Thursday, 20 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on 18 October of Mr Philip William Clifford Stokes, OBE, ED, a former member of this House for the Division of Maribyrnong from 1955 to 1969. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Stokes I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Minister: 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Cowan,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Mr MacKellar,Mr Millar,Mr Saunderson and Mr Young. 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 on Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women, believing that its implementation would result in- (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the work force, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3, Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth and Mr MacKellar. To 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 honour Australia's ratification of the United Nation's Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by supporting the Sex Discrimination Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we are concerned: (1) That the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College exceeded its term of reference: (2) that the composition of the Committee excluded representation from many interested parties concerned with education. Your petitioners therefore pray: (1) That the Government not implement the recommendations of the Radford Report ; (2) that the new funding guidelines of the Commonwealth Schools Commission be suspended; (3) that the Government base its funding on principles and justice and concern for the best education of all Australian schoolchildren. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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 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 Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Polish Government has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Agreement, particularly with regard to the following issues: The freeing of all political prisoners Respecting of all citizen and human rights The right to form trade unions The removal of censorship Permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad, especially for family re- unions. We humbly request the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through proper diplomatic channels, to raise in the United Nations forum a strong request to the Polish Government that it honour its obligation agreed to at the Helsinki Agreement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamourous 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 Gorman. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the 0.4 per cent decline in Queensland's unemployment at the September quarter at a time when every other state showed increased unemployment, and (b) the statistical figures for unemployed males and females between the ages 15-19 years at August 1983, which showed Queensland's rate as the lowest of any of the States, a position it has held consistently in August figures since 1979; and (2) congratulates the Queensland Premier on this splendid performance in government in giving more job opportunities to young and older Australians, at a time when other Australian mainland States under Labor Governments show worsening unemployment statistics. Mr Gear proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. Mr Goodluck having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that bank lending for housing purposes increased by 24.1 per cent to $454m during August 1983 compared with July 1983 which in seasonally adjusted terms represents a 7.9 per cent increase to $426.5m, and (2) recognises that this boost in home loan lending constitutes a vote of confidence in the Government's housing policy. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) will second: That this House- (1) reminds the Government that 81 per cent of Australians believe in God, and that- (a) the Government is not above God and the Queen, and (b) the proposal to drop God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Australians, the churches, and community organisations, and (2) calls upon the Government to forthwith abandon its atheist-republican plans to totally destroy the Oath of Allegiance. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses its support for the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs not to co-sponsor the resolution of ASEAN states on the Kampuchean question, and (2) expresses its concern to ensure that any proposed settlement of the Kampuchean question that involves a withdrawl of Vietnamese forces not have the consequence of delivering that country back to the genocidal Pol Pot regime. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the closure of students hostels in Victoria will seriously disadvantage 400 country students satisfactory accommodation and disadvantage them in obtaining tertiary education, and (2) calls on the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments to- (a) take immediate steps to ensure that country students are not discriminated against in access to tertiary education, and (b) implements the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Report on facilities for isolated children that would permit students hostels to receive capital and special purpose funds for projects which assist in the provision of living away from home facilities and services for isolated children . Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) will second: That this House notes that- (1) next week, 23-30 October 1983 is recognised in more than 20 nations, as the week of Prayer for World Peace, (2) at noon on every day of that week, millions of people throughout the world will be praying for, or reflecting on, peace for this planet, and (3) this Week of Prayer for World Peace introduces a year of prayer of World Peace. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the Government's interference with civilian youth and military programs, (2) deplores the decision by the Government to abandon school cadet corps, and (3) pays tribute to the teachers and staff of Australian schools who have given their time and expertise to develop the cadet corps into a high quality training and recreation program for our youth in co-operation with the Australian Defence Forces. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that working days lost due to industrial disputes declined from 3.5 million in the year to July 1982 to 1.9 million in the year to July 1983; (2) notes that the largest reductions in industrial disputes occurred in the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia and the smallest reductions occurred in Tasmania and Queensland, and (3) recognises that the Commonwealth Government's Prices and Incomes Accord is an important element in the successful conduct of industrial relations. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) . Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendment- Page 17, clause 30, sub-clauses (2) and (3), lines 30 to 43, leave out the sub- clauses. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.11) —I move: That the amendment be made. The effect of the amendment moved by the Senate is to deny unemployment benefit to those unionists stood down as a result of industrial action even though they were not directly involved in that action. I move the acceptance of this amendment with reluctance. We had attempted in the amendments to the social security legislation to return to the pre-1979 situation. That would have allowed workers not involved in a strike, but stood down as a result of that industrial action, to be eligible for unemployment benefit; that is, we wished to return to the situation that existed in this country prior to the actions of the previous Government in 1979. However, Opposition members in another place in their infinite wisdom have chosen to deny those innocently caught up in industrial action the right to some Government support. Their actions in amending the legislation in this way will of course primarily hurt single income families, especially those families in which the spouse is not capable of undertaking work for reasons such as disability, pregnancy or illness. The Government has always argued that what is proposed in this amendment is, in essence, an industrial matter which has no place in the realm of social security legislation. Under the amendment innocent parties caught up in the stand down or suspension provisions of industrial action will not be entitled to unemployment benefit unless they are in fact not a member of the union involved in the strike action. We find that the Opposition's blatant anti-unionism is reflected even in something as sensitive as basic income support. It is a bias that is obviously to the detriment of ordinary Australians. The provision becomes, in effect, a penalty for trade union membership. It is a provision which this Government finds abhorrent; it is a provision which we in the Government believe should have no place in social security legislation. This legislation was designed to allow the Department of Social Security to provide assistance for those who need it. It was designed without the handicap of the philosophical and ideological hang-ups which the Opposition has not injected into the legislation. The amendment will now effectively deny the rights to income support of people who are out of work through no fault or action of their own. We are talking here mostly about people on low incomes, about new migrants who might, in some cases, be laid off in Adelaide because of a dispute in Melbourne and will find themselves, under this amended legislation, without any support or income. I have indicated the Government will accept this amendment, but with great reluctance. The reason we will accept it is that we cannot afford to delay the payment of all the other benefits in that social security legislation. If we were to hold up the legislation by not accepting this amendment we would delay payment of a whole range of important benefits due to come into effect on 1 November. We would delay the increases in the single adult unemployment benefit. We would delay the increases in the single junior unemployment and sickness benefits. We would delay the issue of the 12-weekly health care cards for unemployment and special beneficiaries. We would also hold up the increases in the income limit for health care cards for the unemployed and special beneficiaries, and the additional benefits for the children of pensioners would also be delayed. In addition, pension increases would be held up and the changes to income limits for fringe benefits would also be delayed. The family income supplement and income limit increases would also be caught up in any confrontation with the upper House. Frankly, the Government does not believe that these people can afford any delay . We believe that we must honour as quickly as we can our commitment to them. We put that before achieving a victory on this point in the Parliament. But this Government will persist in trying to correct at the earliest opportunity what we see as a blatant injustice inserted into this legislation by the Opposition parties in the Senate. We accept the amendment, but with great reluctance. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.17) —The Opposition is perfectly happy to accept blame , if blame there be, for taking the action in the Senate which led to the passage of this amendment. I am certainly pleased that the Government has, even with reluctance, accepted this amendment. Let us make quite clear what the amendment is all about. It is designed to ensure that the unemployment benefits will not be available to people who are thrown out of work because of strikes. While one has very great sympathy indeed for those who are thrown out of work because of a strike if they were not directly involved in the causes of the strike, it will nonetheless be in the minds of any people organising strikes that the taxpayers will not be available to provide, in effect, strike pay for those thrown out of work as a result. People will be more cautious about organising strikes and will think hard about how long and how extensive strikes may be. That is the importance of the amendment. I do not know what sort of world the Government lives in. We are in a very difficult world where we have to compete with trading partners who do not have the incidence of strikes that we have in Australia, who do not have an unduly powerful trade union movement. There are enormous cost problems in industry and enormous problems through disruption of exports because of strikes. The Opposition judged that the general balance of this case was in favour of denying the unemployment benefit to people who were on strike. If the unemployment benefit were to be provided, taxpayers' money would be available essentially as strike pay to unions which were organising strikes. We are certainly very firm in our view that the action by the Fraser Government in 1979 of removing the unemployment benefit under these conditions was correct. We have pursued the same arguments in this chamber and in the Senate. On behalf of the Opposition, certainly in this chamber, I thank those honourable senators, including the Australian Democrats, who supported us in the amendment. We believe that on balance, despite the difficulties that families who are in trouble as a result of the actions of trade union leaders in other places will certainly have under this legislation, this measure will result in fewer instances of people being thrown out of work because of extended strikes. It will act as a deterrent to extended strikes which throw people out of work in industries or in places other than the original place where the strike is called . From the remarks of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), it is quite clear that this Government continues to act in an anti-economic fashion. This Government clearly believes that it is possible to extend the privileges available to the trade union movement under the law in an economic climate where it is quite clear that strike action has had a crippling effect on the overall economy of this country. We believe that the balance of power in this area has moved unduly in the direction of the trade union movement and it has been exploited by certain people in that trade union movement. There is no doubt in my mind that the existence of a benefit such as this, by which it would be possible to provide taxpayer funds to support people who are thrown out of work as a result of strike action, would be used as one of the weapons by those extremists in certain unions, and certainly not in all unions. We welcome the reluctant acceptance of this amendment by the Government. We believe that the original Fraser proposal of 1979 was wise. We are pleased that that will remain on the statute books. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Meat Inspection Bill 1983 Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956 in order to permit the Australian Shipping Commission to operate more as a commercial business undertaking. The opportunity is also being taken to repeal certain sections of the Act which are not appropriate to legislation concerning the establishment and operation of the Commission. The Bill is of importance to the future development of the Australian Shipping Commission which trades as the Australian National Line. We recognise the importance of reliable economic and stable shipping to Australian domestic and international trade. We recognise the role ANL has played in the development of moden Australian shipping. Equally we recognise the challenge to ANL of current conditions prevailing world-wide in the shipping industry and the need for it to be put on a proper commercial footing. The ANL must be freed of unnecessary bureaucratic restraints if it is to survive and develop. It needs commercial flexibility to respond to market opportunities and to deal with competitive pressures as they arise. This Bill contains several of the provisions of an earlier Bill introduced with bipartisan support by the former Minister for Transport and Construction, the Hon. Ralph Hunt. I commend him for this action. But this tentative step in the direction of deregulating ANL was not enough. It did not overcome the years of neglect by the former Government which resulted from lack of leadership and clear policy guidelines. This Government recognised that if the process of decline in ANL and disharmony throughout the maritime industry was to be reversed several steps had to be taken. The key ingredients to arrest ANL's decline were fivefold: Firstly, ANL needed to be put on a proper financial footing. It needed an injection of equity capital to put it on a proper commercial basis with an equity loan gearing ratio more closely related to that of its competitors. An undue interest burden simply added alarmingly to ANL's costs. Any prudent financial manager knows the importance of a company's gearing ratio. When this Government came to office ANL was in a parlous financial situation. It had a gearing ratio of 15:1 as at 30 June 1982. This worsened with the unprecedented losses being incurred during 1982-83. In effect, the cupboard was bare. This Government responded by converting $60m in loan funds to equity and injecting a further $30m into the enterprise to put it on a proper commercial basis. It did so on a conditional basis. It called for a determined commitment by management and unions to greater productivity and joint action to improve ANL's performance. Secondly, management needed to be streamlined and modernised. This is an ongoing process, but several useful steps have been made. Head office staff have been trimmed by 20 per cent. This Bill also provides for a strengthening of the management team and clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman and the Chief Executive officer. It provides for a part time Chairman of the Commission and a full time Managing Director, who will be the Chief Executive and a member of the Commission. Thirdly, the climate of industrial relations had to be improved and the working relationship between management and employees given a positive and constructive direction. A better industrial climate was long overdue. I took the initiative by chairing meetings between ANL management and the unions. I am delighted to say that both parties have responded positively and have established a better climate for dealing with the serious problems facing ANL. The unions now have a greater involvement and a greater opportunity to contribute to the improvement in ANL through the regular consultative meetings that have now been established. In particular, an ANL Shipboard Practices Committee has been established under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Fitzgibbon, who is a commissioner. This Committee is working assiduously to deal with a range of manning and shipboard practices to improve productivity and reduce costs. They have already made some valuable progress. ANL faces difficult times with world shipping currently depressed and experiencing tough competition. To meet them succcessfully, both the work force and management must jointly contribute to a more competitive ANL. The unions are responsibly facing up to the implications of the financial stresses confronting ANL. Their officials are making some difficult decisions. While there may be fewer jobs available in the short term, I stress that this process is essential to ANL's survival, to its growth and to it providing more jobs in the future. Fourthly, ANL needed to become more commercial, more market oriented, to be freed from bureaucratic restraints and encouraged to develop. Several of the provisions in this Bill are specifically directed at providing that encouragement and that freedom. Fifthly, the climate within which the industry operates needs to be conducive to stability and future growth. This requires the Government to set the scene by having policies in place that offer reasonable opportunities for efficient Australian companies to participate in a reasonably equitable way in the shipping activity generated by the trade and commerce of this nation. In this area the Government is establishing the climate with responsible policies. We will be introducing legislation in these sittings to give effect to the recommendations for accelerated depreciation allowances contained in the Crawford report on revitalisation of the Australian shipping industry. That report was adopted by the previous Government and received bipartisan support from this Government when in opposition. Again, I take the opportunity to congratulate the former Minister for Transport and Construction, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, for his initiative. We believe that an equitable share of Australia's trade shoud be carried in Australian ships. Again, we wish to see this done in a responsible commercial way, as envisaged in the recommendations of the Crawford report, rather than by flag reservation. We acknowledge the need to look realistically at the marketing and other problems in the way this should be achieved. It is, however, our intention that there be a gradual expansion of shipping opportunities consistent with economic recovery and expanded trade opportunities overseas. This is the five point plan. It is not foolproof. I do not promise that it will overcome all the problems of the industry. I do not promise that shipping problems will not occur in the future. It is, however, a comprehensive program designed to place the industry on a more efficient and competitive basis and so provide the opportunity for growth and security. It will be up to ANL and its employees to grasp the chance for success and work hard to achieve it. The Government can set the climate-but managements and unions together must accept the challenge. I turn now to the specific provisions of the legislation. The Bill quite clearly distinguishes the powers and responsibilities of the Commission and those of the Government. It spells out the need for the Commission to operate commercially and places the onus for commercial initiatives with the Commission. The improvement in the management of the Commission will be achieved by provisions for the appointment of the Chairman on a part time basis, and of a Managing Director who shall be the Chief Executive of the Commission and a commissioner. This will provide a more appropriate division of control over the affairs of the Commission and will be more in line with top management structures adopted in commercial enterprises. The Government's direct involvement in the Commission's affairs is reduced particularly in relation to day to day autonomy such as the setting of freight rates, contractual arrangements and staffing. Freight rates and fares will be set by the Commission in accordance with general principles which will have to be approved by the Minister and which will meet other obligations under the Act. Where Government requires the Commission to undertake a particular course of action for policy reasons, the Minister will be required to issue a direction to the Commission. Any costs incurred because of such directions are recoverable. A number of other minor amendments to conditions relating to the appointment of the Commissioners and the functions of the Commission itself are included. There are also a number of other machinery amendments proposed to the principal Act such as the adoption of finance provisions of the Audit Act and changes to by- laws and regulations. The requirement that ANL's officers must be British subjects is also being deleted. Three redundant sections of the principal Act are being repealed. These are concerned with the application of the British Merchant Shipping Act to Australian shipping, the purchase and disposal of ships by the Commonwealth and the requirement to obtain ministerial approval for the normal commercial activity of selling and mortgaging of ships overseas. Finally, the legislation I am proposing will make no call on the revenues of the Commonwealth. However, improvements in the performance of the Commission from this legislation and the other initiatives of the Government, will be of benefit to all users of the Commission's services. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.33) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of 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: Stratplan Computer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria. The proposal is for alterations to an existing building at 134 Ferrars Street, South Melbourne, to accommodate a major computer facility and support services and functions as a component of the Australia-wide Stratplan computer network of the Department of Social Security. The building is currently leased and the Government has an option to purchase it. The proposal referred to the Committee was for the development in leased premises. The Committee, in its report, has expressed reservations about supporting such expenditure in leased premises, although it agreed that there is a need for a new computer centre and that the proposed fitout works are regarded as satisfactory. The Committee recommended that the work proceed, but that the building should first be purchased. Purchase action was deferred by the Government pending the Committee's investigation and report. The Government has now agreed that purchase should be finalised before the current option expires. In these circumstances the Public Works Committee report has endorsed the proposed fitout work at an estimated cost of $2.2m at June 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: ARCHIVES BILL 1983 COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Second Reading Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the Freedom on Information Amendment Bill 1983, the Archives Bill 1983 and the Copyright Amendment Bill 1983, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? Mr Lusher —Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Minister explain a little more to the House why he wants to have a cognate debate on these issues? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I should make some explanation. The position is that the Bills are of a cognate nature, but they have different backgrounds. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, of course, deals with access to information. This is of interest because an amendment will be moved by the Government in the light of what happened in the Senate. Senator Missen in the Senate moved an amendment to section 52F of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment was too all- embracing and on that score we intend to circulate another amendment to reduce the terms of that amendment. I am happy to know that that amendment has been circulated. The other matters-that is, the Archives Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill-are incidental to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. I would be grateful if the Opposition would allow these matters to proceed as suggested. Mr Lusher —We understand. We thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of having a cognate debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Following the request of the Deputy Prime Minister and his response, I now ask: Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.42) —I thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) for the very clear outline that he has just given us. I confess that I thought another matter would be dealt with for about three quarters of an hour, but I managed to get here in time for the commencement of this debate. The cognate debate concerns three Bills: The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, which is to amend the Freedom of Information Act; the Archives Bill, which is a Bill for an entirely new Act; and the Copyright Amendment Bill, which is a Bill to amend the Copyright Act in a manner designed to give effect to one of the aims of the Archives Bill. I will concentrate most of my time on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. I shall later say something briefly about the Archives Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill. The Freedom of Information Act was introduced by and passed under the previous Government. The Act itself and the need for it reveals the great changes in style and substance which have occurred over the years in the way in which governments operate and the way in which people perceive that governments should operate. It used to be thought and assumed that the least government was the best government and that the government should intrude as little as possible into individual affairs. Of course, many years ago that was the case. To an extent the way in which governments intrude-for example, by providing welfare benefits; I class that broadly as an intrusion, but one which is always welcomed by the recipient-is welcomed. But the pendulum has swung very greatly from the days when governments were not expected to intrude into the affairs of individuals and when governments, to a very large extent, were not providers of any kinds of welfare benefits or support systems. These days we have government intrusion and interference into the affairs of individuals to a significant extent. Sometimes many would say the intrusion is perfectly legitimate and beneficial. But at other times one would say that it is not and what we see is the uncalled for expansion of the workings of the bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which individuals sometimes find it very difficult to deal with or to understand . It is commonplace that every citizen in this country is affected by government actions. As I have indicated, this is far more so now than it was in the past. If one looks at the volume of legislation affecting individuals, at the regulations which affect individuals and at the government departments, instrumentalities and other bureaucratic enterprises which have flourished over the years and which affect individuals, one can see how great is the extent to which we are all affected by the actions taken by departments of government. A citizen may be affected in a variety of ways. I am not surprised that the majority of inquiries made under the Freedom of Information Act have been directed to what are described as client orientated agencies, that is agencies which affect one because one wishes to derive certain benefits from them. They include the Department of Social Security, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and that agency which is always with us, from which one wishes to derive not benefit but from which one wishes to escape if one can, the Australian Taxation Office. When I say 'escape' I doubt that any person in this country is happy about paying tax. It is a fact of life that we would all prefer to pay less tax than we pay. I shall now say something about some of the more striking amendments which are to be found in the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. Some of the amendments are concerned with matters of substance, some are concerned with what we would call machinery matters. I begin by referring to the access provisions which are to be found in section 12 of the principal Act which is to be amended by clause 7 of the Bill. One of the fundamental provisions of the Bill and the Act relates to the question of access. Without access, of course, one cannot have any freedom of information. Perhaps before going to the precise measure I should say something about freedom of information and the need for it. I spoke earlier about perceptions of citizens as to how governments should operate. I think one of the perceptions of citizens is that they should have access to matters that concern them, to assessments which concern them and to information which concerns them. Governments tend to be secretive and that applies to governments of whatever political persuasion. In opposition it is one thing but in government those who extol the virtues of access to government information and open government soon find compelling reasons to change their minds-compelling reasons, of course, which are always expressed in terms of the national interest and in the need for government to preserve confidentiality of actions. The foundation on which the whole legislation rests is a perception that citizens are entitled to know much more than governments have in the past been willing to let them know. I am glad to see the present Government profitting from some experience under the Freedom of Information Act. It has, by an amendment to section 12, enlarged the provisions for access to information so that it goes back in all cases to 1 December 1977. In cases where an individual is affected, that is, where the personal affairs of the individual are in issue, then there are to be no limits on retrospectivity. As a general rule I am not in favour of legislation which has a retrospective operation. But on this occasion I am certainly in favour of the legislation because of that operation. Next on the subject of compliance, the Government has made provision in the Bill for compliance with a request for information within a period of 45 days rather than 60 days, as from 1 December 1984. Thereafter, from 1 January 1986, compliance is to be had within 30 days. That I think is an improvement on the legislation, one which has been derived from an examination of how the existing Act operates. The Bill which is now before the House introduces a number of public interest concepts. Clause 17 of the legislation provides in effect that exemption provisions in documents affecting relations with States are not to apply in respect of a document, the disclosure of which under the Act would, on balance, be in the public interest. A similar provision is to be found in clause 21, a clause which amends provisions in the existing Act relating to the financial and property interests of the Commonwealth. In the same clause there is an amendment relating to documents concerning the operation of certain agencies. In short, in each of the three cases-that is, documents affecting relations with the States, documents affecting financial or property interests of the Commonwealth and documents concerning the operation of certain agencies where otherwise a document would be an exempt document-if it is in the public interest on balance that the document should not be exempt then it is not to be exempt. I think that is an improvement in the operation of the legislation. The last matter to which I would like to refer is to be found in clause 20 of the Bill. We see that, in clause 20, an amendment is made to section 37 of the Act so as to exempt from disclosure a document that might endanger the life or physical safety of any person. As it presently stands, section 37 sub-section (1 ) (c) exempts from disclosure a document that could reasonably be expected to endanger the lives or physical safety of persons engaged in, or in connection with, law enforcement. The present proposal extends that so that it covers not just persons engaged in law enforcement but the life or physical safety of any person. I think that is to be welcomed. Once again it is an illustration of how one learns from the operation of the existing Act. I think it may be said that the amendments before the House demonstrate a number of lessons. First, what a difficult balancing act it is when we seek to make a determination between, on the one hand, the rights of individuals to know how governments operate and to know about decisions which affect them and, on the other hand, the public interest that governments, departments and agencies should be in a position to operate with a fairly high degree of confidentiality. The public interest provision to which I referred illustrates the great difficulty of this balancing act. In each of the three cases to which I referred -that is, where the property or financial interests of the Commonwealth are concerned, where relations with the States are concerned and where operations of certain agencies are concerned-a decision has to be made as to whether on balance disclosure would be in the public interest. That is very much of a jury question. It is a question upon which everyone in this House could, I think, come to a different conclusion. It illustrates just how difficult the kinds of judgments that are to be made under the Act will be. The second lesson that can be learnt from the Bill and from the history of the application of the existing Act is that the implementation of this kind of remedial legislation is always a question of trial and error. For example, it was originally thought that there would be a deluge of applications. As I understand it, that was indeed the advice received by the previous Government. That advice proved not to be correct. I say that without criticising those who gave the advice. It is always very difficult to foresee how this kind of legislation will operate and how many applications will be brought under it. Because the implementation of this kind of legislation is a matter of trial and error it is worth while remembering how easy it is to criticise some aspects of the working of the legislation and perhaps some aspects of the original proposal which was made an Act under the previous Government. Indeed, I was critical of some of those proposals. Hindsight, of course, is always of great assistance when one is being critical. Now that the Freedom of Information Act has been operating for some time we can see how it works and can learn from it. The third lesson we can draw from the amendments and from the Act itself is how complex our society is and how complex our laws have become and continue to become. We can do nothing about the complexities of our society, but I wonder whether we should not be able to do something about the complexity of the law. On its face, freedom of information would appear to be a fairly straightforward subject, and one would think that it could be dealt with in a relatively straightforward manner. One sees that the original Act, together with schedules, runs to some 51 pages and 94 sections. The Bill which is presently before the House runs to an additional 25 pages and has 45 clauses. I understand how difficult the drafting exercise is and I understand how easy it is to say that one can simplify legislation without proffering precise advice as to how that is to be done; but I think that all of us hope that we will in future be able to simplify our laws. As I said, we can do nothing about society but we can work as hard as possible to make the laws passed by this Parliament clear, intelligible and concise. It may be that a broader approach to drafting, rather than the narrow approach which seeks to take into consideration every possible contigency , would be very much better. The fourth comment I have to make on this legislation is how it illustrates changes in attitudes. If I recall correctly, Senator Gareth Evans, in the time that he was in opposition, was a great proponent of freedom of information. His interest in the subject was referred to by Senator Durack in the course of the debates on the Freedom of Information Bill when it was before the Senate. He quoted what Senator Gareth Evans had to say. I commend Senator Gareth Evans for the enthusiasm and energy with which he has gone about making improvements to the Freedom of Information Act. He has learnt from the previous Government's experience, and it should be remembered that the previous Government put the Freedom of Information Act on the books. Senator Durack quoted what Senator Gareth Evans said in April 1981: . . . one of the recurring themes in the whole history of freedom of information around the world is the way in which, for obvious reasons, it tends to be espoused as a concept rather more passionately by oppositions out of office than by governments sitting in office. One must say that Senator Gareth Evans has lived to see the fulfilment of his own words since, as I understand it, when in opposition not only was he passionate in his avowal of freedom of information but he also had a view on the conclusiveness of ministerial certificates. That view was quoted by Senator Durack in the Senate debate on 7 October. In May 1981 Senator Gareth Evans had said: So long as ministerial discretion in any form is retained absolutely and conclusively to deny access to these documents without being subject to second guessing or review by anyone else, it is our view . . . that freedom of information legislation is simply not worth having unless we can ensure that documents of this kind come within its ambit, too. We find from the second reading speech that the Government has considered it premature to take the further step of abolishing the system of conclusive certificates. So Senator Gareth Evans espoused one point of view in opposition, but when he got into government he realised that what he espoused was unwise. As I read what Senator Durack quoted of Senator Gareth Evans's remarks I could not help but be reminded of two maxims. The first is that promises are made in hope and kept in fear. Perhaps the promise was one which Senator Gareth Evans would not feel was enforceable against him. The other maxim is that it is better to travel than to arrive. Senator Gareth Evans is now travelling with the concept of abolishing conclusive certificates but has not yet arrived at the abolition of those certificates. I do not for a moment say that they should be abolished, but I think it is worth while pointing out that some of the criticisms made against the previous Government have not been implemented in this Bill. I commend Senator Gareth Evans for having some second thoughts upon the subject. I should now like briefly to say something about the Archives Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Archives Bill is to place on a statutory basis the present system of collecting the archives of the Commonwealth and, of course, to do a great deal more at the same time. It is worth while remembering that the original Archives Bill was introduced by Senator Durack in 1978, along with the Freedom of Information Bill in its first form. Those Bills were referred to two Senate committees, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Archives Bill was reintroduced by Senator Durack in 1981. It was not debated and it lapsed. The Archives Bill presently before the House is in substantial respects the same as the Archives Bill introduced under the previous Government by Senator Durack. I think it is worth while placing those facts on record. I do not wish to say anything further about the Bill. The Opposition welcomes this measure and supports it. It places the collection of the archives of this country on a more permanent and better organised basis. Once again I think we will find that under the Archives Bill there will be a learning process not dissimilar to the learning process under the Freedom of Information Bill. Indeed , I would be surprised if the amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill presently before the House are the last we will see, and I would be surprised if we did not also see some amendments to the Archives Act, as it will become when it is passed. Lastly, the Copyright Amendment Bill is before the House for the purpose of making provision for ephemeral records-that is, records of oral matter-going to the Australian Archives. I welcome that measure. There are limitations on the kinds of matters which are to go to the Australian Archives. I hope that in the collection of what is said and what has been written, whether by virtue of the Copyright Bill as it will apply to the operation of the Archives Act or to work done under the Archives Act, at all times those who have the task of collecting information bear in mind that there is a great deal of matter-I sometimes think this applies to much of what is said in a great number of public documents-which is really of very little worth in the long run. I hope therefore that those who have that very difficult but interesting task of collecting records do so with a clear eye as to the value of those records. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(11.06) —My comments in this debate will be restricted to the Archives Bill 1983. When one speaks of archives to people they rarely get terribly excited. I doubt if this debate will generate the heat of many other debates in this chamber. The benches on either side of the House are not exactly overflowing with honourable members wishing to put their point of view on this Bill. I suppose that many people think of archives as dry and dusty and it must follow that speeches on the topic would be consequently dry and dusty. I will leave it to honourable members to decide whether my comments are dry and dusty. But the buildings housing our archives are not dusty; they are exciting places and in no way could the activities of the Australian Archives be described as dry and dusty. I am pleased to add my voice to this important debate because this Bill concerning archives is about Australian history, a topic which I have had an interest in, and a love for, all my life-an interest I feel many honourable members of this House would share and a passion I know the Minister for Trade ( Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, shares. The Archives Bill is complementary to freedom of information legislation. Broadly, freedom of information legislation regulates access to documents which are 30 years old or less, while the Archives Bill applies to documents older than 30 years. The importance of placing for the first time, the Australian Archives on a sound legislative basis cannot be underestimated. Up to this time it has operated on a series of general Cabinet decisions and administrative instructions. Without legislation it cannot effectively serve the Government in the manner intended when the organisation was established. The Archives has two general functions of basic importance. The first is the preservation of the greatest collection of primary source material of Australian history since 1900. These records produced by all departments tell the real story of this nation's development; that is, of its political history, its role in the international scene, its economic development, its educational development, and of social change within it, of immigration to it and of its cultural development. In short, Australia's history in its fullest expression is housed within the Australian Archives. This is an enormous cultural treasure which this nation must preserve. It is nothing short of a national disgrace that this cultural treasure, this reservoir of our heritage, has been neglected through want of appropriate legislation. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said, legislation was first introduced into the Senate in 1978. It has been supported by all parties and it has been widely discussed and debated; indeed, consensus has been reached. The Bill, including Government amendments, was passed through the Senate with the support of all parties. It is the intention of this Government to ensure that after this long passage of time this necessary legislation is placed upon the statute book. The second most important function of the Australian Archives is to act as the organisation responsible for the effective management of all government records; that is, to assist agencies in the efficient organisation and maintenance of their records, to house all government records under conditions that will preserve them for use by the public and the Government and to prevent unlawful destruction, but to ensure that necessary destruction of records of temporary value is carried out by properly approved and publicly known procedures. Its task is also to provide the nation with information about information; that is, to ensure that the public and the Government can know what records are in existence and how and where they can be obtained. By this preservation and orderly management of records, legislation in fact provides the administrative system necessary to ensure the effective working, now and in the future, of freedom of information legislation. In doing so, it ensures that the most effective and economical methods of management are used. To manage effectively the enormous record production of governments is a technical and complicated business. It is essential that these processes be governed by legislation which will ensure the greatest degree of openness in government as well as the protection of privacy and the rights of individuals and organisations throughout Australia. The Archives is a nationwide organisation with officers and repositories in every capital city as well as Townsville. These repositories are equipped to handle under secure and modern conditions all types of records from the old-fashioned file through to film, radio and video tape, to the product of the most modern technology. This building program which has been continued over many years hopefully will culminate in what is planned to be the national building of the Australian Archives which is planned for the parliamentary triangle and will house records of permanent value to be made available for exhibition and public use. Contained in the records for which the Archives are responsible are, for example, all the entries for the design of Canberra. What a fascinating collection these are. One might be somewhat thankful that the judges chose so wisely. But what a wonderful public exhibition this would be if they could be put on display. Another record held is Mawson's proclamation of Australia's sovereignty over Antarctica. There are many other priceless aspects of our history, documents that many Australians know nothing about, but documents which have contributed to making this country what it is, documents that must be preserved. The possibilities of exhibitions are endless. I know that the responsible Minister shares my enthusiasm for some of these documents to go on public exhibition. Indeed, I suspect the Minister might be even more enthusiastic than I am. I have long felt that such exhibitions would create not only an interest in our history, but also a pride in it and with this, a pride in our country and in what has been achieved in, historically speaking, so short a time. As the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) said in his second reading speech: 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 the 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 Australian Archives has recently been the subject of a joint management review as a result of which its management practices and systems are being completely overhauled and modernised. Its capacity in relation to systems, automatic data processors and the development of policy have been greatly strengthened as an organisation. It is becoming increasingly capable of playing a central management role in a changing administration and information environment. I recommend that this House support this Bill which is of basic importance to the preservation of our cultural heritage and to the provision of effective services to government administration. I hope that this House can show the same unified support from all sides which has marked the Bill's progress to date. This will be a fitting recognition by all honourable members of the importance and value of the work of Australian governments and the Australian people. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.15) — When the Freedom of Information Bill was being debated in this House a couple of years ago I described it as an experiment. It was obviously an attempt to strike a balance between openness and confidentiality, between the rights of the public to have access to public records and the necessary confidentiality of certain government records. A balance was struck. I think it was agreed on all sides that it would not be a permanent balance, that there would be a period of experiment, of trial and error, and that after a year or so the Act would be looked at again and probably , in the light of experience, amended. I think it would be agreed that the idea at that time was to avoid what was seen to be, by some people anyhow, as the excesses in the extremely open and liberal Freedom of Information Act of the United States of America, which was basically the model for the Australian Act. In the United States there have been very high administrative costs indeed, unlimited retrospectivity, a very high rate of litigation and minimal exemptions even for, as it works in practice, criminal intelligence or national security information. The Australian Act provided for public access but had enough limitations to avoid those American excesses, as they were regarded. It has to be agreed that after operating for a year or so the Act has been working very well indeed and that some of the concerns or even fears of very great administrative costs and matters of that kind were not well founded. Australians do not seem to have that passionate curiosity about government documents that Americans obviously have. The figures that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) gave in the Senate after the first four months of operation indicated that only a tiny fraction of the number of anticipated demands had been made under the new legislation-they averaged about 700 a month-and that less than a quarter of all government departments and agencies had been the subject of applications; that is, some 75 per cent of government agencies and departments had not received a single request under the Act. A little later, Senate Estimates Committee E was told that in the first seven months of operation there had been 5,593 requests, still just a little more than 700 a month, working out at a full year rate of 9,500, and that over two-thirds of the requests were directed to four client-centred agencies only-the Departments of Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and the Australian Taxation Office. So the flood of applications and the great administrative costs that were feared have not eventuated. In the light of that experience, I completely support the Government's decision to reconsider the balance that was struck and to liberalise the Act further. Most of the amendments that it has introduced in the light of experience seem to me to be sensible ones. In the light of the public demand it is sensible to extend retrospectivity beyond 1 December 1982 to 1 December 1977. The legislation when introduced applied only, in effect, to new documents. Now its application will be retrospective to 1 December 1977. That seems to me to be perfectly manageable, sensible and proper. In the light of the public demand, or the lack of it, it is also sensible to reduce the compliance time from 60 days to 45 days as from 1 December 1984, and 30 days as from 1 December 1986. I think , also in the light of experience, that it is sensible to reduce the exemptions provided in the original Act, in particular by introducing the public interest test to Commonwealth-State documents and documents concerning Commonwealth property and financial interests. They seem to me to be sensible amendments to the principal Act and perfectly in keeping with the spirit in which the principal Act was introduced. I think it is fair to say that they are the sorts of amendments that would have been introduced in due course by the former Government had it remained in government. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Government has not moved in the direction in which we were led to believe it would move as far as conclusive ministerial certificates prohibiting disclosure of certain documents are concerned. It has abolished the Document Review Tribunal and substituted the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for appeals in this area. It is hard to quibble with any intensity at that substitution. I think it is a pity in some respects because the Document Review Tribunal would be a tribunal of specialists in this area whereas the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a much more wide-ranging tribunal, but no one has any doubt that it will handle the matters appropriately . The Government has also amended the law so that in the event of a Minister still sticking by his conclusive certificate he must make a statement in the Parliament giving the reasons for his decision, as far as he can do so without actually disclosing what is not to be disclosed. I think that is a commendable amendment and I fully support it. The amendments also give the Commonwealth Ombudsman the right to represent an applicant before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when appealing against a conclusive certificate. That represents a form of legal aid and is in every way commendable. I support that too. It is interesting-the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) commented on this-that these changes do not go anywhere at all towards what the Government, not only when in opposition but also when in government stated it would. On 29 May 1981 the Attorney-General said: So long as ministerial discretion in any form is retained absolutely and conclusively to deny access to these documents without being subject to second guessing or review by anyone else, it is our view . . . that freedom of information legislation is simply not worth having unless we can ensure that documents of this kind come within its ambit, too. The present Attorney-General said that when he was in opposition. When in government he said: Labor will implement fully the outstanding recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to ensure that freedom of information operates in practice as well as in name. The real thrust of that statement was against the conclusive ministerial certificates. I think everyone in the chamber who was here at the time of the debate a couple of years ago will remember the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the present Deputy Prime Minister, stating that this legislation in its present form-basically an unchanged form-is obnoxious. Men who are now Ministers, one after the other, said that when in government, if in government, they would change this system radically but, of course, that has not happened at all. The substitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the Document Review Tribunal certainly does not do that. The requirement that Ministers make a statement in the House of their reasons for sticking to their certificates, while a commendable amendment, certainly does not abolish the conclusive certificate system, and giving the Ombudsman the right to represent applicants obviously does not do so. Despite the sound and fury a couple of years ago, during the election campaign and even to some extent since the election campaign , we see that this Government accepts the former Government's basic approach in this area. It seeks to amend the Act in minor ways-which I support-but not to change it fundamentally. I think the Bill as a whole is a good one. The amendments are in the spirit of the original legislation. Apart from a detail here or there, they have, by and large, the support of this side of the House. I turn to the archives legislation introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). I congratulate the Minister on this legislation. It is easy to do that because the same legislation was passed by the former Government, but it did not come to this House because of the election. It is legislation which is very much to be welcomed. It allows for the better management of archives, as the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) said; it establishes an advisory council; it puts the Director-General on a statutory basis; it allows for the training of archivists and it takes measures against the loss or destruction of archives. Under the provisions of clause 24 a person shall not destroy or otherwise dispose of, and so on, a Commonwealth record. Such an offence is subject to a penalty of $2,000. In fact, I have no idea of the extent to which there is loss or destruction of Commonwealth archives. My experience is too slight. Nevertheless, that experience certainly gave me concern. Three, four or five years ago I was looking into some Commonwealth archives dealing with a unit established by the Chifley Government in the war. It was the late Alfred Conlon's unit which was set up to advise the Prime Minister on matters of civilian morale and a range of other matters. That unit contained a very large number of distinguished Australian academics, intellectuals, poets and so on. It was a matter of some interest to me at the time for a book I was writing. I wanted to consult those archives. I had no difficulty in consulting what was available, but the relevant archives had gone-they had been lost or destroyed. As I have said, that is only one small example but it is a serious one because the Conlon unit, as it was called, was an important unit, in a small way, in the history of World War II and the history of Australia. But it would seem, on the basis of my experience, that those important Commonwealth records have disappeared. That is a small example but it was an indication to me that a large number of important records may well have disappeared, have been destroyed or have been lost over the years. This legislation certainly will do something to bring order to this very important area. I would remind the honourable member for Macarthur that this legislation is supplemented by comparable legislation dealing with State archives. I guess we have to remind ourselves that some parts of Australia or some authorities in Australia existed for more than 100 years before the glorious Commonwealth was established. Indeed, there are important archives not under the control of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth controls some very important archives indeed. The archival system established by this legislation is extremely welcome. Associated with the archives legislation is the Copyright Amendment Bill. At the moment the Copyright Act allows a broadcaster, if he has a licence from the owner of the copyright, to broadcast a copyright work or sound recording, to make an ephemeral record without obtaining a further licence to do so, as long as the record is either destroyed within 12 months-or an agreed long period-of the broadcast or delivered to the National Library of Australia with the consent of the National Librarian for retention. Under this Act ephemeral records deposited by broadcasting and television organisations will be deposited with the Australian Archives authority. More precisely, those ephemeral records that the Director-General certifies as being of exceptional documentary character will be deposited. At first sight this is straightforward but I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will clarify one point for us. There has been some uncertainty because of the fact that the Copyright Act makes the decision to deposit these specified ephemeral records with the Archives authority instead of the National Library. The Deputy Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill on 18 October, said : Now that the Archives is to be established on a statutory basis . . . it is appropriate that the Archives, rather than the National Library, be entitled to receive this material . . . That is straightforward enough. I raise this matter in the hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will clarify it. On the other hand, when speaking in another place on this very point, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that this was really a matter of fundamental legal relationships and not necessarily about the de facto care and management of such ephemeral records. He said: It is in fact proposed, so far as this Bill is concerned, that material so lodged with the Archives will be lodged in turn by the Archives, for the moment anyway, with the National Library of Australia, where they will be kept together with similar material from a variety of other sources. It is possible to reconcile those two statements of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General but it requires a little torturing of words. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will clarify that point for the House. It involves the current debate as to whether these records should remain in the care and control of the Library or with the Archives, or whether there should be a separate archive with its own statutory basis. I do not ask the Deputy Prime Minister to decide that on this occasion, here and now. That is a very important debate because so many of these ephemeral records are of exceptional importance historically. Nevertheless, everyone is concerned with this debate. It would appear at least-I think the Attorney-General in the other place said that the decision has symbolic value, meaning that it has more importance than it would appear to have at first sight-that the Government has made the decision that the Archives, rather than the National Library or a national film archive, will be the ultimate repository of these records. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will clarify that. The three measures, taken together, are welcomed. They fit in with earlier legislation to establish the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The freedom of information legislation amends in defensible ways. The archives legislation establishes something that is long overdue. The copyright measure is also welcome although there is a question which I look to the Deputy Prime Minister to clear up. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.33) —I will speak principally on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. Before I do so I would like to make some comment about the general consensus of agreement we now see in this chamber in relation to this freedom of information legislation. I think that consensus is very welcome. This is an issue which has been debated for a very long time in the community and also in this House. It is noteworthy to see legislation agreed to by both sides of the Parliament. So often outside this chamber we see highlighted all the disagreements that exist between Government and Opposition. I think at times it is necessary to take stock of just how much agreement there is, in fact, on the floor of this House. Probably only about 10 per cent of legislation is in contention. So often in the media and in the community generally the dissension in the Parliament is played up rather than the issues on which there is a lot of agreement. I think we as members of parliament have an obligation to pass through to the community the message that, in fact, the Parliament often achieves consensus. Some of the bitter disputes we have seen in the last couple of weeks are, I suppose, part of the parliamentary process. But also, at times, we lose sight of the real issues being debated and the consensus that exists. The legislation before us today is a product of the experience of working with the Freedom of Information Act which was agreed to by the Parliament last year. I have been quite surprised by the little use made of the legislation. The number of requests for access to documents made under the Act is only a very small fraction of the number that was feared would be recalled by departments and authorities. 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-orientated agencies, such as the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I find it quite amazing that there has been so much debate about this legislation in the Parliament yet so little recognition in the community of an individual's rights under this legislation. So often when constituents come to see me I inform them of their rights under this Act. They have no idea at all. I think it is important that alongside legislation that deals with the rights of individuals goes an education process. I know that a lot of emphasis has been put on training officers within departments to deal with requests. But I think that the Government has an obligation also to sell the legislation in a way. I know that pamphlets are available on individual's rights. It is important that these pamphlets get out to the whole community. Particular emphasis should be put on informing members of the ethnic communities so that they also are aware of their rights. The legislation that is before us today is really designed to provide greater access to government documents. The main features of the amendments are to allow the public, first of all, a greater right of access to what we call prior documents, to expand the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and not to proceed with the establishment of a document review tribunal. I think that is a very welcome decision, because we do not want an excessively complicated appeals system. When we already have in operation the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it makes so much more sense to have that as the body to which one can appeal. The legislation also provides for additional public interest tests for several important categories of the exemption. Again, that would act to free up this legislation, to remove purely factual documents from the Cabinet and Executive Council exemptions and to progressively reduce the time for compliance with requests from the present 60 days to 30 days by 1 December 1986. I do not think that there will be any problems with departments gearing up for that because, as has already been stated, there seems to be very little demand for documents under this legislation. In relation to greater right of access to prior documents, no time barriers will now apply where an individual seeks access to his own records. Other records up to five years old will be brought within the Act. A document older than five years will also be subject to the Act where it can be shown that access to it is reasonably necessary to a proper understanding of another document. That all makes a lot of sense. If we are, in fact, to have freedom of information in name as well as in legislation it is important that we extend the provisions as outlined. The amendments expanding the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will give it power to review and make recommendations in respect of ministerial certificates claiming that a document is exempt from disclosure under the Act. The Government has given very careful consideration to whether it would leave all questions of access to be determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It has decided that a provision for conclusive ministerial certificates should remain in the particularly sensitive areas of defence, security, international relations, Cabinet and the Executive Council and relations with the States. I know that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has made some comment in relation to that. Senator Evans, the Attorney-General, has made this concession, I suppose, in the light of the experience of being in government. The honourable member for North Sydney smiles, but in fact, what we have attempted to do with this legislation is to achieve a balance between allowing greater access for individuals under the freedom of information legislation with proper appeals procedures but at the same time allowing some provision for security. But this has to be related to particular areas. The sensitive areas are defined as defence, security, international relations, Cabinet and the Executive Council and relations with the States. So it is not an all- encompassing exemption, but rather is confined to specific areas. A new public interest test will also apply to the exemption of documents affecting the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth. Documents concerning tests, examinations, audits, the review of agency functions, the management interests of the Commonwealth and claims that a Commonwealth-State document be exempt will also have to show that the public interest requires the document not to be disclosed. This will make it more difficult for authorities to keep documents from public display. Reasons for doing so have to be outlined. The whole aim of this is to allow easier access to documents. Other changes the Government proposes to make to the Act will definitely make it easier to gain information because they will also be related to hurrying up the procedures. I think that is very important. Before I conclude, I will make a very brief comment on the Archives Bill 1983. The provisions in this Bill highlight the necessity to ensure the personal privacy for depositors of documents and are necessary to ensure that the freedom of information legislation is compatible with the archives activities. The Bill is also necessary to preserve the public interest in regard to access to Commonwealth records held in private collections. As a person who worked in the Archives for a year, I must say that I am very pleased to see this Bill before us and the changes in the regulation of access to documents. I found that some of the rules that existed in regard to access to archives material in the early 1970s were absolutely ludicrous. The practice of having paper bags over some Cabinet documents which related only to the period of World War II when, in fact , one could get access to this Australian material very easily in the United States was a farcical arrangement. I must confess to having a look under the paper bags on the odd occasion to see what, in fact, was so secret to private eyes. It was the most ludicrous situation. There was no way in the world that these documents should have been kept secret. I can understand the need to black out names. There is no doubt that a person's privacy should be respected. But to restrict access-a situation that existed in the early 1970s-to Cabinet documents of the late 1930s was ludicrous. Therefore, I welcome this Bill before us. Before concluding, I make one final plea. If, in fact, we are freeing access to documents, particularly documents in the archives, it is important that we act to preserve them. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts recently conducted an inquiry into the preservation of historical material. We were amazed at how little emphasis is being given to the preservation of our history. I hope that through the inquiry the Public Accounts Committee conducted, which related particularly to the Australian War Memorial, we are able to get a new awareness in the community of the need to preserve our past, particularly in regard to the care of the paper from the past. So often, if they are not treated in a particular way, the documents which are our heritage are destroyed. As well as looking at access to material, when material is to be constantly handled it is very important that we also take steps to ensure that those documents are preserved, not only for the eyes of our generation but also for generations to follow. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.45) —in reply-I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate, particularly the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who led for the Opposition and who indicated that the Opposition supports these Bills-the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, the Archives Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill. I also appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). My colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has been in the House. He is responsible for the Archives Bill but, because of the pressures of time, we will not have the benefit of further advice from him as to his delight that there are no objections to his Bill. During the debate in the Senate on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill Senator Missen moved an amendment which we have to refine, and we will need to go into Committee in respect of that relatively minor matter. The honourable member for North Sydney pointed to the many improvements made by the Bill, particularly the widening of access to documents, the fact that there will be no limits on access to documents relating to personal affairs, together with general access to documents which were made available as from 1 December 1977. He referred also to the ability to respond much more quickly than at present and the attempt to reduce that period of response to 30 days at some time in the future. The major amendment is that the test for access will be the overriding public interest in favour of disclosure, the exempt documents being those relating to such matters as the physical safety of officials. It is also worthy of note that the Bill abolishes the Document Review Tribunal and transfers its functions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) is on record as saying in the Senate that the freedom of information legislation, as it will exist after the passage of this amending Bill, will be a much more substantial contribution to open government than anything that has been done previously. I know there has been some argument that the Attorney-General and I had aspirations for even wider access, but that was refined by the fact that we have had legal training which gives one a wider mind in the sense that one's aspirations are often higher than one subsequently achieves. All honourable members will know that when one gets into Cabinet one seems to be surrounded by other minds which perhaps are not as flexible or as expansive. That is some defence of my colleague the Attorney-General, because I noticed that I was also singled out for mention in the Senate. The question of conclusive certificates was mentioned in the Senate. Senator Missen moved a series of amendments designed to abolish the system of conclusive certificates and to propose other things. Those amendments were not accepted in the Senate. The Government has not abandoned the idea of phasing out the system of conclusive certificates, if possible, but we are on record as saying that it would be premature at this stage. The transfer of jurisdiction for that matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, together with the requirement that Ministers table reasons in the Parliament, will go some way to meeting concerns about the conclusive certificate system in the principal Act. It is thought that the question of conclusive certificates should be considered in the context of the three-year review to be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. As at 30 June 1983, of 923 decisions made by agencies to refuse access, conclusive certificates were given in respect of only six. That is about 0.65 per cent. This indicates a responsible attitude on behalf of Ministers and officials in relation to the giving of certificates. I am pleased to mention that the Attorney-General's Department has given me further statistics on the number of requests reported by agencies. I will ask my friend the honourable member for North Sydney whether he objects to this document being incorporated in Hansard. It has just been handed to me. It indicates that the departments to which the greatest number of inquiries are being made are Social Security, the Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It indicates that in July there were 1,249 requests to 82 agencies and in August there were 1,086 requests to 61 agencies. It is of interest to note that in Veterans' Affairs inquiries were relatively slack until Anzac Day but that in April there were 95 inquiries and in May 358 inquiries. I understand that an enthusiastic official of Veterans' Affairs who is also a returned serviceman drummed up a fair amount of business at returned servicemen's celebrations on Anzac Day so that statistics were remarkably improved. I will hand the document to my colleague opposite and, if he agrees, I will seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Leave is granted, provided the material is within the usual guidelines. The document read as follows- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 Number of Requests Reported by Agencies (December 1982-June 1983) December 733 by 59 agencies January 592 by 78 agencies February 708 by 74 agencies March 802 by 78 agencies April 670 by 83 agencies May 1,178 by 84 agencies June 986 by 84 agencies Total 1982-1983, 5,669 (average per month, 809; full year rate, 9,708). The majority of requests reported by agencies (over two-thirds) were directed to client-orientated agencies, for example- December January February March April May June Department 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 1983 Total Social Security 189 133 173 199 133 184 166 1,177 Taxation 103 104 152 179 153 267 168 1,126 Veterans' Affairs 62 63 82 107 95 358 282 1,049 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 69 43 73 61 63 77 79 465 Other agencies receiving a significant number of requests include Defence, Australian Federal Police, Health, Home Affairs and Environment, Public Service Board and Attorney-General's. More detailed statistics will be available in the Attorney-General's Annual Report on the FOI Act. Number of Requests Reported by Agencies (July-August 1983) July 1,249 by 82 agencies August 1,086 by 61 agencies Total 1983-1984, 2,335. The trends of the first seven months operation of FOI appear to have continued into 1983-84 but with a slight increase in activity. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the honourable member for North Sydney. The matter raised by the honourable member for Wentworth related to archives. My colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has asked me to mention the great variety of archival holdings. They include models for the Canberra design competition in 1911 and film of early aerial surveys of Australia for mapping and defence purposes. On film there are records of the Antarctic Division. There are many thousands of defence films and film relating to Cyclone Tracy. There are photographs covering a wide variety of the early history of Australia. There are voice recordings of Dame Mary Gilmore, Daisy Bates, Albert Namitjira, John Curtin, Nellie Melba and Alfred Hill, to mention just a few. There are the early Burley Griffin design drawings and drawings of nineteenth century fortifications and military equipment. There are films relating to the pioneers of aviation such as Amy Johnson and Jean Batten. There is film relating to the Cowra prisoner of war breakout and to nineteenth century naturalisation records. There are the personal papers of Lord Bruce, Sir Paul Hasluck, Mr Scullin, Mr Whitlam, Mr Fraser and Mr Curtin. There are seismic tapes, together with related papers on off-shore petroleum exploration. So, the Archives covers a wide spectrum of activity. The honourable member for Wentworth was concerned by what appears to be a disputation over what are called ephemeral records. He queried what was going to happen to the national film collection held in the National Library. I am reminded by the Director-General of Archives, Professor Neale, that the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted in practical terms in this way: Under the Berne Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, all obligations for ephemeral records must go the official archives; that is, the Australian Archives. The National Library's film archive is part of the Library and the Library Act defines library material to include film. That term was coined and used most effectively by Library staff in the film collection, and they have built up a magnificent collection. Our international obligations have been met by the initial transfer of the ephemeral records to the Australian Archives-clause 64 of the Bill-and the film will be made available under clauses 63 and 64 with what is called the agreed best interest of all interested parties. The Archives does not seek to acquire custody of records for their own sake but wishes to have them for their proper preservation and disposition. The question has been raised as to whether the National Library film archives should be separated from the Library or in some way made an official archive, but the Attorney-General has told the Parliament that, while the review of the problem by a committee is in progress, material lodged initially with the Archives will be lodged in turn with the National Library. He has given assurances that this will in no way foreclose the ongoing debate or the review about the proper role of the National Library film archives. If any decision arises from the review which requires an amendment to the Archives legislation, those amendments will be made. It might well be that any such decision will require amendments to other Acts, such as the Australian War Memorial Act, the Australian National Gallery Act and the Museum of Australia Act. The National Library film archives may well say that it has insufficient resources to house and care for the film. The idea will be that assistance can be given from other areas. At present, for example, the Archives has about 3,000 cans of film on behalf of the National Library. In the very near future, with the rearrangement of Archives material in the Mitchell repository in Canberra, space will become available there for use by the National Library. The review and any administrative activity will take some time. But what has been said by Professor Neale should satisfy the query by the honourable member for Wentworth. I think that answers the matters that were raised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.57) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 27, page 14, lines 15 and 16, omit '', not being a decision made under sections 33 and 33A of this Act'', substitute ''(not being a decision made by a Minister''. (2) Clause 27, page 14, at the end of proposed section 52F add the following sub-section: ''(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the reference in sub-section (1) to a decision made by a Minister shall not be taken to include a reference to a decision made by a person in the exercise of a power delegated by a Minister.''. (3) Clause 30, page 15, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Applications to Administrative Appeals Tribunal ''30. Section 55 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (3) (b) 'he made that application' and substituting 'that application was received by or on behalf of the agency concerned'; and (b) by omitting from paragraph (4) (c) '57 (4)' and substituting '52B (3)'. (4) After clause 31, page 15, insert the following new clause: Repeal of section 57 ''31A. Section 57 of the Principal Act is repealed.''. The first amendment is to clause 27, page 14, lines 15 and 16, to omit the words ', not being a decision made under sections 33 and 33A of this Act', and to substitute the words '(not being a decision made by a Minister)'. I have looked at the Senate debate on this matter. Senator Missen had suggested that the sections involved were sections 27 and 28. That was an error. I understand that the Senate appropriately corrected that error in the Journals of the Senate so that reference is made to sections 33 and 33A. This amendment by the Government will make it clear that the Ombudsman is precluded from representation in cases where a decision of a Minister is under review. Honourable members should bear in mind that Senator Missen's amendment described the role of the Ombudsman. The Government has no objection to that. But this amendment will make the point that where the Ombudsman is representing, as he is entitled to do, it is not appropriate that he have the ability to represent in cases where a decision of a Minister is under review. That is consistent with the exclusion of ministerial action from the Ombudsman's ordinary jurisdiction. Amendment No. (2) adds a section which relates to the fact that power can be exercised by a delegate of a Minister. Whilst the Government believes that an Ombudsman should not be empowered to represent appellants, the other factor is that there is no objection that the Ombudsman is not excluded from representation in cases where a decision is made by a person in the exercise of a power delegated by a Minister. That is the purpose of amendment No. (2). Amendment No. (3) relates to clause 30 and refers to similar provisions. The proposed amendment is consequential upon clause 27 and proposed new clause 31A. The amendment adds a new paragraph (b) to existing clause 30. The effect of the amendment determines the period in which an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may be made where the decision to be reviewed has also been the subject of complaint to the Ombudsman. Reference is now made to new section 52B (3), in place of section 57 (4). Amendment No. (4) which inserts proposed new clause 31A repeals section 57. Of course, proposed new clause 31A is consequential upon clause 27. Proposed new sections 52A and 52B substantially repeal what was contained in section 57. They will have the effect of clarifying matters relating to complaints made to the Ombudsman concerning action taken under the freedom of information legislation. That is the explanation of the amendments. I do not think I need add anything more. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Cohen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 5, General Business, given for Thursday, 20 October, being called on forthwith. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(12.00) —I move: That this House is of the opinion that there is a serious threat to Commonwealth funds provided by this Parliament to the Queensland Government, arising from the refusal of the Queensland Government to establish a Public Accounts Committee. Yesterday I gave notice that on the next day of sitting I would move this motion and I thank the House for its courtesy in allowing it to be brought on today. Public accounts committees perform two distinct functions. One is to examine the efficiency, the cost effectiveness and the value for money of government expenditures. The other is to examine the lagality and the legitimacy of government expenditures. In this debate I will be concentrating on the questions of efficiency, cost effectiveness and value for money of government expenditures , particularly expenditures of Federal funds allocated to Queensland. My friend and colleague, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), will examine the legality and legitimacy of government expenditures, particularly Commonwealth expenditures granted to Queensland. Not so much for the benefit of honourable members, but for the benefit of those who may be listening, I will explain exactly what a public accounts committee is and what it does. On the very day of the coalition split in Queensland-a split which occurred over the very issue of whether there should be a public accounts committee-the Commonwealth Joint Committee of Public Accounts was meeting in Brisbane. It met with the Press but it was quite clear that representatives of the Press were not at all clear what the Public Accounts Committee existed to do , what purposes it was there to serve. I would like to explain that. A government needs to be looked upon as a business and it needs to be run on rational business principles. It is a very big business. Commonwealth Budget outlays for the last financial year, according to the most recent figures, were $56,703m. For the previous year they were $48,982m. Queensland Budget outlays were $4,825m in the last Budget that the State Government managed to bring down, which is a considerably large amount of money. It is not an amount of money to be trifled with and it needs an overview taken of it. The interest of the Commonwealth Government in this matter is extremely significant. If we look at the percentage of Budget outlays provided by the Commonwealth Government and expended by the State governments, that is if we look at the amount of expenditures by State governments which are provided by Federal Government funding-I give figures excluding loans-we find that in New South Wales 45.6 per cent of its expenditures come from Commonwealth funds. In Victoria the figure is 43.3 per cent. Of the large States Queensland has the highest percentage of outlays coming from Commonwealth funding in receiving 53.6 per cent. The smaller States are roughly comparable with Queensland, South Australia receiving 57.4 per cent, Western Australia receiving 56.9 per cent, Tasmania receiving 56.5 per cent and the Northern Territory receiving 75.4 per cent. Therefore, there is a considerable Commonwealth interest in the expenditure of funds in Queensland, funds which are not overseen by a public accounts committee. The case is the more acute when we consider that since 1982 the Commonwealth, in terms of its tax sharing and special temporary revenue assistance grants, has been granting an increasing proportion of funds to Queensland over and above the other States. This is because in previous years accounting errors, perhaps malevolence by the Fraser Government or perhaps incompetence by the Bjelke- Petersen Government led to a situation in which the Queensland Government was receiving a smaller proportion of the tax sharing and special temporary revenue assistance grants than it should reasonably have been entitled to. In 1982-83 the States of the Commonwealth received increased amounts, the increase being 9. 5 per cent in each case except for Queensland whose tax sharing and special temporary revenue assistance grants increased by 11.3 per cent. In 1983-84 the grants to other States will increase at the rate of 11.5 per cent whereas in Queensland they will increase by 13.3 per cent. Consequently, it is quite clear that the use of Commonwealth funds in the States, in particular in Queensland, is of acute interest to the Parliament. I will now explain how a public accounts committee would assist in this area. In 1951 the Governor-General gave the royal assent to a Bill which re- established the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. The Public Accounts Committee has been performing its work ever since. It operates on the fundamental principle which endures to this day that the function of the Committee is not to question the adequacy of government policies but rather to determine whether the taxpayer is getting value for money from the Commonwealth' s administration of those policies. In other words, this Committee is not a party political committee. The Public Accounts Committee is a committee which crosses party lines. I will read from the 200th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It states: By adopting these principles the Committee has proved over the years that, although it is a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Parliament and an all- party Committee, it is able to work successfully. The acceptance of Government policy avoids the risk of the Committee finding itself divided permanently on party lines . . . We are dealing with a committee whose function is not party political but is to supervise the cost effectiveness, adequacy and value for money of government expenditure. This is the sort of committee which the Queensland Government has obdurately refused to establish. This is the sort of committee over which the coalition split took place in Queensland. This is the sort of committee whose establishment the Liberal Party in Queensland has demanded and the National Party has refused. I will explain further the functions of the Public Accounts Committee. The investigations that the Commonwealth Public Accounts Committee undertakes are quite instructive. For example, the 189th report was on airport fire tenders. The inquiry focused on the purchasing procedures and practices used by the Department of Transport in acquiring a fleet of 25 ultra large fire tenders for use in its full time fire service at 31 airports throughout Australia. The first 10 machines delivered required significant repairs and modifications before they were fully serviceable and able to be operated. The Committee made a number of criticisms of the procedures and it was critical of many aspects of the specifications, development, tendering and contracting procedures and made a list of recommendations. That was very useful work. It could be well done in Queensland when we think of the number of contracts which are let out in that State, a State which more than any has benefited from advancements in the areas of mining and minerals processing. Another area of investigation undertaken recently by the Commonwealth Public Accounts Committee was reported on in the 194th report. That was an examination of the expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Referring to that inquiry, the 200th report states: In examining expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance the Committee seeks to determine whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforseeable requirements for which provision could not be made in the departmental estimating procedures . . . In other words, it is a general oversight of the rational use of funds and a determination of whether funds are being used for the purposes for which they were set aside. What sort of investigations would a public accounts committee undertake in Queensland? One immediately springs to mind. As we know it is notorious that of $15.9m granted to Queensland under the wages pause program nearly $5m is still outstanding. Large amounts of that money were placed on the short term money market by the Queensland Government on the flimsy excuse that the rain made it impossible to generate the jobs for which that money was donated. Worse still is the Queensland Government's record under the community employment program, a program worth $41.2m to Queensland and $300m throughout the Commonwealth. That $41.2m has not begun to flow in Queensland. In South Australia, people are now already employed under that program. In Western Australia and Tasmania, funds have been allocated by the advisory committee which is being set up. In Victoria and New South Wales the advisory committee is being set up. But in Queensland they have not yet even set up that advisory committee. What about value for money for the people of Queensland from this Commonwealth funding? What about cost effectiveness? What about an investigation of the departmental procedures which have led to this disgraceful situation? People in my electorate by the thousands want jobs and are waiting for jobs. People would be getting jobs now if these programs were established. But they are not established because the committee has not been set up. Mr Millar —Where are the jobs established? Mr WELLS —No jobs are established in Queensland under the community employment program. The money has not been allocated because the advisory committee has not been set up as it has been set up in other States. This may very well require some surveillance by a public accounts committee. A public accounts committee could usefully investigate the procedures within the State Public Service which led to the failure of this advisory committee being established. It is not a difficult task to establish an advisory committee. I am sure it is not beyond the capacity of public servants. However, it is said that in some parts of Queensland's Public Service a witch hunt is going on against people who support the Liberal Party; a National Party witch hunt, not against the Labor Party, but against Liberal Party people in the Public Service. This is something which could suitably be examined by a public accounts committee. It is also said, and I believe it to be true-indeed, I know it to be true-that, in order to get advancement in certain areas of the Public Service in Queensland, it is absolutely necessary to be a member of the National Party, and it helps if one wishes to be a headmaster in the State school system. Mr Simmons —Do you have to join the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation? Mr WELLS —My colleague the honourable member for Calare asks whether one has to join the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. That is not necessary. It is only necessary if one wishes to have a major government contract. The next sum of money at which I would like to look is the $6.77m advanced by the Fraser Government in 1981 under the Commonwealth-State hospital cost sharing agreement. This sum of money has not yet been taken up by the Queensland Government. This $6.77m would do a lot for the State's hospital system but it has not been taken up. What are the administrative procedures upon which the Government is acting in not taking up this money? Surely this requires surveillance? Likewise, if we go back in history a little to the $7m that Queensland lost through its late participation in Medibank, we find that late participation in programs offered by this Parliament has cost the Queensland Government and consequently the Queensland people vast amounts of money, including this $7m. I am not prepared to believe that this was just because of ideological differences between the Premier and the Australian Government. If that were so Queensland would not have got around to accepting the money finally. Queensland finally entered into Medibank. We need to examine the procedures which caused the delay. There is no point in this Parliament sitting down and voting money to the people of Australia for particular programs if those programs are not being implemented . They are not being implemented within Queensland. Part of the reason for their failure to be implemented is the refusal of that Government to establish a public accounts committee. I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) a question on notice on 6 September, question No. 444. The Minister informed me that $1,719,386-funds allocated under the auspices of his Department-was returned unused. This figure applies between July 1976 and August 1983. According to the answer that I received there were no earlier figures because of the destruction of records in the Department-a routine destruction. My figures, however, go back to 1975. They were widely publicised in the newspapers at that time. They amount to $3m including $450,000 for cyclone damaged houses. This is funding which was offered by the Commonwealth Government and which was returned, unused, by the Queensland Government. What sort of administrative procedures are there in a State which is incapable of using $3m? I do not think there is an honourable member in this House or any person outside this House who is listening to this debate who would not be able to spend an amount of money voted to him or her by the Commonwealth Government. Yet the Queensland Government is unable to do so. We need a public accounts committee in Queensland to supervise the expenditure of these Commonwealth funds. I asked the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a question on notice on 6 September, question No. 423, concerning the youth services scheme. During its three-year pilot phase Queensland was offered $461,000. Only $305,000 of this funding was accepted on a matched basis. That means that $156,000 was not advanced. Mr Lusher —Have you had a look at what happens in New South Wales? Mr WELLS —I have. If the honourable member had been in the chamber earlier I would have given him figures on that as well. I do not propose to repeat myself now. The expenditure of Commonwealth funds in the area of health therefore requires the surveillance of a public accounts committee. In the area of the environment, according to an answer I received to my question on notice No. 443, Queensland received $5,602,448 in Federal payments between 1972 and 1983 under programs administered by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. Of this, $3,589,333 was provided under the National Estate program. One area on the National Estate in Queensland is the Daintree River rainforest area. Unfortunately a Minister in the Queensland Government has chosen to ignore this fact and apparently leaned on the local council to have the land rezoned as residential, to the great advantage of the foreign-owned company which owns the land and to the great detriment of the Australian people. There is not much point in the Commonwealth setting up programs and sinking funds into them, sending experts into National Estate areas for inspection and conservation, if this work is to be rendered nugatory by the intervention of a State Cabinet Minister promoting the vested interests of his multinational mates . Clearly, there is a need for a public accounts committee in Queensland to examine the quality of advice being offered to State Ministers to determine whether taxpayers are getting value for money in the administration of programs. Alternatively, if such a report told us that State Ministers did not follow such advice from their departments but merely sought the naked, vested, economic self -interest of their multinational mates, then at least we would know that we could save ourselves the expense of having the programs and the departments. Another area of investigation which requires a public accounts committee is that covered by the multifarious quangos in Brisbane. There are more quangos in Brisbane and in Queensland than I know about. Even the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who knows everything else, does not know how many quangos there are in Queensland. They are not subject to enumeration. Two of them which require a certain degree of examination are those concerned with bread and milk. Under the Bread Industry Committee Act and the Milk Supply Act certain procedures require to be undertaken. Are those procedures being accurately undertaken? I do not know. For the benefit of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who is so frequently attempting to interject, the State Leader of the Liberal Party said only on Monday that he thought it would be a good idea if the milk industry committee was examined by a public accounts committee. If the honourable member for Hume or any member of the Liberal Party wishes to interject or speak on this matter why do they not say whether or not they agree with the views of their State leader? Let us look at a large amount of money. Under the Land Commission and land development program of the Whitlam Government large amounts of money were made available. An amount of $78m was made available to South Australia, $26m to Victoria and $21m to New South Wales. Queensland decided to participate in this program. On 11 November 1975 there was a letter on Mr Whitlam's desk to be signed, a letter accepting participation in this program. But it was too late. Queensland had missed out because the administrative procedures which led to the advice being tendered came too late. I conclude by relating a little story which is going around Brisbane at the moment. It is not a new one but it concerns a Japanese entrepreneur with certain financial and real estate interests in Queensland. His grandson was having a birthday. He asked him what he would like for his birthday. The grandson said he would like a cowboy outfit, so the Japanese millionaire bought him the Bjelke- Petersen Government. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.25) —It is my great pleasure to follow the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) in this debate. He expressed some views which would cause the electors of Queensland, if they were listening, to wonder which State he came from. One thing with all Queenslanders is that, no matter who they are, if one scratches them hard enough one finds that they are certainly strong Queenslanders. It does not really matter how much the honourable member for Petrie might say in debates such as this about the various management techniques and so forth of the Queensland Government. The fact is that the State has done remarkably well under the Liberal National Party Government since 1957. It has been a tremendous success and the envy of the other States of the nation. It is unfortunate to hear the honourable member from Queensland bucket Queensland in the way he did, and I am sure that that will be made well known around the electorates of Petrie by all the State members in that area. The honourable member said that he was concerned about giving money to Queensland and the question of accountability. Before we turn to the matter of accountability, we have to look at the Labor Government's accountability. Government members interjecting-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I interrupt for the dual purpose of restoring order and seeking a seconder. Is the motion seconded? Mr Humphreys —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr MOORE —I was speaking about the question of accountability. We must consider accountability in order to pass judgment. I should like to raise the matter of the accountability of the Government and its performance here to date. Rather than make judgment on others, let us look at what the Government has done. Let us look at broken promises for a start. Prior to 5 March the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) waltzed around Australia and made statements and promises to every interest group of this nation. He said: 'Here is a goody for you, and here is a goody for you'. What has happened since those days? Mr Simmons —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I feel that the comments made by the honourable member for Moore are quite irrelevant to the notice of motion moved by the honourable member for Petrie. We are supposed to be discussing the establishment of a public accounts committee in Queensland rather than making extraneous comments about this Government, as the present honourable member for Ryan is doing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member, like all honourable members, is required to have regard to relevance. Mr MOORE —Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to make relevant comments we have to draw first of all on the question of where accountability must stand. Before we can cast aspersions on another parliament-I have heard that that some honourable members in this House believe in federalism-we must start with the accountability of the Government. That is where I should like to start my comments. During the course of the election campaign it was promised that six million people would have tax cuts. The result of that little promise is that a person on average weekly earnings will have a tax increase of 16 per cent. That is not a bad start. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think it is necessary for the honourable member to make a much stronger effort to relate his remarks to the motion before the House . Mr MOORE —I accept your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was relating the meaning of accountability to the double standards that were involved in this area. Further to the matter of accountability, we were promised that there would be no change to the taxation on lump sums of superannuation. What has happened to that promise? That promise has gone down the drain. The Government promised to maintain home loan interest rebates. That promise was broken. The Government also promised to maintain the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare. Where is the accountability for that? We are talking about accountability. It was broken. We were promised that there would be no means testing of pensions for the over-70s. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The form of accountability that is relevant to this motion concerns the accountability of a public accounts committee. That is quite clear in the motion. The Federal Parliament has a Joint Committee of Public Accounts. By relating the issue in this way, the honourable member is reflecting on the excellent work of the Federal Public Accounts Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order but I emphasise again that it is necessary for the honourable member for Ryan to make a much more direct effort to relate his remarks to the motion before the Chair. Mr MOORE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall not continue with the long list of promises that have been broken, but it was promised that there would be no introduction of assets testing. Of course, those who live in Queensland-a large number of retired people live there-will be enormously interested in the outcome of that matter. That was the first broken promise. What have we got today? This Government should be concerned not with the menial political problems in Queensland and making the Australian Labor Party's contribution to the State campaign which is what this debate is all about-- Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman is entitled to be heard without interruption. Mr MOORE —This is the Labor Government's contribution to the State election campaign. It should be remembered that one or two threats have been made by Ministers to withhold funds from Queensland. I thought I heard the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) say yesterday that there were circumstances in Queensland in which he would withhold funds from Queensland. Those matters ought to be taken into consideration. On top of that, I read in the ALP's campaign dossier that it would introduce State preference to industry. I agree with that. I asked Senator Button what his views were. I shall quote from his Press release on the matter. It states: He was critical of these schemes because they caused fragmentation of industry which had resulted in a weakening of the competitive strength of certain industries. There is a nice conflict of interest. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is going completely beyond the relevance of the motion before the Chair; it has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, the honourable member is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MOORE —I was drawing attention to the threat that had been made by a certain Minister in relation to withholding funds from Queensland. The State Government has every right to be concerned about this situation. I was also drawing attention to the sheer conflict between a State government policy and the Federal Government's stance in relation to industry. On top of that concern, the honourable member would know that Queenslanders would like to hear a Queenslander bucketing the home State in the way in which the previous speaker did. It is worth while to look at the question of what the Government has claimed to have done in Queensland. Let us consider the Burdekin Dam, for example. I have heard claims made by leading citizens that it is really a Labor project. To get the facts straight, I point out that in May 1980 that program was approved by the Fraser-Anthony Government in co-operation with the Bjelke- Petersen Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I hope the honourable gentleman is relating these remarks to the motion before the House. I would be very glad to hear him demonstrate the relationship as soon as he possibly can. Mr MOORE —I was endeavouring to point out that the relationship concerned Commonwealth funding of Queensland projects. I wanted to relate that point to accountability in Queensland because the funds for this dam were voted in the last Budget. This dam was the brainchild of the previous coalition government in co-operation with the Bjelke-Petersen Government. It therefore ill becomes some honourable members to pick up these points and run with them as their own projects. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Petrie, spoke at length about why money was spent here and not spent there. Let us look at some of the achievements of the Queensland Government in this period. That is where the real accountability lies. Accountability to the electorate of Queensland is the most important aspect. In exactly the same way, the accountability of the honourable member is to the constituency of Petrie. For that reason it is worthwhile looking at what has been achieved. The growth rate in Queensland has been quite remarkable. It has the highest population growth rate in Australia on a State by State basis. Job levels in that State have increased at a faster rate than in any other State. The level of investment in Queensland has increased at a faster rate than in any other State. With 16.6 per cent of Australia's population, Queensland suffered only 6.6 per cent of the industrial disputes, which is one of the lowest rates in Australia, attracted 20.3 per cent of foreign investment proposals, and generated 20.5 per cent in fixed capital spending. It has also been the national leader in fighting unemployment. That is a matter to which every honourable member in this place should be addressing himself as we look to the highest ever unemployment figure in February next year, rather than wasting the time of the House making laboured contributions to the State election. Another point I wish to make is the remarkable development that has occurred in terms of structure. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might not know the history of Brisbane as well as some other honourable members. When I was at university it was very much a quiet town. Today it is a sophisticated city, a city of which we can be proud. It did a marvellous job with the Commonwealth Games, the likes of which we would not see in any other capital in Australia. It underlined a new sense of maturity to the Queenslander. Because of that, it does not become the honourable member for Petrie to come down here and speak as he has about his home town. It is not only the Commonwealth Games that is significant. In the last three years we hve seen the development of the Queensland Cultural Centre, the Art Gallery, the performing arts complex, and the Museum, which is due to open in 1985, the building of the new law courts, the restoration of Parliament House, and the parliamentary development in the George Street precincts. New industries have gone right down the coast. Mr Gayler —Cairns is- Mr MOORE —As the honourable member for Leichhardt would know, Cairns has developed enormously in the last 10 to 15 years. That is due to private enterprise and what it has put into that area. If the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) were here he would acknowledge the tremendous development that has occurred in the Townsville area. Not only has a contribution been made in terms of defence, for which the Federal Government has put forward funds, but also the State has been involved to the extent that Queensland is now a significant contributing factor to the Australian economy. I have outlined what has occurred in the State of Queensland. I think that completely refutes the motion that has been put forward. It is nothing more than a political farce by the honourable member for Petrie. He does not understand the workings of the Queensland Government. He has been only too prepared to benefit from the qualities that have been produced by the Queensland Government, from the changes that have occurred in the State that have made it the envy of the other States in this nation. He comes into this place and attempts to put the bucket over the Government. The debate has been a failure. The people outside listening to this debate will know what it is all about. The Queensland Government will be returned after Saturday next on the basis of a coalition, with my full support. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(12.40) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has been waffling again. He has been totally irrelevant to the motion before the House. Honourable members on the other side of the House know, as do members on this side of the House, that the Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland is about to come to an end. There is no doubt that on the 22nd of this month the people of Queensland will get rid of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and rightly so. Why should they want to get rid of Joh Bjelke-Petersen? One reason is that he has refused to introduce into the Queensland Parliament a public accounts committee so that he can be accountable to the people. The motion moved today by the honourable member for Petrie says that Joh Bjelke-Petersen should be accountable. We all know that he should be accountable. Why is there all this drama in Queensland about not having a public acounts committee? In today's Courier-Mail there is an article headed 'The need for an accounts committee'. The honourable member for Ryan supports the view that there should be a public accounts committee in Queensland, yet he comes in here and waffles and pretends that he does not support it. Let me remind honourable members of what happened when the member for Toowong, Mr Prentice, moved a motion in the Queensland Parliament that a public accounts committee should be set up. We all know what happened on that day. Members of the Liberal Party moved that motion because they knew that if they did not move it the Labor Party would. They knew that they would be forced into error. The Press over the last few weeks have printed articles stating that the Liberal members crossed the floor to vote with the Labor Party. That is not the fact. The Labor members crossed the floor to vote with the eight honest Liberal members of Parliament. Out of 22 members present there were eight honest Liberal members calling on Joh. We have a situation where the Queensland Parliament and Queensland politicians, especially the members of the Government of Joh Bjelke- Petersen, are a total sham. We know for certain that the people of Queensland will get rid of them. Let me remind the Queensland Liberal members of this Parliament of what happened in the past four elections. When Sir Gordon Chalk was Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland he said that he was going to take on Joh Bjelke- Petersen. We all know what the Liberals and the National Party did to Sir Gordon Chalk, with the assistance of Bjelke-Petersen. Then we had Sir William Knox at the next election saying: 'We are going to fix up the Queensland Parliament. We are going to have a public accounts committee and we are going to fix Joh this time'. This was another fraudulent statement by Sir William Knox. What happened when they lost that time? Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Liberals got rid of Sir William Knox. Then we had poor old Dr Llew Edwards. What have they done to him? He was going to be tough and strong and he was going to fix up Joh Bjelke- Petersen. We all know how the Liberals and the National Party got rid of Llew. Poor Dr Edwards. Now we have that terrible, shameful person Terry White purporting to represent the Liberal Party. Liberal members on the other side of the House know full well that they should have a public accounts committee so that we know what happens to the Federal money that goes to Queensland. That is what the debate is all about. The money that comes from the taxpayers of Australia which goes to the Queensland Government should be spent correctly in that State. There is no accountability whatsoever for the Queensland Government. I will quote from a letter in the Courier-Mail on Monday, 24 April 1978, written by a law professor, Professor Tarlo, in answer to a letter that appeared in the Courier-Mail from Senator Don Chipp. Professor Tarlo states: . . . Mr Chipp puts it, 'isolating you from the rest of Australia by his outrageous conduct.' Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You will recall earlier in the week that Mr Speaker, in answer to a query about quoting from newspapers, indicated that it was inappropriate for honourable members to quote from newspapers unless they could authenticate such statements. I now ask you to ask the honourable member for Griffith whether he can unequivocally authenticate the statement he is quoting indicating that a certain person made a statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling on questions without notice, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Constantinos Michaelides, Minister to the President of the Republic of Cyprus. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. I remind him that on Tuesday last, 18 October, the honourable member for Boothby asked him a question or questions which he undertook to answer but which I understand he has not answered to date. I now ask: Do Australian Federal Police tapes show that a Keith Harris, former director of the Sydney Turf Club, named today in the New South Wales Parliament, had developed a covert relationship with the New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services and had several conversations with him concerning the early release of drug traffickers? Mr BEAZLEY —I think I made it clear in my answer to the honourable member for Boothby last Tuesday that it was not my intention to release the tapes, details of matters on the tapes or anything related to the tapes at any time in this House. I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions and what has also been said by the Prime Minister: When we were made aware by the Federal Police Commissioner, as a result of intercepts placed in connection with narcotics investigations, of potential breaches of New South Wales law related to the early release scheme, we sought to pass on that information immediately, in the context of the time that was available, to the New South Wales authorities for them to act on. I repeat also what has been said by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and me: The matters contained in those tapes were of the nature of criminal information from which investigation might proceed and be pursued. As I said, the matters related entirely to questions of New South Wales law, apart from anything of value to the Federal Police in their narcotics investigation, and were placed with the New South Wales authorities in the most proper way. It is a matter for the New South Wales authorities to pursue those investigations to a conclusion. Mr Peacock —But you will not deny the allegation. Mr BEAZLEY —I will not establish a practice in this House of confirming or denying aspects related to investigations, be they investigations in relation to tapes that are produced in the way in which these tapes were produced under the relevant Act or other investigations that may be before the Federal Police at any time. I do not say that in an unqualified way. There may be occasions when a person who has been the object of investigations wishes his name to be cleared, but as a matter of practice it is not my intention to release details of investigations or details of tapes and I am not going to depart from that in this instance. Mr KEOGH —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, refers to tax avoidance. What effect will the Senate's rejection of the Government's tax recoupment legislation have on the Government's Budget strategy and on the welfare of ordinary, law-abiding Australians? Mr HAWKE —The Opposition's rejection last night of the Government's recoupment legislation shows in stark form its hypocrisy and double standards. The effect of its action is to protect tax avoiders and the rip-off merchants in this country. I remind the House of the dimension of that protection of the rip-off merchants which follows from the deliberate action of the Opposition-$60m this financial year and, in aggregate, $270m. The hypocrisy of Opposition members in this matter is especially striking because they have taken up five hours of this House's time in the past week on the question of tax avoidance, led by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The hypocrisy of members of the Opposition is even more striking when they give as their ostensible reason for their action in rejecting the legislation the reference to its retrospective element. I remind the House that retrospectivity was the principal distinguishing feature of the recoupment legislation which the Opposition introduced when it was in government . I remind the House particularly of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in this place on 23 September last year. These were his words: Our normal and general reluctance to introduce legislation having any retrospective element has, on this occasion, been tempered by the competing consideration of overall perceptions as to the equity and fairness of our taxation system and the distribution of the tax burden. Again, the Opposition's hypocrisy in this matter becomes all the more striking when one contrasts it with its repeated demands for a lower Budget deficit and for lower taxes on ordinary Australians. The Opposition knows full well that as a result of its deliberate action in repudiating the legislation, ordinary, honest, law-abiding Australians are faced with one of three options or a combination of those options-higher taxes, lower services or a higher deficit, with the danger that contains for higher interest rates. I point out to the House and to the country that the funds lost as a result of the Opposition's decision to reject the recoupment legislation are equivalent to 7,000 new jobs under the community employment program or, to put it in the context of events in the north of this country, equivalent to 10 per cent of Commonwealth payments to Queensland. Obviously, as a result of the Opposition's deliberate action in protecting the tax avoiders and the rip-off merchants of this country, the Government will have to consider its options for this financial year and beyond. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the outcome of this, but I want to put very starkly to the people of Australia what it is they, the ordinary Australians, have had inflicted upon them as a result of the action of the Opposition. The funds lost as a result of the action by this hypocritical Opposition are equivalent to a one per cent reduction in personal income tax for every Australian taxpayer and for someone whose taxable income is equal to average weekly earnings the loss would be $43 a year. Let us look at it another way. If, in fact, this revenue had been available and was used to reduce petrol excise, retail petrol prices could have been brought down by 2.2c per litre. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr HAWKE —I can well understand the discomfiture of the Opposition because I can assure the Opposition that this Government will not allow the people of Australia to forget, in the days, the weeks and the months ahead, what has been imposed upon the ordinary people of Australia as a result of the deliberate decision by people on the other side of this House to protect the tax rip-off merchants of this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I intend to interrupt Question Time briefly again. There is present in the Speaker's Gallery a delegation of young political leaders from the United States of America. Six of them are elected representatives and form part of a regular exchange program between Australia and the United States of young people who have been selected by their political parties. We offer them a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that since the August Budget, only a matter of weeks ago, decisions taken by the Government have reduced prospective revenue collections in 1983-84 by approximately $80m-namely, one-third more than the amount involved in the blocking of legislation for this year by the Senate last night? Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Wait for it. Will this revenue shortfall have an adverse effect on the Government's Budget strategy, interest rates or the ordinary honest taxpayer of the Australian community? If so, in what way? Finally, can the honourable gentleman tell us how many jobs it would have been possible for the Government to provide under the community employment program if the approximately $80m of revenue had not been given up? Likewise, what additional payments to the States would the additional revenue collections have facilitated? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I had occasion yesterday to remind the House that if it behaves in this way and does not allow answers to be made it is only using up Question Time. Mr HAWKE —I am indeed indebted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. Since the Government came to office on 11 March it has taken a series of decisions. The two most important dates have been, of course, 19 May and 23 August, the day the Budget was delivered by my colleague the Treasurer. All of those decisions have been taken with a view to getting the Australian economy out of the mess into which it was plunged by the deliberate decisions of our predecessors. Of course, the chief architect of those decisions was the asker of the question. Because of the innate modesty which characterises this Government, its Prime Minister and all its members, I am reluctant simply to make assertions about the effectiveness of what we have done. The statistics-- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members on my right that the Prime Minister needs no encouragement. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I am indeed tempted to explain, on all the available statistics, the great success of the combination of all the decisions we have taken. But I content myself, in the interests of brevity, by not quoting myself or any of my Ministers as to the effectiveness of what we have done; rather, I draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-because he never got an endorsement like this and he was never likely to with the policies he pursued -and of all members of the House to the most recent issue of the Economist, not a well-known radical left wing journal. I refer to page 87 of the 8 to 14 October issue of the Economist and to an advertisement by that well-known radical institution and supporter of Labor governments, Barclays Bank. What does it have to say about the decisions of this Government? Let me read very briefly two paragraphs from the advertisement. It states: The latest economic indicators point to an early recovery. Consumer confidence is reviving, agriculture recovering, dwelling approvals are rising, exports are expanding. The stock market is firm. I ask particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to note this sentence in the Barclays advertisement in the Economist. He should listen to it very carefully. It says: The Labor Government's pragmatic approach to the country's economic problems has helped restore confidence amongst investors, both at home and abroad. Barclays Bank in the Economist has said that as a result of the combination of decisions taken by this Government we have started to turn the economic fortunes of this country away from the abysmal mess for which honourable members opposite were responsible when they were in office. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of allegations suggesting that stock will be diverted from export abattoirs to domestic abattoirs to avoid paying the higher export charges, thereby affecting the viability of some abattoirs and causing closure? Are the increased charges for export inspection the reasons for the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Port Lincoln abattoir? Is the Minister able to do anything about the allegedly anomalous situation existing in export works where part of the kill is for domestic purposes? Is the Minister aware of threats by meat processors in protest at the Government's decision to recoup 50 per cent of inspection costs? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. I thank him also for the close interest he takes in rural matters in his electorate, in the meat and livestock industries and the grain growing industries. I am aware of the concerns of some processors that some stock could be diverted from export works to domestic works. I am also aware, incidentally, that no National Party member was in attendance today when I presented a golden meat cleaver to the Beaut Butcher of the Year as part of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation's meat promotion. Mr Hawke —They were frightened you would have put it through their heads. Mr KERIN —I do not know whether they feared what I would do with the cleaver. The Beaut Butcher was a chap called Denis Kelly from Kenmore in Brisbane-a Queenslander. I do not know why no National Party member was there to take an interest in the meat industry or the Beaut Butcher. To get back to the question, reports to date indicate that there is no evidence of substantial diversion caused by export inspection fee increases. A number of factors taken together will tend to minimise the scope for redirection of animals to domestic works. Examples are freight costs, freezer capacity and kill charges, which can vary between works by more than the cost of inspection. It is likely that any redirection will reflect the general trend, already in evidence for some time, away from the higher cost work as part of the general industry rationalisation. I can state categorically to the honourable gentleman that export inspection fees will not be the reason for the Port Lincoln abattoir going out of business, if that does occur. I have no information to indicate that the works may go out of business. The information I have is that the works has operated at a loss over most of its life. The South Australian Government is currently discussing with the industry options for reducing that loss. As part of that discussion the South Australian Minister, my colleague Frank Blevins, will be inspecting the works next week. In the event that problems of diversion for the industry in general prove to be significant, I have had my Department examine possible options. I have even given some of those options to the Opposition, because it is a problem being raised by honourable members on both sides of the House. However, it is difficult to find any effective way of minimising the differential in charges without the two-fold step of the establishment of a single national meat inspection service and charging for the service itself. In regard to the third part of the honourable gentleman's question about meat processing, I am aware that meat processors have stated that they may refuse to pay the increased export inspection charge or that they may seek to offset the increased charge by charging the Commonwealth for use of facilities at meat works by Commonwealth meat inspectors. Last week I met with the Chairman of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and discussed these propositions with him. I appreciate the concerns he has raised, but I stressed to him that a tremendous amount of effort has been put into, and will continue to be put into, creating a lean and efficient export inspection service. I am advised that if an export works does not pay the full levy, a penalty of some 20 per cent per annum is assessed and action is taken through the courts to recover the amount outstanding. With regard to charging the Commonwealth for the use of facilities, I note that it is a condition of the registration of export meat works that such accommodation is to be provided free of charge. Mr RUDDOCK —I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls, on 31 May 1977, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, writing a letter in the following terms: I have your letter of 6 May requesting my reaction to the proposed setting up of a gambling casino in Canberra. I believe this is a matter best decided by the majority of people living in the area, and that the views of the community should be ascertained before steps are taken to incorporate such a controversial establishment in the local scene. I ask: Did the Prime Minister write such a letter? Is this still his view? If so , how does he intend that steps be taken to ascertain the views of the majority of people living in Canberra before proceeding with the development of a casino? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question is no, I do not recollect writing the letter. But I am sure that the honourable member would not concoct such a letter, so I am prepared to accept that I did write it. In the circumstances it seemed as though it was a very relevant letter. But times change. Mr Porter —Put it in the category of all the promises. Mr HAWKE —No. Let me make it clear that the economy and the social condition of the Australian Capital Territory in 1983 that we have inherited are far different from those of 1977. It is so as a result of the disastrous economic and social policies of the Government of which the honourable member was a part. This Government has to direct itself to the condition of the economy of this country and of this Territory with which it is confronted. It is the belief of the Government that in the Australian Capital Territory there is a need in the circumstances of today for economic action to be taken which will stimulate, not only in an immediate sense but also in a continuing sense, the greatest opportunities for employment to meet the disastrous unemployment situation we have inherited. In the circumstances of 1983 and of the future I believe that it is appropriate now that that course of action be followed. Let me make a point which has not been made before in respect of the proposal for a casino. It is the intention of the Government that should this casino proceed, the share of revenue that would be coming to the Government would be used to assist those most in need in the Territory-those who depend for their welfare upon social welfare expenditures. Therefore, if one looks at the criteria which have been taken into account, that is, the creation of employment opportunities-particularly for unskilled, young females who are desperately in need of employment-in the conditions of 1983 and 1984, it is appropriate that that course of action be followed. In regard to those in the Australian Capital Territory most in need-those who depend upon social welfare expenditures-it is appropriate that as much be available to the Government as there possibly can be to alleviate the condition of those people. Let me make it quite clear that I think that a hopeless person in public life is one who is not capable of change. This characteristic is consistent with the philosophy of the honourable member-if we can apply the word 'philosophy' to people such as the honourable member. It is not surprising to me that he is incapable of change. That is why the Opposition is sitting on the other side now in such depleted numbers. That is why it is not in government anywhere around the country on the mainland except in Queensland, and it will not be there after Saturday. Mr Hodgman —Why do you continue to attack Tasmania? Mr HAWKE —I said 'on the mainland'. It is because this Party and this Government are prepared to adopt and take through policies which are appropriate to the present and future needs of the people of this country that we have the overwhelming support we have. Mr SNOW —I ask the Prime Minister: What is the Government's attitude to Prisoners of Conscience Week, which is being organised by Amnesty International this week? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question . I am sure that in the answer I give-as distinct from others-I will be expressing the view of the whole House in regard to this matter. The Government applauds Amnesty International's initiative in organising the annual Prisoners of Conscience Week. This year the week, which is being observed internationally, including in Australia, seeks to draw attention to the plight of thousands of human rights activists who find themselves in prison around the world. Amnesty International is collecting signatures to a petition calling for a universal amnesty for all prisoners of conscience none of whom-it is important to note-has used or has advocated violence. Amnesty International hopes to obtain more than a million signatures to the petition and to present it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations just prior to the United Nations Human Rights Day on 10 September. I remind the House that it is particularly appropriate that we pay special attention to human rights in 1983 as this year marks the 35th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Government-as I know does the Opposition-attaches strong priority to human rights issues and strongly supports Amnesty International's efforts to strengthen the expression of public concern in Australia on these issues. The Government co-operates closely with Amnesty International and is particularly appreciative of the information-gathering work done by it. I make the point, and again I know it is shared by members opposite from their experience of government, that it is often the case that non-government organisations in this area are often able to do things more effectively than are governments themselves. We commend the petition calling for a universal amnesty for all prisoners of conscience. At a ceremony today in King's Hall, presided over by Senator Missen, the Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, a petition was signed by representatives of all parties represented in the Parliament. Honourable members will be aware that it has not been the practice of holders of the office of Prime Minister to sign petitions. However, I wish to asssociate myself with this cause, both as a citizen and as Prime Minister. Accordingly, in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon I had the honour to light a candle of hope at the ceremony in King's Hall on behalf of imprisoned human rights activists. Mr LLOYD —Can the Minister for Communications assure the House, and thus allay the fears of remote area Australians and regional television companies, that HACBSS II, the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service, 30-watt transponders on the second domestic satellite will be used for their original purpose of providing a free non-encoded commercial television service for remote areas and thus ensure that people living in remote areas will be able to receive Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial television on a single small but cheap earth dish antenna without the need for expensive decoding equipment? Can the Minister also assure the House that it is still worth while for the ABC, Myers, Elders-IXL and other radiated subscription television applicants to keep planning for the early introduction of pay television? Mr DUFFY —The question from the honourable member for Murray was in two parts. The first part involved the use of the 30-watt transponders on HACBSS II, the second satellite. Those matters are currently under consideration by the Government and are the subject of Cabinet deliberations. In due course the honourable member for Murray and the people of Australia will be told of the decisions made by the Government in respect of those matters. With respect to the second part of the question, concerning the future of RSTV, the same position applies. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of a report by the Queensland Ombudsman on the improper procedures followed by the Queensland Government in subdividing land in the Cape Tribulation rain-forest? How extensive is the State Government Ombudsman's condemnation of the Queensland Government and of the Minister's involvement? What damage will be caused by the subdivision of this fragile environment? What are the implications for Queensland taxpayers- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is this matter within the administration of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment? Mr GAYLER —It is to do with the environment. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may finish his question. Mr GAYLER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. What damage will be caused by the subdivision of this fragile environment? What are the implications for Queensland taxpayers of this highly improper method of apportioning land use? Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Standing Orders preclude a Minister answering a question on a matter not under his administrative responsibility. These matters are peculiarly the responsibility of the Queensland Government and you must rule the question out of order. Mr SPEAKER —There are a number of areas for which the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has responsibility. I call the Minister. Mr COHEN —Home Affairs and Environment is my portfolio, dummy! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to answer the question. Mr COHEN —I am aware of a report by Mr C. L. Johnson, the Parliamentary Com- missioner-- Mr Sinclair —Crime in New South Wales is not important? Mr COHEN —It has very little to do with rain-forests. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore interjections and to continue his answer. Mr COHEN —I am aware of a report by Mr C. L. Johnson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations-the Ombudsman-and it confirms all the worst speculations about the procedures of the Queensland Government. This matter deals with the highly unusual and improper way in which the Queensland Government decided to subdivide land in an important and fragile rain-forest on Cape Tribulation. The report of the Queensland Government's own Ombudsman indicates that no consideration was given by Queensland Minister Hinze-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! While relevance is fairly tenuous in answers, I would like the Minister to indicate how it affects his administration. I have some concern about this. Mr COHEN —First of all, the question of rain-forests has been raised in this Parliament. There is before the Senate a Bill from the Australian Democrats. The National Estate includes large parts of this area and that is my responsibility. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister should continue. Mr Hodgman —You have taken over Tasmania and now you want to take over Queensland. Mr COHEN —We are doing a very good job in Tasmania. As I said, the report of the Queensland Government's own Ombudsman indicates that no consideration was given by Queensland Minister Hinze to the environmental impact of allowing such relatively small subdivisions in a vulnerable rain-forest area, but the extraordinarily improper procedures whereby Mr Hinze arranged this subdivision will be of concern to all Queenslanders, especially as they decide to vote on Saturday. It goes to the very question of whether such National Party Ministers are fit and proper people to hold such office. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 142 in relation to questions to Ministers. The matter of subdivision is a State Government responsibility. It is a rain-forest and there is no National Estate involved. You must rule it out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The question is an environmental one. Mr McVeigh —Don't you go by these Standing Orders? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs. He has on other occasions selectively quoted the Standing Orders. He should not defy the Chair. Mr COHEN —The Ombudsman's report begins by explaining: The final decision as to the zoning of the land was of course a matter for the Minister for Local Government. That is Mr Hinze. To continue: The local council changed its recommendation that the land in question be zoned rural residential rather than rural general farming. Mr Porter —Are you going to intervene? Mr COHEN —If he continues to rape the country in the way he is doing, possibly we will. The Queensland Government's own Ombudsman explained that the Council had been motivated by an irrelevant consideration, and that consideration was that the developer was a friend of the Minister, Mr Hinze. Unfortunately the impression might have been given that some landholders received favoured treatment-- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. You had great difficulty earlier in determining the relevance of the answer being given by the Minister. It is clear that he has given very wordy evidence of the irrelevance since you intervened, striving to find the relevance. I ask you to rule him out of order now. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister, in concluding his answer, to come back to the question which was asked of him concerning the environment. Mr COHEN —I am very pleased to see a Liberal supporting the National Party. Unfortunately the impression might have been given that some landholders received favoured treatment because of their relationship with influential persons. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer to his earlier answer and in particular to his firmly declared intention not to release transcripts and tapes relating to investigations by the Australian Federal Police except, as I recall what he said, if a person subject to investigation wished to have his name cleared. How does the Minister reconcile that with the endorsement by the Government of the release of transcripts of Mr Combe's taped conversations and the earlier threat by the Prime Minister that, if Mr Combe did not agree to make a statement the Prime Minister wanted him to make, the Prime Minister would ensure that transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations were released? Mr BEAZLEY —I need to clarify the Leader of the Opposition's interpretation of my answer because it is not an accurate interpretation. When I referred to the possibility of my discussing in this House matters related to investigations, I was not referring to matters pertaining to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, the subject of the questions relating to tapes and transcripts asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Boothby. I was talking then of general principles. I cited the example of an individual the subject of a proceeding or concluded investigation who wished to have his name cleared at any point and who indicated that either directly to me or by comments in the Press, or was challenged whether a conclusion had been reached. That was the type of qualification I was talking about. I related it specifically to investigations. I did not relate it to questions associated with tapes or transcripts that arise from the Telecommunications (Interception) Act that is under the jurisdiction of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner. I want to make that point quite clear. As I said then, and I reiterate now, I will not be party to releasing in this House any materials relating to phone taps under the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act because, firstly, that is firmly within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police; secondly, those taps will invariably be related to matters of criminal investigation under which people will be placed at risk of severe penalty, or opportunities to prosecute people who ought to be subject to severe penalty will be dealt with. I suggest there is no equivalence in the two situations to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. Can he advise the House how many flights were operated by South African Airways last summer and how many flights will be operated by that airline this summer? Do the figures support the view that has been expressed in some quarters that the Hawke Government has adopted a softer line towards South African Airways than that pursued by the Fraser Government? Mr BEAZLEY —There has been a degree of inaccurate speculation in the Press relating to the policies of this Government towards air links with South Africa. That inaccurate speculation is based on a lack of understanding, I suggest, of the history of this issue under the administration of both this Government and the previous Government. Commentary has neglected to mention the fact that soon after we came into office we removed one flight of what was a regular two flights a week by South African Airways. I made an announcement recently that whereas one flight a week would be maintained while the review of air links continued, over the summer period there would be a capacity for additional occasional flights to meet the needs of travellers. That was not on past experience in any way a reflection of a slackening of attitude or a differentiation in the performance of this Government as opposed to that of the previous Government. During the summer period October 1982 to March 1983 South African Airways operated 52 scheduled flights from Australia. During the corresponding summer period in 1983-84, South African Airways will operate only 31 flights. That is a reduction of 40 per cent on the flights operated in 1982-83. So, it is plainly nonsense for anyone to suggest that this Government is taking a softer attitude towards South African Airways than was taken by the previous Government. The capacity for additional flights, as I said earlier, is purely to serve the needs of the travelling public in a period of high peak travel while the Government's review of air links with South Africa is under way. The main point in what I had to say is that the position adopted under the previous Government of not permitting flights by Qantas Airways Ltd into South Africa continues. The position under the previous Government whereby South African Airways was capable of making maximum commercial use of that situation has not been permitted to continue under this Government. We have taken steps to ensure that South African Airways will not be able to do that. The number of flights, as the statistics clearly indicate, has been dramatically reduced. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, flows from the answer given by the Special Minister of State. I remind him of his threat to Mr Combe that he would release transcripts of intercepted conversations. On the basis of the test laid down by the Special Minister of State, which head of which Federal authority did he check with and obtain consent from before he made that threat? Mr HAWKE —Unfortunately, as is so often the case with the Leader of the Opposition, the premise upon which he based his question is false. I content myself by answering him in this way: In respect of all the matters with regard to Mr Combe, both the Leader of the Opposition and I had the opportunity-for him , the ordeal-of being in the witness box, being subject to questions, examination and cross-examination. I rest more than content with the judgment that can be made by anyone who witnessed the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition as compared to mine. The issue involved in his question is one which will be considered by the- Mr Peacock —No, I am talking about your threat. That is not before Mr Justice Hope. Mr HAWKE —All the circumstances surrounding my actions and those of the Government are before the Royal Commissioner. As I have said before, I and the Government look forward to the report of the Royal Commissioner into all the actions of the Government, including myself, in this matter. When that report comes down, I will be more than happy to have a full debate in regard to all issues associated with it. I look forward to that debate much more, I am sure, than does the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the harvesting and processing of fish, crustacea and molluscs. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 30B of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the Temporary Assistance Authority report on certain air conditioning machines. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 30K of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the Temporary Assistance Authority annual report 1982-83, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) relating to the report. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr GEAR —I do. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Tangney. Mr GEAR —In the past two days there have been several reports in the Western Australian media concerning 'the pushing of political views in schools'. I believe that in the Daily News, and I know that on the Channel 9 news, and in the West Australian yesterday on page 3 under the headline 'MPs told to avoid politics in schools', there has been the inference that I used my position as the member for Tangney to try to exert some influence favouring the Australian Labor Party in schools. That is not true, and I should like to present the House with the truth. Earlier this year I was invited, along with Kay Hallahan, who is a very capable member of the Legislative Council in Western Australia, to present two flags to the Cannington Senior High School. I was also asked to address the students and, to the best of my recollection, I spoke on the origin of the Australian flag and of the name 'Tangney'. I congratulated the students from the Cannington Senior High School on their participation in securing a spirit duplicator for some students in Zimbabwe, a task with which I was able to help them by arranging to have it sent to Zimbabwe. I also told them how fortunate they were to live in a democracy. In extending that point I told the students that this was a nebulous term and on that day Bills were being introduced into the Western Australian Parliament to reform the Legislative Council. I also said that as they would soon be voters themselves I would advise them to listen to both sides of the argument and to make up their own minds as to which was the fairest. I also said that as a member of the Australian Labor Party I supported the arguments of the Burke Government and that the conservative parties would most likely oppose them and try to maintain- - Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member is now providing too much information for a personal explanation. I ask him to round off his remarks. Mr GEAR —I maintain that nothing I said was in addition to what was readily available to staff and students through the local media. I also reject the assertion that the reform Bills are solely supported by the Labor Party. They are also supported by the Australian Democrats. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is now debating the matter. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr Goodluck —Never. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HAYDEN —Yes, Mr Speaker. As hard as it may be to believe it is a fact. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —I have been misrepresented by the Age this morning in its editorial and in an article headed 'Portugal backs claims of Timor Red Cross curbs'. The editorial relates to access by the Red Cross to East Timor. It states: Those arguments have been undermined by recent events and, despite Mr Hayden's disavowal of reports of difficulties facing the Red Cross in East Timor, it seems the international body is being frustrated in its efforts to assist those in need. That is completely inaccurate. I have never sought to disavow reports of difficulties facing the Red Cross in East Timor. In fact on Tuesday in the Parliament I produced a copy of a cable to show that there were difficulties but that the Red Cross was not being prevented from entering East Timor. The article I mentioned refers to a letter dated 30 September. It states: The letter, dated 30 September, comes after two days of attacks from the Foreign Minister Mr Hayden and the Attorney-General Senator Evans (who represents Mr Hayden in the Senate) on reports in 'The Age' which said that the Australian Government had not disclosed information which it had on the restrictions imposed on the International Red Cross in East Timor. The criticisms I sought to make in the House on Tuesday in relation to an article in the Age had nothing at all to do with that sort of observation. I referred to an article headed 'Red Cross aid being blocked from Timor: 'Secret papers'. The part of that article to which I referred stated: The cables are dated between it 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) That is a confirmed report. Senator Evans in his two answers to the Senate on this matter, acting on advice from my Department, advice which is entirely in conformity with the cable I released here and the cables I received on this matter, acknowledged that there were difficulties but said that access was not being prevented. I regret that Mr Ian Davis seems determined to persist with his misrepresentation in this matter. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member. Mr McVEIGH —In Question Time today in a dorothy dixer from the honourable member for Gray (Mr O'Neil) to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about the Port Lincoln meatworks the Minister talked about the presentation of an award for the Beaut Butcher. I find some difficulty in noticing the correlation between the question asked and the answer given. In that long-winded, circuitous answer, the Minister condemned the National Party of Australia and its members for not being present at the presentation. I want to say this: Indicative of the Minister's inability to make up his mind about anything, the venue was changed. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation . Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr REEVES —I do. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member. Mr REEVES —In last night's Northern Territory News appears a report of a statement made in the Legislative Assembly in Darwin yesterday by Mr Perron, the Deputy Leader of the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory. In part the report states: Mr Perron was replying to a question by Mr Dennis Collins, Alice Springs, about a claim in Federal Parliament by Mr Reeves, that the Territory was over-funded. 'I am certainly aware of the damage done by Mr Reeves in bringing these claims' , Mr Perron said. 'Unfortunately, the Territory has only one Member in the House of Representatives so there is no balanced view put for the Territory. He will be doing more harm than benefit if he carries on the way he is, saying the whole of the Territory is run by a bunch of country hicks and Federal funds are being mis -managed and not accounted for. He is doing a disgraceful job. On 12 October this year I spoke in this House on the Northern Territory Grant ( Special Assistance) Bill. In that debate, in referring to the fourth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on special assistance for the Northern Territory, I said: This report, however, makes it clear that the Territory population has special needs. The report puts to rest the nonsense that the Northern Territory is over- funded or is generously funded. I am happy to agree with the honourable member for Dawson on the question of statements about the Territory being generously funded; it is not. It is clear from that statement that I did not claim that the Territory was over -funded. In fact, I said the exact opposite: I said that the Territory was not over-funded or generously funded. In the debate I made a clear distiction between the question of funding as it affects the people of the Northern Territory and the expenditure of money as it affects the policy of the Government of the Northern Territory. Mr Perron is reported as saying that I said that the whole of the Northern Territory is run by a bunch of country hicks . I did not make that statement in this House. I do not believe that the whole of the Territory is run by a bunch of country hicks. I believe the Territory Government is run by a bunch of Country Party hicks. Finally, Mr Perron is reported as saying that I am doing harm by suggesting that Federal funds are being mismanaged and not accounted for. I indicate that I will not be dissuaded from that view. I have raised with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the apparent defficiencies in the Northern Territory Government's accounting system. The Treasurer has expressed his concern to me. I have received his assurance that the matter will be investigated. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WELLS —I do. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member I point out that there is a custom in the House that unless a matter suddenly arises the Chair is warned that an honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr WELLS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning in debate the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) said that I was not a loyal Queenslander because I was critical of the economic competence and lack of managerial openness of the Bjelke-Petersen Government, in particular, in its failure to set up a public accounts committee. I make it clear that in a democratic country it is not disloyal to criticise a government of the day. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is proceeding to argument. It is not a matter of where he has been personally misrepresented. Unless he gets quickly to the point on which he was personally misrepresented and corrects it he will have to resume his seat. Mr WELLS —The personal misrepresentation was that I was disloyal in some way by acting in accordance with the democratic principle upon which this Parliament operates. Mr SPEAKER —That is argument. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The increasing community alarm and concern at evidence of major and growing criminal activity and corruption and the Government's procrastination in addressing these issues. 