, far from establishing that I had misrepresented his position, in fact confirmed the accuracy of everything that I had said. The honourable gentleman will recall that I asked him on 11 October whether he would have a liability-and I quote: . . . subject to the provisions of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act, commonly known as the bottom of the harbour legislation passed by this Parliament last year? Will the honourable gentleman's liability under that Act be limited only by the extent of the shareholding of Coomel in Metro Industries and the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation? The letter that the honourable gentleman read out a moment ago stated, to the best of my recollection because I have not been shown it, that the Commissioner informed him that the company would be relieved from liability for an assessment under the Act. That, to my way of thinking, and the thinking of the House, confirms precisely what I had said. The honourable gentleman says that I had placed great store on a letter from the Commissioner of Taxation. That is true. The honourable gentleman's problem is that, although I placed great store on it, he did not. It was his refusal to accept the totally clean bill of health provided by the Commissioner of Taxation last year to Mr Reid which represented the gravamen of the charge I made against him last week. What I said and what I stand by-the honourable gentleman has not refuted this-is that at the conclusion of his speech on 12 October 1982 he said: What we are saying is that, quite clearly, the companies with which Mr Reid was associated-- he said was 'associated', not associated as a director or a shareholder, but ' associated'- were involved in avoiding-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is moving a long way from showing where he was misrepresented. He is now indulging in a debate. Mr HOWARD —With respect, I was invited to apologise to a Minister of the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked for leave to make a personal explanation on the ground that he was misrepresented. Such indulgence is given to allow him to show where he was personally misrepresented. He is indulging in debate; he is not showing where he was misrepresented and correcting it. Mr HOWARD —The honourable gentleman incorrectly alleged in the course of his remarks that I had misrepresented his position. I point out, with respect to you , Mr Speaker, and to the House that explaining my position surely is relevant to the question of misrepresentation. But I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with a very simple comment; at no stage have I ever alleged that the honourable gentleman's company's ownership of shares in Metro Industries Ltd represented per se an act of evasion. My criticism of the Minister was his refusal last week , and his continued refusal today, to apply to his own conduct and his own association with that company the standard he so unreasonable demanded of Mr Reid and others last year. I do not owe him an apology. I think, according to his standard, he owes this House a resignation. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister wishes to make a personal explanation on the grounds that he has been misrepresented. I call the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —I will not refer to the entire array of distortions which were uttered by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I just want to refer very briefly to the allegation that I in some way misled the House. I simply say , as I have said before, that the Opposition has attempted to make me account to the House for the financial transactions from which, I accept, I may have benefited and on which my views may have been sought, but I had little or no capacity to affect their outcome, and that has been demonstrated. If the honourable member for O'Connor had pinched all the documents rather than just some of them, he would have realised that the negotiations in which the liquidator was involved were very complex. They involved the interests of my brothers in their individual capacities as adjoining landholders; they involved the future of my mother's house, which was on the land that was sold; and they involved questions of negotiations which involved my brothers and my mother in relation to the Metropolitan Water Authority. My brothers were involved in those negotiations in their private capacities because they were required to be contributors to the contract with the purchaser. I trust this clarifies the remarks that I made, as I said, on 6 October and 13 October. If the words I used at that time did in any way confuse, I certainly apologise to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor wishes to make a personal explanation on the basis that he has been misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) misrepresented me on two counts . He said, 'if he had pinched all the documents'. Firstly, I did not pinch them and, secondly, I have all the documents and I will produce more if he keeps it up. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr SPEAKER —I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely: The Hawke Government's endorsement of high and rising unemployment as inevitable. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.10) —After listening to those on the Government side and hearing what transpired, I suggest that perhaps one avenue of breaking through the unemployment barrier would be by way of a legal- led or lawyer-led recovery, judging by the writs that are allegedly going around . Mr Lusher —A liquidator-led recovery. Mr PEACOCK —A liquidator-led recovery might be another way of putting it, having regard to the interests of some honourable members. The Opposition has proposed this discussion of a matter of public importance, namely 'the Hawke Government's endorsement of high and rising unemployment as inevitable', because there is no doubt that unemployment is the most fundamental and urgent problem facing Australia today. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have been forced from the dignity of work into the indignity of the dole queue. Hundreds of thousands of Australians live in fear of their jobs. It is a problem which threatens the very social fabric of this country. It alienates our youth and it generates despair. All the September 1983 unemployment statistics have done is to re-emphasise the failure of this Government's approach. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has now reached a post-war record of 10.4 per cent. Unemployment amongst teenagers rose to 27.5 per cent in September compared with 19.9 per cent a year ago. The unemployment rate amongst women rose from 10.4 per cent in August to 11 per cent in September. The Government clearly expects and accepts that unemployment will inevitably keep on rising. It accepts that in 1985-86 the number of unemployed Australians will be almost as high as it is today and it is trying to condition the Australian people to accept this. The Opposition totally rejects this pessimism. Australia can reduce unemployment if we promote growth. Australia can reduce unemployment if we have a wages policy which reflects a jobs policy. Australia can reduce unemployment if we reverse many of the thousands of regulations which reduce growth and Australia can reduce unemployment if we accept that it is profits which generate investment and it is investment which generates jobs. The Opposition acknowledges the extent of the problem of restoring full employment. In fact it requires the creation of 150,000 to 200,000 jobs in each of the next 10 years or an economic growth rate of close to 5 per cent per annum, almost double that over the 10 years to 1981-82. The sad reality is that the Government has already given up trying to achieve these targets. The sad reality is that this Government came to power with so much opportunity. The international economy was emerging from the recession. Australia was emerging from a drought and the Australian Labor Party claimed a special relationship with the unions which would give the unemployed a chance. All honourable members on this side of the House would remember how the National Economic Summit Conference was to set the scene and, of course, in some ways it did. There was a clear recognition that the greatest challenge facing Australia was the generation of permanent jobs. There was a clear recognition that this could be achieved most rapidly by making Australian industry competitive again and it was clearly recognised that to be competitive again there had to be a restraint on wages and restraint on government taxes and government charges. Now the Government seeks to replace that consensus with another consensus, namely, that almost one million Australians have no choice but to look forward to the hopelessness of the dole queue. The Summit recognised the overriding need to be competitive. The Opposition's policies recognise this but the Government now rejects them. The Government after all supported the end of the wage pause, the granting of an initial 4.3 per cent wage increase and the support for full indexation for years to come. The Opposition would have continued the wages pause until the end of 1983 and wage increases in 1984 would have been geared to generating jobs. The Government raised taxes and raised charges in the May mini-Budget and the August Budget. The Opposition would not have loaded industry with these charges. By just these two fundamental thrusts the Government has institutionalised Australia's uncompetitiveness and lost the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs. Mr Hodgman —Shame on them. Mr PEACOCK —Shame on them. Those are not just our words. When the shadow Minister interjects in that way I am reminded of the lost opportunity referred to by Sir Arvi Parbo, a man acknowledged by the Government as a great Australian and a great industrialist. Indeed he was eulogised by the Government on frequent occasions. What did Sir Arvi say, correctly, recently about the lost opportunity ? I will quote him: It is a great pity that what was probably a unique opportunity to correct, in a very short time, a large part of Australia's existing cost disparity with the industrialised world was missed. In plain words, this means that, far from regaining our lost competitiveness, we will continue to lose more. Does not that sum it up well? By the two fundamental thrusts on wages and charges the Government institutionalised Australia's uncompetitiveness and lost the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs. The Government tries to excuse its support for wage indexation and more unemployment by talking of the long term importance of maintaining the prices and incomes accord. Every day the Government twists and turns. One of the most tragic examples is the approach of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is sitting at the table, on the tragic problem of youth unemployment. In September 1983 a record 27.5 per cent of Australian youth was unemployed. Yet the Government persists with its excuse that nothing can be done about it, that the whole priority has to be to maintain the accord. I noticed, only in the last day or so, that even the Australian Council of Trade Unions cannot support the Government's youth unemployment schemes which Mr Dolan calls 'a waste of money and not very well thought out'. The Opposition does not criticise the principle of short term job creation schemes for youth. What we criticise is the refusal of the Government to face the facts presented by its own advisers that there are ways to moderate the youth unemployment problem. The Government's Bureau of Labour Market Research has identified high youth wages as one of the reasons for high youth unemployment. In the Budget Papers the Government concedes: . . . the higher susceptibility of juniors to deteriorating labour market conditions (has been) largely a result of junior wage rates which have evidently been set above the relative work value of the employees concerned. Yet the Government and the Minister persist with the delusion that none of these 'provides sufficient evidence to justify any particular policy initiatives regarding youth, wages and subsidies'. The fact is that as the BLMR has reported the current ACTU policy is for an increase in youth wages relative to adults and the fact is that the Government does not want to offend the ACTU. The Government is basically obsessed with the accord. What we say is: 'How about an accord with the unemployed or how about an accord with the youth of this country?' The Opposition's programs will give hope and jobs to these Australians but the Government's policies will only create a gulf between the privileged with jobs and the unprivileged outsiders without jobs. This Government is basically all talk; it is even all talk on its alternative of kibbutzes. The Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) first presented the idea in 1979. At the end of 1983 he is still talking about it. There are no plans, no details and no wonder the Young Labor Movement-not the Opposition-calls the idea a complete misunderstanding of the problems of youth unemployment. The current occupant of the prime ministership also talks about reducing the demand for jobs by increasing the participation rate in higher education. Both the Australian Labor Party platform and election policy commit the Government to eliminating the gap between the dole and the tertiary education assistance scheme. Yet in the August Budget the Government increased that gap by 200 per cent. By August 1984 it will be $15 a week more attractive to be unemployed than to study. The Prime Minister, in his election speech, said: We cannot afford to waste the talents and destroy the hopes of our young people in the dole queues. We cannot afford to lose so many able students from our high schools, colleges and universities. How quickly things seem to change. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put it, these promises and rhetoric have now been 'reprioritised'. Mr Howard —Reprioritised? Mr PEACOCK —Not just in that area. The promises to small business have also been 'reprioritised'. What a wonderful word. Mr Sinclair —It means reneged. Mr PEACOCK —It means more than reneged. It has associations with an administration of a close ally of ours, who would use 'wordspeak', 'Hawkespeak' and 'reprioritisation' to change programs, allegedly by changing labels. The promises to small business have also been 'reprioritised'. It is small business which employs over 50 per cent of the private sector work force. As our shadow Minister for tourism and small business, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), has pointed out time and again, small business will generate the majority of the permanent jobs that Australia desperately needs. Yet what was done in the August Budget? As the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said, and again these are its words, not ours: The Government has not implemented one plank of its action campaign for small business announced during the election campaign. It now threatens to strangle both big and small business with a wide-ranging prices surveillance authority which is nothing like that originally promised. The reality is that the more we care about unemployment the more we need to care about profitability and growth in the private sector. That is the Opposition's approach, and we do not run away from it. Profits and jobs: The nexus is obvious . It is the basis of our wages, our tax and our business policies. The Government takes the opposite approach. Clearly it does not care if high wages send companies to the wall. It simply thinks, and I quote from the Government's submission to the national wage case, that 'this is part of the normal process of growth and re-adjustment within the economy'. The Government can see 'no compelling reason why these firms or industries should be subsidised by the wage system'. The Opposition will never pretend that anyone has the policies to fix the unemployment problem overnight. It was claimed by the Government during the last election that unemployment could be turned round quickly-500,000 jobs in three years. There is a clear path however, to lower unemployment if we promote growth , if we recognise what this Government refuses to recognise, that is, that it is profits and investment which generate both growth and jobs. The nexus is obvious . The strategy has to be to create more opportunities, not just to compensate Australians for the lack of opportunities. The tragic reality is that the Government has just given up on this score. Its policies do not promise lower unemployment; they just entrench the current unemployment level. Worst of all, the Government is trying to condition Australians to believe that high unemployment is inevitable and outside the control of Australians and the Government. The Opposition rejects that defeatist attitude, history rejects it, and so must all Australians. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.35) — We have just been listening to a remarkably cynical speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). The matter of public importance the Opposition has come forward with states: The Hawke Government's endorsement of high and rising unemployment as inevitable. I think that must take away the breath of most people who recall what happened when the Opposition was in government. This is a totally cynical exercise by the Opposition. It is a cynical exercise because it comes from a party that presided over an enormous increase in unemployment while it was in government and showed little concern for the unemployed in the process. It comes from an Opposition which is attacking this Government at a time when the employment figures for the last month show an increase of 119,000. The fundamental premise of the matter of public importance-that we have endorsed the high and rising level of unemployment-is totally false. Let me just go through those bases of our criticism of this matter of public importance. Firstly, let me deal with the fact that this Opposition in government presided over an enormous increase in unemployment. In its last year in office employment fell by 159,000, yet the Leader of the Opposition comes into this chamber preaching to us about how we should create employment. The former Government's record was appalling. In its last 12 months of office unemployment increased by 263,000, yet members of the Opposition come into this chamber to lecture us about how to cure the unemployment problem. In the former Government's whole period in office unemployment more than doubled. In its period of office the duration of unemployment increased by two and a half times from 13 weeks to 31 weeks. Despite that, members of the Opposition seek to lecture us about the unemployment problem. How cynical can they be to come forward with those kinds of policies? The former Government did absolutely nothing for the unemployed in the process of creating so many of them. It allowed expenditure on labour market programs to fall by over 38 per cent in real terms between 1976 and 1982. So much for the unemployed. The former Government did nothing to create expenditures in the labour market area which would create employment. Yet members of the Opposition seek to lecture us about the unemployment problem. The former Government consistently refused to introduce job creation schemes, until in its death bed repentance at the end of its term of office it sought for cynical, political purposes to try to sweeten the wage pause by bringing in for one year only a job creation scheme. It tried to abolish the community youth support scheme in 1981. The scheme was doing something, however small, for the unemployed, but the former Government sought to drop that scheme entirely. It was forced to back away from that only because of the reaction within the community. It froze the level of the unemployment benefit for under 18-year-olds at $36 a week from 1975 to 1982. After that long period of freezing, it then gave a miserable $4 increase in its pre-election Budget. It allowed the unemployment benefit for single adults to fall by 27 per cent in real terms between November 1975 and November 1982, and to fall from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings in mid- 1978 to 17.4 per cent by late 1982. That is the record of this Opposition when it was in government. Members of the Opposition need not lecture us about what to do about the unemployment problem or to show concern or compassion for the unemployed. They had seven years in which to show that they had some answers to the unemployment problem, seven years in which to show that they had some compassion for the unemployed. The former Government demonstrated completely and totally in its period in office that it had no answer to the unemployment problem, that unemployment was going to get worse and worse under it, and that it had no policies at all of compassion towards the unemployed. It did nothing to assist them to get jobs and nothing to assist the single unemployed in particular to obtain a reasonable standard of living. The Opposition's record in government was a disgraceful one in terms of the creation of unemployment, and it showed no concern or compassion for the unemployed in its period in office. The second element of the cynicism of this matter of public importance comes from the fact that the Opposition introduced it just a few days after the latest employment figures, which show an increase of 119,000 in one month. One would think that the employment figures showed some appalling, disastrous fall in the last month. But no; it was the complete opposite. The Opposition seeks to have us believe that this Government is not doing anything effective about creating jobs. Let me hasten to say that I do not put any particular credence on the figure of 119,000. Those figures are somewhat volatile. However, there is no doubt that the figures for the last few months show that there is a definite upward trend in employment. That is a complete turnaround from the appalling situation we inherited. As I have said, in the last 12 months of the previous Government we saw a decline in employment of 159,000. We have turned that figure around considerably in our period of office. In four of the last five months there have been increases in the employment levels. If we look at the average over the last three months as against the previous three months to try to cut through the volatility of the figures and get a figure for the underlying trends, we see that for the September quarter, the seasonally adjusted figures for employment showed that there was a growth of 35,000 in that quarter over the June quarter. That gives us some idea of the fact that there is an upward trend in employment which, if it continued throughout this year, would give us a growth in employment of 140,000. That is a tremendous difference from what occurred in the last financial year, in this Opposition's last 12 months in office, when we had a decline of 160,000. I believe that on the employment front we have quite clearly on the figures turned around that decline and we are on the upward path. That situation is, of course, of some satisfaction to us. But we realise that, of course, there is an enormously long way to go before we start to make a satisfactory impact upon the unemployment problem. I will be saying a lot more about that. The third factor which the Opposition puts before us is that this is a matter of public importance in which the Government is endorsing the high and rising level of unemployment. Of course that is not the situation. We have not endorsed a high level of unemployment. In fact, all of our policies are geared to creating a situation in which we can start to reduce effectively the level of unemployment. That is the central objective of all our economic policies. There is an acceptance of high unemployment by no one on this side. Unlike the previous Government, which could blithely go along tolerating continuously increasing levels of unemployment, we regard those kinds of policies as utterly and totally repugnant. Because of that we sought to develop policies regarding the prices and incomes accord which would enable us to get to a situation in which we could have growth in employment and a reduction in the level of unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition talked about how the Opposition had policies for growth in employment. Where were those policies in the seven years the Opposition was in government? Where were those policies for growth which the Leader of the Opposition now so blithely tosses off? For instance, he says: 'We have a wages policy for growth. That is that we need-a wages policy for growth'. What the hell is the Opposition's wages policy? It does not even have a wages policy. It has two warring factions, although honourable members opposite now say that they are not quite at war; they are just having a rather difficult dispute and they might be able to resolve it by March next year, maybe the year after or maybe never. Certainly they do not have a wages policy for growth and they do not know what their wages policy is. Yet the Leader of the Opposition tosses off that as some key to the unemployment cure problem. If the Opposition has this magic cure, let us hear it. We certainly have not heard it so far from the Opposition. All the Leader of the Opposition has been able to do about the wages policy is to say to his Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and to his shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: 'Go off and work it out by March of next year'. This shows how much honourable members opposite are geared to solving the unemployment problem. They have no answers at all in that area. It is the height of unbelievable cynicism to accuse us of being unconcerned and of endorsing high and rising unemployment. As I have said, what we are doing with our prices and incomes accord is establishing a basis on which we can have a chance of getting down to the kinds of unemployment levels which we got used to in the 1950s, the 1960s and the early 1970s. But we appreciate the enormously difficult task that that imposes upon us. This nation has to appreciate that that is a very difficult task. It is one which we must not shrink from and we do not shrink from it one iota. But it is an enormously difficult task to undertake. It is an enormously difficult task because one has to realise the underlying realities which we as a country face in trying to reduce our unemployment levels. One of those underlying realities is that we had to start off with an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent. That was our inheritance from the previous Government. On top of that, we have growth in the work force of about 1.7 per cent with no alteration in the work force participation rates. That is the rate of growth of the labour force-about 1.7 per cent. That means that one has to create, say, 120,000 jobs a year just to stop unemployment getting worse. That is one underlying reality. The second underlying reality is that one has to cope with the fact that there is likely to be an increase in the work force participation rate which is now low. Each 0.1 per cent increase means that one has to find an extra 11,500 jobs. In other words, if within that sector of the population aged between 15 and 65 years and who are looking for work, a higher percentage-0.1 per cent extra- decides to look for jobs and enter the work force because they see the employment market improving, one has to find another 11,500 jobs. If one has an increase of, say, 0.5 per cent clearly one is looking at something like another 60,000 jobs to find in a year. If that were to occur obviously it would make it even more difficult to start to reduce this awfully high level of unemployment. To mention those underlying realities is not to make excuses but simply to make it clear to the Opposition and to the nation that the task we face is, indeed, difficult and daunting but not impossible if we pursue the appropriate policies. The growth of 120,000 a year in the work force will mean that we will have to increase employment by about 1.9 per cent each year just to cope with that level of additional numbers, without any increase in the participation rate. A growth of 1.9 per cent in employment would be far better than anything this Opposition achieved in its seven years in office. This Leader of the Opposition gave us a great speech about how he has policies for growth to create employment. What happened in the seven years that the Opposition was in office? The average rate of employment growth was 0.9 per cent in the seven years the Opposition was in office. In that time the average rate of growth for full time employment was 0.5 per cent. Yet honourable members opposite come into this House and tell us that they have all these great policies, which they never thought of when in government but which they have now, to solve the unemployment problem. What a joke! Quite obviously those sorts of averages of 0.9 per cent for employment growth and 0.5 per cent for full time employment would mean a situation whereby we would have to create something like 1.7 per cent growth just to stop unemployment getting worse. If by some grave misfortune this Opposition had remained in office it would have just taken us into ever higher levels of unemployment. It had no answers. It has no answers. The reality is that that is our past history and we have to improve massively on that. Let us look at the period when the Australian Labor Party was in office . In two of our three years we had growth of 2.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent. Those are high rates of growth when compared with the experience of the last decade or so. If we are to reduce the unemployment rate to acceptable levels in a decade we obviously have to start having employment growth of around 3 per cent not just for one year or two years, but for year after year. To do that will be very difficult indeed. We will need to make sure that we have our policies working extremely well in being able to sustain expansionary economic policy. Our prices and incomes accord is absolutely central to that. Time prevents me from explaining why that is so central. But honourable members will know that that accord remains the basis of the maintenance of expansionary policies by providing the Government with the ammunition against inflation so that it will not have to use tough budgetary and monetary policies to fight inflation which, at the same time, destroy employment growth, as they did under the previous Government. So we have to have those expansionary policies. But they will not be enough in themselves to enable us to tackle the problem in any satisfactory way. We will need other policies as well. We have to try to create a higher level of job creation from a given amount of economic growth. We have to look at expenditures which will create more jobs for given dollars spent. The community employment program is one such policy. It is an important part of trying to get maximum employment for the dollar spent. But we have to go beyond that. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said on several occasions, we have to look at influencing not only the supply of jobs but also the supply of labour. Where does the nation have to start looking if we are to resolve the unemployment problem? It has to look at influencing that supply of labour in a way which will enable us to tackle the unemployment problem from both sides-increasing the supply of jobs and reducing the increase in the supply of labour. We can do that particularly in regard to young people leaving school. We as a nation have a deplorably low rate of retention of young people in the education system. By the standards of Western Europe and North America we are abysmal in that regard. We, as a government, will certainly be taking some steps to try to tackle that matter. Our participation and equity program, which my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) announced in the Budget, is a step in that direction. It is designed to try to increase that retention rate and give our young people not only greater opportunities in education but also a greater chance of getting a job and getting on to the labour market. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.50) —There is a further element in the equation that was just mentioned by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) prior to the completion of his speech and that is that mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his John Curtin Memorial Lecture-a reduction in the number of jobs available. That seems to be one of the objectives of the Government and that is one of the reasons underlying this matter of public importance. I remind the House that the matter of public importance does concern the Government's endorsement of high and rising unemployment as inevitable. There are three types of evidence of that endorsement: First of all, there is the constructive criticism of the prices and incomes accord from its inception, which has been ignored by the Government and which was forecast to lead to higher levels of unemployment than would have been necessary had other action been taken by the Government than it was committed to in the accord. Secondly, there were warnings of a similar kind at the National Economic Summit Conference and there was the content of the John Curtin Lecture, which I shall return to in detail in a moment. Thirdly, there were statements by the Minister and other Ministers following the unemployment figures of last Thursday in which it was acknowledged that many people now not registered for employment but in the so- called hidden unemployed would seek to take the jobs which do become available, thereby leaving the unemployment figures unacceptably high. That is a statistical fact. It is one which the Government seemed to be using to explain away its failure to bring down unemployment. On the fourth of this month the Opposition raised its first matter of public importance regarding unemployment. It took the view that the Government ought to have had some months in office before it moved a motion of this nature. But it is significant that the Minister, on that occasion, did not respond to the many evidences which I produced to support the assertions I have now made. It is interesting that today he has produced the raw figures for the last month rather than the seasonally adjusted figures, which, realistically, more than halved the picture of the jobs being created in that month. He did recognise the volatility of those figures, and so he might because the previous month, August, had a marked reduction in the growth of employment. There is evidence of the endorsement of unemployment as being inevitable, and rising unemployment at that. It rests on the accord and the consequences of that accord which include especially the wages outcome, which is undoubtedly going to worsen unemployment. I cited some evidence of that in my previous speech and I will cite a little more today. The Minister today talked of getting back to the levels of employment and low unemployment as we experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. I point out that that is different from the Prime Minister's view in the Curtin Lecture. Again the Minister has side-stepped this today, just as he has continually side-stepped the Prime Minister's references at Geneva to the kibbutzes that he plans and which we know are very capital intensive. Instead the Minister explains the problems of the job market in much the way that I and other Ministers of the previous Government explained them. But Labor in opposition continued to ignore those explanations, castigated the then Government in a constant and emotional manner and thereby created expectations, especially amongst young people, that they could find employment were there a change of government. The Government is intent on dashing those expectations by its commitment to the wages element of the accord, by its breach of the spirit of the accord by raising government charges, and by the defeatism which is evident in the Curtin Memorial Lecture where there is an emphasis on reducing jobs. It is quite evident that, while the Minister has praised the Government for its community employment program, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions does not share that optimism. I remind the House that on 10 May in answer to a question the Prime Minister said: We believe . . . there is room for only minimal wage increases before the end of 1983 . . . on that basis there would be room for a return to indexation in 1984. But a week later, on 17 May, the ACTU Executive met, rejected that statement and demanded full indexation in effect from the March quarter, which means from the commencement of this year. So one may argue that, within a week, while the Prime Minister still had ringing in his ears the statement by the Premier of New South Wales to the National Economic Summit Conference, 'We want jobs, jobs, jobs', we had the ACTU Executive saying, 'No, what we want is wages, wages, wages'. In effect, full indexation became evident from 1 January this year, not the early part of next year. We noticed also that while a great deal was claimed for the Summit-the Prime Minister made a ministerial statement in this House from which I quoted on 4 October-there was no follow-up to the Summit. There was an opportunity at the June Premiers Conference-there were many opportunities for the Government and the ACTU, the Government's partner in the accord-but no effort was made, so it seems, to follow up the words of the Prime Minister of 10 May in order to aid the unemployed. I have mentioned the problem of hidden unemployed. This is particularly evident in the 15 to 19-year old group. Ten per cent of males and 12.4 per cent of females in this group are seeking employment. Of course, this will be compounded when the school leavers come on the market at the end of the year. I ask: Why should any employer, unless there is a desperate need to employ someone, take on any one additional employee, job subsidies and all, before February 1984? A 4.3 per cent wage increase, workers compensation, payroll tax and the 17 1/2 per cent-plus annual leave loading have to be paid to such a person, as well as another approximately 4 per cent increase which has been promised as a result of the September and December quarters. Again, with the Premiers, what should the Government have done? At the very least it should have tried to free-up trading hours. But we know that at least two of the Premiers were committed to the right wing unions who seem to have- certainly in the retail area-vested interests in restricting shopping hours. That would have created employment, especially if accompanied by an approach to permanent part-time work which would mean that people would not be paid penalty rates for working outside standard hours but, provided they worked less than standard hours or no more than standard hours, they would get an hourly rate of pay and pro-rata emoluments and conditions in accordance with the award. This would, therefore, enable more people to work. We have a situation now in which people are denied jobs because those who are in jobs say they do not want to work outside certain hours. Therefore, the consumer suffers and others who might have stood to gain jobs suffer as well. Again, the Premiers could have been asked, in the spirit of the accord, not to increase their charges. They have increased their charges not only at the expense of industry, which will therefore employ fewer people than it might have done, but also with the worsening of the consumer price index and therefore wage demands to keep up with the automatic adjustments brought about by the accord. This Government has also indexed excise. While that might have a number of economic merits from the Government's revenue point of view, it certainly has the fault of increasing the CPI when that is the automatic measure for increasing wages. As is well known, we dispute that that is a relevant criterion for wage increases, but that is what the Government is committed to. All of that worsens employment prospects. The Government did not try to get the Premiers to remove State preferences; it did not in fact try to look at the economies of scale of Australian industry, which are greatly limited by the existence of State preferences; it did not look at the productivity impact or the lack thereof and the lack of jobs as a result of those parochial preferences; it did not ask the Premiers to refer some of their industrial powers to make more realistic the current responsibilities and powers of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and it did not, as far as we can see, ask the Premiers to implement more effectively the job creation programs following the wages pause, or indeed the community employment program. I remind the House of the question I asked on 4 October regarding the Prime Minister's address in the John Curtin Memorial Lecture. I quoted extensively from it then. I asked the Minister specific questions then and he did not answer those questions. We are very concerned that this Government is taking a defeatist role. It has in fact now resiled from its undertakings to return to full employment. The Sydney Morning Herald construes the Prime Minister's remarks as being that the Government has settled for 5 per cent unemployment being the equivalent of full employment. This is not good enough for us and not good enough for the people of Australia, especially our young people. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.00) —I think we have to see today's exercise by the Opposition as having something to do with restoring its position in Queensland. It has done a good job of destroying its party base in Queensland and I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is trying to breathe some life into that wreck, which will disappear this coming Saturday in the Queensland election. I have some sympathy for the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) in this debate. Some of the remarks I am about to make do not specifically apply to him but they certainly apply to his colleagues in the previous Government. Honourable members opposite set out to create unemployment in 1975 and they did so. They set out on an industrial relations policy that was designed to create maximum conflict and they achieved maximum conflict. They set out to destroy wages policy in Australia and they achieved that. Now they are in opposition they have the cynicism to pretend in this House that somehow all that did not occur. The Australian electorate knows that it occurred and that is why honourable members opposite are where they are-in opposition. They will continue to stay in opposition while their policies are so hopelessly irrelevant to the needs of the Australian community. I wish in a moment to make some remarks about the needs of the Australian community. The reality is that the community knows that honourable members opposite are not talking sense. It recognises that the Government is at least of good intentions and is trying to do a substantial job. Honourable members opposite discredited themselves in their seven years and they will remain discredited while their policies remain irrelevant. It is no good for the Leader of the Opposition to try to replace economic policy with grave sounding words. It is not satisfactory. The Opposition has to have a policy. I think in talking about policy it is quite relevant to talk specifically about wages policy. Honourable members opposite do not have a wages policy. They know it, the unions know it, the employers know it and the Australian community knows it. We do not know whether the Opposition's sympathies lie with centralised wage fixation or some decentralised system of collective bargaining. Certainly, when it was in government it destroyed any reasonable approach to wages policy and it still does not yet have an approach to wages policy. I take up the point about labour market costs. It seems that honourable members opposite have placed a great deal of emphasis on the proposition that somehow our endorsement of wage indexation in the recently completed national wage case has caused unemployment. Why is it that in the six months to June of this year the consumer price index rose by 4.3 per cent, adult award wages rose by only about 0.3 per cent and yet unemployment still rose? That is not related to labour costs and honourable members opposite know it. Unemployment is related to the discredited economic policy that they foisted on this country in the seven years in which they were in government. This shows up. Why does the Leader of the Opposition give it away all the time? He refers to unemployed people as being in the dole queue. We do not try to discredit the unemployed in that way. The former Government never hesitated to discredit those who were socially disadvantaged. It referred to them as being in the dole queue; we refer to them as those in receipt of unemployment benefit. Honourable members opposite know very well that the model they use-the monetarist model of Friedman-contains an assumption of natural unemployment. It was argued by honourable members opposite when in government that if they could create a sufficiently high level of natural unemployment they would bring down the inflation rate. They were their assumptions, they worked on those assumptions and they failed. They created a very low level of economic activity and an increasing level of unemployment. They know that very well, as does the Australian electorate. Let us look at some of the figures. The figures are very telling. The number of unemployed people doubled under the Fraser Government. From an average of 302, 000, which represented 4.9 per cent of the labour force in 1975-76, the figure went to 622,000, or 9 per cent of the labour force, in 1982-83. I shall go through those figures again. The number of unemployed in 1975-76 was 302,000, or 4.9 per cent of the labour force. Unemployment had risen, in 1982-83, to 622,000 or 9 per cent of the labour force. Members of the Opposition cannot deny that historical reality. That is what the Government inherited from them. It is one part of the mess that we inherited from it that we are trying to sort out. In November 1975 the unemployment figure was 279,000, or 4.6 per cent of the work force. In February 1983, which was the Opposition's last effective month of Government-although one might say that it was not very effective for the last year or two because it was more preoccupied with trying to survive the next election than it was with government-unemployment totalled 10.7 per cent of the work force, or 747,000 people. The figure rose from 279,000 in November 1975, 4. 6 per cent of the work force, to 747,000, or 10.7 per cent of the work force, in February 1983. Honourable members opposite have discredited themselves. The Australian electorate knows it and they know it. They were the ones who governed during the time of that massive increase in unemployment. It is very clear that the policies they pursued failed. The monetarist policies that honourable members opposite endorsed, of trying to reduce Budget deficits and hold down interest rates and so on, failed. They failed substantially, and that is why the Opposition is where it is. On the other hand, we set about with a responsible economic policy. We recognise that we are not in the business of creating industrial relations conflict, but of resolving it. We recognise that we have some serious problems on hand and we are trying to deal with them. We recognise that if we put money in the hands of wage earners they will spend that money, and spend it on Australian goods and services. Honourable members opposite seemed to think that putting money into people's hands was evil and that the people's spending that money on goods and services would be a social disadvantage. We do not have that assumption. We recognise that that sort of expenditure is valuable. That is why we supported the increase in wages at the national wage case. What else have we done with respect to creating jobs? We have certainly moved in the housing area to do something substantial in that regard. It is interesting that the great discredit in respect of housing was brought about not by us but by people at the National Economic Summit Conference. Why is it that the Housing Industry Association said that there had been a dramatic slump in industry activity; from nearly 150,000 homes two years ago-two years from April 1983-it had dropped to 110,000 this year? That is what the HIA said. We copped that; we inherited that from honourable members opposite. That was an absolute disaster. Not only was the housing industry in a slump but also people were without homes. The sort of social distress that we have inherited comes directly from the policies of the former Government. We have only to look at the way in which the Australian electorate regards that discredited former Prime Minister, the former member for Wannon. He was cold and aloof to the real needs of the Australian community. Honourable members opposite did not care and turned their backs on the community. They left us with the lowest level of housing activity in 20 years. Mr Uren —It was only 106,000 this year. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is right. We have set about trying to do something with that situation. We have set out to try to get some activity in the housing industry. We recognise that the housing industry is a major and substantial employer in Australia but we also recognise that there is a social benefit in housing. Our first home owners scheme is designed to provide that benefit. Not only will it create jobs but also it will get people in homes. It will put back into housing some of those people who were homeless under the previous Government. There has been a substantial improvement under this Government. We have seen a substantial improvement in the number of inquiries about the first home owners scheme. There were 65,000 inquiries up to last Friday in the first two weeks of the operation of the first home owners scheme. This scheme has been supported by the Master Builders Association, the HIA, banks, building societies and the community generally. We have implemented a program which will produce jobs. It is already generating jobs in my electorate of Stirling. We already have reports from most of the builders in Stirling saying that there is a substantial increase in demand for trades people. That is good. It is a positive initiative. It is not good enough for honourable members opposite to say in this House that we are not doing anything. The first owners scheme is doing something . It is getting people into houses and it is creating jobs. Not only was the previous Government's policy discredited in terms of employment and economic activity but it was also discredited in terms of that Government's goal of reducing interest rates, because interest rates remained high. Yet already we have seen a 0.5 per cent reduction in interest rates under this Government. We can anticipate in the future further reductions in interest rates. That 0.5 per cent reduction has been of substantial benefit to people buying homes and people with existing loans because it means up to $15 a week in people's pockets. We care about that. We have a responsibility to look after the Australian people and we want to make sure that they are in houses. We have that circumstance. I believe that honourable members opposite completely missed the point. It is not a question of simply dressing up in this House a statement for next Saturday 's election in Queensland; it is a question of recognising the grave situation that this Government inherited. We inherited a very grave situation when we took over government from honourable members opposite. The Australian electorate recognised that they mismanaged the economy and that is why they are where they are. We recognise that we have a responsibility to do something about getting the economy going and we have started on that process. We started on that process in a very graphic way. Let me give the House an instance. Recently in my electorate someone qualified for the first home owners scheme and, with two children, moved out of a caravan into a home. A person on a very moderate income and his wife, for the first time in their lives, have a chance to own their own home. Our policy is designed to deliver housing where the need is. At the same time the spin-off from that policy is in creating jobs. The attitude of the Government towards unemployment is embodied in its attitude towards wages. We believe that with a responsible policy, by recognising that unions and workers play a substantial role in Australian society and by supporting the recently granted wage increase, we are bringing about a substantial improvement in the Australian economy. That will show up in the near future. The recent trend has certainly been a very good trend indeed. I believe that honourable members opposite have been discredited and that the electorate knows it, whereas this Government is proceeding confidently and determinedly on its current path. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I need to explain a point at the outset. We are now dealing with the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, and the following Bill is the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. Rather than make the same speech twice I shall address my remarks to this Bill and will indicate when the second Bill is introduced that I have already made my second reading speech. This Bill and the next Bill to be introduced will give effect to proposed changes to the Constitution endorsed by the Australian Constitutional Convention at its meeting in Adelaide earlier this year. This Bill will alter the Constitution to provide for the holding of simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. The second piece of legislation provides for four-year terms for the House of Representatives. They are proposed in substitution for the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) introduced into the Senate on 12 May 1983. Since that Bill was introduced, the Government has given further consideration to the package of referendum proposals designed to streamline and modernise the machinery of the Australian Government which it believes should be put to referendum early in 1984. Without resiling in any way from the view that the fixed term parliament proposal would have important benefits as an acceptable solution to some of our more intransigent constitutional problems, the Government has come to the view that it is preferable that the proposals relating to parliamentary terms which were endorsed at the Adelaide meeting of the Constitutional Convention should be put to the people. There has been no consensus in favour of the fixed term proposal but, by contrast, the proposals for simultaneous elections and four-year terms have both previously attracted strong support from the present Opposition. I am gratified that the Opposition has announced its support in Parliament for these Bills. The most recent declaration of that support was the announcement by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, on 7 February that, if re-elected, his Government would itself put both of these propositions to referendum as soon as possible. Although the two proposals are more modest in their concept and scope than the fixed term proposal, they would significantly improve the operation of government by creating the conditions for fewer elections, better long-term planning and a more rational political climate generally. There is no doubt that the present electoral arrangements have resulted in Australia being plagued with too frequent elections. For example, the average term of parliaments post-war has been two years and five months, and in the 14-year period from 1963 to 1977 there were no fewer than 10 separate national elections. There has been increasing community dissatisfaction about the lack of sufficient continuity and stability in government, with a resultant atmosphere of uncertainty and controversy and strong pressure on governments to adopt short term expedient policies to ensure electoral success. There has been greater recognition of the need for governments to have sufficient time between elections to develop new policy proposals, to put them into operation and to assess their results. Particularly in the area of economic management, measures can take several years to develop and to implement fully. Moreover, governments which must face frequent elections are at a disadvantage when proper economic management calls for the implementation of initially unpopular measures, the beneficial results of which may take some time to emerge . Frequent elections not only have an adverse effect upon government planning; they also adversely affect private sector planning and business confidence, which would benefit from stability of government and more continuity in government programs. Not least, there would be less cost and inconvenience to the electorate if there were fewer elections. Both of the measures now proposed will contribute to the desirable aim of a more rational system of national government. The simultaneous holding of elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate will avoid the need for separate elections. Apart from the special circumstances of the double dissolutions in 1974 and 1975, elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives have been out of phase for the greater part of the last 20 years . They are again out of phase following the double dissolution election earlier this year. The move to simultaneous elections will ensure that the composition of the Senate at any given time more accurately reflects the current wishes of the people. It will also provide greater accountability of the Senate to the extent that senators themselves will have to face the people if the Senate forces a premature House of Representatives election. But the proposal does not otherwise affect the powers of the Senate, which will retain all of its present power to review, amend or reject legislation. The lengthening of the term of the House of Representatives to four years is consistent with the terms of the lower Houses in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory and developments in other States. Two Bills, one Government and one Opposition, providing for four-year terms are now before the Victorian Parliament. It is also in line with international standards. A study made in 1974 by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of the duration of the lower Houses in 56 countries showed that in 24 there was a five-year term, in 25 a four-year term with Australia being one of only four countries with a three-year term. The four-year term proposal will preserve the existing discretion of the Prime Minister to call an earlier election. Nevertheless, the change will provide greater continuity and stability in the electoral cycle, since the average length of parliaments may be expected to increase substantially. The present three-year election cycle, in which-for governments of any colour-the first year tends to be taken up with planning and with implementing immediate election promises and the third year with electioneering, does not allow sufficient room for the development and implementation of programs. Increasingly, new programs call for capital expenditure, particularly in the installation of equipment such as computers, which cannot be accomplished quickly, and more time is required for this to be put in place and the program to be operating for its benefits to be assessed by the electorate at the next election. Although both the simultaneous elections and the four-year term proposals are directed to eliminating the undue frequency of elections, the Government believes that the electorate should be given an opportunity to vote separately on each of the proposals. For that reason we put them forward as separate proposals, but we do, of course, believe that adoption of both proposals is desirable. I turn now to consider each of the proposals in more detail. Simultaneous Elections Bill This Bill provides for half-Senate elections to be held at the same time as elections for the House of Representatives whenever those elections may occur. The proposal in the Bill is substantially the same as the one submitted to referendum by the Whitlam Government in 1974 and by the Fraser Government in 1977. In 1977 the proposal only narrowly failed to obtain the required support when it achieved fully 62.2 per cent of the national vote. It clearly passed in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and was supported by 48.5 per cent of the voters in Western Australia and 47.5 per cent in Queensland. The Bill proposes a re-writing of section 13 of the Constitution to provide for senators to hold office normally for two terms of the House of Representatives instead of for six years as at present. This will, of course, be subject to any earlier double dissolution of both Houses that might take place under section 57 of the Constitution. An incidental but significant feature of the proposed new section 13 is the provision which it makes for determining which senators should be long term and which should be short term following a double dissolution. It will establish and entrench the principle, based on the existing procedure, that the terms allotted to senators should accord with the relative order of their success at the double dissolution election. This accords with the unanimous opinion of the Constitutional Convention at its Adelaide meeting and a recommendation by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its report tabled last week. The precise means by which the relative success of senators at the double dissolution election is to be established will be a matter for the Parliament or , in the absence of legislation on the matter, for the Senate. The proposals in the Bill would allow the Parliament to adopt the particular procedure recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Proposed new section 13 also deals with the case where a senator dies, resigns or becomes disqualified before the division of senators into two classes takes place. The point is expressly covered by a specific provision requiring the division to be made as if the place of the senator had not become vacant. The new section 13 contains transitional provisions relating to senators holding office at the time when the amendments take effect. Subject to any double dissolution which might take place, the effect of these provisions will be as follows: Senators whose terms are due to expire on 30 June 1985 will hold office until the first expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives after the commencement of the amendment; and senators whose terms are due to expire on 30 June 1988 will hold office until the second expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives after the amendment takes effect. There are a number of other incidental and consequential matters covered by the Bill. Section 9 of the Constitution will be amended to empower this Parliament, rather than the State parliaments, to make laws determining the times and places of electing senators. This is the logical consequence of bringing together elections for both Houses of the Parliament. The Bill will also make two other consequential changes, one to section 12 of the Constitution and the other to section 57 of the Constitution. Section 12 of the Constitution, as it now exists , provides for State Governors to cause writs to be issued for the election of State senators. Where the election follows a double dissolution, the writs must be issued within 10 days after the proclamation of the dissolution. The proposed new section 12 will place a like obligation on a State Governor to cause a writ to be issued for the election of senators at a half-Senate election within 10 days of the expiry of the term of the retiring senators. The amendment to section 57 will expressly provide for an election of senators to be held on the same day as the general election of members of the House of Representatives next following a double dissolution. This will remove one ground of criticism of the simultaneous elections Bill, namely, that, whatever may have been its intent, it did not in fact require simultaneous elections to be held. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I remind the House that I have made an introductory speech to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill which also applies to this Bill. This Bill proposes to amend the Constitution first by extending from three years to four years the maximum term of the House of Representatives and, secondly, by increasing the fixed terms of senators from six years to eight years. Where a double dissolution occurs, the terms of all senators holding office at the time of the double dissolution would be cut short and, following the ensuing election , half of the senators for States would have terms of four years, while the remainder of the State senators would have eight-year terms. In the event that the simultaneous elections proposal is also passed, so that senators' terms coincide with those of members of the House of Representatives, the amendment is written in such a way that the fixed eight-year Senate term becomes a maximum eight-year term. The proposals will not affect the terms of office of the present members of the House of Representatives or, accordingly, the term of office of the present Government. Those elected at the first election of the House of Representatives following the commencement of the amendments will be elected for four-year terms instead of three-year terms. The first senators to be elected for an eight-year term will be those elected at the first Senate election occurring after the commencement of the amendments. Special provision is made for senators holding office at the commencement of the amendments. Those senators elected on 5 March 1983 and whose terms of office now expire on 30 June 1985 will have their terms extended to 30 June 1986. Those long term senators, also elected on 5 March 1983 but whose terms now expire on 30 June 1988, will have their terms extended to 30 June 1990. In each case, the extension is subject to any earlier double dissolution of the Senate. These provisions are necessary to maintain the Senate rotation system of a half-Senate election every four years and to bring the half-Senate elections reasonably into phase with the expected House of Representatives elections. Otherwise, a half- Senate election would be due before the middle of 1985, whereas the next House of Representatives election is not due until the first half of 1986. In the absence of provisions of this kind, even the holding of an early House of Representatives election in late 1984 or early 1985 would not serve to keep the House of Representatives and Senate elections in phase without either an indefinite number of subsequent early elections, which would entirely defeat the purpose of the four-year term proposal, or else frequent national elections with half-Senate elections taking place between successive House of Representatives elections. The proposed transitional provision, at the cost of a modest extension of the terms of the present senators, makes possible the synchronisation of elections for the two Houses for the forseeable future. Of course, the difficulty does not arise if the simultaneous elections proposal is accepted. In that case, the transitional provisions relating to existing senators will not come into effect. This will be achieved by clause 5 of the parliamentary terms Bill. The Government has withdrawn the fixed term proposal but is proceeding with the three other measures, namely, the amendments to provide for interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, the giving of advisory opinions, and the removal of obsolete provisions from the Constitution. These three measures, together with the two which I am now introducing will provide a package comprising all of the proposals which have received either unanimous or strong majority cross-party support at the Australian Constitutional Convention. They should, if consistency counts for anything in politics, continue to attract cross-party support. None of the proposals involves the Commonwealth in any attempt to acquire new powers at the expense of the States. Indeed, the proposal for interchange of powers should provide for better co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. The decision of the High Court in the recent Victorian pipelines case has emphasised the inflexibility of some of the existing provisions of the Constitution in financial matters and the desirability, accordingly, of adopting the interchange of powers proposal as a basis for negotiations. It is the Government's intention that all five constitutional change proposals now before the Parliament be debated and passed by this House during this session and put to referendum on 25 February 1984. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, which has been developed over a decade, commencing with the Sydney meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1973, is being put before the Parliament with a view to enabling the people of Australia to express their views on a proposal to facilitate flexible interchanges of power between the Commonwealth and the States. The objective which we are trying to accomplish through this proposed constitutional amendment is to establish machinery whereby legislative powers can be vested by the Commonwealth in the states in areas previously outside their jurisdiction and to facilitate also the reference of powers by the States to the Commonwealth. The Constitution at present makes provision in section 51 (37) for references of legislative power by the States to the Commonwealth Parliament. This provision has been used relatively little, largely because of the doubts that have been held by the States as to whether a reference once given could be revoked and whether a reference could be limited in time to a term of years and made subject to conditions. Examples of how the existing reference power has been used are the references by the governments of Queensland and Tasmania which have enabled Trans Australia Airlines to provide air services within those States over the last 30 years. The constitutional amendment proposal before the House contains two principal reforms. First, it corrects the present one-sided situation in which the States may refer powers to the Commonwealth but the Commonwealth is unable to refer any of its exclusive powers to the States. The Bill authorises references, which for technical reasons are described in the Bill as designations, of powers by the Commonwealth Parliament to the States. These references may be made only on the basis that they are available to all States and not just to particular States. Mr Hodgman —Would you like to refer the external affairs power back to Tasmania? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Tasmania keeps creating legal history. If this proposal is adopted it will mean that the Commonwealth is in a position where it can confer on the States the power, for example, to impose duties of excise, and to legislate in respect of matters involving Commonwealth places-both heads of power which are at present exclusively in the Commonwealth domain. The Bill will overcome any doubts which the States have held as to the basis on which references may be made by them to the Commonwealth. The Bill makes it clear that a reference given by the States will be revocable, that it may be given subject to conditions, including conditions regulating the type of laws that can be passed under it, and that such references may be made for a limited period of time. Designations of matters by the Commonwealth Parliament will be subject to the same provisions as those relating to references by the States in relation to revocation, the power to impose conditions and like matters. The history of this proposal deserves recounting briefly. The original interchange of powers proposal arose from formal submissions made to the Sydney meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1973 by the then coalition Government of New South Wales and the then Liberal Government of Victoria. The New South Wales submission was in these terms: At present uncertainties exist as to the manner in which placitum (37) of s. 51 -the 'reference power'-operates. The limited use made of the power in the past is no doubt attributable in large measure to such uncertainties. It is considered that, by constitutional amendment, these uncertainties should be removed by providing, for example, that references of legislative power by States to the Commonwealth may be made for limited terms and that repeal of a reference Act has constitutional efficacy, and also that the Commonwealth Parliament might refer to the States any legislative power of the Commonwealth. The Victorian submission was along similar lines although it focused on removing the uncertainties as to the scope of the reference power in section 51 (37). At the 1973 Convention the heads of the Commonwealth and all of the State delegations except that of Queensland met and agreed on the principle of references of power either way and the removal of existing doubts about the operations of the reference power of the States under section 51 (37). The then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced to the Convention the intention of the Commonwealth Government that in any interchange of powers, whether from the Commonwealth to the States or vice versa, the same provisions should apply as to duration, revocability and the power to apply terms and conditions. The Prime Minister's announcement was followed by statements from the leaders of all State delegations welcoming the proposal. The Convention referred the matter to Standing Committee B which endorsed a Bill prepared early in 1974 by the Commonwealth, subject to a reservation that was later met by the Federal Government, by incorporating in the Bill a requirement that a designation by the Commonwealth must be made in favour of all States, as the present Bill does. The 1974 Bill, after passing through the House of Representatives, was deferred by the Senate until after it had been considered by all State governments and the Australian Constitutional Convention . The Bill lapsed before these requirements could be met. At each of the following four Convention meetings held in Melbourne in 1975, Hobart in 1976, Perth in 1978 and more recently in Adelaide, the proposal as embodied in a Bill drafted in September 1975 was endorsed either in detail or in principle, on the last two of these occasions unanimously. In 1976 the then Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, said in relation to the motion before the Convention approving the 1975 Bill that it was the Convention's greatest single chance of achieving a really important change in the Constitution which will at one stroke give it a flexibility and responsiveness it does not yet have, and an ability to deal with situations as they arise, without any of the partners- Federal or State-surrendering any of the powers or discretions they now have. Since 1978 the proposal has been closely considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, by the Committees of Solicitors-General and Parliamentary Counsel prior to its most recent endorsement by the Australian Constitutional Convention meeting in Adelaide. Despite this long history, the people of Australia have not yet had the opportunity of voting on the matter at a referendum. Given the advantages of the proposal, the time and effort that have been expended in refining the original idea and the Adelaide Convention's unanimous endorsement a few months ago of a resolution, in terms which are faithfully reflected in this Bill, it is appropriate that the referendum question be now submitted to the electorate. The resolution was as follows: That this Convention approves a constitutional amendment to enable an interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in the form of the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1975, provided that the matters which can be designated under section 108A are confined to: (a) matters which are already within Commonwealth power; and (b) the empowering of State parliaments to vest in Federal courts (other that the High Court) jurisdiction, both original and appellate, in matters arising under State law. In all the circumstances I believe it can be said that this is truly a consensus proposal. All of the principles developed over the years in relation to the proposal-principles which have been supported on all sides-are fully implemented in this Bill. Criticism of the 1975 Bill The principal criticism made in respect of the 1975 Bill, which has been reiterated for some years by the former Attorney-General of Western Australia, Mr Medcalf, related to a clause which would have meant that the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to designate a matter was not limited by other provisions of the Constitution such as section 51 (11) and section 99 which prohibit the Commonwealth from discriminating between States. The Government has been sympathetic to the objection, and at Adelaide supported the amendment to the form of the Bill put forward by an Opposition member of the New South Wales delegation to the Convention to the effect that subject to one exception the Commonwealth's power to designate matters should be restricted to matters in respect of which it clearly has exclusive power under the Constitution. The exception is in relation to the power of the Commonwealth to empower State parliaments, should they so wish, to vest some matters of State jurisdiction in Federal courts. As I said at the Adelaide Convention this notion of an ability in State parliaments to vest matters of State jurisdiction in Federal courts can be one solution to the problem of divided jurisdiction, which has been the subject of such discussion recently, in the context of the proposed integrated court system. The only reason for making specific provision for the vesting of State jurisdiction in Federal courts is that there is at present some constitutional uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament can empower State parliaments to vest State jurisdiction in Federal courts. To put the matter beyond doubt appropriate language has been used in the Bill to ensure that such a power can be conferred should the States be willing to exercise it in particular cases. This is a highly constructive measure. It creates a framework which has considerable potential to facilitate greater co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in the interests of the public. The interchange of powers provided for by the Bill involves voluntary action by the Commonwealth and the States which could assist the States to raise additional revenue and to have firmly based powers in relation to Commonwealth places such as airports and post offices. By clarifying and facilitating references of State legislative powers to the Commonwealth the chances of obtaining uniform defamation laws and comprehensive family law powers at Commonwealth level should be increased. The reference of a matter by a State to the Commonwealth or vice versa would not, of itself, prevent the parliament which had referred the power from passing legislation concerning that matteer. This aspect, together with the power of the referring parliament to impose conditions upon its reference of power and to revoke the power at any time, makes the proposal a very flexible one. This should improve the efficiency of government at both Federal and State levels. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Australian Constitution is now 82 years old. One of the tasks it performed in 1901 was to unite six British colonies into a federal commonwealth and to lay the basis for full national sovereignty. In so doing it was necessary for it to include a large number of provisions dealing with transitional matters which ceased to have any significance five or 10 years after Federation and should now be removed. It was also necessary for the Constitution to make interim provisions for a number of other matters pending the enactment of Federal legislation. Provisions of this kind are scattered throughout the Constitution and can be readily identified by the draftsman's tag 'until the parliament otherwise provides'. To some extent these provisions are a source of Commonwealth power and care needs to be taken in identifying those provisions which can safely be regarded as 'outmoded' or 'spent'. A third category covers those provisions which, having regard to Australia's status as a fully sovereign nation state, are no longer appropriate since they derive from, and reflect, an earlier colonial way of thinking. The removal of outmoded provisions of these kinds from our Constitution will amount to a pruning of 'dead wood' so that the document will be uncluttered, or at least less cluttered, by irrelevancies of a bygone era. It will not, however, make any change of substance to the Constitution and is therefore an exercise which can only be justified when other proposals are also to go to referendum. An attempt to identify all the constitutional provisions which could safely be removed so as to modernise the text of the Constitution without making changes of substance was carried out by a bipartisan working party of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1974 convened by Mr Terry McRae, the present Speaker of the House of Assembly of South Australia and Chairman of the recent Adelaide Convention. Following the completion of that working party's report most of its recommendations were endorsed by the then Standing Committee C of the Convention and that Committee's recommendations were unanimously approved by the Hobart Convention in 1976. There the matter rested until the recent Adelaide Convention unanimously approved a further proposal for the incorporation of particular 'practices' into the Constitution. That resolution also involved the removal of some outmoded provisions. The Bill largely reflects the Hobart resolution of the Convention and incorporates the recommendations made by the Adelaide Convention. Two further matters are included. The first is the removal of the transitional provisions which were inserted in 1977. They related to Senate casual vacancies at the commencement of that constitutional alteration and no longer have any operation. The second is the repeal of section 89 which provided for the distribution of the 'federal surplus' before the uniform tariff was imposed. That provision is clearly of no further relevance and ought to be repealed. It appears to have been inadvertently left out of the Hobart resolution. Some recommendations contained in the Hobart resolution have not been incorporated in the Bill. In most cases this is for technical reasons. For example, changes to the 'covering clauses' of the Constitution raise a number of esoteric issues and it may be more appropriate to regard the 'covering clauses', which are not part of the Constitution itself but form the first eight sections of the British Act which contains the Constitution, as simply part of the historical context of the Constitution. Some other recommendations from the Hobart resolution have been omitted because they would themselves involve further complicating the text of the Constitution by writing in lengthy savings clauses. Without going into excessive detail of the various changes in the Bill it may assist the House if I briefly indicate the provisions in each category which it is proposed to remove. The transitional provisions are: The last paragraph of section 5 dealing with the summoning of the first Parliament; the last four paragraphs of section 15 dealing with Senate casual vacancies; section 26 which deals with representation in the first Parliament; the first words of the last paragraph of section 64 referring to the first general election; the second paragraph of section 83 which deals with expenditure in the first month of the life of the Commonwealth; the last paragraph of section 84 dealing with the rights of State public servants transferred to the Commonwealth at its establishment; that part of section 85 which provides for the contingency that certain property transferred from the States at Federation may be returned to the States at some stage-among the property transferred at Federation were some post offices and Customs houses; if it were proposed to transfer such property to a State this could be done independently of section 85; section 86, by virtue of which the collection and control of duties of customs and of excise and control of the payment of bounties passed to the Commonwealth; section 89 which provided for the distribution of surplus revenue to the States until the imposition of the uniform tariff; the savings provision in section 90 concerning grants or agreements for bounties made before 30 June 1898; the second paragraph of section 92 which provided for duties to be imposed on the interstate movement of goods which had been imported into a State before the imposition of the uniform tariff; section 95 which made special provision for Western Australia during the first five years after Federation by enabling that State to impose Customs duties during that period which were to be collected by the Commonwealth; and the last paragraph of section 125 which provides that the Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meets at the seat of government. In the second category of interim provisions employing the formula 'until the parliament otherwise provides' are: section 87 which provides for the distribution of three-quarters of the Commonwealth revenue from customs and excise to the States for the first 10 years after Federation and thereafter 'until the parliament otherwise provides'. this clause became known as the 'Braddon Clause' or the 'Braddon Blot' and was a compromise typical of the nineteenth century concern with the allocation of Federal revenue. It no longer has any practical application. The Commonwealth abandoned the formula in 1910 and instituted a States grants scheme in its place . section 93 which provided for the payment to the States of surplus revenue during the first five years after the imposition of the uniform tariff 'and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides' on a similar basis to that provided for in section 89. The provision ceased to have any practical effect in 1907. The final category of provisions-those which have been unanimously accepted by the Convention as no longer appropriate to Australia's status as a sovereign nation-are: the reference in section 58 to the Governor-General's power to reserve Bills for the Queen's assent; section 59 which empowers the Queen to disallow any Commonwealth law within one year of the Governor-General's assent; section 60 which concerns signfication of the Queen's assent to reserved Bills; and the reference in section 74 to the reservation of Bills limiting appeals to the Privy Council. The alterations of sections 58 and 74 and the repeal of section 59 were included in the Adelaide resolution. The repeal of section 59 was also included in the Hobart resolution. As originally drafted, the Bill included a clause delaying the commencement of the repeal of section 59 until 1 January 1984. That commencement date was chosen because the last of the stock issued under the Colonial Stock Act 1900 of the United Kingdom-to which the existence of section 59 has in the past been considered relevant-matures on 1 December 1983. It is no longer necessary to include such a commencement provision and the clause has been deleted by the Senate. A provision which does not fit neatly into any of these categories but which nevertheless is clearly outmoded is section 25. That provision excludes from the census the persons of any race who may be disqualified from voting by a State law. Its proposed repeal was unanimously endorsed by the Hobart Convention. The unanimous endorsement of these particular resolutions provides ground for hope that the removal of all the outmoded provisions dealt with in the Bill will represent a start on the task of modernising of Constitution in a systematic way . I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 13 October. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Freedom of Information Act has now been in operation for 10 months. It commenced on 1 December 1982. Experience in that period has shown: The number of requests for access to documents which have been made under the Act is only a small fraction of the numbers feared by departments and authorities when the Bill was before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs; as was expected, most of the requests have been for documents related to the personal affairs of the applicant and have been made to the large client- oriented agencies such as the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Veterans' Affairs; most of the requests are being dealt with well within the 60-day time limit specified in section 19 of the Act, although there is no doubt that most departments and authorities might be described as still being in the learning stage in handling requests. The Government came to office with a commitment to review the Freedom of Information Act. The starting point for that review has been the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee, which were not taken up by the previous Government and which were moved unsuccessfully both in this place and in the Senate during the debate on the Freedom of Information Act. It will be remembered that there were three principal areas of contention: First, the lack of substantial retrospectivity except in respect of documents relating to the personal affairs of the applicant, and even in that case only documents up to five years old at the date of commencement of the Act; secondly, the power given to Ministers to issue conclusive certificates having the effect that claims to exemption might only be examined by a special tribunal to be set up for that purpose; and thirdly, the undue width of a number of exemptions due to the lack of a proper test of public interest in the release of the documents concerned. The present Bill tackles all three aspects. In the first place, it provides that the generality of records up to five years old at the date of commencement of the Freedom of Information Act will be subject to the legislation. That means that documents which came into the possession of Ministers and agencies on or after 1 December 1977 will be available for access subject, of course, to the exemption provisions of the Act. In the case of documents containing personal information about the applicant there will be no limit on the retrospectivity. I would add that a number of agencies are already dealing with requests for documents containing personal information on this basis. The retrospectivity thus given will cover most of the documents which are the subject of current interest to applicants and will represent a very substantial expansion of the scope of the legislation. In addition, the legal protection given by sections 91 and 92 to the disclosure under the Act of non-exempt documents will be extended to the disclosure of non-exempt documents beyond the five year period. This will encourage agencies to give access to prior documents beyond the five year period . In the second place, the special Document Review Tribunal is to be abolished. Although the Government has considered it premature to take the further step of abolishing the system of conclusive certificates under the Act, it does not consider that there is any justification for retaining a special tribunal to deal with these matters. It believes that they can be adequately and properly considered by the presidential members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who, in the context of the other jurisdictions of the Tribunal, are building up a considerable body of expertise in the handling of administrative matters. The Tribunal, constituted by presidential members, will be empowered to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for claiming that a document is exempt in any case where a certificate has been issued and to recommend accordingly. Furthermore, the Bill will amend the Act to require the relevant Minister, in a case where the Tribunal has found that there are no reasonable grounds for claiming that a document is exempt, positively to decide whether to revoke the certificate or not. If he decides not to do so, he will be required to give a statement of reasons for that decision so far as can be done consistently with not disclosing exempt matter, and to table that statement in the Parliament. In the third place, three of the exemption provisions of the Act will be made subject to an overriding public interest test. This will give effect to relevant recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee, particularly in the case of Commonwealth-State documents. The first of these exemptions concerns Commonwealth-State documents; that is, documents the disclosure of which may cause damage to Commonwealth-State relations or disclose information communicated in confidence by a State government or authority to the Commonwealth. The Bill will provide, in a new section 33A to be inserted in the Freedom of Information Act, that a document will not be exempt on this ground if the disclosure of the document under the Act would, on balance, be in the public interest; that is, a document cannot be withheld under the Commonwealth-State exemption if the disclosure of the document would serve the public interest. In the area of Commonwealth-State documents the Bill also picks up two recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee which were rejected by the previous Government. They are, first, that a State should be entitled to be consulted before the release of a document which might fall within the Commonwealth-State exemption provisions; and secondly, that a State having been so consulted should be entitled to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against a Commonwealth decision to release the document as one which is not exempt. I should add that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has written to the State Premiers and to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to repeat assurances given by the previous Government that a State could be expected to be consulted before there is disclosure of a document the release of which might harm the interests of the State or the Northern Territory, as the case may be. I would also add that the provisions relating to States all apply equally to the Northern Territory. The exemptions contained in sections 39 and 40 of the Act are to be restricted in their scope by the addition of an overriding public interest test of the kind I have already described in relation to Commonwealth-State documents. These two exemptions relate to documents the disclosure of which would adversely affect the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth or its agencies, and documents the disclosure of which would prejudice certain agency operations. In addition, the latter exemption has been redrafted to clarify its scope. The Bill contains an amendment agreed to in the Senate to insert a new Part VA entitled, 'Role of the Ombudsman'. The Government accepts that the expanded role for the Ombudsman in freedom of information matters intended by the amendment will be an improvement to the Act. The matter of most significance in the amendment is the empowering of the Ombudsman to represent, or to arrange representation for, applicants before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The circumstances in which the Ombudsman is likely to exercise this power will be relatively limited. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in its report on freedom of information, strongly supported the Ombudsman having this power. There is merit in the Ombudsman having this power in respect of matters of principle, where an unrepresented applicant would be at a disadvantage in arguing technical legal matters. The Government believes, however, that the Ombudsman should not be empowered to represent appellants in cases where it is a decision of a Minister that is under review. For him to have that power would be inconsistent with his being excluded from investigating decisions of Ministers under his ordinary powers. The Government will therefore be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to clause 27 of the Bill for this purpose. The Bill contains a number of other measures to widen the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. First, the exemption for Cabinet and Executive Council documents has been narrowed to exclude from its scope documents of a purely factual character the disclosure of which would not reveal a hitherto unpublished decision of the Cabinet. Secondly, there is to be a progressive reduction in the 60-day period allowed by section 19 of the Act for dealing with requests under the Act. Thirdly, the Act will be amended to require a statement of reasons to be given under section 26 of the Act in respect of all decisions under the Act relating to a refusal of access. Fourthly, when an applicant is refused access to documents in circumstances in which he would be entitled to complain to the Ombudsman about that refusal, the agency concerned will be required to inform the applicant of the right to complain to the Ombudsman. Fifthly, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to be empowered to recommend to the Attorney-General, in appropriate cases, that the costs of a successful applicant before the Tribunal be paid by the Commonwealth. Sixthly, the Bill makes two changes of significance to section 9 of the Act, which provides for the publication of departmental manuals and the like. In the first place, an updating of the list of manuals will be required, so far as practicable, to be made every three months, instead of every year as at present. In the second place, the dispensing power granted by the Act to the Attorney-General to modify the application of section 9 to an agency is to be limited to the special case of the Commissioner of Taxation for which it was originally intended. The Government believes that all these changes together with other changes made by the Bill, widening in various ways the scope of the Act and clarifying or improving its practical operation, will bring marked advantages to the public in the working of the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 12 October Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(5.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It gives me great pleasure to be able to introduce to this House the Archives Bill 1983. Legislation designed to place the Australian Archives on a statutory basis and thus to permit it properly to perform the functions for which it was established has been before the Senate since 1978 but for a variety of reasons its passage was delayed. This lengthy delay disadvantaged the Archives and placed many obstacles in the way of necessary development. This will become apparent when I outline the purpose and the chief characteristics of the Bill. The Bill before the House deals with a little known but essential area of Government activity. Since Federation, the processes of central Government have generated a great volume of records, and this material is being added to every day. It consists of records in many formats, ranging from the traditional files to the products of the most modern technologies. This vast accumulation has to be managed in order to meet a variety of interests. These include the efficient conduct of day to day business and the achievement of economical management practices within the Public Service. Traditionally, they have also included the interests of those members of the public who, as professionals or amateurs, are concerned with the past activities of governments. For some 30 years, management has been achieved by means of ad hoc directions and conventions which largely have developed as piecemeal responses to particular problems. In today's climate this state of affairs cannot be regarded as adequate. In the first place, the Australian Public Service is operating in an increasingly demanding and searching environment. Processes of government are under greater scrutiny than ever before and management practices must be able to withstand public review. Secondly, the relationship between the community and the bureaucracy is undergoing great change. Public rights and expectations are increasing as concepts of openness, privacy and redress at law permeate public administration. Public interest in the workings of government is now as much concerned with the present as well as the past. The interests of society at large have to be catered for, as well as those of historians. Records and the information which they contain are central to these developments, and the management of records is taking on a new range of political, administrative, legal and social aspects. In this new environment, a growing proportion of Commonwealth records will be potentially of direct and immediate interest to the public. All agencies will be in the business of guiding the public in its inquiries; indentifiying records; retrieving them; determining their access status and making them available for public consultation. The Government expects the Australian Archives to play a significant part in helping both the service to adjust to the demands of this new environment and the public to make reasonable and informed use of their changing position. The structure and capacities of the organisation are undergoing great change. Its resources in the policy and systems areas are being strengthened. It is developing its expertise in such areas as disposal, access, preservation, user services and the gathering and dissemination of information about records. It is in the process of acquiring significant automatic data processing capacity by which means it will be able to produce in a timely way and to a wide range of users, a vast amount of management information concerning Commonwealth records including data about the identity, content, format, age, whereabouts, value and functional relationship with agencies past and present. The functions, powers and arrangements which are embodied in the legislation will equip the re- organised Australian Archives to play a leading role in developing service-wide management processes relating to the control, accessibility, disposal and storage of Commonwealth records. The Bill provides a statutory basis for the activities of the Australian Archives and institutes arrangements for the proper management and disposition of the vast body of records generated by Commonwealth agencies. A 'Commonwealth record' is defined as any record which is the property of the Commonwealth, but the term does not extend to such material in a collection maintained by the Australian War Memorial, the National Library of Australia or the Australian National Gallery. The Australian Archives will have the power to seek the deposit in its custody of other records closely associated with the origin, history and functioning of the Commonwealth Government and to take steps to ensure that such material is properly preserved. Special provision is made for certain Commonwealth records separate from those of the Public Service and associated government agencies. The provisions of the legislation will apply to the records of the official establishment of the Governor-General, but not to his private or personal records. Records of both the Cabinet and the Executive Council are covered by the Bill except for the class of records known as 'Cabinet notebooks', which contain notes of discussions or deliberations of Cabinet or a Cabinet committee. Special arrangements have been made in order that the provisions of the legislation can be applied to records of the Parliament and the courts by means of regulations, in terms consistent with the constitutional relationship between the Executive Government and the Parliament and the courts. While the general management provisions of the Bill apply to the intelligence organisations, these bodies have discretion in the matter of the extent to which their records shall be subject to the control of the Director-General of the Australian Archives. Communications received by the Commonwealth from State governments will be the subject of consultation where release of such material might reasonably be expected adversely to affect the interests of a State. The Bill provides for action in a number of key areas of management. The disposal of records is a matter which has received careful attention. Not all records can or need to be kept. But it is important that the reasons for which records are selected for destruction and the procedures by which this is carried out, are properly recorded and follow efficient, widely-known processes. This area, of extreme significance for agencies and the public alike, is one in which the Australian Archives has been given a crucial role to play in relation to the Public Service as a whole. The Bill also makes specific provisions to cover the transfer, custody and storage of Commonwealth records. The Bill is also concerned with the question of public access. It deals, essentially, with records which are more than 30 years old and in this way both complements and completes the system of access which was begun with freedom of information legislation. Indeed the access provisions of the Archives Bill have been carefully co-ordinated with relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The archives legislation is intended to meet the needs not only of those who wish to consult single, specific documents but also of those who wish to examine a large number of records for research purposes. Records less than 30 years old can be made available for research purposes through the processes known as 'accelerated release' and 'special access'. The National Guide to Archival Material, an updated copy of which is to be maintained in all regional offices of the Australian Archives, will contain, for public information, particulars of records which have been examined for release. The Bill provides a legal right of appeal against a decision to refuse access to a record. The onus of establishing that the record in question is exempt from release lies with the party claiming the exemption. By means of survey and other processes, the Bill provides for the gathering of essential management information about Commonwealth records. It authorises the recording of details about the structure of government, and the functional responsibilities of Commonwealth agencies, past as well as present. The Australian Archives is also to undertake research into techniques for the better management of records. In addition to meeting needs of the Australian Archives itself, the Bill requires the investment which these activities represent to be ploughed back into the service by the Archives through advisory and training activities designed to improve within agencies practices and procedures relating to the handling of records. Similarly, the public also is to benefit from the same investment through publications and educational programs designed to promote an awareness of the type of information which government records contain and to help with the often daunting task of coming to grips with the complicated and changeable machinery of government, both past and present. It is to be expected that, in due course, the Australian Archives will be recognised as one of the most important practitioners in its field, able to provide leadership within Australia and to contribute within the international sphere. The Bill does not establish the Australian Archives as a statutory authority; such action was not felt to be appropriate at this time. However, the office of Director-General is to be a statutory position, and the Australian Archives is to have the benefit of an Advisory Council whose members will include parliamentarians and representatives of users, both Commonwealth institutions and the public. The Council will be able to advise the Minister and the Director-General as requested, or on its own motion, on all matters relating to the functions of the Australian Archives. The measures which I have outlined relating to the management and accessibility of Commonwealth records require some resources. There are some service-wide staffing implications in relation to the part which agencies must come to play in the basic management processes. But it is difficult to assess what these needs will be except in the broadest terms. For the Australian Archives, the staffing needs estimated to be required specifically to give effect to the Bill have been assessed as nine staff Australia wide. This number is in addition to those currently being sought from the Public Service Board to prepare for the legislation, meet required levels of service and reduce work backlogs. However, the Government is convinced that action of the sort provided for in the Bill is essential and should be implemented as resources allow. It looks forward to a gradual but significant improvement in the way in which records are dealt with within agencies. Improved records practices will lead inevitably to the more efficient conduct of business; they will ensure also that the service is in a position to respond adequately to an increasing public involvement with government records. I began by saying that the long delay in bringing Archives legislation to finality had many disadvantages. However, it also had one great positive advantage. It permitted lengthy public debate. It permitted detailed investigation by two Senate committees and it permitted negotiations among all departments and all political parties. By this means, consensus and final agreement was reached, the Bill being passed by the Senate with the approval and support of all parties. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 12 October. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is consequential upon the Archives Bill 1983. Its purpose is to provide for the Australian Archives to be the depository of certain material under the Copyright Act. The Bill will amend the Copyright Act 1968 to enable broadcasting and television organisations to deposit with the Australian Archives the so-called ephemeral records which the Director-General of the Australian Archives certifies as being of exceptional documentary character. The present provisions of the Copyright Act provide for deposit of these records with the National Library of Australia. An ephemeral record is a record-whether videotape, cinematograph film or sound record-made by a radio or television broadcaster for the purposes of broadcasting a copyright work. The Copyright Act entitles a broadcaster, who has a licence to broadcast a copyright work, to make such a recording without further permission, so long as the record is either destroyed within twelve months, or such longer period as is agreed to, or delivered to the National Library for archival retention. The Berne Copyright Convention requires the destruction of such records unless they are preserved in official archives on the ground of their exceptional documentary character. Now that the Archives are to be established on a statutory basis, with rights of access to be defined, it is appropriate that the Archives, rather than the National Library, be entitled to receive this material, and that its Director-General be responsible for its certification as material of exceptional documentary character. Particulars of all ephemeral records received by the Archives will be kept, under the provisions of the Archives Bill, in the Australian National Register of Records established by that Bill. Records received from government-funded broadcasters will be kept as appropriate in one of the repositories maintained by the Archives around Australia. With the consent of the National Librarian, records received from private broadcasters will be lodged by the Archives, under the provisions of the Archives Bill, with the National Library of Australia where they will be kept together with like material deposited by non-government bodies. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —I move: That, in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Provision of air conditioning to main instructional building, school of transport and catering, Puckapunyal, Victoria. The proposal is for the installation of air conditioning and other environmental control measures and comprises a new central plant, ducting and replacement of glazing with reflective glass. Transportable buildings will be provided to enable instruction to continue during alterations estimated to take some 12 months. The estimated cost of the works is $2.26m at May 1983 prices. The Committee has endorsed the need for the work and has said that the proposed measures are satisfactory. In reporting on the proposal the Committee recommended that I advise the House of Representatives of measures that have been implemented in the Department of Housing and Construction to prevent a recurrence of situations where substantial alterations are required to completed buildings to overcome design faults. I accept and share the concerns expressed by the Committee over this project. This building was initially designed in 1970 by the then Department of Works and included provision for air-conditioning. Due to funding limitations the air- conditioning was deleted. The alternative ventilation system chosen for the building has been totally inadequate, particularly in the kitchens during the summer months. There can be no question that this building, which was built in the early 1970s, should have had air-conditioning and related environmental control measures. Following a request from the Army in 1977 a design review to incorporate air- conditioning and other environmental control measures was carried out in 1978. The subsequent delay in implementing this proposal has been due to programming procedural requirements and priorities of a previous government largely outside the control of my departments. I have reviewed my own Department's procedures and practices. I believe that the system of project management introduced to the Department since 1972 does provide for extensive and formal multidisciplinary reviews of projects designed by the Department and by private sector consultants on behalf of the Department. This system also provides for much closer consultation between departments and ensures that all factors are fully considered when a need for design changes arises. I am confident that these measures have significantly reinforced the procedures for the identification at the appropriate times of problems of the nature referred to by the Committee. The Committee has recommended construction of the work in the reference. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.19) —I rise to speak in support of this motion. Briefly, it is a matter on which I have talked in this House before. I think the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has made clear the need for the air- conditioning in this School of Transport and Catering at Puckapunyal. As he has said, the air-conditioning should have been provided during the 1970s when the building was first constructed. Of course, as a consequence of that air- conditioning not being provided, conditions for defence personnel learning in the school have been quite intolerable. As the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works shows, temperatures in the kitchen during the summer months frequently exceeded 43 degrees celsius. Amazingly, the temperature at ceiling level, that is at fan level, on certain occasions exceeded 67 degrees celsius. There is absolutely no question that the work has been overdue. I certainly know that the personnel at Puckapunyal will be delighted that the Minister has taken this opportunity to move for approval for the work. I add one more fact: Earlier this year the Minister also moved for approval of work for a $14.7m redevelopment of the Armoured Centre at Puckapunyal. That work is well under way and progressing smoothly. With the Minister moving today for further work for the School of Transport and Catering it means that total work at Puckapunyal under these contracts will be in the order of $20m. It is a major boost to the economy of Seymour. It is a major improvement in conditions at Puckapunyal. I certainly compliment the Minister's initiative in moving for this approval of work today. I compliment the Committee for its fine work when I attended Puckapunyal and the Committee conducted its investigations. I obviously concur with the conclusion, which is sound. This work is well overdue. I compliment the Minister and the Government on moving that the work be undertaken . Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(6.20) —The Opposition supports the motion. Indeed, the previous honourable member for Bendigo, Mr Bourchier, often argued that this work should be undertaken. As the present honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has suggested, the work conditions at the School of Transport and Catering certainly have been such that not having air-conditioning is not conducive to learning nor to the main function of the school. The fact that the report has now been made to the Parliament is welcomed by the Opposition. As shadow Minister for Defence I recognise that this is one of those improvements to service conditions which certainly we on this side of the House very strongly endorse. Indeed, the whole of the improvement of work conditions for those in the Services was of concern to me as Minister. I am most concerned that there are so many other areas where, regrettably, it seems it will take a little while before the conditions available generally in the civilian work force can be extended to those in the Services. However, I trust that this can be done, subject to the provision of adequate funds and proper programming. We welcome this motion and endorse it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 13 October. Schedule 2-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(6.24) —I will not delay the House for long. I want to canvass briefly a couple of aspects of this Bill. The first is that I think we are all delighted that progression is as it is on the new Parliament House site on Capital Hill. The consequence of that and the very necessary large sums of money spent in my view require that every caution be exercised in the appropriations that are your responsibility, Mr Speaker, and Mr President's responsibility. We on our side of the House believe that it is a significant advance that you, Mr Speaker, now exercise independent responsibility in this area. However, we believe that in the expenditure of such sums there obviously is an expectation by honourable members that facilities within this place should be improved in a way that we doubt can be justified, given the foreshadowed improvements that will be available for all members in such a short period. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I hope that in the exercise of your responsibility you will take note that we in opposition are concerned that there should not be undue expenditure about this place. Mr Speaker, the second matter I wish to canvass is that I believe that, as part of your responsibilities, there needs to be a concern for the Parliamentary Triangle. I gave notice today of my concern at the constructions that remain in the front of this place. Under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974 there is power for the Government, and not for you, Mr Speaker, to take action upon this matter. I express my concern because there have often been many worthwhile opportunities for the citizens of Australia to forgather in that forecourt area and express attitudes to policies on issues in a way which enable everybody a dispassionate opportunity so to perform. The present tent city outside Parliament House, frankly, precludes that opportunity. I believe that it is a great indictment on this Government that it has taken no action to ensure that an adequate site is still available at the front of Parliament House where people can demonstrate if they so wish. I see that this matter might not be covered specifically by the provisions of this Bill, but it is one on which I hope that you, Mr Speaker, might exercise some persuasion with your colleagues in the Government. It is necessary that people have an opportunity to present points of view. Frankly, without that area in front of the Parliament House the opportunities are very much limited. The third area which relates in part to that matter is that in the development of future policies for this city, I hope that the responsibility of the Parliament-of you, Mr Speaker, of Mr President, and of those of us who are members-is not forgotten, particularly regarding the new Parliament House site and the Parliamentary Triangle. Whatever developments there might be for the rest of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory, it is my view that these areas lying within the precincts of the Parliament cannot and should not be included in the responsibilities that might be given to the Legislative Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory. This area very much relates to the function of the Federal Government. I believe it is necessary that we retain within this confine of Parliament House an opportunity for you, Mr Speaker, and Mr President to speak on our behalf and to preserve the environment which so essentially relates to the Parliament of Australia. Mr Speaker, while this matter again may not specifically relate to the provisions of this Bill, I believe it is something to which you might well give your attention. Apart from those few items, the Opposition supports this measure and trusts that it will not be long before those very many deficiencies from which we all suffer will be rectified by our transfer to that other site, where construction is moving ahead so magnificently and where I have little doubt each individual member will be able to function so much more efficiently in the future. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.28) —I am pleased to make a contribution tonight to the debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I want to touch firstly on a rather minor matter. It is the stamp allowance made available to members of parliament. This matter was featured in an article appearing recently in the Sydney Morning Herald written by a well known writer, Peter Kennedy, under the title: 'What does your MP cost? $38,500 plus 750 stamps.' Fortunately, the allowance is more than 750 stamps. It is 750 stamps a quarter, plus 1,250 stamps a month on a franking-machine, which works out at about 72 stamps a day. This may seem very generous and sufficient for honourable members, but in my office I lose 18 of those stamps each day by sending mail from Sydney to Canberra. I send signed mail back to my secretaries and it is despatched. That leaves me 54 stamps a day for a very busy office with two stenographers and an Aboriginal aid -a trainee under the Aboriginal training system. I believe that members of parliament are entitled to write to their new constituents, and should write to constituents, so that someone new to the area can know who the member is and how he or she can contact the member. I believe that if a Minister is slow in replying a member must chase the Minister, and more stamps have to be used. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MAHER —Tonight I am continuing my comments on the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about an article in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning members' entitlements which dealt with the number of stamps, of all things, to which a member is entitled. I appreciate, and I know other members appreciate, that the entitlement to stamps and all the other perquisites of office are determined outside the Parliament, and rightly so, by the Remuneration Tribunal. Every quarter I have to face the problem of my stamps running out. In this quarter the stamp allowance expired on 9 September. It was not until 13 October that a cheque arrived by which I could obtain an additional amount of stamps or postage on my franking machine in my office to send out mail. I believe that constituents should not have to wait for replies and that anyone who writes to me from the wrong electorate either by accident or design should not have to wait for a reply or should not have his or her letter discarded. I do have a right to write to new enrolees and to chase up letters without putting my stamp allowance in peril. Mr Speaker, I did take this matter up with your predecessor. I know you are very sympathetic. I took the matter up with the Remuneration Tribunal. I made an appointment and saw Mr Justice Mahoney. He received me very politely and listened to my complaint. He explained that his stamp allowance had actually expired and that he had no stamps as Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal to reply to anybody. I did not feel so bad after that. I trust that in the next review of these allowances consideration will be given to the problems that members face. I noticed in the debates that have taken place in this House that some departments have an additional allowance for air express and courier charges. Even an organisation such as the Law Reform Commission has an additional $8,000 allocated to it for these charges. No allowances are available for air express or courier charges for members of Parliament; there should be for members to return library books to the Parliamentary Library. A member who borrows books from our wonderful library has to bring them back physically in his bags. There are difficulties. This creates a lot of problems when we are bringing mail and we also have to return library books. I was also concerned that in some places some of the senators in another place use their stamps for political purposes. One of my colleagues has complained that a senator in his area in another party is writing to the new enrolees in his electorate. If senators have so many stamps that they can write to the new enrolees in specified seats that they think are marginal Labor seats, they should have to justify some of their stamp allowance. Under the Bill of Rights members have all sorts of privileges. This is the touch-stone of our society. Our constitutional law and our parliamentary traditions are based on the Bill of Rights going back to 1689. In this day and age it is a very poor situation if honourable members just do not have enought stamps to reply to constituents. In the United States of America not only do members have the right to send their correspondence without postage but also constituents have the right to write to their congressmen without putting a stamp on the letter. I know that the Government faces many big problems. I will not labour this point at all. Mr Speaker, tonight I want to touch on some of the other aspects of the parliamentary departments that are so ably administered by you. I praise the secretarial facilities made available to members in the House. We have an excellent pool of stenographers. This is essential because members are away from their electorate four days in the week. These skilled stenographers attend to our urgent problems and correspondence, and type our speeches, questions and notices of motion. The rapid change in personnel in this pool worries me. I think a higher grade or higher salary might attract someone who will not be seduced away into employment with a Minister or some other Public Service position. The officer in charge of secretarial services for members should be very highly paid. It should be seen as a career position. We appreciate the facilities in the House. The rooms allocated to members are pokey and are just too small. We appreciate particularly the work of the Hansard staff. There is in the Bill before the House a substantial allocation of $5.2m for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The Hansard staff might not report what we actually say, but it is what we meant to say, or rather on reflection meant to say. Having served in two parliaments, I am extremely impressed by the ability of the editing staff. The Hansard writers have to be extremely skilled. They have to jump from subject to subject. Question time must be a real nightmare for them. They have somehow to record interjections and altercations between members and they have to be extremely fast. Some members may not be known to them. I really have never worked out how they get it all down. But tonight I praise their work. I am delighted that the Government has substantially increased the allocation to the Hansard reporting staff. It is an appropriate occasion to praise this important facility in our Parliament. The other area I want to touch on is the Parliamentary Library. I am delighted to note that we now have a permanent librarian. I also praise the work of the librarians. The staff of the Library are always helpful to members. They are overworked and carry out their duties in extremely cramped situations. In the past I have raised problems with the Library. At the last meeting of the Library Committee I was appointed Chairman of the grievance committee. This may be a way of quietening me-well, not exactly quietening me-but I can certainly utilise my criticisms for better endeavours. I always place great importance on the role of the Library. I am somewhat slightly disappointed to see that the estimates allocate $9m to the Joint House Department which largely deals with catering and only $6m to the Library. Nevertheless in years to come I hope this figure is reversed and that more and more funds are made available to the Library. It builds up our store of knowledge in the Parliament by way of our holdings and our periodical collections. This is an appreciating asset, it is not money lost. I imagine the recurrent expenditure for the Library covers not only wages but also purchases of books, magazines and periodicals. The Library staff carried out a tremendous task and all members appreciate their work. The other area I want to touch on is the work of the Joint House Department which, as I mentioned has been allocated $9m. Every member appreciates the work of the attendents and also the kitchen staff, and all the people involved in catering because it is such a drawn out job. Catering facilities have to be available to members all day long-from breakfast until half an hour after the House rises. This involves suppers which may have to be served in the early hours of the morning. I also praise the members of the staff who organise the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Having recently travelled as a member of a parliamentary delegation I was delighted with the expertise and the cool manner in which the tour was organised. Difficult situations that could have arisen in developing nations were all ironed out by the work of the parliamentary staff here. Mr Speaker, I was delighted to learn of the high esteem in which you, the Clerk and the assistant clerks are held not only in Papua New Guinea but also in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. Without delaying the House further, I commend the Bill to the House. I am delighted to have had an opportunity to raise some of the matters I have raised tonight. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(8.10) —Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill basically because we have the appropriations for parliamentary departments before the House. I pay tribute to your predecessor in the chair, the Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden, for having fought for so long, along with other Presiding Officers, to see that such appropriations came about. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on having maintained a firm hand as the Presiding Officer on this side of the Parliament. It is because of that that I speak tonight. I wish to comment upon one or two matters in relation to this Bill. One relates to the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House of which you, Mr Speaker, are one of the Chairmen. While it is not my intention at this stage to talk on a matter which I have already given notice I wish to raise in the Committee, I hope that we will be able to extend the area under the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority. I believe that the boundary, presently at Capital Circle, should be extended to State Circle. I do not wish to abuse the time of the House at this time by giving the reasons; suffice it to say that evidence has come before me privately, as a member of the Committee and on other occasions which suggests that it would be much wiser if the building authority which is in charge of this massive building and of which for its purposes you, Mr Speaker, and Mr President-the two Presiding Officers-are the virtual clients, were given more responsibility. I believe that now is the appropriate time to mention this matter in this House. It would be wrong if another planning authority continued to have control over the area between State Circle and Capital Circle. My alarm arises from a casual comment by someone from the National Capital Development Commission-the NCDC-that the Commission just happened to have plans drawn up for a car park for 1,000 cars. I am concerned that if this sort of procedure is allowed to go on we will finish up with the new Parliament House, which is being given an immense amount of detailed study-practical, detailed, continuous study on a working day by day basis-being completely ruined, if not in immediate terms in the next two or three decades. I believe that if the area between the two circles I have mentioned-Capital Circle and State Circle-is not under the control of the Parliament or the authority that will probably succeed the Parliament House Construction Authority but control remains with the NCDC, particularly in light of the new suggestions and recommendations that the NCDC be even less answerable to this Parliament, we should act accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, I will be mentioning these details to the Committee but I felt they should be mentioned within the Parliament at this time because we are debating the appropriations to which they are related. I think this Bill is a tremendous gesture. I wonder whether all the new members of Parliament realise the real significance of the Parliament now having its own appropriations which you, Mr Speaker, and Mr President determine and which go before governments in the normal way. That previously was not the case. I believe that this Parliament must continue increasingly to control its own financial destiny and must not be reliant upon the Executive of governments from time to time. I think these appropriations are the result of a progressive move and I congratulate the present Government for continuing the policy of the previous Government in this regard. I pay tribute, as did the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who spoke before me, to the officers of the Parliament. I extend to Mr Blake, the Clerk of the House, and all of his staff a special thanks for what they do for all sides of this Parliament. If ever anyone was totally non-political in his approach it is the Clerk and his staff. I think the public should be made aware of this a little more. Not only are the clerks advisers to you and your deputies, Mr Speaker, but also they are great advisers to the executives, both real and shadow, and to those on the back benchers. A tribute should be paid to them at this time and I gladly and happily do so. The honourable member for Lowe has touched on the other areas of concern. I support him in his tributes to the staff of the Parliamentary Library and, of course, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. I am sorry that more honourable members are not talking about aspects of parliamentary involvement in the new Parliament House. I hope that in future years we will see a stronger debate because the new Parliament House is now at a stage where it cannot be changed structurally. So many people in Canberra saw the stage of development it has reached last Sunday when it was open to the public for the first time. I just say 'Well done' to those involved. I use this occasion to thank you, Mr Speaker, as one of the chairmen of the Committee, which is doing such a great job. I congratulate you once more. Thank you. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.17) —At the outset I endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) in this debate on the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill. He outlined in some detail the ways in which the Parliament's interest may be further pursued by the medium of the parliamentary appropriations. I certainly endorse the general thrust of his comments. Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the recent requirement that Ministers of this Government provide details of their pecuniary interests on a register and that those pecuniary interests be made public. The availability of those details is, along with various matters outlined by the honourable member for Cook, addressed to the very fundamental issue of the role of the Parliament, not only in how it operates but also in how it is perceived to operate. Recently I had occasion to see some documents that go substantially towards the point that the Parliament ought not only to be acting properly but also to be seen to be acting properly. In that context I wish for the benefit of honourable members to outline by way of example how they can benefit by making available details of their pecuniary interests, so that they can be judged not only on the surface but also of their day to day activities and decisions in this place. Some time ago I came into possession of some documents that gave a fairly interesting history of a company by the name of International Resistance Company Queensland Pty Ltd. In 1966 the company changed its name-this was not the last time it changed its name, I might add-to Cleland Investment Pty Ltd. On 25 October 1968 the directors of Cleland Investment Pty Ltd resigned and were replaced by two new directors. On 20 January 1969 Cleland Investment changed its name to Colinton Pty Ltd. According to the company records, Colinton Pty Ltd had a fairly unexceptional existence for the next decade. In 1980 a number of curious changes took place to Colinton Pty Ltd. Mr Dobie —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having just spoken in this debate, I am loath to raise a point of order, but I cannot see the relevance of this description of companies to the appropriations before the House. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cook has raised a valid point of order. The principles of the declaration of pecuniary interests are before the Standing Orders Committee but the question of specific cases is certainly not the property of the Parliament to consider under the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I have to ask the honourable member for Maribyrnong to be relevant in that way. Mr Duffy —Mr Speaker, may I address you on the question of relevance? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. Mr Duffy —We are debating the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Clearly, the honourable member for Maribyrnong is addressing himself to the pecuniary interests register which will have a considerable effect in relation to the demands upon and resources of the departments under discussion. On that basis I should have thought that, in relation to these appropriations, the preparation, updating and checking and all the other work that has to be done in relation to the pecuniary interests register is certainly relevant to this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister obviously misunderstands the situation. There is no pecuniary interests register for the Parliament at the moment; all there is is a referral to the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee which has to report back to the Parliament. In those circumstances it is not a matter to be debated in conjunction with the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong, having made that ruling. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will have some difficulty. I trust that you will direct me during the course of my subsequent comments in terms of that ruling. In regard to some matters I certainly was persuaded initially to adopt the interpretation given by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). That was central to the point I was about to raise. It may become apparent from the comments I am about to make. Moneys are being appropriated to ensure that this House has the ability to function. We have to ensure that its forms, procedures and whatever can be adequately carried out. Certainly, the honourable member for Cook addressed himself to those sorts of comments-that is, how might the Parliament conduct its affairs properly. He went through a number of aspects of the functions of parliament in his contribution to this debate. My own contribution is related more specifically to the pecuniary interests register but it is certainly no less important. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member misunderstands the situation. He referred to a pecuniary interests register but there is no such register in existence. The principles of the matter are before the Standing Orders Committee for report back to the Parliament. I make the point to the honourable member in regard to relevance that whilst he may speak of the principles that the Standing Orders Committee should consider, there is no such thing as a pecuniary interests register under the control of the Parliament. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am well aware of that, but I am talking in general terms. The pecuniary interests system before the Standing Orders Committee is commonly known outside this place as the pecuniary interests register. That is the point I was trying to make. I now proceed with the comments. I now have regard to your ruling, Mr Speaker. In 1980 a number of curious changes took place to Colinton Pty Ltd- Mr Dobie —Mr Speaker, I must raise another point of order. The honourable member is dealing with details relevant to the pecuniary interests register. I do not want to argue the issue, but it is not right in this appropriation debate to discuss such detail. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have given a ruling to the honourable member for Maribyrnong. He had been able to say only about half a dozen words but he mentioned a certain organisation. I am unable to judge whether he is going to the general principles of the matter unless I listen a little further. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. In addressing the general principle-that is certainly what I said at the outset and that is certainly my intention now-it seems to me to be a sensible approach to outline by way of example how that general principle might properly be addressed. I shall proceed by way of example in terms of that general principle. In 1980 a number of curious changes took place to Colinton Pty Ltd. Having resided at a fairly respectable registered address in Brisbane for some years, on 24 April 1980 Colinton Pty Ltd moved house to the offices of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. of Darwin only-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Just what has this got to do with the estimates for the parliamentary departments? Mr SPEAKER —This is a second reading debate; it is not the estimates debate. I am waiting for the honourable member for Maribyrnong to get to his first principle. I take it he is leading up to that. At the moment he is giving us a history of a specific case. I ask him to give some substance to his claim that he is dealing with the principles of a pecuniary interests register. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I indicated earlier, the essence of my comments is to outline by way of example the need for the general principle. Certainly, I think, any discussion of the general principle would founder without some examples as to how it might operate and as to why it should be adhered to. Mr SPEAKER —I am afraid the Chair would need a general principle to be under consideration to allow that course to be followed. I invite the honourable member to get to one of the general principles. Mr GRIFFITHS —The general principle is that the appropriations are necessary to allow this Parliament to function. Another aspect flowing directly from that appropriation is that there be adequate provision for things such as making knowledge of pecuniary interests available to the Parliament, and that general principle can be supported by way of example. I think the pecuniary interests register has been before this House only for a short time indeed. It seems to me to be imperative that the system is seen to be operating correctly. Certainly, in my view it should be incumbent upon honourable members to provide examples, where possible, that might go some way to endorsing the general principles. Mr Speaker, the latter date had even greater significance in the life of the company to which I earlier referred. On that date one John Colinton Moore, the honourable member for Ryan, and Wilson Joseph Wilde resigned as directors of Colinton Pty Ltd. They were replaced by Colin Hally Coghill, of Double Bay, New South Wales, and John Francis Edwards, of Carrum, Victoria. Mr Alan Richard Taylor and Mr Edwards took over the duties of secretary from Mr Wilde. Going on to endorse the general principle I was adverting to earlier, having regard to these facts, I was reminded of the McCabe-Lafranchi report that stated inter alia that Messrs Coghill and Edwards featured as directors in a series of transactions which saw the Denis Byrne Horgan company, Treamog Pty Ltd, disappear to the bottom of the harbour as part of a Brian Maher-supervised deal. The general principle is a very important one. I have already indicated that. I will go on to indicate why it is an important principle that should be embraced by this Parliament. This is apparently the same Colin Coghill as is described at page 68 of volume 1 of the McCabe-Lafranchi report as being involved in the tax avoidance industry, and the same Colin Coghill who was responsible for, in conjunction with the Brian Maher organisation, the stripping of companies contrary to the interests of minority shareholders. According to the McCabe- Lafranchi report, companies purchased by Mr Coghill found their way into the hands of sham directors and then disappeared by virtue of a fictitious registered office and false identity particulars, with the directors having been notified. On 3 June 1980 Colinton Pty Ltd resolved to change its name to Couloir Pty Ltd, although this was not officially changed in companies office records until 25 February 1981. On 4 June 1980 Messrs Coghill and Edwards departed the scene. The general principles to which I am adverting will become more apparent as I proceed. They were replaced as directors by a rather odd assortment of new directors. They were Kampala Airways Ltd of Norfolk Island, Pronto Pty Ltd of Queensland and John Joseph Madden of Queensland. Terrence Noel Steward replaced Alan Richard Taylor as company secretary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong is paying only lip service to the general principles. If he does not get to the general principles I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Speaker, I am mindful of your ruling, although I must say-- Mr SPEAKER —You have not taken much notice of it. Mr GRIFFITHS —I certainly am prepared to take notice of your ruling, Mr Speaker, but I must say that I have only a short way to go and as I go I think the general principles to which you have referred will be thrown into some sharp contrast. The purpose of the Appropriation Bill is as I have indicated, and it was certainly in the broad tenor of the comments made by the honourable member for Cook. He addressed the general ways by which the appropriation advanced the interests of Parliament. Certainly, that is the thrust of the comments that I wish to make. I say to honourable members opposite that if they wish to take continuous points of order on this matter, it will merely slow the gestation period because there is no doubt at all that the matters I raise will come before this Parliament in the immediate future. If they want to take these points of order-- Mr Dobie —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is now making insinuations about people and their reasons for raising points of order in the House. I find that offensive. Mr SPEAKER —I accept that it is offensive. Honourable members are entitled to raise points of order. The honourable member for Maribyrnong should know that. He should get back to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Otherwise, I must ask him to resume his seat. Mr GRIFFITHS —Having regard to the broad principles I outlined earlier, I will make a couple of very brief comments and I might pursue them in further detail at some later stage. In terms of the companies that I have outlined-I certainly will not go into the detail that I was going to earlier-let me say this: The company, Colinton Pty Ltd-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr GRIFFITHS —Just let me say-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —It gives me some pleasure to participate in the consideration of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84. Of course, one of my first duties when I was elected to the position of Speaker was to have substantial involvement in the process of formulating the estimates concerned with the Parliament. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Whilst the Speaker is the member whom the House has chosen not only to preside over its deliberations but also to oversee its administration, I consider it very important that members communicate their views on the present and future administration of the Parliament. Many members see me privately on a whole range of matters, and many useful discussions are held. Nevertheless, discussions in the chamber itself are welcome and supplement the continuing processes of communication and consultation, which I encourage. Before turning to particular matters raised, I mention briefly one of the more significant developments currently unfolding. In presenting the annual report for the Department of the House of Representatives on 20 September, I informed the House in general terms of the stage reached with regard to the transfer to parliamentary authority of a number of functions involving services to members. These functions are currently performed by executive departments. I do not propose to repeat the observations I made then about the importance of the matter, but I wish to advise members of developments since 20 September. Together with Mr President, I have had discussions with the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown). I am pleased to report that both Ministers are in general agreement with our wishes. We now propose to communicate formally with the Government in the immediate future. We will seek the transfer of policy and funding control in respect of the electorate offices of honourable members and honourable senators, including the actual provision of offices and office furniture, fittings and equipment, together with the staff, services and general support services of honourable senators and honourable members and transport, including ground transport and travel entitlements. It is proposed that Parliament will assume responsibility for setting policy guidelines and for seeking necessary funds. We would then employ as necessary the various elements of the Executive to perform the particular functions on our behalf and report to us. Mr President and I are committed to maximum co-operation and co-ordination on this matter. In addition, I stress that the role of the Remuneration Tribunal in the determination of a range of matters will continue. We hope that the Government will see its way clear to an early and favourable consideration of this matter, which is of such importance to the Parliament. I turn now to certain aspects raised by honour- able members. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) referred to expenditure on the existing Parliament House. I assure the right honourable member that I have no intention of being profligate in expenditure. However, he will realise that with the change of government and the demands on accommodation because of the coalition going into opposition there was a great deal of pressure on the accommodation in the House. Necessary steps had to be taken to provide honourable members with single offices, no matter how small. Pressure was placed not only on these offices but also on the general amenities of honourable members and their staff. I think I have to be conscious of that problem and try to do something about it. If one examines the Estimates, one finds that there are increases in a number of areas. Some of these increases are relative, because of the election in March which involved a period of relative inactivity. There are some real increases because of the transfer of functions. The House of Representatives has taken on a number of increased commitments in the committee area. A development of information systems is also taking place in the House. The right honourable member for New England also raised the matter of the Parliamentary Triangle. As he is aware, the precincts of this House are very restricted. The incidents and so on to which he referred occurred outside the precincts of Parliament House. Nevertheless, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) also raised the question of the precincts of Parliament House vis-a-vis the new Parliament House building. In answer to that, I say only that that matter is very much before the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House which also has the job of dealing with the fate of the provisional Parliament House. One would hope that a very reasonable and commonsense solution will be found to the problem of the precincts under those circumstances. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) raised the question of honourable members' stamp allowance. I think the honourable member knows that that matter resides with the Remuneration Tribunal, no matter how sympathetic we feel towards him. I am glad that the honourable member thanked the stenographers around the House who give honourable members so much help. They do so under difficulties of accommodation. I am very happy to say that I believe that the word processing equipment that is gradually developing in the House should make their tasks easier. The honourable member thanked Hansard, the Library, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am sure that those thanks were most appropriate. In referring to the Joint House Department, I am afraid that the honourable member spoke only of the refreshment section. I should point out that the Joint House Department has a much wider function than that, in security and indeed the very difficult task of carrying out the maintenance of this building in its present condition. I thank honourable members for the comments they have made and I trust that when functions are more completely transferred we will have more scope in this particular building and that will lead to a smooth transfer to the new Parliament House. While we are still in this provisional Parliament House it is my intention as Speaker to see that the facilities for members do not deteriorate just because we are looking to the new building on the hill all the time. I thank honourable members for their participation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MOORE —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Ryan. Mr MOORE —Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to a new member who I guess would not have liked to start his career here in the muck-raking game, but he certainly has. I thought we had only one slum member-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must get to his statement of misrepresentation. Mr Griffiths —A point of order, Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented. All my comments before have been and will be documented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will resume his seat. An honourable member is making an explanation. I ask the honourable member for Ryan to get to the point of the misrepresentation. Mr MOORE —On top of that, I am surprised somewhat that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), for whom I have always had a high regard, should seek to defend the particular member concerned. On top of that, I am surprised, sir, that such latitude was allowed-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is reflecting on the Chair. He has sought indulgence to show where he was misrepresented. If he persists in the vein he is following, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr MOORE —Tonight allegations were made against me-- Mr Griffiths —What allegations? Mr MOORE —Pipe down, squirt! Allegations were made against me tonight and I think the record ought to be put straight because in this place we have witnessed over the last few weeks a lot of personal innuendo, with which I have not agreed-- Mr Griffiths —Who started it? Mr MOORE —I would hate to say. It was a long time before the honourable member came here-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get to the point where he has been misrepresented. Mr MOORE —Prior to entering the Ministry in November 1980 I was, as most people here would know-probably new members would not remember-a company director and a member of the stock exchange. As such I would quite naturally have held a variety of interests in public, private and nominee companies, as both principal and agent. From time to time, as would be expected, I bought and sold a variety of these interests. This was and is a perfectly normal and unexceptional part of financial life. I was the principal of John Moore and Co. When I became President of the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party I moved from that position and took with me two interests from it-Colinton Pty Ltd and Universal Tube Testers Pty Ltd. Those companies were both part of the operations of John Moore and Co. They were share trading companies-nothing more, nothing less. From 1968 to 7 May 1980 I owned shares in Colinton Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Queensland. On 7 May 1980 I sold the shares which I held in that company, representing 80 per cent of the issued capital of that company, resigned as a director of the company and severed all connections with it. I have had no connection with it, its shareholders or its officers since that date . I have no personal knowledge of what activities the company has engaged in since then. I understand that the company changed its name to Couloir Pty Ltd after the date mentioned. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) mentioned Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. I have never dealt with that company. For the honourable member 's information my company is Coopers and Lybrand. The company was subsequently sold on that date, as the honourable member rightly pointed out, to a person whose name I do not recall at the moment. He was a partner in another chartered accounting company. It now appears that Couloir was subsequently used in some tax minimisation scheme. I had no knowledge of and was not involved in this scheme in any way. My shares in that company were not sold by me with the intention of avoiding tax. The reason for the sale was to realise the funds for use in connection with the purchase of a house. If we have to get into the connection between proprietary and personal interest around here, which I heard the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) decry this afternoon, the fact is that I happened to get married that year. My shares were not sold with any tax liability and all the company's taxation obligations had been met at the time of sale. The taxation affairs of the company were completely in order when I sold those shares, and my solicitors and accountants have confirmed this to me. It now seems that Couloir Pty Ltd did not pay all the tax that the Commissioner of Taxation believes it ought to have paid in respect of the year 1979-80. The responsibility for the failure to do so is clearly that of the directors and/or the shareholders of the company after 7 May 1980, the date on which I ceased to have any association with that company. However, legislation passed after I ceased to have any connection with that company has imposed a possible retrospective tax obligation on previous shareholders. As a person in such a situation, I received a copy of the company's taxation assessment for 1979-80 and although I have not personally received any demand for assessable tax against me, I have entered into an agreement with the Commissioner of Taxation for the payment of that company's tax, which is more than some others have done. I will make a couple of points in regard to this matter. The situation I am in is identical to that of many hundreds of other Australians, including some of the people in this place. Unlike another person here I have consistently voiced my opposition to the retrospective taxation legislation for the very reasons that we see today that people who act within the taxation laws at the relevant time are to be taxed retrospectively. Years later-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now getting into an argument other than correction of personal misrepresentation of him. I ask him to conclude his explanation. Mr MOORE —Years later they are penalised for so acting. Taxation law has become so complex that there is a clear and urgent need-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has now departed from his personal explanation. He will please resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —Oh, Mr Speaker-- Mr MOORE —Mr Speaker, I have every right to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has allowed the honourable member to correct the misrepresentation. Mr MOORE —And I have not finished. Mr SPEAKER —You are now dealing with general principles of taxation law that do not deal with where you have been personally misrepresented. Mr MOORE —Mr Speaker, that is entirely incorrect. I have been completely misrepresented within the principle of taxation law, to use your words, and you have allowed it-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I understand the difficult position in which you are placed. But I suggest to you that the allegations made against the honourable member are such that he needs to be able to relate his personal explanation to charges which suggest that in some way his position has transgressed that which normally applies to people under the taxation law. I comprehend, understand and sympathise with the position in which you are placed. But might I suggest your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I understand that the honourable member had just about completed his personal explanation. Could I ask for your indulgence to permit him to do so? I comprehend that he cannot go into argument about the details of tax law. However, I think there are difficulties in this area which well embrace the matters that have been before this Parliament in the last few weeks. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the National Party knows that personal explanations involve very difficult judgments for the Chair. Honourable members tend to extend their explanations. However, as a result of the plea, if the honourable member for Ryan was finishing his statement, I will allow him to round it off. Mr MOORE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just a couple of sentences to go. Taxation law has become so complex that there is a clear and urgent need for reform. Not only must it be simplified in presentation but also citizens of Australia must be able to act with certainty within the law and know that what is lawful and permissible today will not become unlawful, prohibited or subject to financial penalty. The commercial world in particular must be able to act with certainty and not be affected by retrospective tax legislation. Changes to the tax laws should be effective from the date on which they are announced. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), at the outset of his comments, made certain accusations about me and my motives in terms of raising these matters. He also went on to claim that he had been personally misrepresented. In the very long discourse he has just completed without interruption he failed to show where he had been personally misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! As I explained to the honourable member for Ryan, an honourable member receives the call to allow him to explain where he has been personally misrepresented. I ask the honourable member to get to that point. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I notice there was quite some latitude-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member starts to reflects on the Chair, he will be sat down again. Mr GRIFFITHS —I was going to add, 'and rightfully so', because I think it was important that he should have some latitude to explain where he thought he was personally misrepresented. Can I simply say that the matters I raised are not, believe it or not, a reflection upon the honourable member. The matters I raised are matters of public record. They go to the very heart of the debate that has consumed this House for some time. I have some difficulty accepting an accusation that I am attacking anyone's integrity. I am simply repeating matters that are part of the public record. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Speaker, I am seeking your indulgence to correct an answer to a question which I gave at Question Time today. Mr SPEAKER —That sounds much more peaceful. The Minister has the indulgence of the Chair. Mr DUFFY —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), in a supplementary question without notice this afternoon, asked me whether it was true, as reported-so the right honourable member said-in the Sunday Mail that Mr Beattie had contacted my office. In answer I replied that Mr Beattie had contacted my office to seek information as to what allocation of broadcasting time was being afforded to the parties. That was my belief at the time. However, on checking the matter further my staff advised me that Mr Beattie did not himself contact my office on this matter at any relevant time. Further, I have checked the Hansard record of my answer to the principal question put to me by the Leader of the National Party and I confirm the accuracy of that answer in every particular. [COGNATE BILLS: RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TAXES COLLECTION BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (FREQUENCY RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEMPORARY PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEST PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSMITTER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 4 to 10, Government Business, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these eight measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.56) —The Radiocommunications Bill 1983 and the associated Bills replace the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 and the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act 1982. The Bills were originally drafted for the previous coalition Government, and Neil Brown, the then Minister for Communications, released them in February for public comment. I believe Mr Brown should be commended for doing so. I have been advised that a seminar was arranged by two of the major industry organisations in April to discuss the legislation, and the Government has incorporated in this legislation suggestions from the seminar and from interest groups generally. Advances in radio communications since 1905 require that the legislation be brought up to date. In discussions with the industry and in departmental briefings particular reference has been made to the lack of power in the old Act to prevent interference and also to the limited knowledge of the frequency spectrum at the time. The Department has provided a precis of the principal differences between the new Bill and the old Act. I wish to quote from that precis because I believe it highlights the differences in the legislation. In referring to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 and the Radiocommunications Bill 1983 it states: 1905 Scope of Act unclear; may not cover many modern spectrum uses. 1983 Clearly controls use of the radio frequency spectrum. 1905 Equipment standards not legally enforceable. 1983 Legally enforceable standards for equipment. 1905 No control of interference. 1983 Interference controlled. 1905 Does not bind the Crown. 1983 Binds the Crown. 1905 No control of Australian satellites. 1983 Control of Australian satellites. 1905 Licences needed for message passing radiocommunications receivers. 1983 Licences for receivers needed only for prescribed receivers. 1905 No provision for spectrum planning. 1983 Provision for spectrum planning. 1905 No arbiter for interference disputes. 1983 Conciliation process provided. 1905 Powers of enforcement limited. 1983 Provision for inspectors. 1905 Seized equipment forfeited. 1983 Court may order forfeiture. After those comments I think it can be assumed that the Opposition is supporting this legislation because in most respects it is identical to the Bill released by Neil Brown, the previous Minister, and its justification has been well documented. However, there are certain areas of concern or uncertainty. If the Minister is able to respond to these questions in his remarks at the conclusion of the second reading debate, obviously it will save time at the Committee stage ; I know that the Minister wants some amendments passed at the Committee stage. I make these points on, I hope, a non-political basis because we are talking about a Bill which both sides have basically agreed to. The first point concerns power to enforce standards of transmitters, receivers and radio-sensitive equipment. That includes consumer items such as television sets, radios, hi-fi equipment, et cetera. Presumably the Department of Communications will publish the proposed standard and the Minister can either give consideration to public comment on the standard or bypass it if he considers the making of a standard is a matter of urgency. This seems to me to provide too much authority for the Department or the Minister and too little accountability to those outside in the industry. Why not have some outside standards body, such as the Standards Association of Australia, involved in the setting of the standard and giving a greater involvement to the appropriate equipment manufacturer's association in the establishment of these standards of manufacture? The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has drawn attention to the compliance statement procedure, concerning equipment complying with the specified standard, for the establishment of a standard where there is not adequate-this is my view-outside expert involvement in the procedure. These provisions give special powers to the Minister without a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I wish to bring into the setting of standards for equipment that is to be used, the question of telephone handsets, particularly now that these can be purchased, I believe quite correctly, from retailers other than Telecom Australia. There is concern, particularly among Australian based companies manufacturing handsets and competing against imported handsets, over the standard of some of these imported sets. Is there any intention by the Minister and the Government to establish standards for these telephone handsets? If so, how will it be done and by whom? If not, why not? We are referring here to the establishment of standards for equipment that can be considered to be of inadequate standard at present and can have problems of interference, et cetera. I believe it would be appropriate for the Minister to comment on any likely action by the Government with regard to telephone handsets . I refer to the Minister's second reading speech regarding the Customs power. The second last paragraph states: I should touch on the subject of import controls over substandard equipment. While no mention is made in this Bill of prohibiting the import of substandard equipment, it is the Government's intention that substandard equipment would be barred from entering Australia through the mechanism of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. It is obviously a completely acceptable procedure that, if we are to have a standard for domestic manufacture of equipment, we should have the same power to ensure that imports meet that standard. I ask the question: Is there any likelihood of government action in a similar way with regard to imported telephone handsets? The Senate Committee also drew attention to the power of the Minister to determine whether to refer the complaint to a conciliator. Such decision is not appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that is, on the question of the conciliation procedures and also the reversal of the onus of proof concerning allegations that an employee has been dismissed or threatened for giving evidence at an inquiry. I think the Minister is aware of the Senate Committee's comments on the legislation. I would welcome his comments in relation to that Senate Committee when he replies. Telexes have been received by me from both the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters-the two chief industry organisations for commercial television and commercial radio-expressing concern at the consequential amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which is part of this general omnibus series of Acts concerning the unauthorised use of transmitters. I make the point that neither of those organisations suggests that the legislation should be opposed. I quote the points which they are generally making and ask for the Minister's comment in relation to them. The telex from FARB stated: We have expressed our concern to DOC about the proposed consequential amendment to the B and T Act-Part 1A. Prohibition of unauthorized operation of transmitters for broadcasting and television. In our view, the amendment is most inadvisable and could produce undesirable and unfortunate results. In essence, the amendment notifies unlicenced persons capable of transmitting on broadcasting frequencies that in certain circumstances they can do so without incurring any penalty. We are concerned that the effect of this amendment may be to encourage well- meaning amateurs to commence broadcasting when, for a number of reasons, they should not. The amendment merely exculpates persons making such broadcasts provided they have reasonable excuse, the generality of which is not limited. We regard this as almost an invitation to broadcast. In our view it would be far better not to legislate in this way, but to rely on the Attorney-General's discretion as to whether there should be a prosecution following unlicensed broadcasting in an emergency. It is likely that the kinds of persons to whom the proposed amendment would apply will not have knowledge of, or expertise in, broadcasting and its responsibilities, nor are they likely to have the kinds of resources normally available to broadcasters. This could lead to disastrous consequences as a result of the broadcasting of incorrect or unofficial information. Ironically because the amendment ignores the content matter of such broadcasts, an unlicensed person broadcasting matter which might actually exacerbate rather than mitigate an emergency could be exculpated because he had ''reasonable excuse'' to broadcast. The amendment runs counter to recommendations of the Natural Disasters Organisation which seek to encourage a line of communication between State emergency services and established broadcasters. It also increases the possibility of causing interference to licensed or authorised broadcasters. A much shorter quotation from FACTS states: Concerned by consequential amendments to Broadcasting and Television Act, Part One A-prohibition of unauthorised operation of transmitters for broadcasting and television. Understand this amendment suggested only recently by parliamentary counsel. Concern arises because may produce undesirable and unfortunate results not intended by D.O.C. Department currently considering legal opinion supplied by FACTS. Contend that if intention is to permit in circumstances of genuine emergencies what would otherwise be unauthorised use of radiocommunications transmitters then reliance on subjective tests of ''reasonable excuse'' and ''honest belief'' contained in present version too ambiguous and best deleted. I hope the Minister will respond to those points from those two organisations. Another matter of concern is the power given to inspectors who, in certain circumstances, can make arrests and search premises without a warrant. The Minister referred in his second reading speech to the view of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties in relation to the appointment and powers of inspectors. I commend the Minister for referring that aspect to the Council. But I seek his assurance that all of the Council's suggestions have actually been incorporated in the Bill. A number of people, including members of parliament and industry representatives, have continued to express concern about the power of inspectors after I have drawn their attention to the Minister's comment concerning the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. I have now been advised of the following Federal legislation in which inspectors or employees have similar power. It includes Customs officers; inspectors under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Parks Act 1975; inspectors under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; inspectors under the Fisheries Act 1952; inspectors under the Whale Protection Act 1980; inspectors under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981; constables under section 50 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953; employees and officers under section 76 of the Australian National Railways Act 1917; inspectors under the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act 1980; inspectors under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976; and inspectors under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The point to all of that is that obviously this situation is not unique. I draw this fact to the attention of those who have expressed their concern. The fact that it has been done before, by itself, is not a reason why it should be done now. The only point I suppose I can make is that it is nothing new. That is the point that is being made. I make the point that it is acknowledged that the Opposition will support the legislation. It was largely responsible when in government for its introduction and was responsible for some of the legislation I have just referred to. I still make the point that the powers of inspectors are a matter of concern to some people. Therefore, I draw attention to an area of concern as a member of parliament rather than as a political advocate. I seek the assurance of the Minister that, in the administration of the clauses 69 and 72 of the legislation which refer to the special powers for inspectors, departmental instruction to inspectors will be very restrictive and require accountability. I also draw attention to the concern of amateur radio operators and the fact that the Minister, in his second reading speech, endeavoured to answer those concerns. I note also that complaints of the amateur radio operators, to a certain extent, are the opposite of those of FACTS and FARB relating to whether there is sufficient or too much flexibility with unlicensed receivers, possession offences and unauthorised broadcasts, et cetera. I have no doubt that amateur radio operators will be watching the implementation of the Bill very closely and the assurances that have been given by the Minister in his second reading speech; and, of course, so will the Opposition. In conclusion, I reiterate that the Opposition supports the legislation. If answers can be given by the Minister in his concluding remarks to the points I have raised in good faith I will not worry about those aspects in the Committee stage. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.12) —In speaking in support of the radio communications Bills which are before the House and, in particular, the Radio Communications Bill 1983, I am pleased to note that the primary objective of the Bills is to provide the legal framework for effective management of the radio frequency spectrum in accordance with appropriate engineering principles. The present legislation controlling the use of the spectrum is inadequate to manage the spectrum for interference-free communications. Nowhere is this more evident than in my electorate of La Trobe. Although, once again, I am speaking in this House on the problem of the very poor television reception in the Dandenong Ranges of Victoria, I feel confident that at last something is being done. Last month, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in reply to a letter I sent to him, said: The Department of Communications has recently conducted field surveys in the area to determine technical operating conditions for both commercial and Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. The Department is currently working with commercial licensees and the industry body, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, to reach agreement on outstanding details. The problem at the moment is that a major planning decision will have to be made regarding the spacing between television channels in the Ultra High Frequency or UHF band. It will have to be determined whether that spacing will be seven or eight megaHertz. The problem is a widespread one. It affects particularly the suburbs of Belgrave , Boronia, Clematis, Ferntree Gully, Upper Ferntree Gully, Ferny Creek, Monbulk, Olinda, Sassafras, Selby, Tecoma, the Basin, the Patch and Upwey. With the growth of population over the years the population affected is about 25,000 people, but the problem has been there since the commencement of television services in Melbourne in 1956. I quote from the report of the draft planning proposal by the Department of Communications in September 1980, over three years ago. It states: To provide an adequate television coverage to the greater part of this area, it will be necessary to establish three separate translator sites. Propagation tests indicate that translator station sites at Bruce Crescent (Ferntree Gully), Belmont Av (Upwey) and the Belgrave Swimming Pool should provide optimum coverage of the area . . . Siting the translators as recommended would provide for a certain degree of overlap of the coverage areas of adjacent translators. This would minimise the number of pockets of inadequate service within the total area under consideration. The environmental impact of establishing the translators will have to be taken into account. In this respect the Sherbrooke Shire, the City of Knox and the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Authority will, of course, be consulted to ensure that there is no detrimental effect to the natural environment of the area. I estimate that the population of the areas which will receive an improved service on the basis of the draft planning proposal will be 7,000 in Ferntree Gully, 10,500 in Upwey and 4,000 in Belgrave. Because of the shortage of VHF frequencies available for use in the Melbourne area, the proposed translators will all operate in the UHF band as the Minister has indicated. As it is over three years since the Department commenced its planning work on the proposal I imagine it is possible that there will be some variation and improvement in the draft plan. I should mention at this stage that amongst the many hundreds of my constituents who have complained about the poor television reception in the Dandenongs are a number of people technically qualified in the sphere of radio and telecommunications. These people have told me that the Department has considerably underestimated the number of people affected by poor television reception in my electorate. I can vouch for that fact at a personal level because the television reception is not good at my home in Montrose. The quality of my picture from channels 7 and 9 and, occasionally, channel 2 leaves a lot to be desired. Only channel 10 is satisfactory. I have also received complaints from people in Emerald and Monbulk, which are outside the areas mentioned in the draft planning proposal. However, I do have some sympathy with the difficulties under which the Department of Communications has operated in respect of the necessary planning for the installation of the translators. The planning section has been considerably understaffed for many years but I understand that the Department has now received an increase in staff in this vital planning section. I am quite confident therefore that this will be the last occasion on which it will be necessary for me to bring this matter to the attention of the House. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, has indicated that the matter is receiving urgent attention by the Department. I know that the Department officials concerned will not let either me or the Minister down. One problem will remain for some small pockets of people totalling an estimated 2,000 who, even when the translators are installed, will not be able to enjoy an acceptable reception. Once the translators have been installed it will be possible to ascertain, from the experience of the improved reception, exactly where those pockets of people are located and advice will be able to be given regarding methods of improving television reception in those small pockets. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.17) —I take this opportunity tonight in speaking to the radiocommunications Bills before the House to speak about a matter I raised at Question Time today with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Comments made at Question Time today by the Minister for Communications raise some very serious questions and the comments made by the Minister tonight have not answered those questions. In the first place there has been a clear conflict between the two answers given by the Minister this afternoon. In the second place there is a conflict between those two answers and the comments attributed to the Queensland Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would be only too pleased to accommodate the Leader of the National Party in a debate on this issue at the appropriate time. The matter has no-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Is the honourable gentleman raising a point of order? Mr Duffy —The matter has no relevance whatsoever to the matter we are discussing at the moment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable gentleman raising the question of relevancy ? Mr Duffy —Yes. The matter is completely irrelevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am afraid I have not had the advantage of hearing sufficient of the honourable member's speech to be able to form an opinion. Mr Duffy —Tonight we are debating the Radiocommunications Bill. The Leader of the National Party has already indicated that he wants to discuss matters which were raised at Question Time today and which are totally unrelated to this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party especially will be well aware that it is necessary to be relevant to the Bill. Mr ANTHONY —Mr Speaker, we do have before us nine Bills dealing with radiocommunications. They are a wide-ranging selection of Bills. Mr Duffy —They are technical. Mr ANTHONY —They may be technical but I would have hoped that freedom of speech- - Mr Duffy —If there is a matter you want to raise there is a time to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman to resume his seat for a moment. I have ruled on the point of order. The honourable member will now resume the debate. I shall certainly be listening intently to what he has to say, particularly in view of the issue of relevancy. Mr ANTHONY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think all of these matters dealing with communications relate very much to the opportunity for free speech. That is what communications is all about in this country. I hope that the Minister for Communications is not going to persist in trying to gag me from talking on something that is very relevant to communications and which is in his area of responsibility. He is throwing writs around right and left to gag people from speaking in the Queensland election, and it seems pretty obvious that he is trying to do exactly the same thing tonight-to stop me from speaking. We are having a cognate debate on a selection of Bills dealing with licences, permits and taxes and every conceivable aspect of radio communication in this country. They deal with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the propriety of the ABC to exercise its independence and freedom of speech. The Minister should not be trying to stop me from pursuing a matter which was raised this afternoon. He has ample opportunity to answer me. He can reply tonight to the debate on the motion for the second reading. I believe that before I came into the House he made some reference to the question I asked him this afternoon. I imagined he might give me the courtesy of talking further on it tonight. He has the opportunity of answering if he wishes. Mr Duffy —That is totally irrelevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman is invited to continue his remarks provided they are relevant to the legislation before the House. Mr ANTHONY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are very relevant to the position of the Minister for Communications. I am talking about what I brought up in Parliament this afternoon. The Minister is embarking, I believe, on a vendetta against two members of my party in Queensland because of comments that they made relating to communications in this country. He has threatened to issue writs against these people if they make any further comments. In Question Time today I asked the Minister about comments attributed to Mr Beattie, the Queensland Secretary of the ALP. Those comments were in the Sunday Sun of 10 October. Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I repeat that on this issue, at the appropriate time, I would be delighted to have this debate with the Leader of the National Party, but I do not propose to allow him to interrupt the debate on a Bill, the primary purpose of which-I draw it to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker-is to provide an up to date framework for the management of a radio frequency spectrum and to have the development of radio communication services proceedings in an orderly fashion. The matters he has raised, in the sense that he has been misrepresenting them-I do not propose to debate those issues with him tonight-are not relevant to this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule accordingly. If the Leader of the National Party wants to talk all night on the Bills before us, that is a matter for him, but the matters he is raising now are not relevant to the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I find it necessary to uphold the point of order and I remind the Rt Hon. gentleman that the earlier remarks of the Minister of Communications were made prior to the debate on these Bills being commenced. Mr ANTHONY —One thing I wanted to do was to correct an error of mine this afternoon. I thought the Minister would at least give me the opportunity to do that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes. I am inclined to be very co-operative, but the honourable gentleman, more than anyone, because of his long experience, would know that the question of relevance has been raised and the point has been upheld. I ask him now to resume the debate on the legislation. Mr ANTHONY —With all due respect, I am not arguing with you because I understand the importance of relevance. One wants to be relevant but I really do believe that there is a very close relationship between these Bills and the activities of the ABC. Clearly, what I am talking about is relevant to the ABC and the way in which the Minister is handling ABC matters. That is exactly what I am saying. I find it very hard to imagine that I cannot talk about this legislation. I made a mistake this afternoon and-- Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take another point of order. I am sorry that I have to rise again on this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not necessary for the honourable gentleman to raise the same point of order. I have ruled on it. I have required that the right honourable member for Richmond be relevant and I am watching and listening very carefully indeed. So far he has not transgressed my ruling. Mr Duffy —Except that the ABC is controlled by the Broadcasting and Television Act, not the Radio Communications Act. Mr ANTHONY —Many parts of the Bills before the House have implications for the ABC. What about frequencies and transmitters? All these matters have relevance. It is of no use the Minister trying to cover up. It is becoming more patently obvious to all of us that, by trying to prevent me from speaking tonight, he is trying to hide something. There is not a great list of speakers; only a few members want to speak. I will not take my full time; I just want a few minutes to amplify the points that I made this afternoon. If the Minister is feeling guilty or some of his staff are feeling guilty of having interfered with the ABC in the interests of the Queensland Labor Party, well and good. If that is what he wants to stop me from bringing out, why does he not come out in the open and make it quite obvious? I would have thought that at least he would have given me the opportunity of saying what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that I made a mistake this afternoon when I referred to the Sunday Mail. It was typed in the transcript that I had as the Sunday Mail. It was not the Sunday Mail but the Sunday Sun. I quote from the Sunday Sun: Last night, the State ALP campaign director Mr Peter Beattie admitted a member of his party had contacted the Communications Minister, Mr Michael Duffy's office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I believe that the right honourable member is departing from the ruling that I have given. Unless he is able to relate his remarks more directly to the legislation it will be difficult for me to allow him to continue in this vein. Mr ANTHONY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept what you are saying. I will come back in another hour and I hope that I am then given an opportunity to speak. I am disappointed in the Minister wanting to deny me this opportunity. He knows that there are no great demands on the time of the House. Obviously he will prevent me from speaking about a situation which has great relevance to news broadcasting in the Queensland election. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(9.28) —I thought that the speech of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) was very constructive. As a matter of fact he said very much what I wanted to say in connection with the Radiocommunications Bill and cognate Bills. I thank him for that. The fact that the legislation replaces the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905 gives some idea of how urgently the new legislation is needed. The framework of the old Act had become incapable of being stretched any further to try to accommodate all the changes that were taking place. Probably no field of technological advance has had such a direct influence on our way of life as that of electronics. Probably no other field had been the subject of so much rapid change. Year by year it has become easier and generally cheaper for anybody at all to make use of all the radio waves for two-way communication. It is so much taken for granted that even thieves and vandals are on record as having organised their break-ins with the use of walkie talkies. What many users of radio communications at the unskilled level fail to realise is that the radio frequency spectrum which carries their signals is not unlimited in its capacity. Although there is still ample scope for further orderly use of the air waves with equipment of sound quality, it is relatively easy to cause disruption with irresponsible use of sub-standard equipment. Dealing with interference is one of the weaknesses of the present Act. It has no way of dealing with interference from devices other than radios, which might be anything from electric tools to radio frequency heaters or even microwave ovens. Radio frequency heaters, for instance, now used extensively in industry wherever an indirect heat source is needed, have been responsible for blotting out television programs over whole suburbs. This has been the subject of numerous complaints from within my electorate, in particular from Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln. I have had numerous complaints from these areas over a long period. I think it is relevant to add to some of the points which the honourable member for Murray made. Four points which I think are relevant, taking into consideration the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 compared with this particular legislation, are these: In the 1905 legislation there was no control of interference, whereas in this legislation interference will be controlled; in the 1905 legislation there was no control of Australian satellites, whereas within this legislation we will have control of Australian satellites; in particular in relation to my electorate, where previously there was no arbiter for interference disputes, I am pleased to see that in this legislation conciliation processes will be provided, and, whereas in the previous legislation powers of enforcement were limited, very correctly we now have provision for inspectors. I think this is very constructive. This Bill also contains provision for enforcing standards in many categories of equipment to reduce the chances of interference which, as I say, is very positive indeed. This will have the effect of protecting unwary buyers of unlicensable electronic gear such as sub-standard transmitters. The onus to prevent such sales will, under this legislation, fall on the supplier. Standards will be extended to non-radio equipment capable of generating interference. They will also cover receiving sets, in particular those in the sensitive high fidelity bracket, which may be unduly vulnerable to interference from transmitters because of a lack of a normal amount of built-in protection against it. The drawing up of standards to cover all classes of equipment likely to affect the radio frequency spectrum will be a huge undertaking and will, except perhaps in cases of extreme urgency, mean publication of intention, an invitation to public comment. I believe this to be an extremely positive step. One notable feature of the new legislation is its extremely broad scope by comparison with its predecessor. The old Act does not bind the Crown. This one will. Electric power lines, railway signal devices and traffic control impediments, are all capable of creating radio interference. The most spectacular departure from the past is, of course, the Aussat Pty Ltd domestic satellite, due for launching in a couple of years. Naturally, the present Act has no category for it. The new one will licence satellites, although other regulations will be brought in to cover the broadcast uses of Aussat. Satellites will, in future years, become major users of the radio frequency spectrum and there will be a need to pay particular attention to large receive-only stations used by them for dissemination of programs. In such cases where certain types of receivers require special departmental attention, they will share the licensing obligation of transmitters but there will be no question of requiring licences for normal household radio or television receivers. Some features of this Bill may appear stringent at first, such as the right to impose a fine of up to $2,000 for possession and intent to use an unauthorised transmitter, or the right for government inspectors to search, if decided necessary, without a warrant. However, it must be brought home to all who have any reason to use radio transmitters in particular that they have a great potential for harm if improperly used. They can trigger off electrically detonated explosions and they can impede communications with aircraft, shipping or emergency services. Apart from this, messages transmitted can also be used to cause harm. The prescribed $10,000 fine, which may be $50,000 in the case of a company, is conservative in the light of some of the possible hazards that could be created or caused. Likewise, the power to search without warrant in an extreme case may be vitally necessary for Commonwealth or Territory police to save lives. The power to do so is unlikely to be taken lightly because it is subject to justification after the event. Another contingency power is given to the Governor-General to declare a period of emergency of up to three months, during which time extra controls are applicable to transmitters during a threat to national security or to the defence of Australia. The object of this would be to protect vital communications during a time of emergency. It is very important to note that there is no time when it is more necessary for communications to be 100 per cent efficient than during an emergency, either local or national. Probably the aspect of radio communications that most concerns members of the public in their everyday lives is the interference with domestic radio or television reception. This matter has often been unsatisfactorily resolved in the past even though the cause of the interference has been clear enough. The power given to the Minister for Communications in this Bill to refer such disputes to a conciliator who may call a compulsory conference of the parties and recommend a solution should be a vast improvement on the legal proceedings that have occasionally been found necessary in the past. There is probably no other country where radio communications have been accepted for so long as a normal and necessary part of life in places where general conditions are fairly rugged and sometimes even primitive. I refer to the outstanding contributions to lives of people in the outback made by such historic Australian institutions as the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia and the School of the Air. I conclude my remarks by saying that I trust that this legislation will not only bring about the tightening-up of responsible radio communications legislation but also be put to use in areas where at present there is no adequate television or radio coverage, particularly in my electorate of Grey. The people in these remote areas have been extremely patient for a very long time. To say the least, they certainly deserve better. It gives me great pleasure to commend this legislation to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.33) —I want to raise only a couple of small matters in relation to these Bills. The first matter relates to the fact that in this legislation, for the first time in Australian history-and, some of my constituents advise me, for one of the first times in the world-we are going to license receivers. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has assured us that such things as private television receivers and, presumably, our transistor radios are not to be included. But my constituents have asked me to raise with the Minister the question of where the line will be drawn. They point out to me that many people use sophisticated receivers for very many reasons and that, in fact, their very sophistication guarantees that they will not create the type of interference that could have been common in times gone by. The technology of today has raised the standards. Some of these people of ethnic origin have bought and operate high standard receivers, as compared with transmitters, so that they can access national programs emanating from their own country-for instance, from Europe and other places. Some of my constituents feel that these people will be disadvantaged if they are required to pay for a licence for just that simple purpose when, in fact, they will be buying equipment that is sold by reputable retailers. In fact , in their view this equipment really does not need to be licensed. Maybe the Minister will assure us that the line is to be drawn at a much higher level than that. Apparently such items as general coverage receivers have a huge band in which they can receive. In some cases these receivers are quite large and sophisticated. Probably the persons concerned would not be so worried about paying a licence fee for the very large models. On behalf of my constituents I call on the Minister to clarify somewhat more exactly what type of receiver will have to be licensed. I think the public is entitled to know. I do not think that should be a grey area. I ask the Minister to clarify in particular just how the Government proposes to police such a matter. We well remember the days of licensing of television sets when people were confronted with a knock on the door. They were somewhat embarrassed. Inspectors went around. My constituents say that unless some action of that nature-some quiet attack on privacy-is carried out, such a requirement will be difficult, if not impossible, to police. I think we have to be very careful about this particular aspect. A receiver is not a transmitter. It is not one of the things just referred to by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) which could be used to interfere with an aircraft, to trigger a bomb or anything of that nature. It is purely an implement to hear what somebody else is saying. My constituents who are ham operators, amongst other things, tell me that the present level of technology is such that the concerns of the Department of Communications in this area probably are based on history rather than on the future. I point out to the Minister for Communications that it is not a criticism of the Bill. It is an issue that has been raised by people in my electorate who think that the Government has gone a little too far with that. In fact we may be able to overcome that problem by giving some clear definition of the type of receiver that has to be licensed so that many people who do use fairly sophisticated equipment for their private enjoyment will not have to pay for a licence or go through all the bureaucratic arrangements associated with that. The other issue which I have raised previously relates directly to the spectrum that these two Bill cease to licence. We still have difficulty because of decisions taken many years ago when we did not adopt in its entirety the international guidelines relating to the use of this particular spectrum. We still have difficulty accommodating frequency modulation radio and television transmission because these two particular means of broadcasting tend to clash in the same area. In Western Australia we are still experiencing some difficulty in getting into operation particular FM radio stations which have been provided because all the frequency changes that are necessary have not yet been made. Although I noted that some of these matters are being addressed in the Budget we have a situation where, I gather, the final Australian report has not been made on how the frequency should be administered in the future. This is creating a problem for Western Australians, although I do not think it is of great difficulty. I understand that on the east coast there are many more stations which conflict with one another. I understand that a problem exists with places such as New Zealand and other countries. If that is a major problem and if it will take a long time to resolve, I believe that the Western Australian area is sufficiently remote and remote from other countries-we can basically say that the next country with which our transmission could interfere would be Africa-for the frequency arrangements to be treated separately. This should be resolved. The Government has promised to establish various FM radio stations and television stations but they have been held up because of this frequency problem . These problems could be addressed immediately. If these matters are not dealt with immediately we will know that it is as a result of some other decision-for instance, there may be no money-or that the Government does not want to establish the stations. At the moment if any project is not going ahead it is blamed on the inquiry into the frequency arrangements in Australia. I do not think that Western Australia should be included in the Australia-wide inquiry. I believe that separate arrangements can and should be made for Western Australia. I ask the Minister to talk to his Department and to look closely at whether Western Australia can be treated separately in this national inquiry unless, of course, the Minister can point out to me that there are special reasons why activities in Western Australia would have an effect on the frequency spectrum in the eastern States. They are the two matters I wish to raise. I am pleased to conclude on that note. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.44) —The Radiocommunications Bill 1983 and the other Bills consequential upon it carry a recognition by the Government that it is very important to bring up to date management of communications in line with the changes in technology in communications. I think that is the overall thrust of the legislation. It is important to recognise that there are items in this legislation which have been carried through from the previous Government. This is not the contentious issue which the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey ) argued it is. I am a little surprised, incidentally, that the honourable member for O'Connor tended to see this legislation as being a threat to his constituents. Some of his constituents do in fact work in rather remote localities. They work in industries such as the drilling industry, doing seismic work, exploration work, drilling water bores, and so on. If there is interference within the radio spectrum, many of those operations could be in hazard, as could the people working in them. The honourable member for O'Connor complains about the fact that the Government is trying to put licences on people; but he has missed the point. Substantially, the point is that this Government is out to license the producers of the equipment so that it will meet the standards specified by the Department of Communications and we shall not have the sort of casual interference which might occur and does occur in remote areas and which can cause difficulty to operations such as drilling industry operations. The honourable member needs to recognise that. One need not be surprised that he has missed the point completely, because he seems to be somewhat preoccupied with other matters. It is important to recognise that when it comes down to the substantial issues of proper management in the interest of the community, we are talking here about various matters, some of which have come through from the previous Government. We are out to manage the area of communications effectively and we are not going around talking about threats and imaginary problems. There are serious problems. The honourable member has missed them but, as I say, one should not be surprised about that. This Government has a responsibility for the proper management of the radio frequency spectrum. The question of management responsibility shows up with this Government. We have seen this with such matters as the removal of the election blackout and the upgrading of channel 0-28 coverage. The management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is being improved. The replacement of the Wireless Telegraphy Act with this new legislation is an example of this Government trying to do a more relevant job. I should like to deal with some of the reasons for this legislation. Many people must wonder from time to time, 'Why do we have such legislation? Why does the Government bring down laws that try to influence our behaviour?' There are some reasons. This legislation will deal with the question of interference controls. It will also deal with licence conditions. It will deal with some technical requirements upon the equipment. It will also provide delegations of authority. It also moves the regulation, as I have indicated, away from radio users in favour of controls on the suppliers of equipment, so that, in effect, we have sufficient controls on suppliers. The responsibility is not put upon the consumer for getting what we might call substandard or unlicensed equipment. That is very important because, as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) indicated, there have been substantial changes in technology in recent times. The market is very complex. There are people who are willing to buy equipment, but they must carry the certainty that it will meet certain requirements. This legislation is designed to ensure that. The other important issue that I need to talk about further is the question of interference. Interference constitutes a major problem with respect to radio and television frequencies. In the Federal electorate of Stirling, as has been indicated by previous speakers, some people are currently experiencing difficulties with respect to radio and television interference. It is a major factor in their lives if they cannot get a proper and adequate reception and they spend money on calling in service people who do not fix it up because the interference lies well outside their equipment. It is a major problem. I was approached recently by one of my constituents, Mr Frank Farrelly, who made that comment about having interference with his radio and television reception. When he called in inspectors he was advised that he could sort out the problem only through the State Energy Commission, because it may be that there was some problem in the circuitry of some equipment near his house. For Mr Farrelly it was not much compensation to know that when he was trying to watch television or listen to the radio, this interference was continuing and that there were many others in the electorate who were experiencing similar difficulties. These interfence controls are very important. As has been indicated by the Minister and by the honourable member for Grey, we need to ensure that the Australian community has an adequate framework. That is the important thing about this legislation: It is designed to provide a framework which is relevant for the 1980s and 1990s in supervising operations within the radio frequency spectrum. I return momentarily to my constituent, Mr Farrelly. The point that comes out there is that if we have proper management of the radio frequency spectrum, the industrial or domestic interference that he is experiencing will not be experienced, and the responsibility will not be carried by him. The responsibility will lie with the proper licensing and proper conduct of equipment. In fact, he was told that some of the interference was due to microwaves and microwave emissions. That poses a great difficulty. It is also an awkward situation for the inspectors to track down. If we try to change the management structure we then have some chance of identifying what we as a government ought to be doing in our community. I also want to deal with the question of remote area coverage. I believe that proper management, as is envisaged in the legislation, will do something for remote area coverage. As I mentioned earlier, in Western Australia in particular a lot of operations in the mining industry depend centrally on radio frequency. In fact, if they have interference and problems with sub-standard equipment, we are not just talking about an industry running into some difficulties, we are talking about people's lives being at stake. At this stage we ought to commend the Minister for saying that we are going to move ahead and change the management and that these sorts of awkard circumstances will not arise in future because we will have proper licensing arrangements and we will overcome difficulties with interference. I notice further in the legislation that we intend to deal with the settlement of disputes with a proper conciliation process. I believe that is important. A management procedure will be established to try to deal with the disputes that may well arise. I think that is quite different from the more adversarial climate that prevailed in the past. I believe that is an important change. This legislation will cover frequencies within which marine radio operates, and that is very important. It is proposed that the America's Cup will be defended in the waters off the Federal electorate of Stirling. In fact, a lot of marine radio operations are conducted in that area. There is a substantial fishing industry and a very substantial crayfishing industry. Many members in this House would benefit from the consumption phase of that crayfishing industry. There is also substantial recreational boating and amateur fishing, and there are many occasions in which boats get into distress. In fact, the weekend before last a boat got into distress, and it was pointed out by the rescuers that the proper carriage of radio by that vessel meant that the five people on board were rescued in a short period and an effective operation was carried out. One can commend the people who did the rescuing, but I think it is also important to recognise that if we have a properly managed set of radio frequencies we will have vessels being able to transmit and receive messages. Safety is very paramount. It has to be emphasised that we are looking at a change in the management, and that is crucial, of radiocommunications in Australia and upgrading the standard of management so that we can have a more effective operation. In conclusion, if we look very closely at some of the changes in this Act compared with the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, the Radiocommunications Bill 1983 provides a much more up to date look at communications, for example, the control of Australian satellites. We are looking to the future. In having within this management framework the capacity to deal with such transmissions we are recognising the technology as it is arising. Clearly, the 1905 legislation could not have been expected to provide the effective framework, but I believe that a more effective management system is envisaged by this legislation. There are real problems, such as the interference that constituents of mine might experience, and there are changes in technology which bring about clashes in the management of radio frequency. Members of the police force in Western Australia remarked to me on the awkward circumstances that arise with radio transmissions. We know about the interceptions of radio transmissions, but there is also interference with their radio transmissions. That is an important issue, particularly if we are dealing with emergencies. I mentioned earlier emergencies with respect to marine operations and remote area mining and drilling operations , and they are all very important. I also mentioned crisis management. If the management of the radio frequency is brought up to date, I believe many Australians will applaud this Government. It is with great pleasure that I support the Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(9.55) —in reply-I thank honourable members, with the specific exception of the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), for their contributions to the debate tonight. It is indeed a welcome change to have the bipartisan approach which we have seen tonight. That is, of course, appreciated by us all. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd ) raised, among other matters, the question of the enforcement of standards and standards generally. As he indicated, the standard making powers are at the heart of the regulatory regime established by the radiocommunications Bill. I think the problems in respect of sub-standard transmitters should be dealt with just briefly in relation to the whole question of standards. The offences arising out of the use of sub-standard equipment are dealt with in clause 11 of the Bill. Other honourable members tonight have raised the question of interference. I think it is worth looking at some of the interference that is caused by the use of sub-standard transmitters and giving some examples of the matters which concerned the previous Government and concern this Government. For example, the use of an industrial radio frequency heater for drying wool blacked out television reception and mobile radio services over a substantial area of Launceston, Tasmania. In Carlton, Victoria, a small plastic goods manufacturer used a radio frequency heater to seal goods, blacking out local television reception, and refused to make relatively inexpensive equipment modifications which would have solved the problem. Those sorts of matters go on and on. There are very many examples. I think those people who have participated in the debate tonight are sufficiently interested in the subject to know about them, therefore I will not go through them. That is really at the heart of the need for standards and controls about which this Government is concerned, as was the previous Government. That is basically why this legislation was introduced. The honourable member for Murray referred to the Customs Act in relation to imports. He referred specifically to telephone handsets. I point out that Telecom Australia sets standards by certification under the Telecommunications Act. It is not actually a matter to be dealt with in this legislation. Mr Lloyd —I realise that. I was interested to know the attitude. Mr DUFFY —I appreciate that the honourable member is aware of it. I just wanted to point out that that was the case. The point made by the honourable member in relation to the Customs Act probably deserves consideration but the worst cases are dealt with anyway on the basis of equipment not being able to be imported. We are, of course, concerned about inferior standards getting through the net. I take note of that specific point but, as the honourable member has indicated, it is not related specifically to this legislation. The honourable member for Murray then raised the objections from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters of which, as the honourable member for Murray would know, I am aware. They have made their views known. In an industry sense they are organisations which make their views known, as they should. I think the honourable member indicated that Parliamentary Counsel made some last minute changes to the Bill, covering unlicensed transmissions. Because unlicensed broadcasting is covered by the Wireless Telegraphy Act and was to be covered by the Radiocommunications Bill and because of legal drafting problems it was decided to remove this offence from this Bill and to provide a consequential amendment placing it in the Broadcasting and Television Act. For consistency the wording in the Broadcasting and Television Act amendment follows closely the wording of the Radiocommunications Bill, and FACTS indicated that it had some reservations about this change. It considers that the reasonable excuse which condones an unlicensed broadcast, if it deals with an emergency involving a serious threat to the environment, is unacceptable. That was the main issue that FACTS raised with the Government. It put the view that it could encourage illegal broadcasting in certain circumstances, and FARB, the other industry body , also indicated to the honourable member for Murray that it was unhappy with this provision. I think that the Natural Disasters Organisation also expressed the reservation that well meaning people broadcasting in an emergency could sometimes do more harm than good. However, in relation to this matter which I raise for the information of honourable members, the Director-General of the Natural Disasters Organisation indicated that he does not feel strongly on this matter. I must say that the opposition from FACTS and FARB did not really come with the normal vehemence that it may have come with if those organisations had been really concerned about the matter. They expressed the view which, I can assure the honourable member for Murray, we did not ignore. I do not think the issue was one of enormous substance. For example, on the environment issue I think a major oil spill is an instance in which a person who is unlicensed to broadcast- say an amateur-should be in a position to be able to broadcast warnings. Having taken into account the matters raised by FACTS and FARB, I nevertheless think that the Bill should stand as it is. I repeat that FACTS and FARB raised their opposition and concerns about this provision, but it did not seem to me that it was a matter that they would really freak out about in any event. On balance we have decided to leave that clause as it is. The other matter raised by the shadow spokesman on these matters is that of inspectors. Clause 69 deals with arrest without warrant and clause 71 deals with search warrants obtained by telephone. I think that the matter the honourable member for Murray referred to specifically was probably that of searches or entries in emergencies as stated in clause 72. Clause 72 no doubt could cause some concern. I understand why the honourable member has expressed some worry about it. But I simply point out that that action can take place only when an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence or that such urgent circumstances exist that such search or entry is warranted. Such action would be undertaken only in the most compelling circumstances, circumstances such as those which came to mind when clause 71 of the Bill was being considered. They were such things as aircraft safety frequency and instances in which emergency services or similar vital services were being deliberately disrupted. In cases in which a vehicle is involved in the use or transport of substandard equipment it is not possible to obtain a normal search warrant or a telephone warrant before the vehicle goes elsewhere. The extent of these powers is, of course, of concern. I will not go through them again because the honourable member for Murray went through the various Acts in which these powers exist. That does not mean that they are not powers which ought to be looked at each time legislation which has these sorts of powers comes forward. All I would say to the honourable member for Murray in respect of that matter is that the concerns that he has raised are concerns of which the Government and I are conscious. I think that we would have reached a parlous state if ever a government in this country was not concerned about the sorts of issues the honourable member raised tonight. I assure him that that proposed section would certainly need to be reviewed if it were used other than in the sorts of circumstances that I have indicated. The honourable member for O'Connor raised the question of licensing of receivers. Part VII of the Bill addresses the question of licensing for certain classes of receivers. It is probably necessary to make it clear again that licences will not be required for receivers for radio or television programs intended for reception by the general public. The Government has no intention of requiring the licensing of typical multi-band portable receivers, continuous tuning television receivers, shortwave receivers, scanning receivers or similar consumer devices commonly available to the public. The policy of the Government on this question is that regulations requiring a licensing of particular classes of receivers will be made only where there is a clear need to protect them from interference. Receivers which would also clearly be in that category would be those requiring protection, such as major satellite earth stations. That would be a classic example of a receiver which would require licensing. It would be a major, high capacity satellite earth station, the cost of which takes it out of the category about which the honourable member for O'Connor expressed concern. He also expressed concern about the general problems with broadcasting in his electorate, as have members on the Government side of the House. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) may have strayed marginally from the relevance of the Bill tonight by speaking again of his major broadcasting problem, the reception in the Dandenong Ranges. But I take account of what both the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for O'Connor have said, in that they are expressing concerns which the Government shares. The honourable member for O'Connor said that for a long time-the matter is not strictly relevant to this Bill-the matters of band 2 clearance and further frequencies being available have tended to be matters under discussion and that not enough has happened with respect to them. On various occasions in this place , particularly over the last few weeks or certainly since the Budget, I have indicated that, in fact, there has been an allocation in respect of those matters. We hope that it will be full steam ahead to clear up a planning backlog which it is hoped will satisfy the complaints of members from both sides of the House in that regard. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.12) —by leave-I move: Clause 8, page 11, lines 20 to 21, omit ''nothing in the prescribed provisions of this Act renders unlawful'', substitute ''the prescribed provisions of this Act do not apply in relation to''. Clause 8, page 11, line 30, omit ''Nothing in this Act renders unlawful'', substitute ''This Act does not apply in relation to''. Clause 8, page 11, line 36, omit ''Nothing in this Act renders unlawful'', substitute ''This Act does not apply in relation to''. Clause 8, page 12, line 4, omit ''Nothing in this Act renders unlawful'', substitute ''This Act does not apply in relation to''. Clause 65, page 50, line 18, after ''receivers'', insert ''to persons intending to operate them''. The amendments to clause 8 relate to exemptions provided for the Department of Defence, the Defence Force, joint defence facilities, defence research and intelligence activities, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and Australian security intelligence organisations. The amendments do not seek to alter materially the effect of the Bill for any practical purpose, but they bring the drafting into line with other Commonwealth legislation, specifically the Freedom of Information Act 1981. The amendments remove any suggestion of Parliament having a different intention with respect to the extent of these exemptions in the two Acts. The purpose of the amendment to clause 65 (15), page 50, line 18, is to restrict the scope of regulations under this sub-clause to controls on retailers supplying prescribed equipment to radio users. The fault in the draft as it stands is that wholesalers would be covered by the requirement to sell only to licensed persons and to keep records of such sales. That was not the intention, of course, of the legislation. That is the reason for the fifth amendment, that to clause 65. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.16) —I move: Pages 3 and 4, that part of the Schedule relating to the Crimes Act 1914, omit all the words after 'Repeal the section'. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills noted that the cancellation of licences under section 30FB (b) of the Crimes Act is not subject to Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, unlike the parallel provisions of the Radiocommunications Bill. Because of that, although the proposed new section would not change the current state of the law, it has now been agreed that it simply duplicates powers in the Radiocommunications Bill and consequently the section is now to be repealed. This means that any future cancellation action will be under the Radiocommunications Act and therefore will be subject to Administrative Appeals Tribunal review. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: MIGRATION AMENDMENT (EMIGRATION OF CERTAIN CHILDREN) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983 as they are related measures? Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both these measures? I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.25) —The Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 is for most Australians one of the most important Bills to come before this House. This is because of the great importance of family law to Australians. I suppose that there is no area of law of such general concern to Australians; certainly there is no area of law which demonstrates so convincingly how greatly our society has changed over the last few decades. The Bill, amongst its other aims, gives effect to a large number of recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which was very ably chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), as well as the recommendation of the Family Law Council. The amendments concern both machinery provisions and the substance of the Act as it will be when amended. Because of the nature of the issues raised, the Opposition will have a free vote on this Bill. That illustrates some of the major differences between the Opposition and the Government. I understand that the Government has put the Bill to the House as a Government measure which must be supported by all members of the Government Party. Notwithstanding that, we are dealing with something which is purely non-political. We are dealing with matters which are delicate, sensitive and of great importance to anyone who may be affected by what takes place in the family law courts. In our society, more and more people are affected by what takes place in those courts. However, the Government has taken its position. The Opposition's position is that it will allow its members a free vote because the various provisions which appear in this Bill are quintessentially matters of conscience. Before going to some of the specific provisions of the Bill I should like to say something about the history of family law as it demonstrates how very greatly our society has changed. It was not until 1857 or so that one was even able to obtain a divorce in civil courts. If my recollection is correct, before then those kinds of matters were dealt with on a very limited basis by the old ecclesiastical courts. Although adultery from 1857 onwards for very many years was the sole grounds for a wife seeking divorce, as well as proving that adultery had taken place, it had to be coupled with incest, bigamy, cruelty or two years of desertion or alternatively rape or an unnatural offence. It was a slow and tortuous process to change the views of society in regard to the granting of divorce. I suppose the major move in this country came in 1959, before the 1975 Act. The 1959 Act which was known at the time as the Matrimonial Causes Act, was regarded as a very radical piece of legislation. That Act provided 14 grounds of divorce. However, of course, in that Act and in all previous Acts, the concept of fault was intrinsic to obtaining a divorce. Therefore, all the grounds pre-supposed fault on the part of one of the parties. There was still to be found antique defence such as condonation or connivance. For example, if one could prove after an act of adultery that the innocent party had sexual relations with the party committing the act of adultery, this was sufficient in most cases to establish condonation and the basis for divorce had gone. Anyone who had any experience of the operation of the Matrimonial Causes Act, as I did, would understand how unpleasaant it was to find oneself in a court as a husband or wife petitioning for divorce, how unpleasant it was to have one's most intimate affairs examined miscroscopically-not just what one had done on a particular occasion but all of one's actions relating, for example, to an occasion of adultery. Debate interrupted. Queensland Election: Television Time-Bottom of the Harbour Schemes-Media Coverage of Sporting Events-Telecom Australia: Telephone Charges-Immigration: Mr John Griffin-Mr Stan Nicholls. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.30) —I take this opportunity to refer to what I was trying to say earlier this evening. In fact, I have given comments to the Press. Of course, with my limited time now, I have to abbreviate my comments. In the Sunday Mail of 16 October there was an article the relevant part of which read as follows: Last night, State ALP campaign director Mr Peter Beattie admitted a member of his party had contacted the Communications Minister Mr Michael Duffy's office. He had sought the same ratio in news reporting as had been granted to the parties as free time for policy speeches, he said. Mr Beattie said he had discovered the ABC news service was giving equal time to each party after the Corporation had stated that electioneering time would be on a 60 minutes to the ALP, 40 minutes to the Nationals and 40 minutes to the Liberals basis. 'I almost hit the roof when I found out,' he said. 'There is a discrepancy between the allocation of electioneering time and news time. 'We contacted Duffy's office and we were told the news time should be allocated in the same ratio as electioneering time.' In reply to my question today the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) described the statements by Sir Robert Sparkes and Mr Mike Evans of the National Party of Australia as a baseless and disgraceful lie and went on to announce that he was instructing his solicitors to issue defamation proceedings immediately. He also said that no one had spoken to him about anything connected with this allegation and that he had asked his staff about it. The Minister said -I quote from the Hansard 'greens': They advised me that none of them was asked by anyone to request, direct or otherwise influence the ABC to change its current policy concerning the allocation of broadcasting matter. This brings us to the first contradiction. The Minister said at first that his staff was not asked to influence the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in this matter, but when I pressed him he told a significantly different story. he said- and again I quote from the 'greens': Mr Beattie contacted my office to ascertain what the coverage was. He sought information. Tonight the Minister said that it was not Mr Beattie, so presumably it was somebody acting for Mr Beattie. One minute no one is talking to the Minister's office about this; the next, someone, is only seeking information. It is pretty shoddy treatment, I might say, for a Minister to perform in this way. This Minister has effectively misled the House and provided the truth only when he has been pressed for it. Most of us would have expected more of the Minister than what he did today in answer to my questions. A further conflict arises between what the Minister says happened and what Mr Beattie says happened. I remind the House that the Minister said that Mr Beattie or someone else merely sought information. I also remind the House that in the Sunday Sun report Mr Beattie is quoted as saying that he had discovered that the ABC was giving equal time to the three major parties. He is quoted as saying that he contacted the Minister's office and sought the same ratio for news reporting as had been given by the ABC for policy speeches. Mr Beattie is quoted as saying: We contacted Duffy's office and we were told the news time should be allocated in the same ratio as the electioneering time. That meant that instead of each party getting equal time the Australian Labor Party was to receive 43 per cent of the news time and the National Party and the Liberal Party were to receive 28 per cent each. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can understand why I am concerned and why I questioned the implications of this matter. Mr Duffy denies that he had any part in it. He does so despite the fact that he has given conflicting answers on this issue to the Parliament, despite the fact that those answers are themselves in conflict with the statement attributed to one of his most senior personnel in Queensland, and despite the discriminatory policy which is blatantly in favour of his own party against the protests of journalists of the ABC who recognise that there has been interference in their freedom to be able to report the news properly on news value. That is what has happened as a result of some interference coming from somebody in the Minister's office; it has been done as a result of Mr Beattie's requests. Mr Beattie said the Minister would do something and would fix up this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.35) —I note that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) spoke for some five minutes without any points of order being raised, even though the points he raised were going to matters of credibility on this side of the House. I sincerely hope that the same approach will be taken to the comments which I am about to continue making having adverted to these matters earlier this evening. I was continuously interjected upon. Having described the family company of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and his involvement in that company, the honourable member for Ryan addressed the company in some ways as an arms length involvement. It is interesting to note that the name of the company, Colinton, is the second name of the honourable member. I doubt whether it is such an arms length relationship . Certainly, the honourable member for Ryan admitted selling his company to bottom of the harbour operators and copping an assessment. We might compare that with the situation which the Opposition alleges the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is involved in. The Minister has been cleared by the Commissioner of Taxation. There is certainly strong evidence that in this case the honourable member for Ryan is in debt to the Australian taxpayer. On 4 June 1980 Coghill and Edwards, who were directors of that company, departed the scene. Replacing them were a number of directors of some notoriety. I refer honourable members to the McCabe-Lafranchi report. The directors were Kampala Airways Ltd, John Madden and Terrence Noel Steward who replaced Alan Richard Taylor as the company secretary. Without going into the details-time will not allow me to do so-suffice it to say that another director, one Hank de Froideville, was appointed. That is a very interesting name; it is quite apt in the circumstances. Far from residing in the somewhat luxurious building that the company had originally found itself in, it resided in a Housing Commission dwelling in Ipswich. That is something of an indication as to where the company was about to go. I am not in a position to say that these directors are fictitious, although they were named in a list of directors who, according to the Australian Taxation Office, were involved in profit stripping tax avoidance schemes. As honourable members would be aware, that list was published in the National Times on 10 October 1982. My assessment is that these series of transactions bear all the hallmarks of bottom of the harbour transactions. Accordingly, I think it would be quite appropriate for this information to be forwarded to the Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles, for his assessment. As I have indicated, the honourable member for Ryan has already stated to the House that the company ended up at the bottom of the harbour. Without going into too much detail, let me simply say that since I have been a member of this House and certainly for a very long time before-I go back to 1972 to 1975-the Opposition has not demurred from using the privileges of this House to slander and, by implication, to try to indicate that members from the now Government side were involved in all sorts of shady operations. In talking about the Minister for Finance, it was a consistent theme to hear the words 'illegality' and 'impropriety'. Of course, honourable members opposite were saying there was none of either. But they went on and on. The words 'the company transactions' were used and by implication the Minister for Finance is slurred. I say simply that two can play that game. If honourable members opposite do not rein in their hard heads and fools who abuse the processes of this House, I indicate that I and other members on this side will certainly not be bound by conventions of the House which are not adhered to by both sides. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.40) —Members of parliament are often accused of being cynical and insincere in their attempts to represent their constituents. In some cases that criticism is founded. But very often those who accuse and criticise us-I refer to some members of the Australian media-forget that they are not above criticism themselves. Over the past weeks I, like millions of other Australians, have watched our much travelled Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pop up at one sporting event after another from one end of the continent to the other. He has not missed one major sporting event, except perhaps the national lizard racing titles in Eulo or the guinea pig races during the Bungaroonga Festival in Charleville. With all of those appearances, it is interesting to note the attitude of some sports writers and some journalists in their comments on the Prime Minister. Many-in fact, most-have been in praise of this sporting interest of the Prime Minister, and rightly so. Some have praised him; some have merely marvelled at his constitution in getting to so many places in so few days. Few have been openly critical. In fact, to find criticism one must look to one of Fleet Street 's longest serving editors, Sir John Junor, of the Sunday Express, who stated: Did you mark the way Australian PM Bob Hawke, who has all the charisma of a jellied eel and whose own experience of sailing has never gone beyond a plastic duck in his own bath, cashed in on the victory of Australia in the America's Cup race? I make it clear that I am in no way criticising the right of any Australian Prime Minister to take part and pride in sporting achievements of any kind by any Australian. It is his right; it is expected and it is quite proper for a national leader to share in the euphoria and victory of competition. But how different is the media's attitude to this Prime Minister from its attitude to the former Prime Minister last year? Last year Malcolm Fraser was castigated for daring to mix sport and politics; for daring to be photographed with Australian medal winners at the Commonwealth Games-Games, I might add, to which his Federal Government had contributed funds, unlike the America's Cup or the James Hardie 1000, at which Prime Minister Hawke appeared. Those were two events which members of the Government criticised as elitist. If it was so wrong just 12 months ago for a Prime Minister to be seen with sports stars, why is it now so right, so patriotic and so Australian? Where is the cynicism so well displayed by the media last year, so well hidden this year? Journalists set great store by their claims that they are apolitical as, of course, they should be. But can someone explain to me why it is all right for a Labor Prime Minister to troop half way around this country, appearing on the winners dais of every national sporting event he can possibly find, but it was so wrong for a Liberal Prime Minister to appear at the Commonwealth Games. Twelve months ago, Geoff Slattery wrote in the Age newspaper: Whenever Mr Fraser pranced on centre stage, I watched with mixed unhappy feelings. On the one hand there was sorrow, and on the other a cynical distaste that the leader of this country could lower himself to make such a blatant attempt at grabbing political points from sporting heroes. But recently the Age said: Mr Hawke's reaction this week to the America's Cup victory laid bare his character and Australia's. He both led and submerged himself in Australia's joy. He was not playing a role or grandstanding when he bubbled and enthused all Tuesday morning, producing hyperbole without blush. He stood below the yacht club balcony from where the young people were calling: We want Bob...Mr Hawke waved and threw his head back and laughed up at them, giving a thumbs up sign, clenching a fist. It was a moment of pure patriotism. Where is the cynical distaste of the same newspaper a year before and where is the media bias? I add, in conclusion, that articles in the Age do not have exclusive rights to a cynical about-face on sporting events. Victoria's Premier John Cain not long ago withdrew State Government sponsorship of the West Coast yacht race and refused to start the race, saying that it was elitist. That did not stop him from sending an enthusiastic telegram to the Australia II crew last week suggesting that the America's Cup be defended in Victoria. As I said at the beginning, some criticism of politicians is well founded. Surely criticism that is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.45) —I rise this evening to bring to the notice of the House the financial burden which is directed to many residents on the Mornington Peninsula because of the high charges imposed on them by Telecom Australia for the use of an essential tool for living in the 1980s, the telephone. I draw to the House's attention to the annual report of Telecom Australia. Honourable members will see that on the cover there is a picture of which I am quite certain psychologists could make something. There is a fairly abusive-looking gentleman and a frightened telephonist. No doubt the gentleman is a constituent of mine from Mornington Peninsula complaining about his telephone bill. Over the past six months I have made several representations to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on behalf of the thousands of concerned constituents in the Flinders electorate regarding Telecom charges. The Flinders electorate adjoins the metropolitan zone of Dandenong and appears to me to be in an anomalous situation whereby the Dandenong area is included in the metropolitan charge zone and the Flinders area is not. Subscriber trunk dialling calls from Melbourne to the Red Hill and Rosebud zones are charged at F rate, that is, a day rate of 52c for three minutes, which covers a distance range of 50 to 85 kilometres as measured from the Melbourne General Post Office. I have pointed out that to use the GPO in Melbourne as the centre point for distance measuring is incorrect because the GPO no longer represents the population's centre of gravity. Telecom's argument is that once a measuring point has been established it cannot be changed. I fear that Telecom has missed the point. I do not propose that the measuring point be moved but rather that the metropolitan zone charge area be increased to encompass areas that perhaps were once rural but are now urban and in some cases even suburban. It is time that Telecom acknowledged that the population of Melbourne has increased over the past decades and therefore demographic change has occurred. Areas that were once rural are now areas from which residents commute daily to the city centre to work. Such areas are Mornington, Dromana, Red Hill and Hastings. It is not realistic to suggest that the Flinders electorate is still a seaside holiday resort. Perhaps it was 20 years ago but it is not now. It is, in fact, emerging as a dormitory suburb of Melbourne. It is a beautiful and pleasant place to live and from which to travel to one's place of employment. Telecom has tried to hedge its responsibilities by outlining the benefits the Flinders electorate has received through the Access 80 program. Although it is pleasing to note that the reduced Sunday rates introduced from 23 January 1983 allow residents, and especially pensioners, in the Rosebud and Red Hill zones to telephone families and friends in the Melbourne metropolitan zone at reduced rates, that does nothing to assist them with calls that need to be made during normal business hours. When one considers that most business calls out of this area are made from Monday to Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., this concession does nothing to assist the business people on the Mornington Peninsula. Therefore, I again ask the Minister to review the situation with Telecom, bearing in mind that the Mornington Peninsula is a large growth area and has undergone considerable demographic change in the last decade. Again I ask that the Melbourne metropolitan telephone zone be increased to include such areas as the Flinders electorate, where now many Melbourne workers reside and to which, in fact, many people, especially pensioners, have moved from Melbourne to enjoy the unique environment of the area. They are denied proper contact with their loved ones because of high costs. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.50) —Over a number of speeches in the adjournment debate I have been explaining to the House the problems that have been faced by Mr John Griffin, a British migrant applying for permanent residence in this country. I have also been explaining to the House the difficulties that Mr Griffin has been experiencing particularly with officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. On 22 September I explained that Mr Griffin has had problems particularly with a Mr Peter Thompson of the Hobart office of the Department. Mr Griffin was accused by the Department of being an illegal immigrant and it placed this man under great duress to leave the country and not to exercise the legal rights of appeal that are available to him or to any prospective immigrant . Mr Griffin decided to take up his right of appeal to the Immigration Review Panel and appropriately made out an application form for transmission to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and to that panel. Following that Mr Thompson telephoned Mr Griffin at his home in Cressy, in Tasmania and asked him whether it was true that he had prepared this application form. When Mr Griffin confirmed that he had completed the application form Mr Thompson advised him that the form would never leave Tasmania and that it would never appear on the Minister's desk. Naturally, Mr Griffin was disturbed about that and contacted my office. I agreed that I personally would bring the application form to Canberra and place it on the Minister's desk. I believe that Mr Thompson totally trangressed his position as an immigration officer. He had a duty to handle that application form properly and he had no right to pass that information on to Mr Griffin. However, the matter did not end there. Mr Griffin was advised by Mr Thompson that if he proceeded with the application he would be charged under section 6 of the Migration Act as an illegal immigrant. Despite that warning, Mr Griffin decided to continue with the application. Later that day he was again contacted by Mr Thompson who advised Mr Griffin that he had changed his mind and now intended to charge Mr Griffin under section 27 of the Migration Act. A conviction under that section would automatically lead to a fine of $1,000 or six months in gaol. Following that advice from Mr Thompson, I sent the following telegram to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodges: With reference to the matter of John Robert Griffin and application for change of status. Have been advised by director of your Tasmanian State Department, Mr P. Thompson, that prosecution is to take place under section 27 of the Act if Mr Griffin does not withdraw his application with Mr Max Burr. Would urgently request you halt this move which is placing Mr Griffin in a state of duress while waiting your decision on his application. Mr Thompson was trying to exert duress on this man who was doing no more than exercising the legal rights that were available to him. The matter did not end there. It went before the Immigration Review Panel. One of the requirements of the Immigration Review Panel-I quote from its document-is: The Panel, which is quite separate from the departmental officers who made the original decision, reports directly to the Minister. We believed that that would be the case but it turned out not to be so. The panel was chaired by a Mr B. L. Murray who is also an officer of the Immigration Department. Mr Griffin was appealing from Caesar unto Caesar. He was appealing to the people who were tossing him out of the country. Quite apart from that, Mr Murray at a later date telephoned Mr Griffin and pointed out to him that some of the facts that he had stated in his application would not be accepted by the tribunal and that the tribunal apparently had already made its decision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.55) —In recent weeks the House has heard of the exploits of quite a large number of Australian sporting individuals and people related to them, from the America's Cup victory through to the achievements of Robert de Castella, the victory of the Davis Cup team and football champions, et cetera. I want to draw the attention of the House to the record of another of Australia's remarkable sportsmen. Perhaps not everyone has heard of Stan Nicholls of Ballarat, but Stan's achievements are remarkable on several counts. Stan, who is now aged 72, has been engaged in athletics since 1928 when he joined the Ballarat Harriers and the Victorian Amateur Athletics Association at the age of 17. Remarkably he has maintained unbroken service to athletics since that time. He won his first race in 1930 and has had a remarkable history of success since then. In June 1983 he won the Australian Veterans Marathon Championship in the 70 to 75 years age group at Hobart in the astonishing time of 3 hours and 13 minutes. I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is quite impossible to detail the record of Stan Nicholls in the short time allowed in the adjournment debate. Therefore I must point to just a sample of this fine athlete's accomplishments. He has been a life member of the Ballarat Harriers for 32 years and has been Club president, captain, trustee, coach and committee man and is still the Club' s delegate to the Victorian Athletic Association. Having also been a time-keeper for many years for the Ballarat Harriers, he was appointed track athletics time- keeper at the Melbourne Olympic Games at the stadium for the marathon and the road walks. He was also appointed an official at the athletics stadium at the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane in 1982. Over the past 50 years he has also been most active as an official at many Australian and Victorian athletic championships. Even during the Second World War, when he served for four years, he was a physical training instructor during part of this time. He has been an example for all young and older athletes and potential athletes. He has been a member of the Victorian Amateur Walkers Club and Marathon Club for a number of years. In recent years he has been active in fostering veteran athletics and race walking in Ballarat and is a grade one walk judge of the Victorian Athletic Association. Remarkable as these achievements have been, I wish to list some of his own running achievements. In his competitive achievements in athletics he first won a race in 1930, as I indicated, in the Ballarat Harriers 2 1/2 miles event. He was the Ballarat track and cross country champion for many years in the 1930s and he held most distance running records in those years. He was also Victorian three-miles track champion , as well as Victorian five-miles cross country champion. In latter years he has been prominent in veteran athletics. In 1981, aged 69, he won two gold medals and one silver medal at the World Veteran Games Championships at Christchurch, where he won the 3,000 metres steeplechase in his age group and broke the world age record in that race. In 1982 he won five events at the Pacific Games in Suva . He has been veteran athletics champion of Australia 37 times and has won 42 Victorian veterans championships in running, race walking, steeplechase and marathon events. In all, Stan Nicholls now officially holds 28 veterans world age records, according to the recently published World Age Record Book. I could detail more and more of these, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the record just goes on and on. Stan was recently awarded the remarkable accolade rarely awarded to Victorian athletes when he was awarded the Award of Merit by the Victorian Athletics Association in recognition of his service to athletics and his remarkable personal achievements over a period of 55 years. I must say that Stan's wife, Arley, is also a wonderful athlete, beginning athletics only a few years ago, and now over 70 she holds world records in her own right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Duffy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.00) —I reply to the matters raised earlier this evening by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony). I go back to where this matter began. I refer to a Press report which was in two Sunday newspapers, the Sunday Mail of 16 October and the Sunday Sun of 16 October. I think the Leader of the National Party has now cleared up the problems regarding the newspapers from which he quoted today. He was not clear as to which paper he was talking about. He has now clarified his position. The matters which concern me relate particularly to the two reports. The Sunday Mail of 16 October reported: The National Party is to protest against ABC news coverage of the state election. The Party's move, with a call for the sacking of the Communications Minister, Mr Duffy- The report stated further on: National Party state director Mr Mike Evans said last night the Minister was guilty of 'unwarranted interference in the autonomy of the ABC'. 'A direction like that is so frightening it is getting back to the days of Hitler and Goebbels,' the National Party state director, Mr Mike Evans, said last night. The Sunday Sun of 16 October stated: The National Party wants the Federal Communications Minister sacked for directing the ABC to give the ALP move news cover. We then move to Monday, 17 October, when the Daily Sun reported: The National Party is seeking Crown Law advice on claims that the ALP breached the Criminal Code by inducing the ABC to give Labor a political advantage in news broadcasts. Later on, that report stated: Sir Robert-- referring to Sir Robert Sparkes, the National Party State President-- claimed the State A.L.P. had induced the Federal A.L.P. to direct the ABC news to give Labor 60 units of airtime and 40 units each to the Liberals and the Nationals. As a result of those Press reports, the Leader of the National Party came into the chamber today and asked a question in relation to these matters. I will clear up once and for all a couple of points. Those Press reports were known to me when the question was asked today. In fact I had read them. The allegations made in those Press reports can only be said to be totally baseless. I repeat what I said at Question Time today: Those allegations in fact represent disgraceful lies. No person-- Mr Anthony —But contact had been made. Mr DUFFY —Would you just be quiet and listen? You have interrupted this chamber twice tonight without any good reason at all. No person whatsoever-I repeat, no person whatsoever-had spoken to me about anything remotely connected with this allegation until Monday, 17 October, when the Press reports to which I have referred were brought to my attention. I have made inquiries of my staff as I indicated to the right honourable gentleman at Question Time today. They have advised me that not one of them was asked by anyone-I would like the right honourable gentleman to listen to this-to request, direct or otherwise influence the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to change its current policy concerning the allocation of broadcasting time. They advised me that not one of them had spoken to the ABC on any matter connected in any way with the Queensland elections. Nothing can be clearer than that. Tonight I came into this House and corrected an answer given to a supplementary question asked by the Leader of the National Party. I said this: The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), in a supplementary question without notice this afternoon, asked me whether it was true, as reported-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Is it the Minister's intention to use the second speaking period available to him, as no other Minister is rising? Mr Duffy —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Communications. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.05) —Let me repeat my words: The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), in a supplementary question without notice this afternoon, asked me whether it was true, as reported-so the right honourable member said-in the Sunday Mail, that Mr Beattie had contacted my office . . . In answer I replied that Mr Beattie had contacted my office to seek information as to what allocation of broadcasting time was being afforded the parties. That was my belief at the time. However, on checking the matter further, my staff advised me that Mr Beattie did not himself contact my office on this matter at any relevant time. Further, I have checked the Hansard record of my answer to the principal question put to me by the Leader of the National Party of Australia and I confirm the accuracy of that answer in every particular. I have heard other people say so often, and it is now obvious that it is so very true, that there are some very slow learners opposite and it is necessary to repeat again-I do not know whether it will ultimately sink into the head of the right honourable member for Richmond, the Leader of the National Party-that no person had spoken to me at any time about anything connected with the allegations until Monday last, when the Press reports were referred to me. Further, there is no question about my staff's involvement in this matter. They have advised me that none of them was asked by anyone to request, direct or otherwise influence the ABC to change its current policy. Further, I have been advised by my staff that none of them has spoken to the ABC on any matter connected in any way with the Queensland election. As I indicated to the right honourable member earlier today, I have been advised by the Department of Communications that in fact the Board of the ABC at its August meeting-I emphasise, at its August meeting-determined that the Labor, National and Liberal parties should be granted 60, 40 and 40 minutes respectively of free time for election announcements in the forthcoming election . My Department further advises me that it is the ABC's policy that the proportions of the ABC's news coverage of the election by party will reflect those for free time allocation; that is, the duration of the news coverage will, as close as practicable, be at a ratio of 3:2:2 for the parties respectively. There has been no interference by me or by any member of my staff and there has been no interference by this Government in respect of the Board's decision. I am advised by my Department that the ABC decided that it would in fact give a coverage as close as practicable at a ratio of 3:2:2. There has been and there will be no interference by this Government in the Board's decision. Those decisions are completely and properly for the ABC to determine pursuant to its Act and, as I indicated today, this is a matter which the right honourable member has grave difficulty in understanding. We on this side of the House have no difficulty in understanding the fact that the ABC, as the national broadcaster, operates entirely independently. If the ABC made a decision to grant time of 60, 40 and 40 minutes for free time election announcements, that is a matter for the ABC Board. It is none of my business. Secondly, with respect to the news coverage to the election, the decision was that it would reflect the proportions for the free time allocation; that is, as I indicated-I have to say it for the third time-that the duration of news service would be at a ratio of 3:2:2 for the parties respectively. Again, that is a matter that the ABC decides. I would not know what the ABC decided on that matter because it is not any of my business. If I wanted to find out as a matter of interest, the only way I would do so would be to request the Department to tell me. I did not in fact do so in this case because I was not all that interested, simply because, I repeat, whatever decisions are made by the ABC are matters for the ABC. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make provision for certain transfers of prisoners between the States and the Territories, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to fisheries in certain waters between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. The following paper was presented Mr Hayden-East Timor-Red Cross access-Comments of International Red Cross Committee representative to Indonesia-Cablegram, dated 27 September 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 241 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a news release of 20 May 1983 which indicated that the Government recognised the need to strengthen the Migrant Resource Centre program and that some of the additional funding will be especially directed to on-arrival programs. (2) Will he expand on the areas in which migrant resource centres will be involved in on-arrival programs. (3) Will orientation programs continue to be carried out by his Department; if not, will migrant resource centres be expected to take over these orientation programs. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I announced the additional funding to the Conference of the Chairmen of Migrant Resource Centres on Thursday evening 12 May 1983, in Canberra, and subsequently issued the press release. (2) MRCs have been requested to give special emphasis to the needs of newly arrived migrants. The nature of these services was discussed in detail at the Conference of Chairmen of MRCs on 13 May. The MRCs are well placed to assist new arrivals on a one-to-one basis with individual problems, which include difficulties with accommodation, education, employment and social security matters. MRCs have also been requested to develop special outreach settlement programs targetted to the particular needs of new arrivals in their areas. (3) In addition to the on-arrival services to migrants described above, many on -arrival needs can be met through a formal classroom-style orientation course where information on life in Australia, ranging from the legal system, rules of the road, the social security and health systems to tenancy agreements is given in community languages by bilingual information officers. I favour a division of responsibilities where the MRCs emphasise individual services, whilst the regional offices of my Department provide the formal orientation courses and generally assist with information. There is no intention of reducing the Department's role in providing these services. The involvement of MRCs recognises the need to expand provision of such services through appropriate outlets and I would, for example, wish to see those MRCs already providing a base for English classes through the Adult Migrant Education Program, and other orientation programs, continue these activities. Question No. 325 Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Are figures available from the census or other surveys which indicate the proportion of young people from various household income groups (a) in the community, (b) at universities, (c) at colleges of advanced education and (d) at technical and further education establishments. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: There are two data sources which provide relevant information. The first is the 1976 Census of Population and Housing, which included information on the number of persons, by sex and family income group, enrolled at universities, colleges of advanced education and colleges of technical and further education. Table 1 gives this information, with total population figures given for comparison. The second is a survey of full-time tertiary student finances conducted in 1979 . The survey sampled 2,476 students in universities and colleges of advanced education (but not at technical and further education colleges). This information is set out in Table 2. Table 1 1976 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING-AUSTRALIA Population by type of Educational Institution currently attending by Annual Family Income by Sex Family Income (annual) ($) Type of educa- tional Less Over Over Over Over Over Over Not insti- than 1,500- 3,000- 5,000- 7,000- 9,000- 12,000- 15,000- Over Not avail- tution None 1,500 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 18,000 stated Total able Total Males University 1,267 1,157 3,662 3,370 4,174 5,571 10,435 9,578 8,813 17,406 2,103 67,534 18, 182 85,717 CAEs 688 675 2,671 2,703 4,554 7,444 13,114 10,061 8,179 10,304 2,904 63,297 11,213 74,509 Technical colleges, etc. 1,083 730 3,628 6,027 12,985 21,121 27,883 20,676 15,810 12,927 7,579 130,447 12 ,591 143,038 Total male population (a) 83,690 46,158 232,599 465,510 758,425 1,016,770 1,127,224 804,514 503,577 527, 444 671,551 6,237,461 537,487 6,774,948 Females University 676 767 2,669 2,445 2,460 3,738 6,154 5,203 4,627 11,672 967 41,378 12,008 53, 386 CAEs 528 663 3,218 2,508 3,447 4,831 7,520 6,460 5,378 9,489 1,611 45,653 12,092 57, 745 Technical colleges, etc. 717 686 2,517 3,933 6,722 9,669 12,255 9,770 7,675 8,219 2,294 64,456 5,835 70, 291 Total female population (a) 103,758 62,459 447,905 552,799 739,349 951,348 1,058,737 765,562 482,858 505,758 661,283 6,331,815 441,685 6,773,501 Persons University 1,943 1,924 6,331 5,815 6,634 9,309 16,589 14,781 13,440 29,078 3,070 108,912 30 ,190 139,103 CAEs 1,216 1,338 5,889 5,211 8,001 12,275 20,634 16,521 13,557 19,793 4,515 108,950 23,305 132,254 Technical colleges, etc. 1,800 1,416 6,145 9,960 19,707 30,790 40,138 30,446 23,485 21,146 9,873 194,903 18,426 213,329 Total population (a) 187,448 108,617 680,504 1,018,309 1,497,774 1,968,118 2,185,961 1,570,076 986, 435 1,033,202 1,332,834 12,569,276 979,172 13,548,449 Note: The above information is not available by age and includes both full and part-time students attending universities, CAEs and technical colleges etc. It would therefore include students who were in receipt of their own income rather than being dependent on parental income. (a) These totals are the total population and are not a sum of those persons attending the three institutions specified. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1976 Census Table. Table 2 COMBINED PARENTAL GROSS INCOME BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION WHICH STUDENT ATTENDED University Per CAE Per All Per Parental income students cent students cent students cent $ 5,000 or less 125 9 116 10 241 10 $ 5,001-10,000 200 15 188 17 388 16 $10, 001-15,000 284 21 289 25 573 23 $15,001-20,000 293 22 259 23 552 22 $20,001-30 ,000 265 20 191 17 456 18 $30,001-40,000 95 7 51 4 146 6 $40,001 or more 79 6 41 4 120 5 Total1 1,341 100 1,135 100 2,476 100 1 This table excludes 717 respondents who did not know or would not state their parents' income. Source: Studies of Tertiary Student Finances, Vol. 2, 1979, Survey of Full-time Tertiary Student Finances, Commonwealth Department of Education, 1981. Question No. 341 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from the repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 105 claims for compensation as a result of repetitive strain injury were made on my Department during the years 1978 to 1983 inclusive. An analysis of the claims is shown below. 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Number claims 4 2 11 17 34 37 105 Number settled 4 2 10 16 31 18 81 Number outstanding . . . . 1 1 3 19 24 Sex- Male . . . . 1 . . 1 3 5 Female 4 2 10 17 33 34 100 Type of work- Keyboard 4 1 9 16 31 29 86 Clerical . . 1 2 . . 6 4 13 Collating forms . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 Handling . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Driving manual vehicle . . . . . . 1 . . . . 1 Cooking . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Gardening . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Question No. 370 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many persons were employed by the Commonwealth Public Service as temporary officers in each department, in (a) each State and (b) each of the years 1975-76 to 1982-83. (2) How do the conditions of service differ between permanent Commonwealth officers and temporary employees. (3) For what maximum period of time can a person be employed in a temporary capacity by the Commonwealth Public service. (4) What is the average length of time for which temporary Commonwealth officers are employed. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of temporary employees in the Commonwealth Public Service in each department in each State at 30 June in each of the years 1976 to 1982 has been published in the Public Service Board's Statistical Yearbooks. 1976 and 1977-See Table 22 at page 22 of the respective yearbooks, and 1978 to 1982-See Table 23 at page 23 of the respective yearbooks. The information at June 1983 is contained in the following extract from the draft Yearbook for 1982-83. TABLE 23 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES: DEPARTMENT AND LOCATION, JUNE 1983-TOTAL Over- Department, etc. ACT NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT seas Total Aboriginal Affairs 17 3 3 9 5 11 . . 13 . . 61 Administrative Services 100 16 47 10 7 4 3 10 . . 197 Attorney-General's 63 50 37 21 15 22 9 2 . . 219 Australian Legal Aid Office . . 11 . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . 15 Human Rights Commission 4 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Office of Parliamentary Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trade Practices Commission 4 1 . . . . 1 2 . . . . . . 8 Aviation 31 54 41 36 18 51 . . 3 . . 234 Communications 7 6 9 4 . . 7 . . . . . . 33 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal . . 1 . . . . . . 1 1 . . . . 3 Special Broadcasting Service . . 182 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Defence 144 269 299 10 126 22 5 3 . . 878 Defence Support 37 145 267 . . 6 . . . . . . . . 455 Education and Youth Affairs 71 8 20 13 3 3 . . 2 . . 120 ACT Schools Authority 579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Commonwealth Schools Commission 11 2 1 . . . . 1 1 . . . . 16 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Employment and Industrial Relations 91 169 43 63 7 20 18 21 . . 432 Industrial Relations Bureau 2 4 7 . . 1 1 1 1 . . 17 Finance 7 . . . . 3 4 3 . . 1 . . 18 Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Australian Taxation Office 22 77 71 7 3 6 7 2 . . 195 Foreign Affairs 39 17 2 4 4 5 . . . . . . 71 Australian Development Assistance Bureau 6 27 . . 2 . . . . 1 . . . . 36 ADAB Aid Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health 39 95 95 20 32 13 12 4 . . 310 Capital Territory Health Commission 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Home Affairs and Environment 13 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Australian Archives 12 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 . . 28 Australian Heritage Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 5 Australian War Memorial 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Great Barrier Reef MPA . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . 12 National Library 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Office of the Supervising Scientist . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . 11 Housing and Construction 62 54 54 20 19 15 5 11 . . 240 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 30 60 40 14 10 13 . . 10 . . 177 Industry and Commerce 27 5 7 14 5 8 6 4 . . 76 Industries Assistance Commission 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Primary Industry 28 2 6 9 5 3 1 . . . . 54 Bureau of Agricultural Economics 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Prime Minister and Cabinet 8 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 9 Auditor-General's Office 6 . . . . . . 1 . . . . 1 . . 8 Australian Science and Technology Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commonwealth Ombudsman 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Office of National Assessments 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Public Service Board 9 1 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . 13 Service-wide Trainees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources and Energy 24 . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Bureau of Mineral Resources 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Science and Technology 17 35 11 . . 2 2 13 . . . . 80 Bureau of Meteorology . . 1 26 5 1 3 3 3 . . 42 Patents, etc. Office 32 1 1 . . 2 . . . . . . . . 36 Social Security 21 361 94 57 42 43 18 5 . . 641 Special Minister of State 24 7 45 6 8 . . 3 1 . . 94 Australian Electoral Office 5 78 29 35 14 17 2 3 . . 183 Sport, Recreation and Tourism 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Territories and Local Government 112 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 114 Trade 16 1 7 1 . . 1 . . . . . . 26 Australian Uranium Export Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Export Development Grants Board 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Transport 27 2 4 10 . . 4 5 1 . . 53 Bureau of Transport Economics 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Treasury 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Australian Bureau of Statistics 65 6 36 14 3 6 5 2 . . 137 Petroleum Products Pricing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Australian Mint 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Veterans' Affairs 20 186 172 45 47 29 6 1 . . 506 Total 2,259 1,948 1,497 446 393 318 130 118 . . 7,109 (2) One of the main differences between temporary employees and officers of the Service is that whereas all Second, Third and Fourth Division officers (with the exception of those on probation) are covered by the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-CE (RR) Act-and all such officers (including those on probation) are covered by the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act, these provisons apply only to certain categories of temporary employees. Employees employed for 12 months or more, other than for a fixed period or to undertake specified work, are covered by the CE (RR) Act. Temporary employees who have been employed for 12 months or more or who are engaged for a period of 12 months or more are covered by the Australian Public Service disciplinary code . Where the disciplinary code and the CE (RR) Act apply, the services of a temporary employee may be dispensed with only in accordance with those legislative provisions. Staff who are covered only by the disciplinary provisions may have their services terminated outside the provisions of the CE ( RR) Act. The services of other temporary employees may be dispensed with at any time in accordance with section 82 (6) of the Public Service Act. In general temporary employees do not contribute to the superannuation scheme in view of their limited period of employment. However, temporary employees can contribute to the superannuation scheme if at least a three year period of employment is involved. Apart from these differences in tenure and staffing arrangements, temporary employees have conditions of service which in the main are equivalent to those available to permanent officers, including salaries, allowances and leave entitlements. (In some instances temporary employees accrue entitlements to leave on a progressive basis because of their expected limited employment period ). Some classes of temporary employees, e.g. the day-labour work force in the Department of Housing and Construction, have prescribed in determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator certain conditions of employment which in some respects differ marginally from those generally applying throughout the Australian Public Service. (3) Under the Public Service Act 1922 there is no maximum period of a time a person can be temporarily employed with the Australian Public Service. However the Public Service Board has issued guidelines on the use of temporary employment by departments, under which temporary employment should not be used to meet long term staffing needs. (4) As the duration of employment of the majority of temporary staff is typically very short and the turnover of personnel in positions they occupy is high, the length of time for which temporary staff are employed in the Service is not surveyed by the Public Service Board and thus is not available. Question No. 395 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that a self-employed person is unable to obtain unemployment benefits unless that person de-registers himself and ceases advertising his availability. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether a large number of people have been forced on to the labour market and on to the dole queues because these requirements have forced them to close down their businesses permanently rather than temporarily. (3) What measures does the Minister propose to alleviate this problem. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (3) To qualify for unemployment benefit a claimant must be unemployed, capable of and willing to undertake suitable work and be taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. Every claim must be considered having regard to the particular circumstances applying to it. In deciding whether a self-employed person can properly be regarded as unemployed it is necessary to determine whether the extent of any continuing activities indicates a commitment to self- employment rather than to alternative employment. In this regard, it would be relevant to consider such factors as the extent of any continued advertising and the possession of relevant licences and/or equipment. However, it is not a pre- requisite for unemployment benefit that a self employed person cease advertising , surrender relevant licences or dispose of equipment. (2) I am advised that the Commonwealth Employment Service does not maintain statistics on previously self-employed persons who register with it for employment assistance. Question No. 458 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Employment Service office in Greenwood, Western Australia, has been relocated in Balga in the same State, leaving the 108,000 residents of the Shire of Wanneroo without either a Commonwealth Employment Service or Department of Social Security office in the municipality. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that residents of the Shire of Wanneroo have access only to a severely limited public transport system and that they consequently have great difficulty in travelling to other areas to reach a Social Security office. (3) Are there any proposals to establish a Social Security office in the Shire of Wanneroo in the financial year 1984-85. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I understand that the lease for Greenwood CES office expired on 26 August 1983 and the building owner declined renewal. Suitable alternative office accommodation could not be identified in Wanneroo Shire. A CES office has been established in premises at Hammersley as a temporary measure pending availability of office accommodation in Wanneroo Shire. Job-seekers and employers in Wanneroo Shire were personally advised by mail of the temporary arrangements and assured that the standard of CES service available to the community within the Shire would be maintained. The CES, in liaison with the Department of Administrative Services, is continuing to seek suitable office accommodation within the Shire of Wanneroo. (2) Yes. (3) Consideration is being given to the establishment of a new Social Security Office in the Shire of Wanneroo. Transport routes, however, make it difficult to assess whether a new office within the Shire is the most suitable means of extending services to departmental clients in the Shire. If it were decided to proceed with the new office it would be likely to be operational in 1984-85. Question No. 495 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: Is there a design brief available for the construction of an Army Reserve training depot for C Company 17 Royal New South Wales Reserve at Bathurst; if so , when was this design brief prepared. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A design brief for the depot was prepared on 17 June 1981. Question No. 534 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is the unemployment benefit allowance for those unemployed with children included in taxable income, whereas family income supplements to low income earners is not included as taxable income. (2) If so, does the Government intend to take appropriate steps to remove this anomaly. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) As announced in the 1983-84 Budget, additional unemployment, sickness and special benefit payments for children are to be exempted from taxable income with effect from 1 March 1984. This will bring the taxation treatment of those payments into line with that of family income supplement payments and additional pension payments for children. Question No. 584 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the New South Wales Government has decided to (a) construct Split Rock Dam on the Manilla River, New South Wales and (b) enlarge the capacity of Glenbawn Dam on the Hunter River, New South Wales. (2) What Commonwealth funds are being made available to the New South Wales Government for the construction of these two dams. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) Yes. (2) None.