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)(3.0) —I raise as a matter of public importance the increasing alarm and concern in the community at the growth of criminal activity and corruption. I say 'growing alarm and concern in the community' because a recent McNair-Anderson poll showed that 84 per cent of Australians think that organised crime has increased over the past 10 years. This percentage has increased by 7 per cent over the last few years. The poll also showed that 78 per cent of Australians are in favour of the establishment of a Federal crimes commission. Let me say that I do not allege that criminal activity and corruption is occurring and has occurred under Labor governments alone. Though there is a fair degree of evidence to show that it festers to a greater extent, it certainly has not occurred only under a Labor government. What is occurring under both this Federal Labor Government and the New South Wales Labor Government is a refusal to confront the growth in criminal activity and corruption in Australia and a refusal to recognise that it is a national problem which requires strong national action. The previous Federal Government recognised the problem and we established a number of royal commissions. Mr Justice Williams looked into the problems of drug trafficking throughout Australia. Mr Justice Stewart was appointed to look at the ramifications of the Clark drug syndicate in this country. The Costigan Royal Commission is still looking into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. When we saw the extent of organised crime raised by these commissions we introduced a Bill to establish a national crimes commission . We are not saying that our Bill is the only model which could be used to fight the growth of organised crime. We have previously looked at alternatives and we are certainly prepared to look at any alternative that the Government may introduce. But the question arises: Where is the alternative? On 19 May this year in this House the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that an effective national crimes commission would be in operation by early 1984. On 5 October the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that he hoped all details of his proposed crimes authority would be revealed in a week or two, but by 12 October the Attorney-General was forced to admit that he was just not in a position to say when a Bill would be introduced into the Parliament. Then last Sunday the Attorney-General could not even confirm whether a body to fight organised crime would in fact ever be established. This is just another example of broken undertakings. But it goes beyond that. Is it simply an example of the Attorney-General being rebutted by Caucus-we have seen that before-or does it indicate a lack of will to investigate allegations which could seriously embarrass other Labor governments? In relation to the allegations in New South Wales, I am certainly forced to the conclusion that the delay in this area has a great deal to do with what has been transpiring between members of the Labor Party in this Government and members of the Labor Party in government and in their organisation in New South Wales. It has to be stated that another element involved is a reaction to this inept Prime Minister's inept handling of the allegations against Mr Combe. I pass no judgment on what will transpire as a result of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, but the reality is that there is a very real fear in the minds of members opposite at least that civil liberties were trampled on and as a consequence they are using that argument to ensure that a national crimes commission is not brought down. The community is suffering as a result of the Government's inept handling of the Combe affair. It is a classic example of the double standards whereby the Prime Minister, as honourable members will recall, could leak national security information himself , then threaten to leak information about a member of the community, but pin to the wall any other people against whom the same sort of allegation could be made . There is a ramification far beyond that. There is no doubt that there is not merely concern in the community regarding growing organised crime; there is the reality of the growth of organised crime and it is not being addressed by this Government, despite its firm undertakings that a crimes commission would be established. Whatever the reason, and I have canvassed a number, the fact is that the problem has become a matter of national concern. Every element of the media is now quite properly directing its attention to this area. We have been frustrated in our endeavours to elicit the truth in regard to particular areas of concern both to this Parliament and in New South Wales. Meanwhile the Attorney-General stumbles on and on and is unable to give an indication as to when a crimes authority or a crimes commission will be established. I am not alone in my concern about organised crime. Honourable members should remember that the Special Prosecutor, Robert Redlich, called it a 'national crisis' in his report tabled in the Senate last week. He is not alone in his opinion. Mr Costigan has frequently referred to it as the 'cancer of organised crime'. Dr Klugman —How much does he get paid for that? Mr PEACOCK —Is the honourable member concerned solely with the payment for the investigation or is he concerned with eradicating the problem? Dr Klugman —As long as he continues to get $400,000 a year, he will continue to argue that he should continue to get it. Mr PEACOCK —That is the classic paranoid approach of someone who has ejected himself from his profession. I have never heard such nonsense. The honourable member is prepared to attack a man of professional standing, whose evidence stands up time and again, and to thwart him in his endeavours to uncover further crime in this country. The honourable member knows that that is what he is about . He is part of a group, masquerading under another guise, which is trying to ensure that either the Costigan Royal Commission does not continue or that a body is set up which would allow State governments to veto the authority so established. Dr Klugman —It includes the Bar Council of New South Wales and the Bar Council of Victoria. Mr PEACOCK —I could talk for the next half hour and the honourable member would continue to interject. There is an increasing majority in the Labor Party ranks which does not want to see this cancer attacked. The moment I mention Costigan or anyone associated with these sorts of inquiries I fuel responses from the right, the left and the delinquent, and sometimes they are not all mutually exclusive. Organised crime has reached major proportions now. It is one of the major and most serious threats which has ever confronted Australia. I am stunned that honourable members opposite are running away from the matter. The problem and the urgency of it have been clearly identified. A responsible government would have lived up to its promises by now and at least would have introduced into the Parliament legislation dealing with the problem. It is not as though enough ground work has not been done. The Bill of the previous Government was discussed at great length in this Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans saw it as meeting 'most of the concerns we have expressed'-that is the Labor Party-'about the Crimes Commission'. He said: The basic model seems to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the interests of the community in effectively dealing with organised crime. Mr Howard —Who was that? Mr PEACOCK —That was Senator Evans, the Attorney-General. We are now in danger of having either no national body at all to fight organised crime or some type of body which is so shackled that it cannot operate effectively. This is in danger of happening simply because this Government cannot come to grips with the issue. In promoting the concept of a strong national crimes commission we fully recognise the concerns expressed by Mr Justice Michael Kirby and other experts in the field of law reform and civil liberties. The Bill introduced by the previous Government aimed first at safeguarding those very liberties. That Bill also recognised clearly views similar to those of Mr Redlich in his report which was tabled last week, in which he said: Now is the time to implement a scheme which will result in an effective national law enforcement through co-operation and co-ordination. What is required is a national response to a national issue. A robust, independent national authority, unfettered by jurisdictional or bureaucratic restraints. All Mr Redlich is doing, of course, is reinforcing the view expressed by Senator Evans-he was not then the Attorney-General-during the election campaign, when he said: Labor supports the concept of a Crimes Commission with sufficient powers to continue and widen the vital investigative work commenced by the Costigan Commission . . . Again, after seven months, we have nothing. We find that this is the case day after day in so many policy areas. We have nothing at all. It appears that the very best Senator Evans may be able to negotiate with the Caucus is a shell of an authority which cannot possibly deal effectively with the problem. The Attorney-General himself has highlighted a number of times another reason for the urgency of a crimes commission. That is the fact that royal commissions unfairly label a lot of innocent people against whom no criminal action can be sustained. Royal commissions are clearly not the fairest or the best approach. While we have the Government procrastinating the community has no other way of being assured that they are being effectively protected. Only a strong crimes commission could adequately substitute for royal commissions. There are those in the community who legitimately fear that, in establishing a new body, we risk the creation of either the cosmetics of an ineffective agency, or a too powerful institution unaccountable in practice to the courts and our democratic institutions. We have long recognised this problem. I said before that we took these concerns into account when drafting our own Bill last year. However, the critics often point to the solution as being to tackle the problem of the criminal justice system. We said last year that we had two problems with this approach. Mr Jacobi —That is right. Mr PEACOCK —I am glad that the honourable member for Hawker agrees with this. We have difficulties in two particular areas. Firstly, it is an argument which has long been put forward but with little effect on the States. Secondly, and more importantly, it does not recognise that the growth of organised crime now transcends State boundaries and that it is often beyond the resources of State law enforcement institutions. Time and again they have expressed that to us. There is no attack on the Federal system because we are talking about doing it by co-operative means. But as I said, the reality is that organised crime has become a national problem and can only be effectively handled by a strong national body. The most obvious examples of this are the recent and on-going allegations in New South Wales against a wide number of drug traffickers, government officials and even a Minister. We cannot get to the bottom of it in this Parliament because transcripts will not be made available here, although they will be made available in certain other areas. I will not go into the matter even further. Mr Beazley —This is outrageous. Mr PEACOCK —It is not outrageous. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) would not give me any answers today. He expressed general propositions and would not address either what the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) asked or what I asked. In my case I was simply quoting from what had been said in the New South Wales Parliament today. I remind the Minister of the series of events there and the implications for the Federal Government. On 16 May the Acting Premier of New South Wales was told by the Special Minister of State that a New South Wales Government Minister may be involved in criminal activity. We know the tick-tacking that went on between the Labor Party, Federal and State, using wheels within wheels even before that formal meeting occurred. It hardly need have occurred after the tick-tacking that went on between this Parliament, the State Parliament and the Party organisation. The New South Wales Commissioner of Police advised the New South Wales Government to take no action because it might compromise drug trafficking inquiries. Then on 12 June, as a consequence of matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, the Sun Herald newspaper published allegations of corruption on early release from New South Wales prisons. Only then did the New South Wales Government order an inquiry and then only an internal police inquiry . The head of the inquiry was not provided with the tapes which were the basis of the original allegations. The Minister knows that only too well. It took until early September for the police inquiry to be completed. Even then the Minister involved in New South Wales had not been questioned. On 18 September the Commissioner of Police informed the Government that he recommended no criminal action. Did the Federal Government express any concern at the fact that no inquiry began until the allegations were made public? Not that we are aware of. Did the Commonwealth Government express any concern over the length of time the subsequent inquiry was taking? Not that we have been told. The Federal Government has not been willing to confirm that all the information it holds on the allegations has actually been passed to the New South Wales Government. This is only a long list of recent major crime allegations against officials in New South Wales, including those allegations made to the Street Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Committal Proceedings against K. E. Humphreys. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(3.15) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) speaks on this issue as though there is no history other than an orderly, calm, rational consideration by the previous Government about how it would consider the problems of organised crime followed by timely, appropriate and effective action to deal with it. That is the image of the previous Government put about by the Leader of the Opposition. That is one factor involved in the Opposition's approach to this issue. The second factor is to suggest a course of action to this Government in relation to investigations in New South Wales that would achieve a level of political interference that the Opposition started out condemning. When the Opposition found that it got nowhere with its questioning on that it suggested to us a course of action in the utilisation of tapes, properly within the purview of the Commissioner of Police under legislation the former Government passed, with restrictions on distribution that it put in place. That is an absolutely outrageous position on both counts to bring into this House. Let us look at the history of the previous Government in this area to deal with that first problem, that first image the Leader of the Opposition portrayed; that of the orderly, timely, sensible, appropriate consideration given by the previous Government to matters related to organised crime. We will start there and then proceed. Honourable members will reflect on the variety of debates that passed in this House in the last period of Parliament after those royal commissions began their reports, piecemeal as royal commissions will, that demonstrated that, under the previous Federal Government, utterly inadequate resources were given to the Australian Federal Police and other police forces to deal with the problem of organised crime. Mr Aldred —You are avoiding the central question and you know it. Mr BEAZLEY —I am getting on to it. No effective action was being taken to deal with organised crime related to tax fraud. No effective action was being taken to deal with problems related to federal narcotics offences. When we on this side of the House, starting with the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) in 1979, began asking for a national crimes commission, repeated answers given in this House by representatives of the former Government, such as the former Attorney-General, the former Minister for Administrative Services or whoever, at different points in time, revealed a complete unwillingness to confront the issue. Let us just take one particular instance; that is, the association of the tax evasion industry and organised crime. Between 1976 and 1982-- Mr Aldred —You are avoiding the central question now. Mr BEAZLEY — We are just looking at the history of it. I will get on to that a bit later. Between 1976 and 1982 the former Government failed to launch a single prosecution for tax evasion. We then managed in the Senate to prise out of the former Government documents related to that issue of tax evasion which demonstrated that, from the middle of 1977 onwards, repeated requests by the Commissioner of Taxation for action on the part of the former Treasurer to deal with this problem that had been well identified were repeatedly ignored for a period of some two years or two and half years. That is the record of the former Government. If honourable members opposite want to enter this Parliament and blame the Government for organised crime after it has been in office for seven months, when the former Government was in office for seven years in its latest burst and for about 37 years out of the last 40 years, they might display, at least in that area, a small degree of modesty. Let us set aside the fact that the former Government ignored that problem so intimately linked with organised crime for so long. Let us also ignore the former Government's reluctance to continue to attempt to pick up the residual amount of money that may have been picked up from those who were beneficiaries of it. Let us ignore the action that the former Government prevented in the Senate. Let us leave that aside and turn our attention to other matters-notably, the question of the availability of resources for bodies such as the Australian Federal Police. I will not be unfair to the previous Minister on this subject. One or two things which were initiated by the previous Government in the area of federal policing activities were particularly useful. But one cannot say, when one looks at the record, that those things-although in some areas there was a promising start, for example the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence-in any way adequately dealt with the problems that ought to have been dealt with by the Australian Federal Police. Let me turn to the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts dated September 1982. In a submission to that body the AFP stated: At present, however, the unavailability of skilled resources in AFP decisions is a significant factor when determining the effectiveness of any concerted action taken to suppress medical fraud, or for that matter, any form of criminal activity. I repeat: 'Any form of criminal activity'. The Committee reported: The Committee is concerned that the AFP have been unable to provide adequate trained police for the investigation of medical fraud, and wishes to discuss this matter with the Minister for Administrative Services. If necessary we will make further observations in the final report. That is the record of this Opposition, this collection of vigorous crime fighters, these Dick Traceys of the Opposition back benches, these producers of the most effective policing body in the area of organised crime. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I call the honourable member to order. Mr Peacock —You must have been working in the wrong portfolio. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has already spoken. I believe he should allow the reply to proceed without interruption. I ask two of his colleagues also to restrain themselves. Mr BEAZLEY —This collection of headless Dick Traceys who decided to raise this matter have produced this situation: Non-prosecutions in areas of demonstrable fraud, major organised crime activity and a police force totally inadequate to deal with the problem. They invite us to say what we are doing in those problem areas. I will now repeat what I said when this matter was raised at other times in the House. Since we came to office we have confronted, despite some initiatives taken by the previous Government, a situation in which the police forces find that their available resources are completely inadequate to deal with the problems they have. One of the things that is repeatedly demonstrated in Special Prosecutor Redlich's report, in the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and in the reports of the various other royal commissions that have thus far been made public, is that there is an absolute requirement for more substantial resources to be made available to the police. Even more important than that is the fact that police operations should be set on a basis which enables them adequately to deal with these problems. In the last Budget there was an increase of $6.2m over the previous year's allocation for the Federal Police. The bulk of this amount will be used to increase average employment by a further 250 police and to release resources to work on investigations into organised crime. A management review of AFP staff will be initiated to examine the utilisation and employment of present staff as well as AFP recruitment, training and promotion practices. It will be the first externally based review of AFP staffing and will begin in the very near future. We also appointed a second deputy commissioner to allow closer co-ordination of AFP operations throughout Australia. I suggest that when we look at the way in which the Government has dealt with the Federal Police, the last thing of which we can accuse this Government is moving in an untimely fashion to deal with years of blatant neglect. Let us recollect the circumstances, since we are getting around to the National Crimes Commission, in which that neglect was produced. There was not the orderly, deep consideration based on the most intense and sensible consultations with the States as to how their resources and ours might be most effectively integrated into the operation of a national crimes authority. We witnessed a desperate panic to get something in place before the anticipated early election called by the then Prime Minister after he had dumped on his head by Costigan and the various other royal commissioners the turgid analysis of the appalling lack of administrative capability among the relevant officers and relevant Ministers in areas in which organised crime flourished. That was when the Prime Minister was placed in a situation in which he was physically unable to campaign and a crimes commission was dumped into this House over the very vigorous opposition of the States. I will say this for the Leader of the Opposition: He was to a degree moderate in the way in which he advocated the crimes commission model brought forward by himself, as well he might be. When it was brought in a succession of Liberal State Ministers paraded across the screen expressing objection to the way in which it had been hastily introduced and the very considerable difficulties that they felt they would experience through any form of co-operation. That is, unfortunately, the legacy of this Government. That is what we have had handed to us and with which we now have to deal. It is a suggestion which is discredited by the intensely political way in which this proposition had been introduced and advanced. We took the sensible step when we came into office, when the question of the consideration as to what sort of federal action in this area was appropriate, of calling together a conference of representatives of the States and of the judiciary to advise us of the way in which we ought to go about dealing with the problem of organised crime. At that conference was Mr Doumany , the then Liberal Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of Queensland. In July he said: Should we be moving generally towards the introduction of the continental system of accusatory justice? We must be careful that, in reacting to the problems of existing law enforcement agencies in confronting sophisticated criminals, we do not destroy the system of checks and balances which our system of criminal investigation and prosecution has built over centuries. To move away from existing agencies and create an entirely separate criminal investigation agency would be a less than satisfactory solution to the perceived problem. I do not agree in entirety with the views put forward by Sam Doumany on that matter, but I think there is an obligation on the part of a federal government to give those sorts of view some serious consideration while addressing the sorts of problems faced by the forces that are most directly under our control- that is, the police forces. Also present at that conference was Mr Justice Nicholson of Victoria who has had some experience in the way in which royal commissions are operated. These vicious, horrible radicals, these miserable termagants, these shocking critics, these wretches who are the encouragers of organised crime in this country-- Mr Peacock —Who are you talking about? Mr BEAZLEY —This is the sort of accusation that the Leader of the Opposition levelled against people who have some sort of objection to a national crimes commission. Mr Justice Nicholson said: It is my view that it is too easily forgotten that any royal commission or board of inquiry involves a considerable, and to some degree unacceptable, interference with individual liberty. The powers conferred upon them are enormous and the consequences to those called before them are dire. It seems to me that even to contemplate the setting up of a standing commission with those sorts of powers is to create a monster. When people such as Mr Justice Nicholson say things like that to us, why ought we not look very seriously at those problems? We have addressed those problems seriously. We came to the conclusion that we need a sensible, orderly process of consultation with both States and within our own Party on what is the most appropriate form of legislation to introduce into this House. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition needs to put some further historical separation between us and his previous Government before he makes these criticisms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —I present the 205th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, relating to Finance Minute on Report 197-Coal Export Duty, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —The 205th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts earlier report No. 197 on coal export duty. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The inquiry into coal export duty arose from comments made by the Auditor-General in his report of 1979-80. The Committee's report on this inquiry was tabled in Parliament on 29 April 1982 . The inquiry indicated a need for the development of a consistent and stable policy on coal export duty. It also highlighted the fact that considerable uncertainty has been generated within the industry by the almost annual changes. The Committee suggested in the report that a co-ordinated approach involving discussions with all interested parties, including State governments, should be developed to ensure fair and equitable taxation of the coal export industry. As a rule, the Committee does not concern itself with the substance of Government policies but rather with their administration or implementation. The distinction, however, is not always easy to draw. During this inquiry the Committee felt that it could not separate the difficulties involved in the administration of coal export duty from policy considerations. Consequently, the 197th report does concern itself to some extent with policy issues. As a result, the response which was submitted to the Committee on 18 April 1983 is presented predominantly in terms of the previous Government's policies in this area. Following the change of government, events have now progressed towards a resolution of these matters. The need for substantial discussions and consultations with the coal industry, with State governments, and with other interested organisations has been recognised by the Government. A major initiative of the Government on coming to office was the convening of a national coal conference in March 1983 to discuss a wide range of issues and problems affecting the industry. That conference was attended by Commonwealth Ministers, relevant Ministers from New South Wales and Queensland, and representatives from the coal producers, coal mining unions and the Join Coal Board. The conference agreed on a number of immediate measures, including the establishment of the Australian Coal Consultative Council; a review of the Joint Coal Board; a Commonwealth review and firming up of export control procedures; the sponsoring of missions to overseas markets and newly emerging markets; the promotion of education in coal-use technology and logistics in less developed countries; the carrying out of intensive research on identified market opportunities; and the strengthening of bilateral relationships with consumer governments. Coal industry representatives have drawn attention to financial pressures brought about by the levels of government charges on the coal industry. In this regard, the March coal conference noted that it would be a matter for the industry to pursue these matters directly with the State governments concerned. The Commonwealth, for its part, has since raised with State governments, through the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, an intention to rationalise taxes and charges on the industry through the introduction of a properly designed resource rent tax. Consultations have already commenced. The Committee will continue to take an interest in this matter. The Committee believes that the Government's policy should be directed at ensuring the efficient exploitation of Australia's coal resources, with particular regard for domestic requirements and the balanced development of our coal exports. I commend the report to honourable members. Report of Public Works Committee Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I present the second report for 1983 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, relating to Garden Island, New South Wales, modernisation stage 2, together with the transcript of evidence. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-This report of the Public Works Committee has been awaited by part of my electorate with a great deal of concern. The whole project has been a matter of controversy for some years. On the one hand it is an important defence development of Garden Island and on the other hand it affects the local amenity and has involved specially formed local groups who are concerned about the risks of noise, air pollution, odours and, indeed, effects on property values. The Potts Point association and other associations have been extremely active and vocal. There have been a series of meetings, letters, telexes, and some very strong words have been spoken. I have to say to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) that I am impressed by the work the Committee has put in not only on the project as a whole but also on the complaints of the local residents. This is not to say that the local residents will accept all the assurances that the Committee has given-they being the most directly affected will have some reservations. Nevertheless, it is clear that as far as noise from the facility is concerned the long investigations by the Committee and by its predecessors have attempted to assure residents that noise pollution is not the serious problem they considered it to be and that the controls introduced are adequate. Generally speaking, the same applies to the concern about air pollution, to the odour question and to the property values, although it is conceded by the Committee that some of the lower floors in some of the buildings will suffer some loss of value. That is a statement of opinion which I think will not be challenged. We have a difficult situation. Certainly it is a difficult situation for me as the member for Wentworth. On the one hand, like all honourable members in this House and like all Australians, I am concerned to see that this defence facility and this defence establishment is modernised. On the other hand, I am concerned to see that local residents in one of the most beautiful parts of Sydney-I think it is fair to say one of the most beautiful parts of Australia-are not adversely affected. The Committee has assured us that all possible measures have been taken either to eliminate or to dramatically reduce the dangers feared. Its investigations have been extremely thorough and impressive. It remains to be seen whether they are as reliable as they appear to be. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the third report for the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.38) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 15 (1983). The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The proposals contain changes resulting from the Government's decision on recommendations made in the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain air-conditioning machines. The Government has decided that the bounty assistance of $1.5m that applied in 1982-83 will continue for 1983-84. A Bill to give effect to this decision will be introduced at a later date. In addition to continuing bounty assistance, as recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority, the Government has decided to impose tariff quotas on certain refrigerated room air-conditioners. The tariff quotas will apply until 30 June 1984, with imports of air-conditioners outside of quota being subject to an additional temporary duty of 150 per cent. In general terms, the tariff quota to apply for 1983-84 will be 55 per cent of the imports by volume for 1982-83 at the existing rates of duty. The assistance being provided is subject to a commitment by the local manufacturer to complete the necessary investment plans to enhance its future competitiveness and viability. In addition, it is being provided on the firm understanding that the temporary measure will not be extended beyond 30 June 1984. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 15 also contains two other changes. The first change rewords sub-item 59.12.2 to set out its scope more precisely. The second change inserts specific references in items 84.07 and 84.08 for cylinders and actuators for the mechanical operation of control valves. These references are necessary to maintain levels of assistance which have applied in items 84.59 and 84.65. The new provisions are necessary to keep the Australian Customs tariff in line with the Customs Co-operation Council nomenclature. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 15 (1983) will operate on and from tomorrow. A detailed summary of alterations contained in the Proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(3.42) — Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was rudely interrupted by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) taking a point of order. I was quoting from a letter which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail and which was signed by Professor Tarlo of the Faculty of Law at the University of Queensland-a very eminent and distinguished Australian. Professor Tarlo pointed out that Senator Chipp was quite correct in saying that Mr Bjelke-Petersen was dividing the Queensland people. He also said: What is worse is that the Premier obviously does not now have even the slightest regard for the intelligence of the people of this State who, according to his own inscrutable sources, are strongly backing him on all matters- such as the one before us now. He continued: The Tarong versus Millmerran issue is a good example of the way he conducts the affairs of government. Does he seriously expect us all to believe, without any evidence other than his own assertion, that the State Electricity Commission was dishonestly attempting to mislead the government? Why does he refuse to submit all the documents to an independent audit? That is what we are talking about here today-an independent audit or a public accounts committee that can inquire into all these aspects. These accusations are not being made just by the Labor Party. It is not just we who are insisting that there should be a public accounts committee in Queensland. These accusations about the Premier of Queensland were also made by an honourable member on the other side of the House when he was a member of the Queensland Parliament. I refer to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). An article in the Melbourne Sun of Tuesday, 25 September 1979 states: Mr White clashed heatedly with the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, in Parliament last Thursday over his allegations on Gold Coast land rezoning. That is another instance of corruption in the Queensland Government. Mr Wells —Who said that? Mr HUMPHREYS —It was the Liberal member for McPherson. Another article on the same day stated: A Liberal MP claimed in Queensland Parliament last Wednesday that a Melbourne businessman . . . had reportedly offered a $100,000 political gift in return for a favorable land rezoning decision. These are the members of parliament who are running and controlling the Treasury benches in Queensland. These are the people whom we want to be accountable when they spend the Federal taxpayers' money. A Labor Opposition spokesman in Queensland, Mr Vaughan, the member for Nudgee, called in the State Parliament for a royal commission into the granting of a lease to the Winchester South coal mine authority to prospect in that area. A journalist who works for the Daily Sun and I think also for the Australian in Brisbane Mr Hugh Lunn-a very distinguished and honourable gentleman-in an article under the headline 'Leaked coal document strikes a tender financial spot', said: No wonder Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his National Party President, Sir Robert Sparkes, are so upset that someone has leaked a four-page document on a coal tender. Mr Lunn said that the mine was worth $2,000m and that its value was rising. This money-$2,000m-is being dealt with by the Queensland parliamentarians and the Queensland Premier without their having any accountability whatsoever. Mr Lunn went on to say: In the end, 99 companies grouped together into 32 concerns and tendered. Some spent $500,000 on preparing exhaustive tenders to try to come up with the best deal for Queensland and themselves. One can imagine the mountain of paperwork which would ensue from such a load of complex tenders- All those companies-many of them probably reputable companies-put in tenders yet one tender was favoured without any members of the Queensland Parliament or any committee of that Parliament looking into such aspects as how much money would go to the State and how much money the taxpayers and the people of Australia would get out of this contract. Mr Wells —Disgraceful. Mr HUMPHREYS —It is absolutely disgraceful, as my honourable colleague said. That is why this matter has been called on today. The article went on: Top State civil servants were amazed that since this was also a money decision, Treasury had not been consulted. Once again, the Queensland Parliament did not even consult the Treasury. All honourable members of this very distinguished chamber known of the great duties performed-they were explained by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells)-by our Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I have only to remind honourable members of the Joint Committee's Report on Medical Fraud and Overservicing. All aspects and duties of the Public Accounts Committee were spelt out by the honourable member for Petrie. Let us look at just two of the Committee findings. I quote from the report: Based on schedule fees paid for the September 1980 quarter, the 'excess' for the year ending June 1981 was estimated to be $160 million. We also find this: The Department of Health has made a rough approximation that one-third of the total 'excess' is fraud. One-third of the excess, $53m, was paid out fraudulently, as honourable members well remember. Those doctors who were destroying Medibank are probably still around. There are many genuine doctors but the rogues are there. They defrauded the Commonwealth of $53m. That was discovered by this Parliament's wonderful Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Why should Queensland not have a public accounts committee? I do not have to remind honourable members of what happened in Queensland. It was well publicised in the Press that eight Liberal members, including one Minister, Mr White, crossed the floor to try to get some accountability in the Queensland Government. Then Mr White was sacked. We all know what happened after that. But we do know that at least some of the people in Queensland were trying. Mr Wells —They will not support him in this chamber. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, they will not support him. They are sticking up for Joh Bjelke -Petersen. The Liberals on the other side and even the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) were supporting Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I never thought I would see that day because they have been at loggerheads on many occasions. Mr Wells —He would not say that he would support it. Mr HUMPHREYS —Exactly, the honourable member for Ryan did not say that in this House. Yet how could he be a member of the Parliament and not support it? I suppose he does not support the Public Accounts Committee inquiry which caught the doctors who were defrauding the Government of $53m. I want to remind honourable members about another matter. I have another article about poor old Dr Llew Edwards. We all know what happened to Dr Llew. The article is headed: ' Llew moves to control the qangos'. I do not have a great deal of time left in this debate. Quasi-autonomous national government organisations in Queensland spent more than $3.6 billion last year. There are 687 bodies in Queensland. They include statutory authorities, marketing commodity boards and advisory councils. They have 3,677 appointed officers and employ 51,000 people. Although they spend these huge amounts of money-it is equivalent to the total revenue of the whole of Queensland in any one year-very few of them have to report to Parliament. Very few of them are required to submit any kind of annual report or any other sort of expenditure report. Is not that a total disgrace? Therefore, we have in Queensland an administrative system over which the Parliament has absolutely no control. We have a parliamentary system which has absolutely no control over these qangos. I could go on and on with the reports of corruption in the Queensland Government. We have huge amounts of detailed information on how the money is being incorrectly spent. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling the next speaker I point out that in my day to day administration of the House a number of security matters are brought to my attention. It would serve neither the interests of security nor the House if I reported on all of them. However, in view of certain media reports, both last night and today, and the problems they are causing, I feel I should make a statement to the House concerning interference with the telephone equipment serving the office of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). On 24 August this year the Minister for Finance complained to Telecom Australia that the telephone in his office at Parliament House was receiving cross- connections. A check by Telecom technicians that day revealed that there was some problem with the service. On the following day, 25 August, it was found that an unauthorised connection had been made to the telephone circuits serving the Minister's office in a nearby telephone riser. At my direction, the telephone riser and the telephone equipment in the Minister's suite were checked immediately. No evidence was found of any tampering which would have allowed conversations taking place by way of the Minister's telephone to be transmitted to other than the intended destinations. A comprehensive security sweep of the Minister's office in the following week revealed no devices of any kind. Debate resumed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.54) —I speak in this debate on the basis of experience I have had for a number of years on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which is, in its own way, comparable to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It is interesting that neither of the two Government members who have supported this motion have have served, nor apparently did they offer to serve, on the Public Acocunts Committee of this Parliament. A motion has been brought forward not with the real intent of debating whether Queensland should have a public accounts committee or whether a means should be made available to check Commonwealth funds spent in Queensland but in a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions in a very devious way on the operations of the Queensland Parliament. I say 'the Parliament' because the Opposition is part of a parliament. If the Opposition in Queensland does not have the wit, the wherewithal or the numbers to do its own checking and auditing it deserves to be in opposition. That is where it has been for the last 27 years and that is where it will be for the next 27 years. I speak on the basis that I have had experience. Many comparisons were made this morning between the Commonwealth situation and the State situation. I think the Commonwealth situation has been amply borne out today in regard to how effective a public accounts committee can be. For instance, in this morning's Canberra Times the financial operations of the Government Printing Office were criticised as a result of a report of the Public Accounts Committee. All the article said was that the Committee's specific criticisms of the office were similar to those made by the Auditor-General in his September report on the audit of the office accounts, records and operations. How much more effective was that one operation over and above the information the Auditor-General supplies to the Commonwealth and similar bodies provide to each of the State governments in turn right around Australia? Perhaps honourable members opposite ought to be saying that they do not trust the Auditor-General and the known members of the Opposition to do this checking and criticism. To that I say that the Auditors-General of the States have been the independent, responsible people , acting on behalf of what I regard as a reputable profession, who have brought forward information through a series of audits on government expenditure in every regard. The Government Whip came into this House and told us that the situation that developed in Queensland in August was a result of Labor Party members joining Liberal Pary members to vote on the matter of a public accounts committee. That is not correct. The motion that was before the House on which the division was taken was in relation to suspension of Standing Orders, not a public accounts committee. It suprises me that a man of the intelligence of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys)-a man with respect who I thought could tell the truth-could come into this House and say that the vote was on a public accounts committee. That shows how little he understands the situation and how little he has his heart in supporting this motion. He fiddled and faddled all the way through his 15 minute speech. Let me call-- Mr Wells —Do you support the Public Accounts Committee or not? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I support it. I said that I speak with the experience of being on a similar committee. Let me draw the comparison. The honourable member compared figures. I understand that there is a Joint Public Accounts Committee in New South Wales. Is that correct? Do Government members know how many times that Committee meets in a year, how many hours it meets and who is on it? I will tell honourable members opposite. That Committee meets once a year. It meets for between 1 1/2 and two hours a year. What does it transact? It possibly discusses how it should pay for its meeting expenses. We have heard the experience of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), on that Committee. We have the experience of our own honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) who was on that Committee. That situation stands today. Honourable members opposite want a public accounts committee in Queensland but do they want it to work? Certainly the New South Wales Labor party does not want its Public Accounts Committee to work. We can look also at the Victorian situation. Was the existence of such a committee sufficient to stop the land scandal in Victoria? Of course it was not. Because the State committees operate with fewer members, a public accounts committee of a smaller size would get through only a reference now and again. It would only touch the surface of the problems. Honourable members opposite know that as well as I do. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) came into this House and gave us some figures in connection with Commonwealth outlays. The figure was $48.93 billion for 1982-83 compared with the Queensland figure of $4.825 billion-a neat 10 per cent of the Commonwealth total. The motion suggests that there is a serious threat to Commonwealth funds. The honourable member revealed that 53.6 per cent of those funds come from the Commonwealth. We would then have a public accounts committee trying to protect $2.5 billion being compared with our own Public Accounts Committee which is the watchdog of $48.9 billion. The whole notion is ridiculous and plainly inadequate in regard to what we are trying to do here. The same figures indicate that New South Wales is 45.6 per cent reliant on Commonwealth funds; Victoria, 43.3 per cent reliant and Queensland, 53.6 per cent reliant. This indicates to me that what the Queensland Premier is saying is quite correct. Queensland is the lowest tax State in Australia. New South Wales and the honourable member's State of Victoria have a fuel tax, a transaction tax and every other tax. This gives credibility to the belief that we in Queensland are a low tax State. Let us look at the reputation of past Treasurers. Dr Llew Edwards, a man for whom I have a tremendous amount of admiration, did a tremendous job. When honourable members talk about checking expenditure, they should remember that Queensland is the State which at the moment has the lowest number of unemployed in Australia. It has the least number of unemployed males and females between the ages of 15 years and 19 years of any State in Australia. It is a State that is developing. It has its towns, its mines and a coal industry that could compete with any coal industry in the world. This is the result of the oversight by the Treasurer, Dr Llew Edwards, and that of the Treasurers before him, to make sure that money is properly spent. I return to the question: What does the Opposition intend to do with a proposition such as this in Queensland? It was suggested in this chamber during the same debate that $43m is waiting for distribution in Queensland. It was said that a consultative committee has not even been set up yet, indicating that in New South Wales and Victoria there had been. But there was no suggestion from the honourable member that any of those amounts had been spent. Where would the money for those States be? It would be in the same short term deposits acquiring interest. This is what any normal business would do. I suggest that it would be derelict of the Queensland Government not to invest those funds for the good of the State. The honourable member for Petrie might be better advised to get his advice elsewhere. Under the Commonwealth employment program-we know that it is a bureaucratic muddle and nightmare-Queensland has been allocated $42m. But I understand that as late as a week ago the Commonwealth was still awaiting formal approval of the State's consultative committee. Forty projects are assessed and ready to go. My understanding is that that is the situation. So how can a public accounts committee help with the difficulties of a policy that the Federal Government implements in States with guidelines that, in many cases, cannot and will not work? Let us look at the health situation. We were told about the threat to health funds that come from Queensland. As I understand it, during the run-up to the Federal election, Mr Hawke promised a special rescue grant, a one-off grant, for Queensland hospitals. While in office, the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) promised that Queensland would within the first six weeks of 1984 get a special grant beyond the $100m to be raised by the Medicare levy. I am further led to understand that at a conference of Health Ministers, Queensland was offered only $63m of the total to be raised within the State. The Federal Government compounded the iniquity when at the Premiers Conference it offered Queensland a specific hospital grant that recognised the special needs of Queensland's free hospital scheme to the value of $50m. The honourable member for Petrie and the honourable member for Griffith come into this House and say that the Queensland Premier may have been wrong to reject the miserable offer to Queenslanders of $28.52 per head, when $44.20 per head was being offered to New South Wales, $44.70 to Victoria and to Western Australia-the other Labor State-$ 42.50. So it is a nonsense. We have been talking about the great scandals as far as developments are concerned. Maybe we ought to take the practical example of what happened concerning the loose allegations that were made in Queensland by Mr Wright and in this House. I mention the situation of the Stanwell power house station contracts. Allegations were made by Mr Wright that there was corruption, compromise and everything else in connection with the successful tender. When Mr Wright was asked to provide the evidence to the Police Commissioner, he refused and said that he had given all his information to the Auditor-General. He said: 'I have left it in the hands of the Auditor-General'. What did the Auditor- General come up with in his report? The Auditor-General's report was made public in Parliament when it resumed on 2 August. The report showed no inconsistencies in the letting of the tenders and completely vindicated the Government's stand. The cost of producing the report on those loose allegations was $40,000. Yet the honourable member had the hide to come into this House and suggest that a public accounts committee might also wilfully waste its money in pursuing similar situations which the Opposition itself should pursue. Perhaps we should extend this motion to include a reference to our own Public Accounts Committee in connection with Commonwealth expenditure on tertiary education institutions in this country. We have already heard a personal explanation from an honourable member who said that he did not advise his schools in a political way. Maybe we should check to see where Commonwealth funds are being spent in tertiary education institutions around Australia and particularly in Queensland, from where as members of Parliament we draw a lot of our academics, to see where they might have lectured and in which way they did lecture. I have had complaints in that regard from students who suggest that too many of our tutors take a political line. Perhaps if one were tutoring in a political science subject one might think that is excusable. I return to what the honourable member for Ryan said earlier. He said that this debate is one of ability and public accountability. Maybe we should put to the test of public accountability all of the promises that the Labor Government made when in opposition prior to the election and list them as I have here. Maybe we should be changing the area of investigation by the Public Accounts Committee to make sure that it looks not at policy but at promises broken and unbroken. Maybe our own Public Accounts Committee would have a career of three years full time work in that regard as far as Labor is concerned. The same promises are still being made by Mr Wright in Queensland. I say that those election promises are only as valid as those made by the Labor Party in the Federal area. They are valid only to the time of the election. They will not be valid after 22 October. We already know about the broken promises as far as this House is concerned. Perhaps we should refer our Public Accounts Committee to the broken promises regarding water resources, the sugar industry and the price of fuel. Three cents a litre less in the price of fuel was promised, but what do we get? We get a 2c a litre more. The Labor Party said there would be no devaluation. Yet within a week there was. It said it was going to eliminate the sales tax on retreads on tyres, but that is back with us. It is ironical that this proposal should be made in a very cynical attempt, as I say, to try to influence the election on 22 October. Perhaps a public accounts committee might investigate the current situation in Queensland where the Labor Party is experiencing a problem with Col Joye Holdings Pty Ltd concerning a writ . Maybe it might like to investigate that. I will at least say this: As far as 22 October is concerned, one of the Labor Premiers in Australia is confident of the return of Joh Bjelke-Petersen on Saturday. This may not be quite relevant, but I have been relevant up to this point. I mention an article found on page 7 of the 'Australian Diary' published in the Australian yesterday which states: Brian Burke of Western Australia has given Joh Bjelke-Petersen something to crow about by inviting him as Queensland's Premier to the Australia II celebrations in Perth on October 30. One Labor Premier of Australia has the confidence that we will win. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENTARY TERMS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTER-CHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos. 6 to 9, 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the five measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.10) —Each of these Bills has a long history and I do not propose to traverse all the arguments in their favour or those against. I would like simply to make a few comments on each of the Bills and some general observations about the process of constitutional change in Australia. I will deal, firstly, with the Bills relating to four-year terms and simultaneous elections, which the Opposition believes should be taken together. As other speakers elsewhere have noted, there is wide support for these Bills, although it is recognised that concern is felt in some States and among representatives from those States. However, Australia is one of only four democracies with three-year parliamentary terms and more frequent double dissolutions have caused the two Houses to become out of phase. No one would deny that Australia has far too many elections. In the last 30 years the average life of the House of Representatives has been 2 1/2 years and in the 14 years to 1977 we had 10 elections. The difficulties this puts in the way of good government are obvious to all. Government can be distracted from properly implementing its programs. The community and business, and government itself, lack a stable framework in which to plan their activities. Frequent elections, of course, are also enormously expensive. My recollection is that the last election cost $18m. No one, of course, needs to be reminded of the additional inconvenience that they cause. By extending the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years and by ensuring that the two Houses remain in phase by making the Senate term twice the term of the House of Representatives, these Bills will achieve the object of fewer elections. I note that, although the simultaneous elections proposal has been twice degeated at referenda, in 1977 it received a majority vote of 62 per cent, whilst admittedly not carrying a majority of States. The proposal to extend the parliamentary term was, of course, a coalition election commitment earlier this year. Might I say in passing that the Opposition is very pleased that the Government has dropped the proposal for fixed term parliaments, whatever its motive for so doing. The proposal put forward by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) unquestionably in our mind represented an unacceptable restraint on the powers of the Executive and, as experience has shown in other countries, it simply would not have achieved its intended objective. A more responsible and practical approach to dealing with deadlocks between the two Houses is certainly contained in the two Bills that were introduced into the Senate by Senator Peter Rae and Senator Hamer. Senator Rae's Bill proposed that if the Senate rejected a Budget or Supply Bill there would be immediate cause for a double dissolution. The effect of Sentor Hamer's Bill would have been to prevent governments from stockpiling rejected Bills as grounds for a double dissolution. Both of these proposals, which the Opposition supports, are contructive and helpful and would clearly have improved the workings of the Parliament. Given the Government's rhetoric about wanting to achieve this objective, one can regard the Government's rejection of those two Bills only as hyprocritical. The Opposition regrets that those Bills are not now before the House. The third Bill under consideration relates to the interchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. Like some of the other Bills, it has a long history and has been endorsed by successive constitutional conventions. The object of the amendment is to give greater flexibility to States and Federal governments and greater certainty about the conditions under which powers may be referred. One benefit given by way of example is the empowering of State governments to impose sales tax. As the Attorney-General pointed out, the amendment might also improve the chances of achieving other worthy objectives such as uniform defamation laws and comprehensive family law powers at the Commonwealth level. The fourth Bill provides for a constitutional amendment to allow advisory opinions to be obtained from the High Court. This Bill also has a long history and has been rather contentious, causing concern for many of those engaged in the service of the law, including the High Court itself. The Opposition is supporting the Bill in its amended form because we believe the provisions could help reduce the amount of litigation involved in determining the actual parameters of power. Senator Hill's amendment was, of course, strongly supported by us. The fifth proposal seeks to remove outmoded and expended provisions from the Constitution and is, of course, unexceptionable. As I said earlier, the Opposition supports these proposed amendments because it believes that, if passed by referendum, they would contribute to the more effective functioning of government and of Parliaments in this country. All the proposals are useful; indeed, some are very necessary. If carried, the changes will help to ensure that the Constitution is modern and relevant to Australia's needs, or more modern and more relevant to those needs. This ought to be an objective shared by both sides of the Parliament. Whether or not there is some dissent from some individuals from particular States about particular measures that are put forward, no one would deny the general proposition of seeking to update the Constitution from time to time. It is supposed to be not just a legal text but a living and breathing thing, and amending it from time to time and improving its operation ought to have the support of the majority. Where we differ strongly from the other side is in our view of the appropriate mechanisms for achieving constitutional change. I have said on many occasions that one of the principal tasks of government, and a measure of the worth of a political party, is its ability to marshal the forces of change in society to the benefit of the whole community. Part of this process will require the updating of the institutions of state to ensure their continuing relevance to the lives of Australians. I have described the Constitution in figurative language as a living and breathing thing. It should be seen not as immutable but as an organic document able to satisfy the needs of the citizens. It is not a document to be taken lightly, nor disregarded at whim. It is there to protect the rights of citizens and it is there to protect the rights of States. It reinforces the rule of law in Australia. If it is to be amended, it should be amended by the people and not by judicial interpretation. Literal amendments, of course, are required to be approved by a majority of people in a majority of States, but it is possible to get around that both by judical interpretation and in a way which we do not find acceptable and which has been attempted by this and other Labor governments, for example, by invoking an expanded external affairs power. The Opposition can support these Bills because they adopt the proper processes of constitutional reform. In relation to these Bills the Attorney-General has quite properly said: None of these Bills involves the Commonwealth in any attempt to acquire new powers at the expense of the States. Of course, that is how it should be. I only regret that Senator Evans is not prepared to apply this principle in other areas. I have little doubt that if there were any other ways for the Attorney-General to ease his frustrations and to push through his pet reforms, he would pursue them. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his colleagues may regard the existence of the States as anachronistic lunacy, as I think he has described the States previously, but that is something he has to live with. His view of the Federal system perhaps varies with the political complexion of a given State. The Opposition is committed to protecting the rights of the States, as we have previously indicated time and again, and to ensuring that the Federal system operates efficiently. We will not ride roughshod over the interests or concerns of State governments, whatever their political persuasion. This is a Federal compact and should be seen as such. A Federal system is, to any Liberal, the best system of government, providing as it does the diffusion of powers and the necessary checks and balances. It allows governments to deal with local problems as they, as locals, see fit. We will do our best to ensure that this Government does not ride roughshod over the interests and concerns of State governments, of whatever political persuasion. I speak only briefly to outline the attitude of the Opposition on this matter. The shadow Minister for Aviation, who represents the shadow Attorney, will respond in greater detail on behalf of the Opposition. But I thought it important, on a measure on which one will be asked to give one's views when the referenda proposals are put, that I should lead for the Opposition on this, with a brevity of remarks, indicating our support for the measures at present, despite some differences that may-properly-occur. It is a very good thing that if we are proposing changes to the Constitution, there are those who will sign a No case and advocate it so that the people can be properly apprised of arguments both in favour of and against the proposals. In conclusion, the Opposition supports these Bills. We see them as part of the desirable process of constitutional change in Australia and we believe they will contribute to better working of this Parliament and of the Government. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(4.22) —I am pleased to hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) that the Opposition will support the five pieces of legislation that will be put before the people on 25 February 1984. I quickly remind the House of what the Bills deal with. One Bill deals with simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half of the Senate and another deals with a four-year term for the House of Representatives. They were endorsed by the Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide earlier this year. The former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, I think on 7 February, said that if re-elected his Government would put both of those propositions to a referendum as soon as possible. I will come back in a few minutes to the question of Parliament and the function of Parliament and parliamentarians. The general argument for the legislation is that it will create conditions for better long term planning and a more rational political climate generally. I will address that aspect in a few minutes. It is probably irrelevant, but I sometimes have difficulty with people who argue that it is undemocratic to have lots of elections, because after all that is the only time when the people can pass judgment. But I suppose there is some point when it is reasonable to say that we must give the Government a chance to govern for some period-for three or four years. I am one of those who do believe in lots of checks and balances on government. That certainly exists at present and has for some time as far as this Parliament is concerned, because of the position in the Senate. It is relevant to cite, for example, what has happened in New South Wales over the last 20-odd years. In 1961 there was a Federal election; in 1962 a State election; in 1963 another Federal election; in 1964 a half Senate election; in 1965 a State election; in 1966 a Federal election; in 1967 a half Senate election; in 1968 a State election; in 1969 a Federal election; in 1970 a half Senate election; in 1971 a State election; in 1972 a Federal election; in 1973 a State election; in 1974 and 1975 there were double dissolutions at the Federal level; in 1976 another State election; in 1977 an early Federal election; in 1978 a State election; in 1979, no election-the first year in 18 years that there was no election in New South Wales-in 1980 another Federal election; in 1981 a State election; in 1982 we missed out; and in 1983 we again had a Federal election. Whilst the issues in State and Federal elections are obviously different, or they appear to be different, it is reasonable to say that having an election where people can express their views on the performance of a party- or a collection of parties, in the case of the coalition opposite-giving the people in New South Wales a chance to do so every year seems adequate. It certainly interferes with rational political debate and rational decision-making . Hopefully, things will improve when this referendum has been passed. The third Bill deals with the interchange of powers, where the Commonwealth can confer power on the States, for example, to impose duties of excise, to legislate in respect of matters involving Commonwealth places, and so on. It also overcomes any doubts which the States have felt as to the basis on which references may be made to the Commonwealth. The referendum 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 types of laws that can be passed under it, and that such references may be made for a limited period. I am one of those who believe in real federalism. Whilst I did not welcome the advent of the Fraser Government in 1975, at least the rhetoric of the Fraser Government, or Mr Fraser himself, was one of talking about real federalism. It is a great pity that the Government did not go on with the question of federalism and really enforce it. As I see it, what happens at present-and I am not defending it only because we are now in power federally; after all, we are also in power in most States- Mr Ruddock —It was Wran who put a stop to that. Dr KLUGMAN —I know, with his rhetoric to some extent. The State governments are prepared to spend the money. They are prepared to complain continuously to every Federal government about the inadequate funds being given to them, but they are not prepared to raise the money and justify the expenditure of the money to the people from whom they have to raise it. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) blamed Mr Wran. But before him, possibly Mr Bjelke-Petersen, who hopefully is on his way out this week, made all kinds of promises and gave away all kinds of methods of raising money, starting with estate duties or probate, and then asked the Federal Government to recoup the money for him because he said the State had an inadequate income. Whatever the views of honourable members may be on probate and death duties, it is easy for State politicians to promise all kinds of things at State elections, abolish all kinds of charges and taxes, and then scream because the Federal Government does not give them the money. But it is then up to the Federal Government to have to either justify increased taxation or be accused of having a deficit which is much too large. When we talk about these things rationally, most of us would probably agree on this point. The fourth Bill deals with opinions; the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court. It is probably the most debatable of the proposals that will be put to the people on 25 February next year. I do not think it will cause any harm. I must admit I have some reservations about whether the benefits will be as complete as stated by some of the advocates of it. Finally, there is the Bill to remove outmoded and expended provisions of the Constitution. I think there would be little argument about the removal of those. I noticed when I was chairing the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that one of the sections of the Constitution came before the High Court this year. I cannot remember what section it was. It provides that anybody who is eligible to vote in a State is eligible to vote for the Federal Houses. That provision was made in 1901. The High Court held that what was meant by that was that anybody eligible to vote in the lower House of any of the States in 1901 is eligible to vote federally; 82 years later, I think that if people have not obtained that right by now they are not likely to get it in future. I will not take the full time allotted to me because I know that many others wish to speak on this issue but I will raise a couple of matters which I think are relevant to the general questions we are looking at and the justification for less frequent elections; in other words, extending the term of parliaments to four years and having simultaneous elections. I think the role of parliamentarians comes into this matter. I noted with pleasure the view expressed by Senator Missen the other day in the Senate when I read the Senate Hansard. He expressed very similar views to mine on the role of parliamentarians . It may speed up my contribution if I am allowed to read into Hansard part of a letter which I wrote to the Age justifying an increase in the number of parliamentarians and dealing also with their role. It states: As one who has at least libertarian tendencies I strongly support the view that more MPs could increase the effectiveness of the Parliament as a countervailing force to the executive government, which has grown substantially since 1949. This is a worthy objective. Importantly an increase in the number of parliamentarians would reduce the proportion of the executive (or 'legislators') in the party room. This would force the executive to persuade a larger number of (potential) critics and maybe sometimes fail to do so. As one who has never been impressed by claims of consecutive governments of varying political complexion, that the number of laws passed is in any way related to ultimate benefits for the Australian population, I therefore support an increase in members which may-- I emphasise 'may'- reduce the amount of legislation by exposing it to more effective criticism by parliamentary and party committees and (almost) finally the party room. Parliament is (not equally) divided into the simplistics beloved by most of the media who know all the solutions and those who are aware that 'solutions' often lead to more 'problems'. I support a potentially significant increase in the latter. I think that is the important point in relation to the function of parliament and parliamentarians. I criticise the media. To some extent it prevents some quite rational politicians who want to get on in politics from adopting a rational attitude. Anybody who has doubts or can see two sides of an argument is attacked as vacillating, lacking leadership and so on. Even intelligent politicians who can see both sides of most arguments are forced to behave like shrewd lawyers with briefs and justify one side which has been decided upon by their party. No wonder people who are at least temporarily treated as successful politicians are of the Menzies, Whitlam and Fraser variety. They were completely convinced that their line at any time was the only correct one. That is accepted by the media as being the correct attitude. My own view is that leadership in an educated democratic society should not exclude rational discussion and the realisation that not all problems are soluble. The onus is on the media to give more publicity to discussion and less to confrontation. The media gives favourable and, to my mind, excessive publicity to demonstrations promoting slogans, whether those slogans be-to pick three different issues-to promote peace, right to life or no dams. The media is in a sense behaving in an anti-democratic fashion as it encourages those who treat the public as being most simplistic. The media publicises slogans. There is no intelligent discussion on the issues involved. The media wants people to encapsulate their views in a two-minute contribution to AM or PM or to television programs. They feel that the vast majority of Australian listeners, viewers or readers are not interested in the basic issues and the problems involved. They want people to have a quick solution to all problems. I remember someone once being asked: 'What is the solution to this particular problem?' A more intelligent politician replied: 'There are no solutions to this particular problem. Solutions are there for crossword puzzles and similar games but not for major issues'. This afternoon we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) make a very rational speech on the forthcoming referenda and a completely irrational speech some half hour before on the question of setting up a national crimes commission . I think I know him well enough to be able to say that the views he expressed in his second speech were much closer to his own than those he expressed in his first speech. That is a point in his favour. But he will get much more publicity for his first speech than for his second speech. In his second speech he talked about non-interference with the States and leaving certain problems for them. In his first speech he talked about setting up a national crimes commission to investigate State issues. He equated-he assumed that everybody else in the community would-the setting up of a national crimes commission with the abolition of crime. I do not think anybody in this House, not even the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) who was in charge of the Australian Federal Police for a significant period, would believe for one minute that even if we gave very wide powers to investigating agencies and police forces we could really abolish crime. I think that is a simplistic view of society. The Opposition equates the fact that people have second, third, fourth or fifth thoughts about giving excessive powers to police forces, investigatory agencies, national crimes commissions et cetera with delaying the fight against crime. I put to the Opposition that the United States and other countries have had national crimes commissions and all kinds of bodies with very great powers and crime still exists. It will continue to exist, as will drug addiction and so on. Some years ago I was in East Berlin-I will conclude on this point-and I had a discussion with a leading medical practitioner. He kept on feeling inferior, with some justification, because of the system that his country had even though he was a committed member of the Communist Party. I was feeling a little sorry for him as I shared a meal with him-possibly for which he was paying-and I tried to encourage him by saying: 'Well at least you have fewer severe car accidents because you have fewer cars.' He said: 'Oh, yes, but our people get drunk. There are fewer cars on the road and they go much faster. You should see the people who come into my hospital; they are worse'. I said: 'Well, maybe you have less of a drug problem here than we have in our countries in the West'. He said to me : 'Well, it is argued that that is due to our education system and our social system, but other people have argued that drug smugglers are not prepared to accept our currency'. I think the second point is probably the more accurate. As long as they can sell drugs for Western marks, pounds or dollars, smugglers will collect that money and will distribute some of it to the police forces or investigating agents. Nothing that we do will stop that happening. All we will do, by getting too tough on people, is increase the cost of drugs and increase the crime rate. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.41) —The nature of the five Constitution alteration Bills before the House which are to lead to referendum proposals to be put before the Australian people has already been explained by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Nothing really needs to be said on the subject of the Constitution Alteration ( Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill. That Bill does exactly what its name suggests; it gets rid of powers which no longer have any operative relevance. The Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill is an important measure. One of the reasons why it is an important measure has been touched on by the honourable member for Prospect as well as by the Leader of the Opposition. Under that Bill provision is made first of all for reference of Commonwealth powers to all the States, and those powers are referred to in the Bill itself. Secondly, provision is made for clarification of the terms on which individual States may refer powers to the Commonwealth. The Bill recognises that there will be occasions in our democracy when we believe that it is in the public interest that some transfer of powers should take place from one part of the system to another. One very good reason for doing so might be the kind of reason referred to by the honourable member for Prospect; that is, to give to the States the responsibility of raising the money that they spend so readily. Regardless of what government is in power one can be fairly sure that the States would approach that government as mendicants. They will take as much money as they possibly can, but at all times they will refuse to be accountable for the raising of the money which they spend. It is very much easier to be able to blame the parsimony of the Federal Government than it is to have to go to the voters and say: 'Well now, look, we intend to raise money from you'. I personally hope that in the future we may see the States not only spending money but also raising it and accounting to the people for how they raise it. The next Bill I refer to is the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill, which is to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court. The Leader of the Opposition referred to this Bill and how it has changed somewhat. Those who have followed the progress of the Bill may recall that it originally derived from the proposals put to the Australian Constitutional Convention. Those proposals were very broad indeed and would have conferred an almost completely unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court, one which it would have had to exercise in the instance of Federal or State governments, in order to determine the validity of Bills before those Bills became Acts of Parliament. Some people in this country do not think that an entirely wise proposition. But when one is confronted by a proposal to 'reform' a law which has an immediate attraction it is very difficult to persuade people that there may be some dangers in what is proposed. If one does, one is usually described as misguided at best, wilfully obstructive or, at worst, criminally stupid. The Bill which we now see is radically different from the Bill which was put to the Convention. With leave of the Leader of the Opposition, who believes very deeply in the rights of individuals to express points of view upon matters of fundamental concern, I put certain amendments to the Constitutional Convention which were designed to limit the operations of the proposal. These amendments were supported by, amongst others, Senator Gareth Evans. I achieved respectable support for my proposals, but not a sufficient number of votes, and as we all know in politics there are no prizes at all for coming second. I was very pleased to see that two major amendments to the proposals which were before the Constitutional Convention were made in the Senate. These originally were the proposals which the Government intended to put before the people. The first amendment which was accepted by the Senate was to restrict the question of law as to the validity of a proposed Bill to a provision of that Bill, so that rather than have a whole Bill put up to the High Court for its examination and judgment it is now necessary that provisions be selected from the Bill and the view of the High Court be sought on those provisions. The difficulties of the former proposal-that is, that an entire Bill could be put up-were eloquently outlined by the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, who with other members of the High Court condemned in very clear terms, or was highly critical of, the original proposal. He referred amongst other things to the prospect that a Bill such as the Trade Practices Bill might have been put before the High Court for its interpretation before it became law. He pointed out: To require the Court to pronounce on the validity of such an Act in the abstract would be to give it a task at once Herculean and futile. I think the correctness of that proposition is demonstrated if one were to examine the kind of task that the Court would have been called on to discharge; that is, to look at a Bill of an exceedingly complex nature, raising very difficult points of law and points of constitutional law of fundamental difficulty, and asking it, in effect: 'Is it good or is it bad? If it is like the curate's egg and partly good and partly bad, please tell us which parts are good and which parts are bad'. So I am glad to see the amendment which has been made, which limits to the questions concerning particular provisions the jurisdiction which the Court may be called upon to exercise. The second amendment to the Bill to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court which was put to and accepted by the Senate was put by Senator Hill. This is an excellent proposal which ensures that before the Court will be called upon to consider a provision in a proposed Bill that Bill must effectively have passed through all Houses, be they State or be they Federal, so that one sees the Bill in its final form and not in the form in which it may emerge from a Committee debate in one of the Houses. The wisdom of Senator Hill's proposal is demonstrated by the recent experience in the Senate with the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill where a very large number of amendments have been put and have been accepted. One asks the obvious question: What is the proposal that might have been under the original constitutional proposal? Would one put the entire Bill, or the Bill as it was amended during the course of debate? As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Opposition supports the proposals which are now before the House in respect of conferring on the High Court of Australia an advisory jurisdiction. I now turn to the two parliamentary proposals; that is to say, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration ( Parliamentary Terms) Bill. As has been explained by the Leader of the Opposition and, I think as well by the honourable member for Prospect the purpose of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is to ensure that there should be simultaneous elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives or, to be more accurate, that there should be an election of the half Senate at the time there is an election for the House of Representatives. That Bill has to be seen together with the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill which is intended to extend the duration of the House of Representatives to four years and, in the case of the Senate, to eight years. The significance of these two Bills, which must be examined together, is very considerable. At present, as honourable members will be aware, the terms of the two Houses can and do get out of phase. This can happen for a number of reasons. But more frequent double dissolutions in 1974, 1975 and, alas, in 1983, have illustrated how easy it is for the Houses to get out of phase so that we can be faced with the prospect of an election of the half Senate before the next election of this House is due. Of course, double dissolutions are not the only reasons which can lead to the two Houses getting out of phase. I must confess that, when looking at the election of 1983, I am rather inclined to call it a double dissolution but that is neither here nor there. One can have the case of a government in the House of Representatives which has a very small majority and which loses that majority by reason of by-elections. That can be another reason for the two Houses getting out of phase. The purpose of these two Bills is to extend the terms of the two Houses and to ensure that they will be in phase so that there will be elections at the same time. In my view it is a sensible alteration to the constitutional system which I hope will be accepted by the Australian people. The honourable member for Prospect has said something about the frequency of elections. He pointed out how frequently we have had to go to the polls in New South Wales. Whilst I agree with him that in a democratic system elections are the only means we have of expressing our views about the Government, I also agree with him when he says that really it is necessary for goverments to have time to implement their proposals. In the last 20 years I think it is correct to say that the average life of this House has been less than two and a half years. If the amendments which are proposed to the Constitution are accepted by the Australian people it would seem likely that we can look forward to a life of this House of more than three years, perhaps even close to four years which, of course, will suit the Government in power and be a source of some rancour to the Opposition of the day. But my own view is that three years is certainly too short; five years, which is the English system, is too long; and four years for the House is probably a good compromise period. Mr Goodluck —What about the Senate? Mr SPENDER —I will come to the Senate in a few minutes. Eight years is another matter indeed. I will sum up the benefits that I would see which would follow from the alterations which are intended to be made to the electoral processes which affect these two Houses. First of all, the elections of the House of Representatives and one half of the Senate will be held together. This will be welcomed by the majority of the Australian people and will not, I think, injure the Senate's independence. For those who claim that the Senate's independence will be damaged in some way by its being constitutionally in phase with the House of Representatives, it is worth while remembering two things: First, the different system of elections which applies to the Senate so that we have in the Senate members of the Australian Democrats, yet none of the representatives of that Party who stood in the last election or indeed the election before that got anywhere near being elected to the House of Representatives. That illustrates how one can have a different political complexion in the Senate to that which exists in the House. The second point is that, since only half of the senators will be elected every time the House goes out, that will also work to maintain the independence of the Senate. I do not think that any damage will be done to the Senate's authority or independence. In passing, a very good reason for putting the times in phase is this: When the times are out of phase there is a very great inducement to the government controlling the lower House, as it always does, to do something political and irresponsible at the time when a mid-term Senate election is called. We have enough political irresponsibility in this system. If we can eradicate some of the reasons for it then I think we should. I believe that the proposal will go some distance towards doing that. Next, as I have said, we will have fewer elections. I believe that that will enhance stability and certainty and will allow governments to plan better than they presently can. Governments should have a chance to implement their programs. In particular, when governments are new I think it is necessary that they should have a chance, in the interests of the mandate that they may have been given, to implement their programs. Yet new governments always go through a learning process as, one may say charitably, has been illustrated by some of the somewhat bizarre actions or statements made by Ministers of this Government particularly in its early days. Under the present system one can say that, cynically, the first year is the year of payoff and the next two years are the years of election. I will not, of course, accuse the present Government of paying off on its election promises but that certainly is a view that many people take of the operation of the Australian constitutional system. One of my colleagues from Tasmania, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), interjected and asked: 'What about the Senate of eight years?' I know that we all respect our colleagues in the Senate. I know that every honourable member in this House would agree with me when I say that each one of them is wise, estimable and of great value to this country. However, I wonder whether eight years might be a little excessive. It causes me some concern that a person could sit in the Senate for eight years growing old without having to face the electorate. On balance, I can see no sensible way of improving the system other than by having a four-year period for the House and an eight-year period for the Senate. I shall finish my remarks by briefly saying something about the Constitution. The Constitution, as the Leader of the Opposition said, is an organic document. It is a living document. It is not a document which is immutable, set down for all time and not subject to scrutiny and change. It is our charter; it defines our democratic system and protects the operation of that system. We need to change it as the need to change it is perceived, but we should also be very slow to change it. When we change it we should try as hard as we can to make sure that the changes will work for the long term benefit of the Australian people and not just the short term benefit of any political party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(5.01) —It will not surprise people who follow politics closely that the proposal before us today should come so early in the term of the Labor Government. They will know that Labor governments practise reform because we realise, as was pointed out by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), that the Constitution does not have the status of holy writ. We realise that the Australia of the 1980s has little in common with the Australia of the time the Constitution was framed. To illustrate this point, I am told by my colleagues from Western Australia that back in the days when that document was framed politicians used to travel by ship to Melbourne because that is where Parliament met at that time. Later they travelled by rail and then by the air transport of today. That form of transport also has changed remarkably. The rapid advancements in communications, with instant dialling, telexes, vocadexes, television, radio and so on, have meant that Australia is now vast in area only, and the Constitution must reflect these changes. When we look at the history of referendum proposals we see that since Federation 36 proposals have been put to the electorate and only eight have been passed. Notwithstanding that poor succes rate, I am encouraged by the pass rate of the previous referenda proposals, where three out of four were passed. Mr Ruddock —Fraser Government proposals. Mr GEAR —Yes. One successful proposal ensured that casual vacancies in the Senate are filled by a person nominated by the political party of the preceding senator. Honourable members will realise how cynical that proposal was when I say that the government that introduced it owed its existence to the breaking of that long-held convention by the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland. I trust that that disgraceful action by Mr Bjelke-Petersen will be remembered by people in Queensland who believe in a fair go. They may also remember how the Premiers of Queensland and Tasmania, that is, the last two remaining conservative States, stacked their delegations to the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide this year. Despite being in power federally and in four of the six States, the Labor delegations were outnumbered by conservatives. Fairness is foreign to them. The other two successful proposals enabled electors in the Territories to vote at referenda and regulated the retiring age of judges. The only proposal that was not passed related to simultaneous elections. The same proposal was defeated in 1974. I trust that it will be a case of third time lucky in 1984. In 1974, 3.7 million Australians voted against the proposal, compared with 3.5 million who voted for it. However, in 1977 there was a dramatic turnaround; 4.6 million people were in favour of the simultaneous elections proposal and only 2. 8 million people voted against it. The reason for its failure was that Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia voted against it. Another aspect of the simultaneous elections legislation is that, although back in 1977 Mr Fraser held his early election on the premise that he would bring the terms of the House of Representatives and the Senate back into line, the election this year has resulted in the terms of those Houses being thrown out again. The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill will alleviate the necessity to have a Senate election next year, I believe, thereby saving $18m, as the Leader of the Opposition put it. I refer now to the proposal to extend the term of the Federal Parliament to four years. In recent times abuse of our Constitution in terms of the frequency of elections and the life of parliaments has increased to the point where it is apparent that the system is not operating in a manner most beneficial to the people, and that makes changes in these areas vital. Parliaments have not been running their full terms, as was pointed out earlier today. In fact, since Federation parliaments have run an average of two years and five months, falling well short of the three years intended by the Constitution. I further point out that none of these elections has been caused by the Australian Labor Party. In fact, I do not think we have called one for quite a while now. Mr Goodluck —You have not been in. Mr GEAR —That is right, but we will call the next one and the one after that. In practice, three years is too short a time. Governments of all persuations have been locked into either an immediate post-election Budget which relates to their electioneering commitments-I take on board the comments made by the honourable member for North Sydney in that regard-or an immediate pre-election Budget with which they may wish to please electors. Governments have been afraid to take tough measures when needed because of the prospect of electoral backlash before the benefits of those measures have had time to be felt by voters. The Government which Australians now enjoy stands head and shoulders above most in terms of its courage and determination to adopt needed but presumably unpopular measures. In doing this we have been gratified to find the electorate prepared to accept such moves on the value of their long term necessity, so we have not suffered the electoral backlash, fear of which left the previous Government economically impotant. I point to the poll in this week's Bulletin to support that assertion and also to the election of Gavan Troy in the seat of Mundaring in Western Australia where the Liberals campaign was centred on the proposals about which I have spoken. Success in this area strengthens the argument about the need to reform the Constitution to allow governments time in which to implement policies and to reap the benefits of those policies. The move to four-year parliaments will, I believe, improve the quality of government in Australia, giving governments greater courage to tackle hard decisions, to face up to the big problems, and to equip Australia for the challenge of the future. We are not alone in this move to longer terms. Throughout the world 25 parliaments currently have four-year terms while another 24 have five-year terms. Only four parliaments have a three- year term. While we are considering a change at the Federal level the States are already moving, and in some cases have moved, to four-year terms. The reason for doing so extended beyond the question of time to implement policies, which I have already discussed. They also concerned the changing attitudes of the Australian people. Since the 1975 assault on their sovereignty Australians have shown an increasing interest in the affairs of government and in constitutional reform in particular. Reform has become a topic of general discussion. People are very concerned to get the best government possible. They want value for money. For most people government charges are their biggest expenditure item. The demand for a top quality service in return for that expenditure is a right emphasised by the growth in consumer consciousness over the last decade, and that is a very good thing. Frequent elections are not good value. They are a huge financial cost to the community, they are a nuisance, and they clearly show that leaders are spending their time politicking and going for the short term advantage rather than getting on with the job of government. People are sick to death of being called to the polls year after year to play their part in the games of politicians. Earlier this year they showed their overwhelming resentment at being manipulated in that way. Mr Deputy Speaker, to emphasise this point I draw the attention of honourable members to the experience of New South Wales voters. This matter has already been raised this afternoon. With State elections, House of Representatives elections, half Senate elections and double dissolutions, electors in New South Wales have been called to the polls every year since 1960, except in 1979 and 1982. That is clearly an unnecessary imposition on people and a profound waste of money. The four-year parliament proposal does not compel governments to run their full terms but it gives them a greater incentive to do so. Foolish Prime Ministers might still manipulate election timetables according to perceived spur -of-the-moment advantages, but I think the experience of Malcolm Fraser in 1983 will give them cause to think first. The clear demand of the Australian people not to be toyed with but to be given good service will be a most powerful check on irresponsibility. Next I turn to the legislation allowing for advisory opinions from the High Court of Australia. Lack of such a right is a long entrenched oversight in our political and legal system. The Privy Council has long had this power and in 1912 expressed surprise that this procedure should even be questioned. Lack of advisory opinions renders the process of testing the new legislation unnecessarily lengthy and complex. In certain cases it can be intimidatory to people or organisations lacking the financial resources to support a High Court challenge, forcing them to adopt an unduly conservative approach or to leave untested, possibly dubious legislation. Suggestions that the High Court would be overloaded are simply not supported by similar overseas experiences, such as in Canada. This Bill is for a simple change to the system to make its operation more efficient. There is no reason for opposing it. The interchange of powers Bill quite simply gives the States and Commonwealth greater freedom to act as responsible and autonomous bodies, negotiating with each other freely and for mutual benefit. Of course paranoid State righters-we have our share around here-at first tried to see this as a Federal assault on State powers, but clearly this is not so. In fact, to some extent, quite the reverse is true. Individual States will be able to transfer powers by agreement, perhaps for specified time periods, and to withdraw those powers when they wish. That is a degree of independence which the current requirement for agreement between all States does not allow. Relations and divisions of power and the administrative procedures which result will be able to be varied from State to State in accordance with local conditions. That is a significant step forward for State individuality and autonomy. The last of the five Bills I am speaking in support of seeks the removal of some outmoded and expended provisions from the Constitution. This could be regarded, and has been described, as not being of great importance. In a way this is true. There are no immediate consequences as a result of the legislation and no immediate restrictions applicable for the lack of it. I return, however, to my introductory comments in which I referred to the necessity to update the Constitution. Our Constitution must be an evolving, developing document which reflects and adapts to changes in our society. It must remain always relevant. Thus it is very important that the written document of our Constitution is a relevant, modern, functional thing; that it is not cluttered with irrelevancies which can only cloud understanding. As I have outlined, I fully support the first five of the Constitution Alteration Bills before the House. I am pleased to note that they have attracted very wide support in this Parliament. I trust the Australian people will also support them when the time comes. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.14) —I rise to oppose three of the Constitution Alteration Bills: The first is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, which I would not wish to see go ahead; the second is the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill and the third is the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill which deals with the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. I will, first of all, speak on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. The history of simultaneous elections and their origins is well known to most honourable members of this House. I think it is important just to go back to the salient points of the history and the original coming together of the States. It has an important bearing on how one might then consider this Bill. I think every honourable member would realise that the original colonies came together under considerable mutual suspicion. They were concerned that State governments, in forming a federation, would be retained with proper powers particularly where they affected the administration of their own States. They were particularly concerned in forming the Federation that the small States would have equal rights and equal say in the Federation. The third point that is important in the history of the Federation is that the smaller States were concerned that the two big population centres of Sydney and Melbourne, therefore New South Wales and Victoria, would not dominate the national government. In forming the Federation an agreement was drafted to ensure a limitation on the powers of the Federal Government-the national government-and that power would not be taken away from the States in forming the Federation. Two checks were incorporated in the Federal compact. The first was the compact itself; a written constitution. But the second and the most important check, as far as the nub of this debate goes, was that a powerful Senate should be formed having an independence from the Executive government of the day and made up of an equal number of senators from each State-10 of course. Careful provision was made to give the States powers in relation to the timing of elections for the Senate and the replacement of vacancies in the Senate caused by death or retirement. It was made possible to have elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day. That is important when people are talking about the need for simultaneous elections. The Constitution was careful to provide that the Senate could not be dissolved whenever it pleased the Prime Minister of the day to do so. The Senate was to be dissolved when its term expired or, of course, when it reached a stage of confrontation leading to a deadlock between the two Houses. But the important point about the terms of senators and members of the House of Representatives was that for the Senate it was a fixed term and for the House of Representatives it was three years unless the Governor-General decided otherwise. The case for opposing this Bill-the No case in the referendum that will ensue- is probably based on four points. The first is that the referendum is not necessary to enable simultaneous elections to be held; that can happen now. The second is that the referendum will not necessarily reduce the number and cost of elections. We will argue, in opposing this in the referendum, that it is deceptive to claim that it will reduce the number of elections. In fact, it really will not change the situation as it is now. It could result in more frequent elections. The third is that the referendum will enable any future government to dissolve half the Senate whenever the Senate attempts to protect Australia from measures harmful to the national interest or harmful to a particular State. It undermines the Senate as a barrier to the arbitrary misuse of power and is a check on ill-conceived government actions particularly if they affect a State. It is the Senate's role to review, reflect, amend, defer or reject, not simply to support a government in office. I believe that that function of the Senate will be undermined if senators believe that they are at the whim of a Prime Minister who can call them out to an election whenever he sees fit. The fourth point is that the referendum will result in a greatly increased concentration of power in Canberra and in the hands of all future Prime Ministers and in less protection for Australian citizens against the abuse of that power and less protection for the smaller States. It will, I believe, weaken the Federal structure because it will destroy the element of continuity and longer term perspective that is desirable in a House of review and that helps to ensure radical change is introduced only if it is genuine and firmly supported by the electorate. Again, it will destroy part of the checks and balances system, including the fixed term as a balance to the unfixed term of the House of Representatives. That is why I wanted to highlight particularly those points that were considered by the founding fathers of the nation when the Federation first came together. It was a check on the power of the Federal Government through a Senate that would have continuity and have a term quite independent of the House of Representatives. If one makes it a case of simultaneous elections-half the Senate with the House of Representatives on every occasion-one destroys that check and balance which the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution. I will not support this Bill. I feel that if I did I would simply be betraying the trust which has been given to me as a member of a small State-the small State of Tasmania. I believe that the measure is an attack upon the independence and influence of the Senate. It is thereby an attack upon the influence and powers of the States. I move to the next Bill with which I cannot agree, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. We are looking at a Bill which makes provision for four-year terms for members of this House and eight-year terms for members of the Senate. Mr Snow —Like they have in Tasmania. Mr NEWMAN —I recognise the background to the interjection that was just made. I recognise the arguments that have been put in the House as to the advantages of a four-year term. It would give the Government time to implement policies without having to worry about an election looming in the third year of its term. I recognise the case for a four-year term for this House but I could not tolerate a senator having an eight-year term. That would make him almost completely independent of the electorate. It would give him such a continuity of service that we might as well put him on the Public Service payroll and be done with it. That continuity would allow him not to be answerable to the electorate. Because I cannot see my way through the dilemma of having a four-year term here and eight years in the other place, I simply cannot support the Bill. For the basic reason that it would give a senator an eight-year term I will be voting against this measure. I turn to the third Bill that I will not be able to support, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Courts) Bill. I have tried to understand all the ramifications of this Bill. I have looked at the arguments that were put at the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide and I have read the Hansard record of the Senate debate. I recognise that the Bill as it has come to this House is a much better Bill than that which was debated in the Senate. The problem that was raised by opposing senators, that if Bills were to go to the High Court of Australia before they had passed through this House that would be an unwarranted intrusion by the High Court into the workings of this Parliament, has been removed. I think it was fairly said that it would pre-empt the deliberations of parliamentarians on those Bills about which advice was sought. That may well be good and it is to be applauded that the Bill has been so amended, but unfortunately the provision in clause 2 (1) (d) still seems to me to be an impediment. Sub-section 1 (d) states: any question of law arising under or with respect to any treaty, including any question of law relating to the implementation of any treaty, being a question that, by reason of circumstances existing at the time of the reference, the Governor-General in Council is of opinion has arisen or is reasonably likely to arise. The problem seems to be that we are still facing the same argument that was put by various people at the Constitutional Convention and in the Senate in regard to Bills that have not gone through both Houses. It seems quite clear to me that we still have the objection that this Bill would provide an ability for the Government of the day to involve the High Court in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament when we are debating measures. Surely the Government would be able to use, for example, the implementation of any treaty to seek an opinion from the High Court, perhaps in the very broadest terms, and use that opinion to influence the members of, say, this House. Let us make no mistake about the influence of a High Court opinion. It would be very weighty. The High Court giving an opinion on a matter would count very heavily with honourable members of this House. I give an example of how that might occur. In respect of the vexed question of the dam in South West Tasmania, the Government could simply have taken an opinion on the external affairs treaty. Having got the treaty, as I have said, perhaps in the broadest terms without going into any of the background or practicalities of measures contained in a Bill, it would then have had an opinion with which to back a Bill which was introduced to stop the dam being built. It could have brandished that opinion and used it very strongly in the debate both here and outside the House to convince us that the Bill should go through. In other words, it would have involved the High Court and the judiciary in the deliberations of the Parliament. I believe that that would usurp the role of the Parliament. That is one reason why I cannot support this Bill. There is another question, the question of State rights. I believe that a government, by using this reference to external affairs, would be able to explore to the nth degree its ability to use any treaty to enlarge and enhance the powers that it already has as a federal government. I think that argument was put very well by Senator Crichton-Browne when he was talking about this point. He is reported in the Senate Hansard of 13 October as having said: This Government will seek to explore further and further the limits of its jurisdiction under the constitution with a view to gathering unto the Central Government more and more power at the expense of the individual States. . . . . . . . The brief history of this Government- he was referring to the Hawke Labor Government- has demonstrated an unbridled ambition to intrude by whatever means available into the traditional responsibilities of the States and this constitutional amendment can only greatly speed up and expedite that process. It ought to be noted that in the case of treaties it need not even be a matter that is before the Parliament. This is really a question of the Cabinet going straight to the High Court without any contemplation or consideration by either House of Parliament. I agree with those sentiments. I do not see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, shaking his head in the negative. I think he would find that to be a very attractive proposition. As the representative of a small State, I simply cannot tolerate that proposition. They are the two reasons why I believe that the original objections to this Bill have not been removed. By using a reference to a treaty the Government can interfere in the workings of this House. It can involve the High Court in our deliberations. Secondly, I believe that this would simply be another instrument that the Government could use to centralise its power in Canberra at the expense of the States. The only other point that I would make about the Constitution Alteration ( Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill relates to the attitude of the High Court. As I understand it the Chief Justice of the High Court, in an address entitled 'State of the Australian Judicature' in July 1983-I think it was delivered at a Brisbane law conference-made it clear that this proposal was neither necessary nor desirable in Australia. He made the following important point: Under the proposal made by the Constitutional Convention the court would be required to consider questions in the abstract, and possibly before the practical implications of the legislation had come to be fully understood. I have demonstrated that I believe that that comment still stands because of the provision in the Bill dealing with the implementation of any treaty and the ability of the Government to refer that to the High Court for an opinion. I will not take up any more of the time of the House. In summary, I oppose the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill because I believe that their enactment would be at the expense of the arrangements which presently exist between the States and the Commonwealth Government. I believe that they could erode the independence and proper functioning of State governments. As a member for Tasmania I resist that now. I hope that I will be able to join in the referendum debate to ensure that at least the people of Tasmania vote against this Bill if it happens to get through this House this afternoon. As to enlarging the terms of parliamentarians, whilst I can see merit in members of the House of Representatives being given a four-year term, I simply could not tolerate an unbridled term of eight years for a senator. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(5.30) —I support all the Bills that are currently before this House-the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill. I must say that I was extremely pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) have also supported these Bills. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has seen fit to oppose them. I feel that perhaps that has more to do with Tasmanian politics than with the logic of his argument. I wish first to address some of the points the honourable member for Bass made in his speech in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections ) Bill and the Bill providing for the four-year terms. I feel that these Bills bring a greater degree of democracy into this House. In particular, the simultaneous elections Bill addresses an anomaly in that system that could have the exact effect the honourable member for Bass raised. At present, if the Parliament is dissovled in December of a year and there is a half-Senate election in December of that year those senators who are elected do not take up their term of office until 1 July of the following year. One could have the situation arising of a democratically elected Senate not being in office. The previously elected senators, for reasons that may best be known to them, could actually frustrate the Government and act against the interests of the States they are supposed to represent. We always hear the argument that the Senate is a States House. Unfortunately, history has proved this not to be true. The Senate now divides almost continually on party lines. Party discipline in the Senate is as it is in this House. To call the Senate a States House is to belie the facts of what is happening. People who will oppose this referendum, I purport, are locked into the past. They do not accept the fact that the Constitution, as originally laid down, is subject to change. I am very pleased to say that over the last years there has been a tendency for Australians to accept more the need for change. Of the 83 referendums placed before the people of this country only eight have been successfully carried. Three of these were carried in 1977. I feel that this will happen more often. I have always supported the idea that a government should take the people into its confidence more often and that we should give the people an opportunity to express an opinion through referendum so that they too can have a direct say in the future of this nation. Secondly, I wish to turn my remarks to the proposal for a four-year term for this House. We must recognise that there are very few countries that have such a short term for their House of Representatives. We are one of only four countries to have a three-year term. Twenty-five other nations have a four-year term and 24 nations have a five-year term. I think it is important, and it has been said by previous speakers today, that the government of the day, no matter what its political persuasion, should have time to implement its program. If I happened to be where honourable members opposite are sitting I would still support this proposition. The Government needs time to implement its program. When a new government comes into office there is a learning process for its members. Many members of this Government, of course, are new to the Parliament and they have difficulty coming to terms with the atmosphere in which we work. Thankfully, we will have many years to get used to that. I am sure that after many years in this Parliament we will become experts. I feel that the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Bass do not have a great deal of logic in relation to this chamber. Like him, I have reservations about an eight-year term for a senator, especially when one considers the age of some of our current senators. Perhaps one way they might leave is by attrition rather than by an election. That is a question to which we must address ourselves in the future. I think we should have more accountability of senators to the people they represent. The people who elect senators do not elect them as individual States rights representatives. Senators are elected on a party ticket and they represent that party in the chamber. I feel that it is imperative that the Senate be accountable and that it should go to the people if it forces the House of Representatives to go to the people. The honourable member for Bass made further points about the eight-year term. But other democracies such as, say, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, have a five-year term. The House of Lords has a lifetime term. Very fortunately, that is not the case in Australia. We certainly do not believe in life peerages. But it is important that we get the support of the majority of Australians. The simultaneous elections Bill brought forward in 1977 by a government formed from the parties represented by honourable members opposite received some 60 per cent of the support of the Australian people. It was very unfortunate that only 48.5 per cent of the people in my home State saw fit to support the Bill. That was, therefore, one of the reasons it was defeated. I am sure that with the support of a new Keith Wright led Labor government in Queensland a majority of people will support this Bill and that it will be passed not only by a majority of Australians but also in a majority of States. I feel that the other proposals put forward represent necessary changes to the Constitution. I think that perhaps for those people who support most a Federal system, these changes will have a great effect on it. The Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Act will have the effect of being able to allow the States and the Commonwealth, in a realistic way, to interchange those powers that are best suited to a State or Federal government. As has been pointed out, in the past many problems have arisen when the Commonwealth has wished to pass powers back to the States and has been unable to do so. I certainly believe that if we are going to have a very strong and vibrant Federal system there should be ability for both the Federal and State Houses to be able to put forward propositions whereby the interchange of power can take place. I think the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill is a logical extension of our current system. However, it is important that we be able to get views on complicated legislation that has gone through this House which could be subject to challenge by the High Court of Australia. This Bill will save unnecessary expense and, we hope, provide a more efficient system of government. In conclusion I wish to return to the first two proposals before us today. I ask all honourable members to support these propositions earnestly as I feel that they will present us with an opportunity to turn the operation of this chamber into a much more democratic system. I would have supported the fixed year terms. Unfortunately, that is not to be the case. I think these Bills represent a very viable alternative to that original proposal. With the passage of these proposals we will have fewer elections. Initially the cost savings will be substantial. We will have more accountability of government and more accountability of the Senate. I do not wish to prolong this debate as many more people wish to take part. I commend these Bills to the House. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.39) —I enter the debate today dealing with the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill. Whenever the Constitution is considered by the Parliament it is important that there be adequate discussion and debate. I think we should welcome people who might have a contrary point of view so that the arguments can be brought forward to enable the people to make a judgment on what they believe is in the best interests of their central government. The Constitution is that legal document or charter that enabled the six States of Australia to unify and to have central government. The Constitution defines quite clearly and precisely how the government will be elected and constructed and the sovereign powers that are referred to it by the State governments. It is a precious document. It defines the working of our democracy. Anything that is likely to change or alter that document needs very close perusal. In my experience, the Australian people have been very cautious about any changes. Most referendum questions have been lost. Therefore, it is important that when the Government goes before the people adequate and convincing explanations are given to support what is being done. If there were not people in the Parliament to put up a counter point of view-I do not intend to put up a counter point of view-one would not have a document prepared for the No case. If everybody here agreed, I think that the Australian people would be deprived of being able to analyse quite clearly what it all meant. Whilst my colleague from Bass has been criticised mildly by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall), I think he did the nation a service by speaking up and putting his point of view-clearly the point of view of the people of a small State, Tasmania. As far as these Constitution alteration Bills are concerned, I have to say quite honestly that I am lukewarm to them. I know that there are merits in them and that there is justification for altering the Constitution. The Labor Government brought forward a series of alterations, and one of them included a fixed term for Parliament. Fortunately, that proposal is not being presented to us, it has been withdrawn. Had the Government continued with that proposal, I can assure honourable members that it would have been very vigorously opposed by me and by the Opposition. That proposal would have altered very substantially what we know as the Westminster system of Parliament under which we have traditionally operated in this country. The Government saw that the Opposition's emerging arguments were unassailable, wisdom prevailed, and the Bill did not come forward. I am lukewarm about these Bills because I find it difficult to see the justification for bringing them forward at this time and for having a referendum next February. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), when he was speaking about the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, supported the case that the provisions would avoid inconvenience and reduce costs and that we would have fewer elections. It is inconsistent to bring forward a single referendum costing the taxpayers of this country something like $15m to $20m when it is not really necessary. There is no urgency about any of these Bills. The referendum could be held when the next Federal election takes place or, probably more appropriately, with the half Senate election that will take place some time before July 1985. It would have been very appropriate for these referendum questions to be considered during a Senate election, which is generally a fairly low key election. There does not seem to be the attitude of thriftiness needed by the government to save $17m to $18m, or maybe more, by having the referendum campaign with the Senate election. The fact that the Government is bringing forward the referendum displays its priorities in regard to constitutional change. As I said, none of these changes are of immediate importance or urgency. All they really do is help the Government. They do not really help the people immediately. There are big problems in the Australian community. I would have thought that in the economic circumstances of today, when we have such massive unemployment and all the signs of it getting worse, we might be addressing ourselves more to constitutional questions that attack some of these very great problems. Certainly, one constitutional issue ought to be addressed immediately. That issue results from the High Court case in regard to the Franklin Dam. We now know that the central Government, with its external affairs powers, by entering into international treaties virtually has unlimited power to usurp the authority of the States. That decision radically changes the balance of power between the States and the central government. Whilst that situation of uncertainty remains there will be great anxiety and division within the Australian community, certainly between the States and the Commonwealth. The matter ought to be clarified. There ought to be a referendum put to the people defining quite clearly what the central government's powers should be in relation to the external affairs power. The wide-open power which it has now totally undermines the authority of the States, or at least can be used to undermine the authority of the States. I also believe that there is an urgent need to consider the industrial relations powers. The restriction on the Commonwealth's legislative power for the operation of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are most obvious. The limited powers of the Commission to deal only with disputes of an interstate character make it impossible for it to deal adequately with the industrial troubles we suffer in this country. Being able to make decisions which relate only to the prevention and settlement of disputes again limits the authority and direction of this great body, which is supposed to be handling industrial troubles in this country. The previous Government brought forward proposals to put before the people at the last election, but this Government seems to have ignored the need to do something in these areas. A number of constitutional convention committees have been set up as a result of the Australian Constitutional Convention that was held in South Australia. These committees are working on a number of constitutional proposals. I should have thought that the Government would have waited until it had ascertained the reaction of these committees, instead of just going ahead with a number of parliamentary-type alterations to the Constitution. The parliamentary alterations are the most significant alterations which are before us. In dealing with some of these issues, let me first of all talk about the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, which I support. I believe that there ought to be a longer term for the House of Representatives-an increase from three to four years-although I think it is a very marginal question. I do not think it is an issue of great relevance and certainly does not warrant having a special referendum next February. I find it very hard to digest the proposal that we extend the term of the Senate from six to eight years. Eight years is a very long time indeed, and I think that in the course of the referendum campaign many questions will be asked by the Australian people as to whether an alteration to elect senators into a position free from accountability to the people for eight years is really warranted. Because the Government is proposing to increase the term of Parliament for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, I think it is also fitting that we look at the issue of simultaneous elections. The justification for simultaneous elections, if we extend the term of Parliament, becomes greater . I have always felt that the proposal for simultaneous elections was sensible and is one that the people of Australia should have passed on previous occasions . The arguments are quite clear. Simultaneous elections reduce the necessity for split elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Quite frankly, I do not believe single Senate elections, in which I have participated, are really healthy elections. I do not believe people really come to grips with the issues of the day. They are very much second-rate elections. They are not emotional elections. Indeed, it is hard to get people interested. The low level of polling during half Senate election campaigns is an indication of the lack of support and interest that the people generally have in that sort of election. I believe that a Senate election held at the same time as a House of Representatives election reflects more truly the expression of the people. A strong argument used against simultaneous elections is that the Executive or the Prime Minister of the day might use the threat of taking the Senate out as a means of getting support from the Senate. I do not really hold with that as a strong argument. It is an argument which can be justifiably used but, under our present Constitution, the Prime Minister, by putting legislation before the Senate, knowing that the Senate may not like it, can create the circumstances for a double dissolution and, having done that, can call out the whole Senate. I believe also that the Senate should be accountable for any action it takes in stifling the operations of the Parliament or the government of the day. If the Senate were to block Supply there is no redress on the Senate unless double dissolution Bills are before the Parliament. The Senate could force the House of Representatives to an election without going itself. Whilst some senators argue that the Prime Minister should not have the right to take out half the Senate at the same time as the House of Representatives, I do not think the Senate should have the right either of sending the House of Representatives to the people without going itself. This is a sensible proposal which should be supported by the Australian people. I probably feel more strongly about this proposal than any of the others. The Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill is worthy of support. It makes for the better working of government. The interchange of powers has to be on a co-operative basis with the States. If there is some confusion or if there is duplication of authority between the States and the Commonwealth, an overlapping of powers, it makes good sense to get the States to do the work of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth to do the work of a State. It has to be a voluntary arrangement. It can be done on a State by State basis if a State is referring power to the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is referring a power to the States, the power has to apply to all States and all States have to be in agreement. That proposal is sound and will make for better working of government . But again there is no urgency for it and it hardly justifies the expenditure of $17m or $18m on a referendum next year when that referendum could be incorporated with a Senate election or a House of Representatives election. The Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill is one which many members of the Opposition have had great reservations about. Indeed, I have had reservations about whether we ought to be using the High Court as a judicial and virtually a legislative authority which we would be doing by giving it advisory power. But now that the Government has brought forward the amendment that was put up in the Senate, that any referral has to be by parliamentary Act, I believe much more dignity will be given to any referral for consideration by the High Court. The amendment will enable the referral to be debated and it will enable the Parliament to decide whether the referral will be passed to the High Court. With the alteration that has been made to Labor's original proposal, I think that Bill can be supported too. The last Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expanded Provisions) Bill, provides merely a tidying-up of the Constitution. The wording and provisions of the Constitution are outdated. It is perhaps over time that we looked at this. The Bill contains many minor changes. They are not changes of any substance but they will make the Constitution much more readable and understandable for people and will be more in conformity with today's circumstances. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: This legislation hardly warrants the spending of $17m or $18m on a special referendum next year. It is unfortunate that the Government has given these Bills the priority it has. I would like it to be looking at constitutional matters of much greater substance and of much more immediate importance. It would have done much better and would have gained the respect of the Australian people had it addressed the questions causing concern, such as the external powers, by defining quite clearly the powers it wants the central government to have. The States would then have no uncertainty as to where the authority lies. I would like it to be looking much more closely at the industrial laws of this country to strengthen the operations of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is a mockery that today the Commission cannot enforce the awards it gives, yet we operate under those circumstances. However, if that is what the Government wants, it will have to answer to the Australian people. Certainly many projects to help the unemployed could be instituted for the expenditure of $17m or $18m, the cost of this referendum campaign. I give my tacit support to all these constitutional amendments. None of them excites me. None of them warrants any sense of urgency. I hope that the Australian people will exercise clear and careful judgment and will look at all the arguments. I will certainly be putting forward the arguments in support of them. Debate (on motion by Mr Snow) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 1 November 1983, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —I move: That for the sitting of the House on Tuesday, 1 November 1983, so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent orders of the day, Government Business, being called on before questions without notice, which shall be called on at 3 p.m. Might I say by way of brief explanation that it is well known throughout Australia that on the first Tuesday in November there is a certain event in Melbourne called the Melbourne Cup. Mr Cowan —Is the Prime Minister going to run? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He would win it if he did. There has been some suggestion that we should not have Question Time at the same time as that event, which I understand is 2.40 p.m. I am not easily persuaded because one can still view the race later in the day, but we will cater for the requests from those who want to see it live, which I understand came from both sides of the House. Accordingly, we will be dealing with Government Business between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. and Question Time will be at 3 o'clock. Mr Anthony —Why don't you put off the business? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. There are some very urgent matters which honourable members who are not interested in the other event will want to discuss. This will give them a chance to do that and help the national Parliament-- Mr Anthony —Will it prevent quorums being called in that period? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know. I remember when I was a member of a previous government-of course, that has not happened to me very often-that on one occasion Mr Kelly, who used to be known as the modest member, guaranteed that we all came into the House because he called for a quorum to be formed. Mr Anthony —I remember that. That is why I asked the question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I just want to remind the honourable member that Mr Kelly was on his side. I do not think there is anything more to add. The Parliament will function as usual except that Question Time will be delayed by one hour. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(6.01) —I will say a few words in response to the contribution by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). It is true, as the saying goes, that there are horses for courses. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) might perform better running in the Melbourne Cup than he performs in the House. I am afraid that his performance here more often than not leaves a great deal to be desired. Mr Anthony —But he does not have the staying power for the Melbourne Cup. He is only a sprinter. Mr SINCLAIR —His stamina might be found to be wanting. I suspect that we will find that out next time we go to the polls. I do not think anybody would expect the aberation of that short term 70 per cent popularity result to survive very long. After all, I suspect that many people do not know him as well as we do, and I suspect that members of Caucus might progressively be getting to know him even better. We accept the changes put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister. However, I believe that a number of members would prefer not be present between about 2.30 and 3 p.m. The adjustments suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister would seem to meet the convenience of most members. I trust that, whether or not there is a quorum a sufficient number of members will attend in the House to enable the proceedings of the Parliament to continue in spite of that other event. The obvious problem for the future does not so much concern the events of that day. The sitting hours should be arranged so that they reasonably meet the requirements of most members. I have raised separately with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility of some coincidence of school holidays around Australia with the weeks when the Parliament is not sitting. I know that the Minister is seeking to accommodate that wish. Obviously, there are difficulties because school holidays occur at different times in different States. But many members would like the opportunity during the year to spend some part of the school holidays with their families. I trust that it might be possible for those arrangements to be made. The Opposition does not object to the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters)(6. 04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the 'no work as directed, no pay provisions' in the Public Service Act and certain statutory authority legislation. These provisions were introduced by the former Government in 1980 in respect of the Public Service and six Commonwealth authorities: The Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Service and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission . Introduction of these provisions followed a period of industrial disputation over pay and conditions and a decision by the New South Wales Supreme Court in what became known as Bennett's case, which overturned the accepted view that under common law provisions, Commonwealth employing authorities were able to withhold pay from staff refusing to carry out the full range of their duties. The Supreme Court held that the common law rights of employers to implement the no work as directed no pay principle had no operation in the Commonwealth employment area because the Public Service Act and Regulations established a detailed and exclusive code of employment between the Commonwealth Government and its employees. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980 empowered the Public Service Board and specified authorities to declare that staff who fail to comply with an authorised direction relating to the performance of their duties are not to be paid salary. Such declaration remains in force until the Board or authority is satisfied that the employee has complied with its directions. No appeal mechanism was provided in the legislation against management decisions and the Act specifically prohibited the making of awards or determinations by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator which were inconsistent with the provisions of the legislation. The justification for such legislation was to give the Commonwealth rights which, according to the then Minister, applied generally to employers in the private sector. In reality, however, the legislation placed Commonwealth employers in a different position to private sector employers. The common law rights of private employers to exercise no work as directed no pay powers are not clear cut, particularly where employment is covered by an award of an industrial tribunal. For example, in 1980-the same year as the decision in Bennett's case-the Full Bench of the Federal Court held in what became known as Gapes case that this power was not available to a major banking company as it was not consistent with the award concerned. It is therefore clear that in the private sector, the ability of employers to apply the no work as directed no pay principle is constrained by the terms of applicable awards. In essence, then, this legislation created a situation where the then Government provided itself with sanctions against its own employees which were not necessarily available to all sections of the private sector and in addition it put itself in the position where its powers could not be overridden by a decision of an industrial tribunal. This legislation was only one of a number of instances in which the former Government singled out its own employees for overly harsh treatment in the industrial arena. Prior to the 1980 legislation the Government had passed the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, allowing for the stand down, suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action. In 1979 the Government attempted to sanction unions involved in disputes by withdrawing facilities for the payroll deduction of union dues. The former Government also prohibited recourse to arbitration in respect of management decisions under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. This Government rejects such a confrontationist approach towards its own employees. The existence of legislation of this kind has acted against the development of improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. Rather than encouraging a sound working relationship, such punitive legislation and action has actually led to a marked deterioration in employer-employee relations . The statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions commits the Government to a number of measures to meet its objective of improved industrial relations. In particular, the ALP undertook in the accord to adopt, and encourage other employers to adopt, a less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. Among other things this involved the encouragement of dispute settlement through conciliation without recourse to legislative or common law sanctions. More specifically, the ALP undertook to take steps to bring about a better industrial relations environment in the public sector. This Bill is a substantial step in that direction. In conjunction with the other Bills which I am introducing, the Government is now moving to repeal the confrontationist legislation enacted by the previous Government and to create a more rational industrial relations atmosphere in the public sector. Abolition of the legislative no work as directed no pay provisions is consistent with the Government's objective that Australian government employees should be treated in a manner consistent with employees in the private sector. It should be clear that these amendments do not mean that the Government does not have access to no work as directed no pay if such action is necessary where unions institute bans and limitations. We propose to remove the right of management to impose such action unilaterally. It is appropriate that Commonwealth employers who desire to take staff off pay in dispute situations should have to seek authority to take such action within the context of an award or determination of the appropriate arbitral authority. This provides an opportunity for the views of all parties to be considered and is a far more acceptable process than the unilateral exercise by management of no work as directed no pay provisions. It is highly desirable that exercise of such a power in an industrial dispute be sanctioned by an independent arbitral tribunal which has considered the full facts of the case. I propose to indicate to the ACTU, and public sector unions, that this action is being taken by the Government in the interests of developing more harmonious relations in the Commonwealth employment sector. Consequently the Government would expect Commonwealth employees and their unions to reciprocate by seeking to resolve their claims or grievances through the established machinery, including access to the arbitral authorities. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters)(6. 10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to restore the pre-1981 jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and other relevant arbitral bodies to make determinations and awards in relation to the redeployment or termination of employment of Commonwealth staff to whom the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act applies. Upon the election of the Fraser Government in 1975 the issues of redeployment and retrenchment of surplus staff increased in prominence. Previously existing guidelines for application to redundancy situations in Commonwealth employment generally were formalised by the making of Determination 509 of 1977 by the Public Service Arbitrator. That Determination applies to the greater part of Commonwealth employment and provides for advice to be provided to staff organisations where a redundancy situation is likely to occur for appropriate notice periods to be given of impending redundancy and of transfer or termination of employment. The Determination also provides for income maintenance, depending on age and length of service of the employee involved. Further to these provisions, the former Government saw a need to extend the redeployment and retirement provisions of the Public Service Act and other Commonwealth legislation. Consequently, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1979. It was proclaimed to come into effect in February 1981. The CE (RR) Act provides a framework for the redeployment and retirement of Commonwealth employees on the grounds of excess numbers, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or loss of essential qualifications. Apart from the compulsory retirement provisions, the Act also provides for the voluntary retirement of staff from age 55 and imposes a maximum retirement age of 65. The Act applies to the Australian Public Service and is administered by the Public Service Board. Statutory authorities not staffed under the Public Service Act can come under the CE (RR) provisions on request. Staff organisations strongly opposed provisions of the legislation, particularly those which they saw as giving the Government unprecedented rights to sack its employees. Following extensive industrial disputation, during which they were exhorted by the former Prime Minister and other Ministers to take their case to arbitration, the staff organisations lodged an application with the Public Service Arbitrator. This application sought a determination providing for, among other things, procedures for consultation with staff organisations and minimum time to be observed before staff could be declared as eligible for redeployment. In December 1979, a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decided that a determination should be made which preserved the main features of Determination 509 of 1977. This decision had the effect of first, defining the nature of consultations with staff organisations before declarations were made under the Act; secondly, delaying by three months the declaration of staff for redeployment; thirdly, removing the scope for varying the times between the issue of notice and acting to transfer to a lower level or to terminate employment; and fourthly, giving preference in retention to staff organisations. A determination to reflect this decision was subsequently made by the Arbitrator -Determination 503 of 1980. The then Government considered that this Determination altered the intention of the Parliament in passing the CE (RR) Act, notwithstanding that section 24 of the Act quite expressly provided for the arbitration tribunals to make determinations inconsistent with the Act. The Determination was disallowed in Parliament on 11 March 1981 and on 14 April-even though the unions had been urged in the first place to take their grievances to arbitration-amendments were made to exclude redeployment and termination of employment matters from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is those amendments that we now propose to reverse. The restoration of the pre-1981 jurisdiction would be consistent with our objectives of improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. The matters which would be restored to the jurisdiction of the tribunals are entirely appropriate for determination by them. With the repeal, disputes over these issues will be capable of being fully dealt with by an independent industrial tribunal. The opportunity will, of course, be available for the Board and other relevant bodies to argue that the tribunal should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. Restoration of arbitral jurisdiction will not, however, complete the Government 's consideration of possible changes to the CE (RR) Act. As well as providing for redeployment and retirement action in the case of excess numbers and for physical or mental incapacity, the Act also provides for regulations to be made prescribing other reasons for redeployment and retirement. Following the consultations required by the Act a regulation was made in November 1982 prescribing inefficiency and loss of an essential qualification as reasons for redeployment and retirement. It is the Government's view that the retention of an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost essential qualifications is critical to the effective operation of the Public Service. However, the provisions contained in this regulation are extensive and go considerably further than previous such provisions. Staff organisations have been especially critical of this regulation. Consequently, a review will be held into those areas of the Act which deal with management initiated early retirement. This review will be conducted by a working group comprising representatives of the Public Service Board, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Professional Associations. At the conclusion of the review, which I envisage being early 1984, I will receive a report from the working party concerning possible amendments to the Act. Pending this review, the Public Service Board has, at the Government's request, advised that it will not take action to implement the provisions of the regulation. I must stress, however, the Government's commitment to an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost an essential qualification. It is the Government' s intention that the review should be conducted in this light and should be directed at the best means of establishing such a system. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters)(6. 18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals with an important aspect of the Government's industrial relations platform in relation to Australian Government employees. It seeks the repeal of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977. The CE ( EP) Act was introduced in haste by the Fraser Government in 1977 but was not brought into operation until 1979 as a response to a dispute between Telecom Australia and the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. Basically , the Act provides, subject to ministerial direction, for the direct suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action, or the direct standing down of Commonwealth employees affected by the industrial action , without reference by the employing authority to any industrial tribunal. The direct powers conferred on Commonwealth employing authorities by the CE (EP ) Act are not only provocative but unnecessary. It has always been open to these bodies to apply to the Public Service Arbitrator under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 or to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for the right to suspend or stand down employees engaging in, or affected by, industrial action. The Government believes this approach to be the best way for Commonwealth employing authorities to be empowered to stand down staff in dispute situations. An application to an industrial tribunal provides an opportunity for the views of all parlties to be considered and is a far more acceptable process than the unilateral exercise by management of the CE (EP) Act provisions, which provide no right of appeal nor avenue of redress other than under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which effectively only allows a review on matters of law and not on the merits of the decision. The Government does not consider it appropriate that as an employer it should have statutory powers of the type found in the CE (EP) Act which are not available to employers in the private sector. The Government's belief is that in industrial disputes employers who wish to have the power to suspend or stand down employees engaging in or affected by industrial action should not object to making out a case before an independent tribunal. In this respect, honourable members might note what the Committee on Freedom of Association of the International Labour Organisation had to say about the CE (EP) Act in its 187th report of November 1978. That Committee criticised the fact that the legislation could be invoked at the Government's discretion without the exhaustion of dispute settlement procedures, and expressed concern that there was no effective review of action taken against the employees. The Committee also stated that it was not convinced that legislation imposing punitive sanctions on public employees on account of their involvement in various forms of industrial action was either necessary or desirable. The Act has been used on nine occasions and on each occasion there was widespread opposition from Australian Government employees. Clearly the existence of legislation of this type acts against improved employer and employee relationships. In this respect I might indicate to the House that there is still a large number of actions before the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act brought by Commonwealth employees challenging the validity of their suspensions under the CE (EP) Act during the department staffing dispute of the Department of Social Security in 1981. These actions were based on claims of denial of natural justice. Negotiations between the Public Service Board and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association are still continuing on these actions. The rights of the individuals concerned will not be affected by the repeal of the CE (EP) Act. The National Labour Consultative Council has been consulted about the repeal of the CE (EP) Act and does not oppose that action. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.22 to 8 p.m. North Queensland-Rural Australia-Real Estate Investment-Uranium and Asbestos Mining: Health and Safety of Workers-Primary Industry-Queensland Election- Occupational Health and Safety-Aboriginal Affairs-School Cadet Corps-Education Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(8.0) —In the short time available to me this evening I should like to draw to the attention of honourable members, be their number small, the people of far north Queensland, and all the people of Australia, some of the difficulties and problems that have existed in far north Queensland under successive conservative Federal governments and under 26 years of the reign of what one could only describe as the National Party Government in Queensland. Certainly it cannot be called a coalition government because the National Party has ruled for the past 26 years to the detriment of the people of far north Queensland. This evening I will have time to speak only on some aspects. These are the problems in relation to transport and roads in far north Queensland and the problems of the indigenous people, the Aboriginals and the Islanders of that region. It is clear that under successive Federal coalition conservative governments and under the regime of the National Party in Queensland, the Aborigines, the Islanders and the other inhabitants of far north Queensland have suffered. I deal first with the aspect of roads and transport in far north Queensland. It is an area of vast distance. It is an area that is sadly lacking in roads and transport. In the 1982-83 Budget-I am referring now to Budget Paper No. 7- delivered in August 1982 provision was made for roads. On page 66 of that document under the heading 'Special Payments to Victoria, Queensland and South Australia for Transport', the then Treasurer had this to say: The Commonwealth is to make special payments totalling $65 million to Victoria, Queensland and South Australia in 1982-83 for transport purposes. Of this amount , Victoria is to receive $35 million (the last of two equal payments) and South Australia $10 million for upgrading their transportation systems, and Queensland is to receive $20 million for upgrading the State's northern roads and transportation system. I repeat: . . . $20 million for upgrading the State's northern roads and transportation system. It is an undeniable and unfortunate fact that none of that $20m was spent in north Queensland. From recent communication with the Minister for Main Roads, Mr Hinze, it has become abundantly clear that, of that $20m, $10m was spent in the electrification of the railway system in the metropolitan area of Brisbane. The other $10m, if it has not been stolen, was certainly misappropriated. As I have said, it is an unfortunate fact that, once again the people of far north Queensland, the people who reside in this remote area of Australia, were completely disregarded. Once again, it is a most unfortunate fact that in this year's allocation from the Queensland Treasury bench Queensland receives the miserly amount of $1.3m for the upgrading and development of the Gulf development road. This is a critical road for the system and for our industry in far north Queensland. Along that road the primary production of that part of northern Australia is transported. A miserly amount of $1.8m has been allocated for the peninsula development road. Lesser amounts of $1.6m and $1.3m have been allocated for the Kennedy and Palmerston highways. All are important and integral highways within that system in the far north of Australia. Mr Hinze has made it clear to the people of Queensland and to the people of the far north that this year the Queensland Government, or the National Party regime , has seen fit to increase road funding by 21 per cent. One would think that there would be some joy in such an announcement, but when in the cold light of day, one looks at the facts, one finds little joy at all. Once again the National Party regime is pork-barrelling the south-east corner of Queensland in a quest to do over the Liberals, its former coalition partners, and to at least attempt to become more than the minority government it now is. Mr Hinze has said that road funding will increase by 21 per cent in far north Queensland. He failed to point out to the people of far north Queensland that the Hawke Government saw fit to increase the Federal allocation to the Queensland Government for road funding by a mammoth 45.8 per cent. It is an unfortunate fact that, once again, the National Party regime in Queensland has forgotten the north, has forgotten the difficulties people have in relation to transport and highways. It is nothing short of a disgrace. Roads that are referred to as highways are mere tracks in the bush in the remote areas of that far-flung part of Australia. The only statistics the Queensland Government keeps are the number of accidents that motorists have because of the inadequacy of those roads. It is a common fact that around Georgetown and Normanton at least four or five cars are smashed, rolled or written off each week because of the inadequacies of these tracks that one certainly could not refer to as highways. It is with some disgust that we hear of the allocation of these miserly amounts to upgrade, for example, the peninsula development road. That road extends for something like 500 or 600 kilometres, and most of it is a track. For example, the very prosperous town of Weipa, which is on the Gulf of Carpenteria, can be reached for only six months of the year and then only by four-wheel drive vehicle. The State Government or, as I have referred to it, the National Party regime, has seen fit to allocate $1.8m for the upgrading of that road. That would be barely enough to take a team out there to set up work on this very important national highway. Unfortunately, it is the same story in relation to the gulf development road; the road on which $35m worth of export seafoods are transported each year from the Gulf of Carpentaria. An amount of $1.3m has been allocate for that purpose- once again, an infinitesimal amount. That will not be enough to do another five kilometres of that road, which extends for 700 kilometres. It is a fact that pork-barrelling is going on in the south-eastern corner of Queensland, which has the majority of the seats that are crucial to the National Party regime on 22 October. It is most unfortunate that I have so little time to devote to the next matter; that is, the utter neglect by the National Party of the Aboriginal and Island people in the far north of Queensland. The actions of the authoritarian director , who has been spoken of in this House in recent times, have been an utter disgrace to the welfare of and the wellbeing of the Aboriginal and Island people . I applaud and commend the action of the Federal Government only this week in paying back-pay to the people of the Torres Strait Islanders' regiment. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(8.10) —I welcome the opportunity to address the House in the griveance debate tonight to bring to the attention of the House and of the Government two points of major concern to rural Australia. The first point that brings me to my feet is a matter raised by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) in a notice of motion yesterday. The honourable member for Calare in his notice of motion brought to the attention of the House the recovery that it is anticipated will occur in rural Australia following the drought-breaking rains. His notice of motion contained information that has already been announced by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The honourable member's notice of motion, in part, states: That this House- (1) notes that the latest information from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecasts that the net value of rural production in the 1983-84 financial year is expected to increase by 107 per cent in real terms to $4,450m . . . The honourable member for Calare effectively brought to the attention of the House the fact that economic recovery in Australia will occur in electorates such as Forrest, Wannon and Wakefield, and that the way in which voters in those electorates respond to the drought-breaking rains will enable other Australians to be a part of that economic recovery. My plea to the Government tonight is a plea for a recognition of the productivity and the competitiveness that is part of rural Australia. I say to the Government: 'For heaven's sake, do not interfere with what is happening in rural Australia but show some economic responsibility'. All that farmers ask of their Government is an opportunity to be competitive. I point out to the Government that the 10 per cent devaluation that was announced following the election was welcomed by all exporters, at this point, but the effect of that devaluation has been eroded by the way in which the Australian dollar has firmed up. In fact if we look at the trade weighted exchange rates in our wheat and beef exports to the United States of America we will see that all that we gained as a result of the devaluation has been lost. If we look at our wool exports to Europe-those exports that are made in Deutsche marks-we will see that because of the relative index between the Australian dollar and the Deutsche mark, wool exporters are 4 per cent worse off than they were at the time of devaluation. I plead with the Government to learn a lesson from experience. In the early 1970s the monetary policy of this nation cost farmers up to 10 per cent of what was expected to be a rural recovery. The kindest thing the Govenment can do for rural Australia or for any Australian exporting group is to ensure that inflation is brought under control. Our competitors principally have inflation rates of 3 to 4 per cent. We are still suffering from inflation at or near double digit levels. The reality is that any check on our current inflation rate that is occuring is occuring as a result of the Fraser Government wage freeze. Even the pseudo fall in inflation that may follow the implementation of Medicare will not give farmers the competitive edge that only responsible economic management can ensure. I want the Government to recognise that its principal responsibility is fiscal responsibility. All that was said in the House today about $270m no longer being available to the Australian Treasury because of the action taken in the Senate is not as significant as the Government would have us believe. It may be regrettable; it may be undefendable-if I were to be generous-but $270m is still floating around in Australia creating jobs. What is much more significant is that we have that sort of economic management that brings inflation under control. The second point I bring to the attention of the Parliament tonight is the need for rural Australia to be offered and ensured even more effective quarantine procedures than we currently have. I was disappointed that, during the Estimates debates, particularly the debate concerning the estimates for the Department of Health, no one chose to address comments to the matter of quarantine, and particularly plant quarantine which is so important to Australian rural industry . I noted in the work I did in preparation for a speech on the estimates for the Department of Health, which I was unable to give because I had leave from the House, that the funds allocated by the Government for a quarantine publicity program had fallen by 72.5 per cent; that is, from $676,000 to $186,000. it is ironical that the Government should take this sort of action in light of the success that followed the publicity campaign that was a part of the Fraser Government's strategy in 1980. I note that the honourable member for Warringah ( Mr MacKellar) who sits on the Opposition front bench, surveyed the strategy for publicity that occurred as a result of the quarantine promotion. He reported as follows: Recall of quarantine information among travelling Australians had increased from 45% in 1980 to 70%; Declarations by travellers on solely quarantine matters increased 16%; For all travellers seizure by quarantine officers of declared or undeclared material for destruction or treatment fell by 21% for animal products and 14% for plant products; For Australian residents a drop of 46% from the 1979 levels in the number of cases where seizure of animal products was necessary; A reduction of 58% in seizures of meat and meat products; A reduction of near 50% in milk products seizures; For Australian citizens large falls recorded for edible fresh produce 46%; edible dry produce 35%; seeds for sowing 41%; nursery stock 33% and all plant products combined 25%. That was the result of the publicity campaign announced and implemented by the former Government and highlighted by the well known conservation figure, Mr Harry Butler. I wish to stress the importance of quarantine and quarantine awareness to agricultural Australia. The truth is that the present threat to Australia in the area of animal products or human disease has been very much lessened as a result of the excellent facilities which we have on the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands and the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong . The real threat to Australian agriculture today now exists through the possibility of unwanted plant material being brought into Australia. The real changes that have occurred in Australian horticulture in particular have been in relation to plant propagation. The emergence of the tissue culture industry has meant that it is time for our quarantine authorities to look again at the way in which they supervise quarantine procedures. The jojoba industry alone brings in enormous quantities of plants, of which only random numbers are sampled. The truth of the matter is that random sampling still leaves at risk enormous areas of Australia's native vegetation. The threat of imported disease is a threat not only to Australia's primary production but also to Australia's environment and its native flora. Everyone knows that what has made Australia a great country has been its enormous coastline and its isolation as an island. Australia is a very difficult country to monitor in respect of quarantine because its coastline is so extensive. The distance from Geraldton to Cairns is only a half of the distance of the total Australian coastline. It is difficult to monitor, without adequate quarantine and improved quarantine facilities, just what plant material is reaching our shores. There is an urgency, in the interests not only of Australia 's primary producers but also in the interests of our native flora, in us having improved quarantine facilities and quarantine monitoring. I make that point to the Parliament. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.20) —It was in 1922 that Hudson Fysh and P. J. McGuinness first secured a mail contract for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Ltd. The contract required a regular schedule of services between Charleville, Longreach and Cloncurry in north Queensland. The first passenger on the 310 mile Longreach to Cloncurry sector was an 87-year-old grazier named Alexander Kennedy. Excited by the idea of an air service, he had become one of the earliest investors in Qantas. At the end of the 4 1/2 hour flight, Kennedy recalled that when he had first made the same trip 53 years earlier in an ox cart it had taken eight months. The faith and loyalty of Alexander Kennedy and other north Queensland people in Qantas was evident, even at that time. Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service Ltd was sustained by the people of North Queensland during the company's infant years. The company extended its operations, and Townsville became one of the ports for the airline' s flying boat services from Australia to South East Asia in the 1940s. However, the growth of international air traffic in the 1960s and 1970s was concentrated in the capital cities funnelling international visitors into the golden triangle of south-eastern Australia. North Queenslanders welcomed the interest shared by the Whitlam Government in the introduction of international services to Townsville. Progress was stalled when the Fraser Government came to power. As an alderman of the Townsville City Council, I was deeply concerned at the slow down of the local economy in the second half of the 1970s. With this in mind I was instrumental in the establishment in 1979 of the North Queensland Airports Development Council, comprising parliamentary, tourist and local government representatives, with the prime objective of upgrading airport facilities and initiating international flights into north Queensland. Our vigorous lobbying produced results. Ansett Airlines of Australia, under its new management, showed interest in flying from Townsville to South East Asia, a move which precipitated the Qantas Airways Ltd decision to begin flights into Townsville with Boeing 747SP aircraft from February 1981. But central to all planning for tourist development was the decision by the Bjelke-Petersen Government to award one of its two casino licences to the Breakwater casino project promoted by the Thiess family company, Drayton Investments Pty Ltd. Amidst much ballyhoo, the Queensland Government successfully enticed many investors to Townsville and there lay a foundation for a tourism infrastructure to meet the expected demand of international visitors and casino patrons. Furthermore, a group of enterprising local Townsville citizens proposed a project of breathtaking attraction. This was the Reef World Project to be located at Townsville and to house living coral reef and other facilities to enable people to see at first hand the variety and beauty of coral reefs. With the casino decision confidence surged through the Townsville community hard hit by the recession. Significant investment followed in residential and commercial property. Investment plans were made for ancillary services such as hotels, motels, apartment blocks, marinas, restaurants and vessels. Some were purely speculative, but the majority were genuine and often imaginative proposals to provide the infrastructure for a major tourist industry. Almost three years have passed since the casino project was first promised. In that time more than $100m in value of completed tourist infrastructure and building has occurred in the Townsville region. These Australian investors took Qantas at its word that Townsville would be the entry and departure point for its international services to northern Australia. They accepted without question the firm assurances of the State Government that the casino project would be located at Townsville. Many honourable members will be aware of what followed the Queensland Government decision. Month after month a start to the casino was promised. Deadline succeeded deadline. Nothing happened. It has been a saga of dithering and deceit-dithering to a degree unusal even for that monumentally incompetent government in Brisbane; deceit because at no point has the Townsville community or the City Council been fully apprised of the situation. Numerous ancillary projects are also stalled. With much fanfare the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation announced a $300m resort development at Florence Bay on Magnetic Island. Nothing of substance has been heard now for many months. Meanwhile business confidence has seeped away. Investment made on the promise of early development has withered. Since the announcement by Qantas that Townsville will no longer be, as and from March next year, the entry and departure point of its service to northern Australia, these Australian citizens feel betrayed by Qantas and conned by the Bjelke-Petersen regime. They will certainly view their future role in north Queensland tourism as coming to an end. For, given their experiences at the hands of Qantas and the Bjelke-Petersen Government, how much further trust can they place on the decision by Qantas-encouraged by the State Government-that Cairns will be the major entry and departure point of its services to northern Australia. Should this decision by Qantas not be rescinded, more than 250,000 people in the Townsville-Mackay-Mount Isa region will never forget their experiences at the hands of Qantas and the Bjelke-Petersen Government. North Queensland gave birth to Qantas; the people have always given their loyalty to Qantas. They have, since 1957, given the majority of the State seats in north Queensland to the present State Government. All their faith, sacrifice, trust and investments have been dealt a savage and callous blow by the National Party Government. What a striking contrast to the leadership of the Hawke Federal Government, an authentic Australian Government. I call upon the State Government to meet its promises to the people of north Queensland to expedite these three crucial projects-the casino, Reef World and Florence Bay. I call upon Qantas to continue to treat Townsville as its entry and departure point for its international services to northern Australia. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.29) —Tonight I want to raise a matter which was brought to me initially by constituents of mine in Warringah but which in fact has greater ramifications as a large number of people have been affected by the situation which I am about to describe. I refer to the activities of people who sell real estate, in this particular instance in Queensland, and the way in which people seeking-let us be perfectly honest about it-a pecuniary advantage have been inveigled into committing a very large amount of money, in many cases money which they do not have, in investments on the promise that the units will be sold before the commitments come up for payment. These investors believe they will not have to pay these large amounts of money which appear on the contracts. We have a situation in which individuals are exposed, or expose themselves, to the blandishments of high pressure salesmen and find themselves committed in many cases for hundreds of thousands of dollars on the basis that the salesman has said to them: 'Have no doubts; you will never have to pay this amount of money. The units will be sold, you will make great capital gain and we will all do very well out of it'. I realise that the people involved in this situation were not forced into it. They entered into the situation of their own free will and they must have realised the risks involved. I do not try to defend the people in any sense because, as I have said, they entered into these arrangements of their own free will; they were not forced in to them. But once in this situation they find themselves in very great difficultly indeed. In many cases, and in the case I am about to describe, the information they were given was plainly wrong. Many of these individuals were plainly misled by the real estate agents who entered into this scheme with them. I refer to a particular group in Sydney, R. B. Foster Real Estate Pty Ltd, and a Mr Harold Londy who trades under the name of International Investment and Property Consultants of 22 Macleay Street, Potts Point. I am informed that this is a division of R. B. Foster Real Estate Pty Ltd, a company which I understand is registered in New South Wales. Last year some constituents came to me complaining about the way they alleged they had been misled by this company and this gentleman. I pointed out to them that there were recourses at State law to the problems with which they found themselves saddled, but in the time since, although they have tried very hard to get some response from the New South Wales Government, there has been no real response to give them any hope at all of getting out of the very difficult situation in which they find themselves. I therefore took up the matter in July last year with the then Acting Attorney- General. I sought information from him as to whether there was any provision under Commonwealth law for assisting people in these predicaments. I received a response from the Acting Attorney-General dated 5 October last year saying: This matter was referred to the Trade Practices Commission . . . in May 1982. Commission staff considered that although the complaint might possibly come within section 52 only of the Trade Practices Act (although by no means clearly so) the remedies available to the Commission (injunction or corrective advertising) clearly were unsuitable in the circumstances of the complaint. The Commission has no power to obtain redress such as damages for complainants-this can be done only by private legal action by the persons involved. Furthermore, on the basis of the Commission's case selection criteria (as set down by Ministerial direction on 25 May 1981) it was considered that the conduct complained of was more appropriate to private action which, if successful, would directly assist . . . Following receipt of that letter I assisted my constituents in taking up the matter with the State authorities in New South Wales. I quote from an answer by the Hon. D. P. Landa to a question he was asked in the New South Wales Parliament. The question read: I ask the Attorney-General, Minister of Justice . . . Is the Minister aware of the activities of R. B. Foster Real Estate Pty Limited, which has been granted a corporate licence by the Council for Auctioneers and Agents to sell real estate in New South Wales? Is the Minister aware of alleged losses by the clients of that agency possibly exceeding $4 million sustained prior to the agency being granted a corporate licence last year? What steps will the Minister take to protect New South Wales consumers until this matter is resolved? The Minister, Mr Landa, replied: I shall certainly take the fullest steps possible to see that the investors are protected, and to see that every effort is expended to recoup the moneys that have been lost or improperly obtained. I hope to receive detailed advice from the Council of Auctioneers and Agents, and also from the officers of the Corporate Affairs Commission, to see that no stone is left unturned to protect the investors who have been unfortunately caught by this company. Now that was a fairly direct statement but, unfortunately, the Minister has not followed through. Whilst the matter has been pursued in the New South Wales Parliament there have been two occasions recently on which the Minister has said that although the agency will be kept under close surveillance in the future, nothing will be done. The fact of the matter is that this agency has been granted a licence and is still operating in New South Wales, although in a letter dated 11 July this year, Mr Landa said, in part: Investigations by both the Council and the Department of Consumer Affairs support the view that . . . he named my constituent- predicament arose because Mr Londy manipulated them into the purchase of two home units. The words 'manipulated them into the purchase of two home units' are the Minister's own words. Despite saying that, the Minister has not gone on with the job and my constituents and many others are still left with this enormous debt burden to try to overcome. This agency, this company, does not only operate in New South Wales and Queensland, but in addition it also operates overseas. Agents for the company travel to places such as Hong Kong setting up businesses, discussions and opportunities for investors from such places as Hong Kong, Malaysia and other Asian nations to invest in these units, particularly those in Queensland. It seems to me that this situation clearly calls for close investigation in a co-ordinated way by both State and Federal authorities. A great number of people who have been manipulated by these smart operators now find themselves with enormous debt burdens. People who do not have the resources required to honour their commitments will be bankrupted. I think it is a very tragic situation when people-lured, I admit by the possibilities of making capital gains, making large amounts of money-now find themselves with their whole life's efforts totally threatened. People will have to divest themselves of all their assets. They will be totally bankrupt and, in many cases at a later stage of their lives, they will find themselves in a situation which is totally hopeless for the future. I ask the Government to co-operate with both the New South Wales Government and the Queensland Government in closely investigating this company which, I believe, has a horrific history of exploitation of individuals both in New South Wales and in Queensland. A co-ordinated effort is needed by the authorities at Federal and State levels to prevent this sort of exploitation which leads inevitably to misery for those who are caught in the web. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(8.38) —I wish to speak tonight about the lack of responsibility of companies mining uranium and asbestos in regard to the health and safety of the workers in their industries. The recent strike by workers at the Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Ranger uranium mine and mill over the continuing contamination of the water system, revealed that company's disregard for the health and safety of the workers and the fact that its only concern is profit. It mines irrespective of health or environment and has no satisfactory method of disposing of the residues of its mining. The workers at Ranger are now recognising that the dangers of mining uranium are real and not a figment of the imagination of the many concerned people in the community who are considered to be ratbags for continually pointing out these dangers. The workers are now making demands on the company to ensure that their claims for adequate health and safety provisions are met. When the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) visited the plant during the strike he found by talking with the men that they had little faith in the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy or the mining company to assess the health procedures objectively. Our Government has a responsibility to workers at Ranger to investigate why the workers distrust the Northern Territory supervising authority. Of course, under our policy we are committed to phasing out uranium mining, but while that phasing out continues it is of the utmost importance that our Labor Government change the laws to ensure that there are satisfactory provisions for the work force in this unfortunate industry. There are regulatory bodies at Ranger, set up under legislation introduced by the previous Liberal Government, but in my view they are totally ineffective and cumbersome. It is quite obvious that the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 is designed to be used to protect the interests of the mining company Energy Resources of Australia first and foremost. Under the provisions of this Act three bodies were established-the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute, and the Co-ordinating Committee. Their function is to develop standards and procedures for the protection and restoration of the environment, to carry out research and monitoring and, through the Supervising Scientist, to report to the Minister for Resources and Energy and, once a year, to the Parliament. They have no powers of enforcement. These powers lie in the hands of the mining company and the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. Serious questions also have to be asked on environmental protection. There have been continual reports that the tailings dam at Ranger is having stability problems and is considered to be totally inadequate for the volume of material to be held. Radium contamination levels in tailing material are 20 times higher than anticipated. Mr Lusher —How much? Ms McHUGH —Twenty times. The retention pond No. 1 is reported to be leaking like a sieve and so contaminant levels are much higher than expected, with all the obvious effects on the area around the mines. Once again, the regulations are completely ineffective and in no way do they make the mining companies subject to public accountability. In spite of all the costly and elaborate regulations, incidents at the Ranger uranium mine continue to reveal that uranium mining is as dangerous to people and the environment today as it was when the Labor Party' s anti-uranium policy was adopted in 1977. I want now to bring to the attention of the House the serious lack of safety conditions for workers at Roxby Downs. At the moment a feasibility study is being carried out and a pilot program is under construction. The company, Roxby Management Services Pty Ltd, has accepted absolutely no responsibility for the protection of the workers on the site. The company has just moved in with its road building equipment and wantonly destroyed the sacred Aborigine sites of the Kokatha people. Who is to be held liable for this violation of the sites? Honourable members can be assured that in the present circumstances it is not the mining company. Other incidents have been reported at the site, including several large rock falls as a result of underground mining. Water from the mine is used to keep down the dust on the roads. We do not know whether the water is contaminated, but the workers are certainly in trouble if it is. Water trucks used to cart the mine water for the road works are the same trucks used to cart the drinking water. There have been reports that radiation monitors in the mines have been known to go off the scale, and the workers are in extreme danger from exposure to excessive levels of radiation. This says a great deal about the uranium mining industry. These disturbing reports coming from Roxby Downs are made more serious when one remembers that the development of the project has not even begun. These incidents are happening during the feasibility study stage. There are serious doubts as to the viability of the Roxby project. It seems that it will absorb huge amounts of public funds, create very few jobs, violate sacred sites, and contaminate the local environment. This is happening just during the feasibility study, which in fact will not be concluded until the end of 1984. If mining ever does go ahead it will not be until 1989. Yet these serious conditions exist at the moment and the workers' health is seriously threatened. The other point I want to bring to the attention of the House is that in another area of mining-in this instance, an asbestos mining company-the mining company has been negligent in regard to the health of the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affaris (Mr Holding) for his initiative in conducting an inquiry into the effects of asbestos mining on the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil. The impact of mining on this community appears to have been devastating, and a strong belief exists that a number of people at Baryulgil have died from the effects of inhaling asbestos dust. In the years of operation of this mine the company has accepted little responsibility to protect its workers from asbestos dust. It is well known that the asbestos tailings were dumped around the town, even around the houses, and that for many years the children played in them. There has been a high rate of bronchitis in the community, which of course has been blamed on the tailings. These were covered by dirt only two years ago. That is just another clear indication of the blatant disregard by a mining company for the well-being of its employees and its total commitment to the profit motive and little else. It is very important that we look at the records of these companies when assessing promises made by them. It is accepted now, when it is too late, that the mining and use of asbestos is dangerous. It has been shown that asbestos mining has caused thousands of workers to contract very serious illnesses, including cancer, and many have died a frightful death. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the situation with uranium would be any different. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it would be essentially similar and every reason always to look at the records of the companies when they are giving assurances to the workers. I notice that one of the terms of reference of the inquiry concerns compensation for individuals who have been adversely affected. I hope that out of this inquiry will come some provision which will put the onus on the mining company finally to accept its responsibility for the lack of health and safety precautions during the years of asbestos mining at Baryulgil, that it should accept liability for just compensation for those individuals adversely affected. Of course, it is a bit late now but it is not too late with uranium mining. In closing, I would like to make the point that while ever the mining companies offer workers big salaries in order that they might make even bigger profits, workers will always be conned into taking risks with their health and ignoring the record of companies in their regard for workers' health. I hope it will not be long before this Government begins to look into the matter of an effective health and safety program for all mining projects in Australia and that it puts a stop to that mining which can bring no one any good. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(8.48) —The Hawke Government is displaying continuing and gross ineptitude in its administration of primary industry policies. The Opposition has placed on the record of this House many times the facts about the unfair treatment the Government has meted out to the rural sector in its May mini-Budget and August Budget. I do not propose to go over that ground again. The facts are that primary industry has had to share a larger portion of the burden of economic sacrifice and restraint than other industry sectors. The burden has been made even greater by the fact that the effects of the March devaluation of the Australian dollar have now been totally eroded. In other words, the Government's budgetary decisions in May and August have overall increased farmers' operating costs, and the revaluation of the Australian dollar has decreased the international competitiveness of his products on world markets . All the way through the farmer is the loser, and the Hawke Government seems totally unable to recognise that. It takes decisions that have a huge economic impact on primary industry sectors without considering how or whether those sectors can withstand such an impost at present. If we take the increased export inspection charges, for example, how on earth the Government can expect our meat industry to pay up to 200 per cent more for the inspection service at this time, especially given all the other imposts it has lumped on to the rural sector, is simply beyond belief. There have been other most disturbing trends in Government decision-making. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) recently announced interim management measures for the southern bluefin tuna fishery, one of Australia's most important fisheries. The Minister seems to have ignored international scientific advice in implementing the interim measures. He appears to be threatening rather than ensuring the conservation of the resource. He may even be in contravention of section 5B of the Fisheries Act, which requires that the Minister ensure that living marine resources are not endangered by overexploitation. He has certainly upset the South Australian and New South Wales sections of the industry. Quite rightly they are up in arms. It looks very much as though the Minister has totally ignored the real issues in this case and instead has caved in to minority pressure. The decision to maintain the 15 per cent tariff on imported grain harvesters was another total disaster. The industry says that this decision will cost it $ 14m a year, whereas a bounty for local manufacturers would cost only $2m a year. There has been toing and froing on this issue between the industry and the Government ever since the decision was announced over two months ago. The industry has presented its case to the Government in an extremely professional and detailed manner. The Government, as it always does when it is cornered, promised a review of the decision. But, as is always the case again, nothing more has been heard from it. That is typical of this Government-it promises something and then immediately forgets about it. Of course, the Minister for Primary Industry was not around when this decision was taken. He was in Papua New Guinea. Honourable members will miss his company again shortly. He will be away for another three weeks. I suppose he reckons that his hands are clean. On behalf of the Australian farmers I just do not accept that. For the information of the Minister and of the House, neither does the grains industry. He will not pull the wool over its eyes for any longer. Let us look at the sugar industry. It just does not know what is going on under this Government. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has on many occasions brought to the attention of the House the problems of the sugar industry. I can understand why he is concerned, why he says to me, to the people in his area and to the people of Queensland: 'Why does the Hawke Government hate the sugar farmers of Australia?' During the election campaign the Australian Labor Party made promise after promise. It made a whole litany of promises. It promised an underwriting scheme. Believe it or not, it is now trying to say that it never did. It has now written off the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission. There is clearly no need to await the final report, given the statements that the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made for political expediency in light of the Queensland election. They were scared. They thought that they might not win a few seats. A different situation obtained in regard to the final report on wheat. The Government did not reject it. It said: 'We are going to refer it to the State Government. We are going to refer it to the industry before Cabinet has a look at it'. But it rejected the sugar report outright. Quite obviously it should have done so. It does not dismiss it out of concern, but out of cheap political expediency because it might want to win a few seats in the Queensland election. The Government has said nothing about what it will do for the industry. We are sick and tired of promises. We want to see the colour of the Government's money. This Government does not have the interests of the sugar industry-or any other primary industry for that matter-at heart at all. The sugar industry, as the honourable member for Dawson has said, is being used by the Labor Party for political purposes. I remind those people in north Queensland listening to this broadcast to remember on Saturday that the Labor Party is not concerned for them , is not interested in their sugar industry and that its propositions for rural Australia are just an utter disgrace. The truth is, Mr Deputy Speaker, that your Government-and I can understand your sensitivity-just does not care about rural industries. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman must not reflect on the Chair. The Chair has no sensitivity when presiding during debate. Mr McVEIGH —Worse still, it does not care about the people involved in those industries, the people who are prepared to sacrifice the comforts of city life to help maintain the real prosperity of this great nation. Look at the Government's approach to the assets test. This was announced in the August Budget. No detail was given as to how it would apply to farmers. Still no detail has been given to this day as to how it will apply to farmers. They have a right to know what is going on. They have a right to know to what extent this miserable Government will penalise them for having spent a lifetime building up a farming enterprise. But no, this Government is not interested in the human side at all. The Government says that it is reviewing the assets test and that it has had consultations with aged and pensioner groups. It would be interesting to know whether the Government has made any attempt to get the views of farm organisations or pensioner farmers on the issue. My guess-and I can be assured of this-is that the answer would be no. All we have seen so far is an article in last Tuesday's Age saying that pensioners living on farms could seek exemption for land up to the value of $30,000 under a favoured option in a final Cabinet submission on the new assets test. That is simply not good enough. We do not want-and farmers do not want-speculative details leaked to the Press. We want the final details. I give this Government fair warning here and now that there will be hell to pay if, in the final analysis, the assets test is not sufficiently generous for farmers. One of the great failings of this Government is that the right hand never seems to know what the left hand is doing. One reason, of course, which again the Opposition has canvassed on several occassions is that the primary industry portfolio is not a Cabinet portfolio. There is a massive split between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). The Primary Industry Minister, now that he is no longer in opposition, has agreed with the attitude adopted by his predecessor on the question of the sale of the Australian Dairy Corporation's 50 per cent shareholding in PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc. in Indonesia. The Minister has realised that Mr Nixon was following the proper course. The Minister now agrees with what Mr Nixon did but when he was in opposition he criticised Mr Nixon. However, Senator Walsh still has not woken up to the fact that the Minister has changed his mind from when he was the Opposition spokesman on primary industry. Senator Walsh is still castigating Mr Nixon's approach while Mr Kerin is upholding it. Senator Walsh opposes; Mr Kerin upholds it. It would be a complete joke if it were not so serious. Not only do Government Ministers not know what is going on, even the Government sub-committee on primary industry has conceded that it is ignorant of rural issues. It wants its meetings to be more educational so that members can learn more about what rural industries are all about. That is highly commendable. It is good to see that Labor's rural committee wants to understand rural industries . Mr Deputy Speaker, your Government's performance is deplorable. Its true colours and attitude towards farmers and farming industries are best summed up by the fact- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs knows that the Chair cannot be referred to in terms of a political context. Mr McVEIGH —Its true colours and attitudes towards farmers and farming industries are best summed up by the fact that, on the one hand Senator Walsh described drought-stricken, struggling primary producers as millionaires and on the other hand the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that we could do without our wheat and sugar producers because we could buy those commodities more cheaply overseas. I think it is a tragic record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(8.58) —I doubt that honourable members of this House will be aware that on next Saturday a very important event will take place in Queensland . The Queensland State election will be held. It is a very important event, particularly from the point of view of my Party-the Australian Labor Party. There is very little doubt in the minds of any but the most biased of observers that the Australian Labor Party is about to come to power again in Queensland and, in fact, to complete the picture that has been put together in recent years throughout the length and breadth of all of the mainland States of Australia. Today, alone among the mainland States of Australia there remains only one anti- Labor and viciously anti-Labor government-the anti-Labor Government in Queensland that has been performing so disastrously in respect of the consensus effort that has been made by the rest of the mainland States with this Government towards restoring the economy of this country and bringing economic prosperity to the people of Australia again. The election to which I have referred and which I have suggested is about to re -elect a Labor government in Queensland is a very important election. It is a very important election because the people of Queensland, I am sure, recognise that on this occasion the only party in Queensland-as has been shown in the past history of the State Parliament as far back as the memories I am sure of all electors who will currently be voting in the election next Saturday go-that can hope to form a government in its own right and that can hope to become a party in total control of the Queensland Parliament without dependence on any other party is the Australian Labor Party. That is well recognised. Since 1957 when the Labor Party was last in office-a long time ago-no party in Queensland has been able to form a government in its own right. There has been a series of coalition governments in Queensland over that long period. I stress that because in this critical election campaign it is very important that the people of Queensland, in making their judgment as to which Party they shall vote for on Saturday, are well aware that the alternative that existed in the past of a coalition of non-Labor parties or a Labor government no longer remains. It is important for them to appreciate that and to get that fixed very clearly in their minds when they vote next Saturday. The clear alternative for the 1.4 million electors of Queensland is to vote for the one party that can form a government which can give them the stability of government so vital to enable Queensland to participate in the prosperity now being brought about in this nation by the Hawke Labor Government or to vote for a period of instability under the warring parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party. They are the parties which for so long have held together in a coalition but which now have clearly illustrated to the people of Queensland by their very definite attitudes that it will be absolutely unacceptable to either of them to form a coalition after the election should they collectively have sufficient seats. To illustrate that point clearly to honourable members I have many quotations from various newspapers in Queensland. I cannot quote all of them but I will quote one or two of them. The Sunday Sun said: For Queensland's 1.4 million voters it's a clear message the 26-year National- Liberal Party coalition separation is now terminal. Today's Courier-Mail in its feature article: This Bjelke-Petersen era is about over . . . One way or another Queensland could be about to enter a new political era. The Labor Party is close to power in this State. . . . . The election seems certain to bring the Queensland Liberal Party down to a numerically small party . . . That is the point I want to drive home in the few moments I have to address the House this evening. It is recognised that the Liberal Party will suffer the most at the hands of the electors next Saturday in Queensland. This has been confirmed in conversations I have had with a number of prominent Liberals. It has been confirmed in conversations I have had with Liberal members of parliament who are quite anxious and fearful that they will lose their seats. Mr McGauran —Name them. Mr KEOGH —The member for Greenslopes, soon to be an ex-Liberal member, sent to his constituents a letter telling them about the great things that the Liberal Party would do if the people of Queensland were foolish enough to elect it to government in Queensland. Of course, we know that that is impossible, but honourable members should listen to the cringing attitude typical of Liberal Party representatives in the Queensland Parliament. Mr Hewitt, in his letter to his constituents, wrote: I wanted to explain to a representative cross-section of my electorate the circumstances that led to the breakdown of the Coalition Government. Talking about the Liberal Party, he said: If we have been remiss at all, it is our failure at identifying our separate and distinct achievements. Of course, in presenting its policy and in its advertising the Liberal Party is now saying to the people of Queensland: 'Believe us. We have been there for 26 years and not once in that time have we been able to get the National Party to accept or to implement any of our policies. Not once in the long history of coalition have we been able to bring into legislative form any of our policies. But now we honestly promise people of Queensland that if they vote for enough of our candidates and elect us to government in Queensland we will do all of those things which we believe should have been done but which we have not been able to do because those nasty people in the National Party led by Joh Bjelke-Petersn have not allowed us to do them'. I am sure the Liberal Party realises that the people of Queensland cannot put any trust in that sort of party that has cowed down to the Nationals over a long period. It cannot expect the people to put it into government in Queensland. The National Party recognises that it cannot win in its own right. The only member of the National Party who still tries to beat a tune about forming a government in his own right is the Premier of Queensland. He is not even supported by his own Administration. If one listens to him making these statements one is well aware from the uncertainty of his voice that he truly knows that his Party cannot win sufficient seats to form a government in Queensland. Let us look a little further at what Mr Hewitt says about the National Party in his letter to people in his electorate. He said: The National Party has trenchantly refused to consider this. That is, the benefits of Liberal Party policies. He says that by a strange turn of fate, at a meeting of the joint Government parties a split came about and a few people in the Liberal Party decided that they had no other direction but to break adrift from the National Party which had brought them to the stage at which they had virtually ceased to exist as a separate political party with any credibility. My final point is that the one thing the people in Queensland must consider above all else next Saturday is which party can give Queensland that stability of government that is so vital and necessary to provide the consensus needed to lead it, with this Government, towards economic recovery. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.08) —It is good to see my colleagues in the House again . I am sorry that all my Tasmanian colleagues cannot be here tonight, but for various reasons they cannot be in the House to listen to me. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is here and that is enough for me, in addition to all my other good colleagues on my left. I only hope that the people of Queensland do what the people of Tasmania have done and bring back a government that is anti-socialist. Can anyone define socialism for me? Mr McGauran —Everything owned by the state. Mr GOODLUCK —And the stopping of everything. We have to stop the socialist horde and the only place we can do that is in Queensland. Robin Gray said to me: ' Bruce, what should I do? Should I help Joh Bjelke-Peterson and should I help what's-his-name?' Mr Braithwaite —Terry White. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry; I forgot his name for a minute. I was not being unfair. Mr Gray said: 'Yes, I will go up because we have to stop this socialist horde. The only way we can do that is to fight them and to tell the people of Queensland the story of what happened in Tasmania. Mr McGauran —What happened? Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member knows what happened. I see that Dorian Gray is not in the House tonight but he will be back and I will have opportunities to talk to him about Tasmania and what the socialists did to Tasmania. They stopped the construction of the dam. They took away our rights. They ruined the Constitution as far as Tasmania is concerned. I hope that the people of Queensland remember that on Saturday, because it is very important that a State should not be trampled on by a Federal government. There are some good Government members but they do not understand the implication. Mr Keogh —Or by a jackbooted Premier. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member should not be hairy. They do not understand the implications of what it means for a government to stamp on the rights of a State. We in Tasmania will remember it. That is the reason why Robin Gray went to Queensland. All of this talk about division and splits should be forgotten. I do not know about splits and divisions; I fight with everybody. One thing should be remembered: The Queensland Government is fighting the socialist horde. They will stop a Labor government coming to power in Queensland. That is the important thing. Mr McGauran —The only thing. Mr GOODLUCK —That is the only thing to remember because if people in Queensland do not remember, the Queensland Parliament will be the same as this Parliament. There are some good Labor people, but unfortunately they seem to attract all the trendy groups. I heard the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh)-a nice lady - speak tonight about uranium. But what will happen to the miners when the export of uranium is stopped? Some honourable members talk about peace. Somebody said that we should have a week of peace. Yet some Labor members will not swear on the Bible, and reflect on God. Yet they talk about having a week of peace. We must be consistent in this world. On the subject of peace, I said to the peace group in Hobart: 'Be consistent'. In Hobart protests were held against American ships entering the port, about Americans being on our soil, about Americans doing this and that. Mr Newman —Sheer hypocrisy. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, it is sheer hypocrisy. On many occasions the United States of America has saved us. Not all members of the Labor Party are repetitive on this subject. But their friends are repetitive. They keep repeating the same stories. Vietnam is a dirty word today. If we talk about uranium, it is a dirty word. When people talk about peace and disarmament, the same slant is always taken. I addressed the peace rally in Hobart. I received a bit of a boo and a bit of a hoo. I said: 'Why didn't you have a rally when the Korean plane was shot down? Why didn't you have a rally in the centre of Hobart? Then you had an indication of what peace should be all about'. But they did not do that. The poor American ship, with young American sailors, came in. The group was on the wharf protesting-the same group that protested when we had the dam problem. It was the same group who are now camping in tents in front of Parliament House. It was the same lot. They are professionals. I am afraid they are repetitive. They receive all the media play. If I said something sane and sensible-which I do all the time-the media might take only one little note of it. But that group says things all the time and gets all the headlines. It is brainwashing, and that is what worries me. People start to believe that repetitive stuff in the end. Regrettably, that is what is happening in Queensland. I am sure that Joh will win, and Terry White will win. There might be a few casualties along the way, but unfortunately, that is politics. But they will win and then they will be able to form a government again in Queensland. The move will flow from State to State and once again we will have free enterprise governments. I notice that my friend the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) has entered the chamber. We will have free people ruling Australia and it will be a better place in which to live. Mr Bilney —What about the bad apples from Tasmania? Mr GOODLUCK —I am glad that the honourable member mentioned apples because I have been worried about them. In Tasmania there has been a move to get away from the image of the apple isle. I have been against it. They call Tasmania the treasure isle; it is. They call it the beautiful isle; it is. But we had a wonderful hook, the 'apple isle'. All over Australia, Tasmania is known as the apple isle. We may only be the second largest producer of apples. We are not the largest any more; New South Wales has taken that mantle. But we had a hook. In this world one needs a hook; not dark hair. One always needs a hook. We had a wonderful hook for tourism. Mr Steedman —The last time I saw a mouth like yours it was on a hook. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not like the honourable member to say things like that. We had a nice hook. Unfortunately we have lost that hook. Tourism is very important to Tasmania. We have high air fares which have been detrimental to the tourist industry. We have a lack of shipping. Only one boat brings passengers to Tasmania, which is completely inadequate. We had one which travelled from Sydney to Hobart which was full all the time. People from Sydney were able to come to Tasmania, see its beauty, understand its people and learn a little about Tasmania. Unfortunately, that ship was taken off the run. I said that it should not have been. There were lots of reasons why it was taken off the run. There were 17 unions on board that boat. Unfortunately, it ran at a loss of about $1. 3m a year. We, as a government, decided to take it off the run, and probably rightly so, because it was inefficient. It ran at a loss and the taxpayers of Australia were being penalised. But it was a marvellous way for people to come to Tasmania. We need to look at those sorts of things. People need to be able to bring their cars from Sydney, Queensland and other places, come to Tasmania, see it and spend a few dollars there. One honourable member who came to Tasmania was the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). He came to Tasmania and made some nasty remarks about the Tasmanian members of this Parliament. He said that all we did here was to huff and puff, wear red carnations and change the colour of our hair. He made some very nasty and vicious remarks. But we are constructive. We are trying desperately to make Tasmania a good place for our children to live in, to make it independent to a degree from the rest of Australia. We want to be self-sufficient. We want to keep our children in Tasmania and we want them to be able to get jobs there. Tourism is one of the ways that we can do it. I hope that people in the tourist industry in Tasmania realise that we have a hook-the 'apple isle'. They should try to attract people to Tasmania, fight hard to make certain that the air fares come down, develop places in Tasmania where people can stay without paying high prices. We should try to get families to travel to Tasmania. We should try to develop our State. It is easy to talk about it. But we must develop it. I am afraid that we in this place are not involved in the finer details of development in Tasmania. But I am sure that tourism would boom. It would develop in such a way that the people of Australia would realise that the climate is good. A lot is said about the climate in Tasmania. It is a beautiful climate. It is extremely nice in summer. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) knows that that is the case because he has relatives in Tasmania. He knows what it is like. It is good. I hope people will come to Tasmania. When Joh wins on Saturday, I am sure that the Queenslanders will come to Tasmania-just as we go to Queensland to feel its warmth and sunshine-and that Queensland will have a Liberal and National Party Government. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(9.18) —My grievance tonight relates to the conditions that many members of our work force have had to endure over the last few years, especially under successive Liberal-National Party governments. Recently in the media we have seen a lot of discussion relating to the large increases in workers compensation premiums and the increasing need for occupational health and safety legislation. The Labor Government in Victoria is currently enacting legislation that will be in the forefront of progressive policies to protect the health and safety of the workers of that State. The Federal Government is also planning legislation in this area, and I can only compliment the Government for this long overdue interest in workers welfare. Years of conservative rule at both Federal and State levels has allowed the work place conditions in this country to deteriorate so much that many factories and workshops are a positive health hazard. It is very pleasing to see the union movement in this country taking an active interest in occupational health and safety. In the past, unions have been criticised for not taking an interest in the safety of their members, or for concentrating on negotiating danger money for their members engaged in hazardous work and in obtaining compensation for injured or sick members. There are a number of reasons why unions have taken these approaches in the past, for instance, the lack of a decent workers compensation system and the lack of bargaining power with employers, who preferred to pay extra money rather than fix up a health problem. However, I believe more important reasons have been a lack of support from government and a lack of access to information held by employers, government and scientific and medical communities. In Australia it is estimated that work related deaths, injuries and diseases cost $6.5 billion a year. This is only an estimate, because at present we do not have proper statistics to measure the true cost. In 1974-75, the last year in which the Australian Bureau of Statistics published figures-I might add that it later refused to publish statistics because it considered them inaccurate; that is, too low, not too high-37,250 accidents were reported in Victoria alone. In 1980 the Victorian Department of Labour and Industry investigated 2,713 serious accidents, including 37 deaths. It must be remembered that because of serious under-resourcing in the past this Department investigated only a tiny proportion of the accidents. For instance, the Health Commission in that State is responsible for monitoring industrial deafness. In 1982 it revealed that 50,000 workers from 1,182 firms had been found to have notifiable hearing loss. Another statistic which gives some indication of the problem is the number of workers compensation claims made in Victoria. At present the Workers Compensation Board decides approximately 12,000 cases per year and this number is increasing. These are only the contested claims, which represent 5 per cent of all workers compensation claims. The majority of these are for back and other muscular strain injuries, heart diseases and industrial deafness. These figures indicate that we are not successfuly dealing with well recognised work hazards such as dangerous and noisy machinery, heavy lifting and so on. Another major problem yet to be tackled is the use of chemicals in the work place. In the past an enormous number of these substances-glues, cleaners, degreasing agents and so forth-have been introduced into work places without any regulation by government and without due regard to the long term impact upon the health of those workers expected to work with them. The number of these potentially harmful substances is alarming. Over 43,000 are registered under the Toxic Substances Control Act in the United States and it is likely that there is somewhere near this number in Australia. What is needed is an occupational health and safety commission or similar body to recommend regulations and codes of practice and give general advice to the Government on occupational health and safety matters. Most important will be the proposals to provide for workers' involvement in the decisions at the work place level which affect their own health and safety by providing for union-appointed health and safety representatives, with rights clearly spelled out, on health and safety committees. Following submissions from employers, the Victorian Government intends limiting the duty on employers to oblige them to do only what is practicable to ensure a healthy and safe working environment. It also intends imposing a corresponding duty on employees to do all in their power to ensure the health and safety of themselves and their fellow workers and also not to misuse health and safety equipment. The commission to be established in Victoria will be concerned with publicising health and safety issues as they arise and generally educating the community, including politicians, on the need for improved standards of occupational health and safety. I believe that the involvement of employees in decisions about occupational health and safety in the work place is essential for the following reasons: Workers can contribute to prevention by keeping an eye on potential hazards and giving advance warning of problems before they become really dangerous and by pointing out urgent hazardous situations. If they are involved in these decisions workers will co-operate in promoting health and safety in the work place. They will also become more conscious of hazards. Workers often have the experience and practical expertise necessary for solving health and safety problems which arise in their own work place. It is only right that all individuals be involved in decisions which affect them. This is our democratic right. This is especially so when such decisions may leave individuals exposed to danger. It is also essential that workers be involved in these decisions through the union movement. It is vital to provide in legislation for unions to appoint health and safety representatives in the work place in the same way as they currently appoint shop stewards. I have only briefly skirted over some of the needs in the field of occupational health and safety. No doubt a lot more will be said when this Government introduces legislation or discussions on the subject in the near future. I believe we can learn from the Victorian experience and we have a chance to regulate, on a national basis, to make the work place safer for the citizens of Australia. It has been one of the great shames in this country over the last few years, under the rule of the National and Liberal parties, with their lack of concern for the workers of this country that we have reached the situation we are in now . Members of those parties keep claiming they represent and work for small businessmen. They keep complaining about workers compensation premiums. It is quite obvious to even the most ignorant of us that workers compensation premiums will be high only if workers are hurt or injured. If we want to stop high workers compensation premiums, if we want to help small business in this community, we should make sure that our workers do not get run over, crushed, killed or work in dangerous environments. The union I represented until my election to this place was a group of blue collar workers who were constantly put under threat and into hazardous situations by local councils, especially rural councils. The cockies felt that they were a superior type of being and the workers were serfs. They treated them with total disregard and contempt and had them working in many hazardous situations. They were put into contact with carcinogenic substances as well as into situations which could result in sun cancer from the heat as they were put out in the heat of the day working on tar, and in other ways that our born to rule rural comrades did not care much about. Opposition members interjecting- Mr STEEDMAN —With all the whingeing that comes from members of the Opposition about the fees you pay for workers compensation, with all the whingeing and whining you do, if you looked after your workers, if you gave them proper safety conditions- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair and also to cease provoking interjections. Mr STEEDMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, if this leftover rump- Mr Porter —You don't grow tar. How do you grow tar? Mr STEEDMAN —What is that one again? Mr Peacock —He wants to know where you grow tar. Mr STEEDMAN —That is about the level of his intelligence. Son, you don't grow it . I say that through the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. If these people were fair dinkum about helping the small businessmen they would help them make sure that there were safe conditions in their work places. By investing a couple of thousand dollars here and there they might save workers compensation claims of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Finally, I hope that in the future the legislation introduced by this Government will make the work force in Australia safer. I hope that we will be in government for many years so that the born to rule beaters of the working class cannot take control again and put them back into the situation they were in. I hope we will introduce proper and reasonable legislation so that employees and employers will have an equal chance to survive in the market place, that workers compensation premiums will go down, that we will have safe workers and that they will not be crippled. They will not even be mental cripples, like the members from Tasmania. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In the absence of my fellow Tasmanians I ask the honourable member to retract that remark. Mr STEEDMAN —I am quite happy to retract any remark about mental cripples in Tasmania because I realise that inbreeding causes that sort of thing. Mr Goodluck —I take a point of order. I take offence at that remark. I am the only Tasmanian member here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PORTER(Barker)(9.28) —In 1967 the referendum was passed which allowed the Federal Government to legislate in favour of Aboriginal people. There is no doubt that at the Federal level the 1970s, under both Liberal and Labor governments, was a period of great change in the administration of Aboriginal affairs. It was a period in which the needs and desires of the Aboriginal people started to be recognised and met. Certainly, policies aimed at assisting in removing difficulties faced by the Aboriginal people changed dramatically. Paternalism and forced assimilation have been replaced with consultation and a much greater involvement by Aborigines in the administration of their own affairs. The change in approach has brought with it welcome advances in meeting the needs of our Aboriginal communities. The more we researched the problems, the more sensitive we became to Aboriginal views and the more responsive we became to their real needs. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs was set up in 1972 and it has seen a procession of Ministers. Initially, there was Gordon Bryant, followed by Senator Cavanagh, then Les Johnson, Ian Viner, Senator Chaney, Senator Baume, Ian Wilson , and the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Given that the Department has been in existence for 10 years it is reasonable to review progress, to examine whether policies are achieving intended goals, to test whether the goals are still relevant, and to see whether the organisation and control of programs is still relevant to today's requirements. The Minister has set up a number of reviews. Indeed, almost every area of his responsibility is under review, although he seems reluctant to reveal the details of those reviews to the House. On 19 May the Minister did say he would make a statement to the House about the Aboriginal affairs policy of this Government, but he has not yet done so. That statement may well have included details of the terms of reference and other information about these inquiries. However, as the statement has not been made we as a parliament are left guessing. I understand that at the moment there are inquiries into the Northern Territory land rights legislation, Aboriginal legal aid, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the National Aboriginal Conference, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, uniform land rights, and Aboriginal training and employment. Certainly the Minister seems to have no hesitation in pre-empting the inquiries by making administrative changes on the run. For example, the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation was given a letter on 26 September telling it to wind up on 30 September. When changes are made in public administration, clearly great care must be taken to ensure that organisational, administrative and financial management prospects are properly dealt with. All the good will in the world is not sufficient to assist the Aboriginal people. Consultation is needed to ensure that the right programs are developed. The implementation of programs requires efficient administration and the Aboriginal affairs portfolio needs prudent financial management. Depending on the nature of the consultative process, it too will require efficient administration and careful financial management. I recall the fate of the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gordon Bryant. No one in this House, I think, would question Mr Bryant's sincerity or his desire to assist the Aboriginal people. It will be remembered, though, that he was Minister during the days of the almost open cheque book. Clearly Mr Bryant believed that many of the problems confronting Aboriginal communities around Australia were caused because of lack of money. Unfortunately, programs were not properly managed and finances were not prudently controlled. Let me quote from the report of the Auditor-General on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, handed down in March 1974. On page 3, the Auditor-General said: The inescapable conclusion is that from the outset, the Department failed to organise itself so as to control the expenditure of large amounts of public monies, according to the tenets traditionally applicable. It is also apparent that the Department, while admittedly burdened with new initiatives which occupied the attention and energies of what it claims to be its inadequate, and in many cases, inexperienced staff, failed to take early and resolute action to ensure that proper financial controls were instituted throughout its organisation. If the needs of the Aboriginal people are to be met and if racial harmony is to be promoted I believe that it is important that the administration of the Aboriginal affairs portfolio is undertaken in a businesslike and orderly manner. I therefore caution the Minister to ensure that in all areas, but especially those where there has been an increase or redirection of funds and in those areas involving increases in staffing levels, careful management will be required to ensure that the advancement of the Aboriginal people is not put at risk through waste and extravagance. I will deal very briefly with another matter. It relates to a promise the Labor Party made before the election and has now broken. Some people would not be surprised that the Labor Party has broken it. In this case I want to say how pleased I am that it has broken it. The previous Government set up a program called the community development employment program. That was done in response to specific requests from Aboriginal communities for an alternative to the unemployment benefit to be paid to their members. Under the community development employment program those benefits are made available to the community council so that the money can be used to pay for work to be done within the community. The program aims to reduce, particularly in remote communities, the socially deleterious effects of the unemployment benefit, or ' sit-down money' as the Aboriginal people call it. The scheme was reviewed in early 1983 by a committee comprising senior officers representing the departments of Employment and Industrial Relations, Social Security, Finance and Aboriginal Affairs. Whilst the review was initiated by the previous Government because of problems which had arisen in the administration of the scheme, the current Minister clearly had the results of that review in mind when he determined the future of the program. The ALP Aboriginal affairs policy, issued before the election, was critical of the scheme. It stated in part: It provides a block payment of unemployment benefits for those who can fulfill the normal criteria for unemployment benefits. This requirement is a major defect . . . The problems of the scheme are multiplied by the requirement that communities engage in inappropriate make-work-type activities. The scheme as it currently operates can hardly be seen as moving the community towards independence, whereas a regular, adequate community managed block payment would. The policy statement continued: The Australian Labor Party in consultation with Aborigines, will redirect this money into a more appropriate income security scheme for Aboriginal communities. So the ALP was going to scrap the CDEP. During my visits to Aboriginal communities around Australia a number of Aborigines have raised with me their desire to have access to the community development employment program instead of sit-down money. I cannot understand why the ALP, when in opposition, did not see the value of the scheme and why it proposed to abandon it. However, as I have said, this is one of the promises I am glad the ALP has broken. The present Minister in fact has not abandoned the scheme but rather has increased by over 90 per cent the allocation of funds. In conclusion, let me reiterate that I am delighted that the Government has seen fit to ignore its election policy prior to the last election and that it has increased funding for the former coalition Government's CDEP initiative. The other point which bears reiteration is that the Minister needs to exercise extreme caution to ensure that the administration of his portfolio is undertaken in an efficient and prudent manner in order that there be no repetition of the mistakes of the past. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(9.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, firstly I wish to make some comments on the matters raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) about the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs over time. I will deal with these matters fairly briefly because my purpose tonight is to talk about some matters affecting Queensland. When the referendum in regard to Aborigines was carried in 1967 an organisation was set up. It was called the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. Because it was not believed then by the advisers of the Holt Government that the Commonwealth would be involved in this area in a major way a very small office was set up principally for channelling money to the States. That office had very small resources and it set in train a number of programs. The Labor Government has been blamed for some of those programs which it inherited. During the State election campaign being fought in Queensland I was interested to hear mention of turtle farms as if they were one of the things that we dreamed up. The turtle farming project was one which we inherited from the previous Liberal-National Party Government. I was Secretary of the Australian Labor Party's Aboriginal Affairs Committee from 1963 until 1975 and I was the first Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. One of the things I have noticed is that much greater competence exists in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs now than did then. The honourable member for Barker made some comments about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) carrying out reviews, but going ahead without waiting for the result. In this difficult area of Aboriginal affairs the needs are great. They are very human needs of employment, health care and education. It is just not possible to defer programs while waiting for the final answers, if in fact they ever eventuate. That was really what we found out when we were elected in 1972. One of the examples the honourable member for Barker gave was the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation. That program was not cost effective in terms of what was actually being spent on the administration compared with what was being spent on sport. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs very wisely made the decision to transfer that responsibility in the short term to the Aboriginal Development Commission where it continues under Aboriginal administration. I would like to express my pleasure at working with the Minister in these much better days. All of us who have been involved in the Aboriginal cause realise that there is a measure of risk capital particularly as we have been trying over the years to involve Aborigines in decision-making in matters that affect them. We should all accept that. I can only say to the honourable member that the situation today is very much better than it was 10 years ago. That is in no small measure due to the improvement in the quality of the staff and the enthusiasm and competence of the Minister. I am concerned about the panic button style of advertising in Queensland over the last week and the comparisons that are being made in so many ways by the minority National Party Government in that State of that Government with this Parliament. I am concerned about much of the misrepresentation that is going on. I looked at the Brisbane Courier-Mail today and saw that it had 5 1/2 pages of National Party advertising in it. I do not ever recall that amount of advertising in a newspaper by one party at this stage of an election campaign. It is an indication of the absolute panic of that minority National Party Government which, notwithstanding every distortion that it has expressed during the election campaign, knows that it is heading to nemesis on 22 October, which is next Saturday. I would like to deal with some of those advertisements because they reflect not only on the Labor Opposition in Queensland but also on members of this Parliament. For example, the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Peterson, has been attacking the concept of a public accounts committee and a public works committee. What he has said about this concept is that the people advocating that are interested only in the fees-$100 a day. I put it to honourable members that there would be common ground on both sides of this House. There would not be a single person in this House, of whatever party, who would vote to abolish those committees with all that they mean for the proper participation and the opportunity actually to subject the decisions of government to proper scrutiny. The Premier has said: ' Why waste your time on a public accounts committee? That is a matter for the Auditor-General'. All honourable members know that the Auditor-General is there to determine whether money is spent in accordance with the law, not to determine whether money is spent wisely. It is the purpose of those parliamentary committees to establish that money is spent to best advantage. Queensland is a particular example of that situation. We have had any number of examples over the years. The Tarong power house is a notable one. The State electricity authority, the Queensland Electricity Generating Board, recommended that a power house be built at Millmerran which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). The Premier went along to the Co-ordinator-General 's Department and said: 'Look at this: Look at all the facts and come back with a report that recommends that the power house be built at Tarong where it ought to be'. Irrespective of the increased cost, none of those factors are subject to scrutiny if in point of fact they are subject to any degree of scrutiny in the Queensland Cabinet, and that is a matter considerably under doubt. Queensland has a parliament which, in many respects, is not a proper participating parliament. It does not have committees on important State matters such as the environment, welfare or Aboriginal affairs. Those committees have not existed in Queensland for decades. For the sake of honesty let me say that they did not exist under the previous Labor Government at the end of its time. But we have all come a long way down the trail on matters such as this. The Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Keith Wright, is dedicated to setting a new style of government in the new directions which Labor will give to Queensland after next Saturday. Queensland has suffered enormously from the Queensland Government's failure to co-operate with this Government. I heard one of my colleagues today talking about the previous Government rejecting the funding for growth centres which has substantially impaired the development of Townsville which is represented by my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). In the days of the Whitlam Government the Queensland Government knocked back money for roads. It knocked back money provided not only under programs of the Labor Government but also under programs of the former Liberal-National Party Government which was a Liberal-Country Party Government then. Honourable members will appreciate that in areas such as paramedical services and home care the Commonwealth offered money to Queensland under programs. If honourable members look at the document that we have on payments to the States and Territories they will see significantly that Queensland takes up less money in some of those areas than any other State. It is these sorts of policies that have been strangling the growth of Queensland with the development of proper social services, welfare services, education and the like. Finally, we have this total dishonesty about hospital funding. We have the National Party Government saying that the hospitals are free and that people will now be charged a tax in order to pay for something that they had for free. We all know that free public ward hospital treatment means that the cost of a hospital bed is not paid by a person at the time that that person is sick but it is paid by that person every other time in terms of State taxes and in terms of the extent to which the State spends money it obtains from the Commonwealth on hospitals. The idea that the policy of Medicare, which will take effect from February next year, will damage the Queensland public hospital system is totally dishonest. Every member of the Queensland Government knows that when the Fraser Government altered the hospital funding system two years ago the former State Minister for Health, Mr Austin, complained about the way in which Queensland had been sold down the drain with no consultation. That still applies. On Saturday the people of Queensland will give Queensland a new direction. They will throw out this inept, incompetent and time-serving minority Government. They will replace it with a Labor Government led by Keith Wright which will co- operate with this Parliament, this Government and its successors in the interests of Queensland and the people of Australia. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.47) —As I listened to the litany of 10-minute grievance debates from honourable members on the other side of the chamber I was reminded of the little boy whistling in the dark; frightened of the dark and whistling to keep up his hopes. My prediction is that Labor has been in the wilderness for 26 years in Queensland and it will be there for another 26 years. This grievance debate is too important for me to throw away the opportunity to speak on quite a few matters that I want to raise. The first matter that I want to raise is the public complaint that we have had in connection with the proposed decimation of our school cadet units by transferring these units to the community. Cadets have been part and parcel of our secondary school system particularly in Queensland. I regard this as another attack on the education system similar to the one we have had in connection with independent schools. People in Queensland do feel that they have freedom to express through an education system this aspect of cadet units. Last Sunday afternoon I witnessed a rather sad occasion, what was described by the Principal of the Christian Brothers College at Mackay as the last passing out parade of the Christian Brothers cadets. It could quite well be their last passing out parade. I believe that in no other city in Australia has there been such a strong contingent of school cadets. Coming from the Whitlam years when the school cadet systems were under threat in 1975, we see that they have now rehabilitated themselves. The Sarina and Mackay secondary high school cadets function very effectively and efficiently just as the cadets at the CBC do. I think this is a matter of great regret and I know it is of great regret as far as the college is concerned. In fact I would like to quote from the report of the Principal of the CBC wherein he mentions-- Mr Goodluck —Whose report? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is the report of the Principal of the Christian Brothers College in Mackay. This is what he said: Briefly the aim of the Australian Services Cadets Scheme of which the Australian Cadet Corps is a component is: 'by predominantly voluntary effort, better to equip young people for community life by fostering initiative, leadership, discipline and loyalty through training programmes which are also designed to stimulate an interest in the Services.' In essence the primary aim of the present scheme is youth development using the basic tenets of military training. The Cadet programme at C.B.C. for this year has aimed at developing the individual cadet as well as instilling principles of team work and leadership. He went to say what the curriculum included. He said: The Cadet Curriculum not only included drill and navigation, but leaned heavily towards Search and rescue techniques, First Aid, Radio Communications and Abseiling. That is one comment. Another comment appears in a letter to a newspaper. It is from a member of the Returned Services League. He also wondered what the Government was doing. In his letter he stated: It is difficult to envisage how an army cadet unit could function away from the school environment . . . or what other people . . . all of whom are in the high school age group . . . there are to participate. He went on to state: . . . in no other avenue of government spending does the taxpayer get so much value for his money . . . If the corps is transferred to a community group the present numbers will be halved because it will lack the discipline and incentive for students in units presently established in schools. More than any other service, the Army Cadets corps should be retained by the schools. I hope the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) will review this decision because in Commonwealth terms the amount of $ 11m is probably, as the subscriber to the paper said, a small but cost-effective payment by the taxpayer. In fact, as that subscriber said, it is the best dollar that the Army spends on the instruction of Australian youth. Linked with this matter is a strong rumour going through north Queensland that the north Queensland Army band is due for the chop under this proposal. This band has established for itself a great reputation in north Queensland because it relates so well to the people and communities of the north. It also makes tours to mining towns. That is very important because it takes its culture with it. The band goes up and down the coast and into the hinterland. I ask the Minister to look at this matter and perhaps categorically deny that it is his intention to remove this highly successful public relations group and cultural section from Army activities. Earlier this afternoon I suggested that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts might review Commonwealth expenditure directed to tertiary education in Australia, particularly in North Queensland and at James Cook University. This is Commonwealth expenditure. Mr Simmons —When will Joh have a public accounts committee? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Maybe the honourable member would not know the difference. I have been long disturbed by some politically biased attitudes taken by some lecturers and tutors who occupy a position of trust in the education of our young people. I think it is an important trust. It is one that nobody should take too lightly. I was very disturbed to receive a letter from a constituent which, in part, states: Both my lecturer . . . and my tutor . . . are ardent Labor Party supporters and waste no time or opportunity of expressing their views. In all fairness-- the lecturer-- does make an effort to try to keep unbiased about what he presents yet various parts of the Labor Party ideology arises in his lectures especially when dealing with social issues. Mr Keogh —But you-- Mr BRAITHWAITE —So the honourable member agrees with that. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. The constituent goes on to state that the 'tutor does not even try to be unbiased about issues and is constantly purporting Labor ideology at every chance'. She goes on to state that the university library 'is surprisingly, but I suppose not surprisingly, stocked only with books supporting or related to Labor Party policy'. I believe this is evidence of the fact that we are closely approaching 1984. People in responsible and high places peddle personal prejudices quite regularly in their own calling. I assume there are those who- Mr Mildren —It is a good education and she knows it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The interjections from members of the Opposition indicate that they strongly support this system of bias in the universities because they obviously know that they are to benefit. I think it has to be said that there are probably those of the right wing who have these tendencies and who might also reflect their philosophies through their lectures and work. Whilst every person has the right to have strong personal, political or religious beliefs, or any belief, these people have no right, under the cloak of education, to force their beliefs down a person's throat. Sometimes it is difficult to find a remedy to a constituent's grievance such as this, but I have brought it to the House and suggested that a reference to the Public Accounts Committee may redress the fear in many people's minds. We want our education dollars spent properly. We do not want prejudices forced down the throats of our young people. I previously mentioned to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) a problem related to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Townsville. There appears to be short staffing in the Corporation and it appears that no service is being given by the media to the north of Queensland. I ask the Minister to look at the matter because I think it is important. Northern Australia is probably the fastest growing area in Australia. We should maintain the good communications for which the ABC has a fine reputation. I suggest that the Minister look into this matter because I believe it is creating problems in that area. As I said before, many speeches tonight have concerned Queensland. I shall now make my own contribution in that regard. I refer the people of north Queensland- Queenslanders all-to the many promises made by the Hawke Labor Government leading up to the elections which were effective only as far as the election date was concerned; that is, 5 March. Mr Keogh —Give us time. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes. I will mention some of these promises to the honourable member. Perhaps he might want to be schooled. How far down the track did the Government sell off the pensioners of this country? It said that it would not change the pensions system. It said it would raise ceiling levels to give pensioners more benefit. The pensioners of Queensland have to remember what happened. Car users were promised a 3c per litre reduction in the price of petrol and got a 2c increase instead. How far down the road were the superannuitants right around Australia, and particularly in Queensland, sold? What independence do the private schools have now? Air travellers pay more for their avgas. The rural people have had their income equalisation deposit schemes gutted, their taxation concessions have been taken away, and they are faced with increased fuel costs and increased costs for drainage and clearing. I hope the people remember those broken promises on the day of the election. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Community Employment Programs-Death of Mr P. W. C. Stokes-Commonwealth Funding: Queensland-Death of Mr Raffaele Favero-Integrity: Former Government Ministers- Tibooburra-Prime Minister: Media Coverage of Sporting Events Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.59) —It is not often that I am moved to anger-it is probably more disgust-but I was so moved today by the announcement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) concerning community employment programs. The Minister announced an expenditure of $50m on community employment projects whereby the Commonwealth will sponsor 4,000 jobs during 1983-84. I hope that what I am saying is wrong and that there will be some change and improvement. The Minister announced programs, of which he has given details, totalling $39m. Of the $50m- odd program, $8m will go to women's employment and $7m will go to projects for Aboriginal community groups. This money is supposed to provide 2,600 jobs. My electorate probably has one of the highest-if not the highest-unemployment levels in Australia. According to the June figures there were approximately 13,000 unemployed people in the employment districts of Casino, Lismore and Murwillumbah. I could say that this unemployment level is probably even higher now if I were able to get the latest figures. Approximately 25 per cent of the people are unemployed. With the money that the Government provided today one job was created in my electorate. There are 13,000 unemployed people in my electorate. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) goes before the Australian people and says he will govern for all the people of Australia, and we have this sort of discrimination taking place. I hope there is some error and some adjustments will be made later. Looking through the community employment program in New South Wales, I find that there seems to be a party discrimination taking place. If we look through the program we see that Richmond got one job; the electorate of Gwydir got one; Paterson got five; Lyne got 15-that is 22 jobs altogether. The electorates of Cowper, New England, Riverina and Hume got none whatsoever. This is an average of three jobs per National Party seat. If this is the way this Government is going to behave in pork barrelling for Labor electorates, the Australian people had better know what is going on. Honourable members might understand my concern and resentment in seeing so many unemployed people. Local government had so much hope and expectation that money might have come forward. The Government talks about these 500,000 jobs it will create. What has it created out of $50m for my electorate-one job. To employ 100 people will take $5,000m. To give 10 per cent of the unemployed jobs will take $ 65,000m at that rate. In my electorate during last week F. J. Walker Ltd closed its meat works at Byron Bay. With 300 people going off work in Byron Bay approximately 50 per cent of the population will be unemployed. I sent telegrams to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I made appeals to the New South Wales Government that works programs should be created. What do we get ? We get one job; one job out of $50m for community employment programs. It is time the Australian people realised just what a discriminating, disgraceful and despicable government this is if it uses unemployment money in this manner. This is the most disgusting thing I have seen. I hope I am wrong. I want to see it corrected. But when we get only one job out of $50m honourable members will understand my concern. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.03) —This evening I wish to pay tribute to a former member for Maribyrnong, Mr Phil Stokes. Mr McVeigh —Did you get the job? Mr GRIFFITHS —If the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) does not wish to pay his respects to a former member of the Liberal Party, let that be a matter for the public record. Mr Speaker, at the commencement of business today you informed the House of the death of Mr Stokes, a former member for the electorate of Maribyrnong. The House, of course, showed its respect in the traditional way. However, I wish to make a brief comment with respect to the late member on behalf of the constituents of Maribyrnong. Whilst I did not know the former member personally I have often had occasion to meet many people who did know him at a personal level. If there is one consistent theme that comes through those discussions, it is the colourful character of the former member for Maribyrnong. It is in that respect that I would like to make a couple of comments. I went through some material that was provided by the Parliamentary Library. I was happy to discover an article that I think very much gives the flavour of the former member. I think it is worth bearing in mind that having won the seat in 1955-largely I would submit as a result of the then Labor Party split-he then went on to hold the seat against all odds for some 14 years until eventually it returned, to what it has always essentially been, a Labor Party seat. The article is quite an interesting one. It really does show the sort of personality that ensured that he was such a popular member for that period. I will quote from an article written by John Sorell in the Herald of 22 October 1969. It is entitled: 'Phil won't be lost if he loses'. Of course he did subsequently lose the seat. I will quote a couple of paragraphs of the article. Referring to Mr Stokes, it stated: He said that after the recent redistribution was announced he had a conversation with Mr Gorton. The conversation went like this-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume, who is not seated within the precincts of the House, should know better than to attempt to interject in such circumstances. Mr GRIFFITHS —Once again, I am not sure whether the honourable member for Hume ( Mr Lusher) is aware that I am trying to pay respects to a former and distinguished member of the Liberal Party. If he does not have the courtesy to remain silent on this occasion, I suggest he step outside the House. The article states: He said that after the recent redistribution was announced he had a conversation with Mr Gorton. The conversation went like this: Gorton: How bad is it? Stokes: Crook, really crook. I've been handed back Ascot Vale. Gorton: Well I'll look around and find a safe seat for you. Stokes: I won here, and I'll get beaten here. I'll go down with my colors nailed to the mast. Gorton: Phil, I knew you'd say that. That's the sort of Cove you are. Stokes: Thanks, John. Gorton: If the worst comes to the worst your public life won't be ended. We'll find you a job. Stokes: Thanks John. I feel I can still do a lot for the country. End of conversation. I think that does go some way to showing what a colourful character Mr Stokes was. He was not only a colourful character, he was a man of some substance who served his country with distinction. During the war, he was mentioned in despatches in the Middle East and subsequently served in New Guinea. Finally, on behalf of the electors of Maribyrnong, I express my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Stokes. I thank the House for its indulgence. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.08) —Mr Speaker, this House has been treated to a massive stream of distortion by the Australian Labor Party and particularly the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) on the question of Commonwealth funding for Queensland and how it has been used by the Queensland Government. The Labor Party has been engaging in an orgy of political thuggery and blatant lying. The honourable member for Petrie has been absolutely desperate to get something on Queensland. He has failed miserably. He has, in recent weeks, placed a series of questions on the Notice Paper, trying to find out what Commonwealth moneys have been received, returned or refused by Queensland. Specifically, he has asked such details of the departments of Administrative Services, Defence Support, Science and Technology, Aboriginal Affairs, Veterans' Affairs, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Home Affairs and Environment and Social Security. I am advised the only money refused by Queensland was $1.7m from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The reason Queensland did not accept that was that the terms attached to it were too restrictive. In all other cases the Queensland Government has basically accepted everything offered by the Commonwealth. The honourable member for Petrie went on with some rubbish today about Queensland losing several million dollars under Medibank Private, but that was in 1974 or 1975 and is hardly relevant today. He has also been drivelling on about the fact that there is $5m of wages pause money that Queensland has not used. Let us look at the truth of this bit of sheer garbage. The true situation is that Queensland has used up 46 per cent of its wages pause allocation. By comparison, the Cain Labor Government in Victoria has used up a meagre 2 per cent. It will not even give the Leader of the Opposition one job in his electorate. Furthermore, Queensland has used more of its wages pause allocation than has any other State in the Commonwealth. So to try to claim that the Queensland Government is withholding $5m is totally irrelevant. It is a miserable attempt to distort the truth. The Labor Party, and even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today, have been trying to make a great thing out of the fact that Queensland is refusing to co-operate in the community employment program. Again this is just not true. Queensland has been allocated $41.2m for this program. The Queensland Government established, as required and according to Commonwealth stipulation, a consultative committee to nominate projects to be financed with this money. The Commonwealth has finally to approve the make-up of that committee before the financial allocation is handed over. The truth is that the Commonwealth has not yet approved the committee. How can Queensland be accused of dragging its feet, of not spending the money, or of not co-operating in the program, when the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister, will not give the necessary approval? It is this Federal Labor Government that is holding things up. It apparently will not approve the Queensland Government's nomination for the Aboriginal representative on the committee. Mr Wells —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Commonwealth has not approved the program because Queensland has twice as many public servants as every other State. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVEIGH —Queensland has nominated Mr Les Stewart from Cherbourg, but the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) apparently does not like this man. He will not approve him, so he will not approve the panel, and therefore the Queensland program cannot get under way. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to give us a full explanation of the situation, rather than leaving it to the little pony hack, the honourable member for Petrie, to throw abuse and innuendos all over this chamber. The honourable member for Petrie has told a host of other untruths. He claimed that public servants in Queensland have to be members of the National Party. That is untrue. The honourable member for Petrie stands utterly condemned for his conduct on these matters. I believe he is a disgrace to the Parliament and I suggest he is even a disgrace to the Labor Party. Mr Wells —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not a Liberal Party hack, as the honourable member suggests. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Ballarat. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.12) —Tonight I wish to refer to the very tragic news I received today of the death of Mr Raffaele Favero. He was a victim of the most unjust Russian occupation of Afghanistan. It is very difficult to find adequate comments to express my feelings regarding the death of Raffaele. He was killed in the process of filming the horrors of that war. Raffaele ventured behind the lines in that country on at least two other occasions following the Russian invasion. He loved Afghanistan and he loved its people. He spoke the local language fluently, having lived there for some time prior to the invasion. It was because of his love of the gallant Afghan people that he went to their country to record events on film so that their tragic story might be brought to the attention of the outside world. His earlier visits produced film which has helped to keep the tragic plight of these proud and fiercely independent people before the free world. Raffaele Favero was a truly international man. He was also an adventurous and restless spirit, a man who found the world to be of intense interest. He recognised the tremendous dangers in the tasks he undertook . Raffaele, his wife Jill, and their children were based in Maryborough, in the electorate of Ballarat in Victoria. Raffaele at one time was a project officer attached to the community youth support scheme in that town, where his formidable, active and creative intelligence was used to enhance the lives of the young participants in the scheme. He was a person endowed with great sensitivity and an overwhelming awareness of the injustices perpetrated against the people of Afghanistan. I do not know the actual circumstances of his tragic death, but I do know that his love of the cause of the Mujihadeen was at the level of dedication that will be remembered by them always. I express my heartfelt sympathy to his widow Jill, and their children, and I know that they will recognise that those who die for the cause of liberty do not ultimately die in vain. Vale Raffaele Favero. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —I thank particularly the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) for his remarks tonight regarding Mr Phil Stokes. Phil Stokes was a close friend of mine, not just in the Parliament but also through another love we shared, namely, the Essendon Football Club. It might be of only passing interest to those who are not from Melbourne or Victoria, but those who are will recognise the deep affinity those of us from that State have with the code of football in which that club is involved. I have been honoured to have the No. 1 ticket for that club for some years. It was Phil Stokes who introduced me not to the club, because I have supported it from childhood, but to the Essondonians themselves. That is a minor matter when one considers the service that Phil Stokes rendered for this country, both in war time-he retired as a colonel-and in his service to this Parliament in the seat of Maribyrnong from 1955 until he was defeated in 1969. I say quite unequivocally that it was Philip Stokes, and not so much the Liberal Party, who held that seat. He won the seat at the time of the split, of course, and it was always predicted that he would lose it at any election that came along. I well recall as an activist in the Liberal Party in the early 1960s before being State President that that was confidently predicted in 1961, when the times were very difficult for the coalition. Indeed, the majority fell from 32 to one, but Phil Stokes still held Maribyrnong. He was a great Liberal and a very persistent parliamentarian. Both the honourable member for Maribyrnong and I have mentioned his service to the nation in war, but in the party room, in this Parliament and elsewhere there was no more persistent fighter for the rights of ex-servicemen than Phil Stokes, particularly in seeking to affect long required reforms to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. Few who served with Philip Stokes in this Parliament will ever forget his sheer persistence in that area. He serviced not only the widespread and heterogeneous requirements of his own electorate but also the requirements and needs of ex-servicemen throughout Australia. I am very grateful that the honourable member for Maribyrnong paid tribute tonight to one of his predecessors from a different party. I had cause to have contact with Phil only a few weeks ago. His death is a great tragedy in a personal sense because in only a couple of weeks time he and Mrs Stokes were to have celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. On behalf of the Opposition I naturally sent a cable to Mrs Stokes when I learnt of Phil's death. I again express my gratitude to the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Having indicated the Opposition's views personally to Mrs Stokes, I reiterate them tonight. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.18) —I wish to address a few words to the subject of integrity. I think that when addressing integrity one really needs to have a sense of history. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) when addressing some Liberal Party convention homed in on the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) from the Ministry. The honourable member for Bennelong said that the Liberal Party would be outraged if the honourable member for Port Adelaide were returned to the Ministry. He waxed most eloquent about the traditions of the Westminster parliamentary system and talked a lot about integrity. Tonight I shall address a few words to this subject and to use the subject of hyprocrisy. It is obvious that this talking head is well versed in the latter but knows little about the former. The greatest assault ever on the Westminster parliamentary system was perpetrated by the Liberal Party in November 1975. In this crude grab for power, this band of constitutional thugs, of which the bandit from Bennelong was a prominent member- - Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr CAMPBELL —Of which the honourable member for Bennelong was a prominent member , caused divisions and dissensions in the community that have still not healed. By their cynical action they institutionalised the concept of might is right. They endorsed the self-interest and greed which led to the proliferation of tax avoidance that has cost this country so dearly. Let us look at the record of these paragons of virtue. Let us look at the integrity of this rag-tag rabble that is the Liberal-National Party coalition. The Hon. Ransley Victor Garland resigned from the Ministry in 1976 when he was arraigned in a Canberra court on charges of electoral bribery. The magistrate said that he was guilty but that the jury would not convict, so nothing further was done. Victor Garland promptly popped back into the Ministry only to have to resign again in 1980 when there were serious allegations of tax dodging. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Ransley Victor Garland was quite at home on the bottom of the harbour. What happened to Ransley Victor Garland? He was packed off to London to be our High Commissioner-one of the most gratuitous insults to Her Majesty that has ever been perpetrated by this Parliament. Dr Charlesworth —And given a knighthood. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, an even further insult to Her Majesty. Let us look at Carpet McLeay. In 1981 he resigned from the Ministry just before the family business went into liquidation. His affairs had been arranged so that 80 small shareholders were legally defrauded. Sir Phillip Lynch resigned as Treasurer in 1977 when the Stumpy Gully land scandal broke in the Melbourne Press. Of course, it was not long before he snuck back into the Ministry, only to depart again in 1982 when he did not have the numbers to continue as Deputy Leader. There is no point in digging up the past of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). It is well documented. As an undertaker, he would be all too familiar with the skeletons. All told, 16 Ministers resigned from the Fraser Ministry, some of them on several occasions. The honourable member for Bennelong, however, managed to appear squeaky clean apart from the fact that he was Treasurer when the entire contents of the Budget were leaked. It was never truly determined whether he leaked them or whether it was the then Prime Minister. I would always be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us have a good look at his record. While it is true that this ventriloquist's dummy for an outworn, outmoded, sterile economic philosophy simply lacks the imagination to be a crook and he is so dreadfully boring, nobody appears to have given his record any close scrutiny. This man of stature, perched on the knee of Liberal Party humbug , mouthing the platitudes of Liberal Party economic rhetoric, came to office at a time when the number of unemployed in this country was 265,567. When he left office the number of unemployed was around the half million mark-822,602. I have used Commonwealth Employment Service figures on both occasions. This man of integrity, this honest John, lied to the Australian people. He told the Australian people that the deficit would be around $6 1/2 billion. It was much closer to $10 billion. When little Johnny clawed his way to power the current account deficit in this country was around $1 billion. When he left it was $9 billion. In other words, this country had purchased from overseas $9 billion more than it had sold. Noddy now has the audacity and the hypocrisy to come into this House and talk about hypocrisy. I say to the honourable member for Bennelong that the honourable member for Port Adelaide will rejoin the Cabinet ultimately because he is a man who has never lost touch with the aspirations of the ordinary people of Australia. These people are, collectively, the hope and real wealth of this country. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.23) —I would like to change the tone of the adjournment debate and speak about a few small towns in my electorate. The first one I would like to speak about is Tibooburra. I do not know how many honourable members have been to Tibooburra but it is a great little town. It is not far south of the Queensland border in the far north-west of New South Wales. Its main claim to fame is probably that it is one of the hottest places during summer. It gets the highest average summer temperatures in New South Wales. Some honourable members may have seen it on the weather map. The town of Tibooburra consists of two hotels, a few shops, an office of the Pastures Protection Board and a hospital. Of course the people there have great difficulty communicating with the outside world. Tibooburra is approximately 300 miles north of Broken Hill. It would take four hours to travel from Broken Hill provided there had not been wet weather. So the people in Tibooburra really are isolated. One of the problems in Tibooburra is that the people cannot get television. That is understood. Apart from that, on many occasions they cannot get a radio signal. Ever since I have been the member for Riverina I have tried to be in touch with the Department of Communications and various other organisations to try to do something about the transmitter in Broken Hill. Although the people in Tibooburra can get signals occasionally-not very reliable ones-from other parts of Australia, I think it is very important that they obtain a signal from an area that has something in common with them. On writing to the various departments I have been informed that Tibooburra will have to wait until 1985 when the satellite is in orbit. I do not think that is reasonable because I am sure that for a small amount of money the transmitter in Broken Hill could be directed in such a way that Tibooburra could get a signal. I would like to take some Government members to Tibooburra and leave them there after a heavy rain. Mr Simmons —I have been there. Mr HICKS —Yes, I know the honourable member for Calare has been to Tibooburra. I am sure he has. However, very few other honourable members have. Now I will travel a little south to White Cliffs which is not far west of Wilcannia. White Cliffs is an opal mining town. It has a great little population. Most of the people live underground. At White Cliffs there is one hotel and a post office. The main problem of the people there is that they do not have an assured water supply. It cost I think, about $1.25m for solar absorbers to set up an electricity supply for the city on an experimental basis. I think that is a great thing, but I think first things should come first. I think that if $1.25m could be spent for that purpose perhaps a good water supply for the town should be more assured. There was the case of the gentleman who started to build a small hotel and for about three years he did not have enough water to make the bricks. There has been some rain there. I am just hoping that the town dam is full now and that the people have water for 18 months or two years. I call on governments, both State and Federal, to look into the situation at White Cliffs because I think it is about time that the people there-- Mr Brumby —We will go along with you. Mr HICKS —I thank the honourable gentleman very much. Mr Griffiths —We could build another dam like the Burdekin Dam. Mr HICKS —There is a good case in point. If we could have a little of that money in White Cliffs I am sure we could provide an adequate water supply for the town of White Cliffs. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.27) —I take this opportunity to speak about an issue which I have avoided in this place. It comes about because of the whingeing and bleatings of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) who induced me to speak on the substance of his harangue. The honourable member was concerned about the acceptance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at many sporting events compared with the cynicism which surrounded the previous incumbent's adventures on to the sporting fields of this country. The honourable member pleaded foul. He pleaded unfair and he claimed that media bias was involved. The acceptance of the Prime Minister by the media and by sports people is, in fact, quite easy to understand-hence, perhaps, the difficulty of the Opposition to understand and accept it. The reasons are very clear. The Prime Minister has a genuine interest in and regard for sport as, indeed, has the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman). This is in contradistinction to the superficial approach of the previous incumbent. The Prime Minister is an active and talented sportsman in his own right. I am sure he will take every opportunity to indicate that to members of the Opposition. Because of these two things the Prime Minister has the insight to understand sport and this is appreciated by sports people. Of course the media understand this and it is reflected in the coverage they give the Prime Minister. On the other hand, sports people and the media saw the former Prime Minister's entries on to the sporting field as cynical and perverted. They reacted accordingly. The Opposition may well ask why. The answer is quite simple . It is the previous Government's record in this area. I have only a short amount of time in which to talk about the matter, but let us just discuss one or two points. All the initiatives and promise of Frank Stewart's time in the portfolio were stonewalled and deflected. Perhaps the only exception was that of Bob Ellicott who took up the concept of the Australian Institute of Sport. But political expediency took over and sound mangement was put into the back seat. We saw a post-Montreal inquiry which suited the 1977 election campaign. In 1980 the Prime Minister travelled the country bullying and cajoling a politically weak and defenceless minority, the training athletes. The Moscow boycott destroyed the hopes and aspirations of a generation of young athletes in this country. Again in 1980 the common denominator was a Federal election, and it continued. This time last year we saw the then Prime Minister's awkward and insincere grandstanding at the Commonwealth Games. Again, there was an election in the air. One would think that the previous Government would have learnt but in March and February of this year an election advertising campaign using sports people was cynically rejected. Is it any wonder that the sports people of this country are delighted with the enthusiasm and drive of the present Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown)? It is any wonder that the sports people of this country are delighted with the 54 per cent increase in allocation for sport? That is an increase which is indicative of this Government's commitment. Is it any wonder that the people of this country are delighted to have a Prime Minister who is indeed knowledgeable about and empathetic to sport? The Australian Labor Party has breathed new life into sport and sports people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 1 November 1983, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 October 1983: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-1983- No. 13-Marine Orders, Part 4 No. 14-Marine Orders, Part 5