Thursday, 10 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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 Andrew,Mr Connolly,Mr Drummond,Mr Gear,Mr Hawker,Dr Klugman,Mr Mildren,Mr Simmons and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respecfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mrs Child,Mr Dobie,Mr Groom,Mr Holding,Mr Humphreys,Mr Maher and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school Parents' Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-Exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents' clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine- (a) the implications of the UN Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the UN Convention. The terms of reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The peitition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any health insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth rebate list. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth rebate list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We, the undersigned citizens of the town of New Norfolk, Tasmania, hereby humbly pray that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations increase the funding of the New Norfolk community youth support scheme to that of $65,000 per year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society' s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Australia's uranium; We urge the Government to not 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 Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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 Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principle mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecesssry menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are acutely aware of the adverse economic impact on the grain growing industry of the 15 per cent tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. Your petitioners are aware that the Federal Government as the duly elected national government of the Australian people apparently wishes to assist the local grain harvester manufacturing industry. Your petitioners are aware that the cost of that protection is being involuntarily borne by the grain growing industry. We petition the Federal Government to relieve the grain growing industry of the unfair and discriminatory tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Ukrainian nation has suffered a genocidal act at the hands of the Kremlin when 7 million Ukrainians perished of starvation in 1932-33 in a deliberately planned famine. Ukrainian Australians deplore the fact that the Kremlin has never been called upon by the free world to give a public account of this tragic event. Russian great power chauvinism which caused this famine survives to this day. The Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, in the forefront of the opposition to the Russification and Ukrainian cultural destruction has been ruthlessly eliminated and protests by the West on its behalf ignored. As the only founding member of the United Nations with no western diplomatic presence. Ukraine's political isolation allows Moscow to move unimpeded towards its goal of the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government denounce the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as a genocidal act by the Kremlin against the Ukrainian nation. 2. The tragic events of the Ukrainian famine holocaust be highlighted during a day set aside by the Australian Government to honour victims of genocidal acts and imperialistic aggression. 3. The Australian Government immediately implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to convene a Standing Committee to monitor the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of all signatories, in particular, the U.S.S.R. 4. The Australian Government immediately take steps to expand official government representation to include all member states of the United Nations. 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the people who have signed this petition ask all parties, Labor, Liberal, Democrats and others, to stop the latest increase in taxes and the forever increases in taxes which hit all people of the country of Australia in all goods and consumer goods and we call for a referendum on taxes and interest rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General revenue grants to Local Government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83. The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent. The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent. Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Drummond,Mr Lusher and Mr McVeigh. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens living in Melbourne, Victoria, showeth: That Vietnamese refugees have endeavoured to settle in Australia and integrate into this community, and in a comparatively short time have achieved encouraging progress. However, settlement is a long and difficult process, and this process has been made harder because of unemployment and adverse economic conditions. We respectfully submit that it is in the interest of our community that refugees who are accepted in Australia after having to risk their lives to escape persecution are helped in every possible way to surmount haunting experiences of the past, so that they can devote all their minds and energies to building a new life in Australia and making a positive contribution to this society. We respectfully express our concern at the proposed increased level of visits by Governmental and other delegations from Communist Vietnam. Such visits, especially if they are frequent and highly publicised, will have the unfortunate effect of upsetting and unsettling those people who have suffered from the policies of the Communist regime in Vietnam in the recent past. Such visits will create confusion and tension and detract the refugees from their efforts of settlement. We respectfully state that we are for diplomatic dialogue and that we support the Government's efforts to bring peace back in Cambodia on the basis of self- determination, as well as to uphold human rights all over Indochina. We respectfully ask that the Government, in pursuit of its policy in South East Asia, take into account the settlement needs of Vietnamese who are now members of our community and avoid any aspect or measure of policy that is likely to have an unsettling effect on them and hamper their settlement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding,Ms Mayer,Mr Peacock,Mr Shipton and Mr Willis. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of two significant developments, relating to the information systems and services for the Parliament, which have occurred during 1983. The first of these developments concerns planning for the new Parliament House. It was essential that the Parliament House Construction Authority be advised of members' and senators' possible information systems requirements so that provision could be made in the new building for the development of such facilities. It was agreed to engage a specialist consultant to assist with the preparation of a brief and the tender was awarded to Logica Pty Ltd, a firm which has had considerable experience in both the information technology area and the requirements of the Parliament. Logica began its work on 9 May 1983 and presented its report on 21 June 1983. Parliamentary staff worked with the consultants, and questionnaires were issued to members and senators. In addition a number were interviewed personally. This report formed the basis of the statement of user requirements which has now been forwarded to the Parliament House Construction Authority. I now table the report by Logica Pty Ltd which includes an information systems review and a user requirements statement for the information systems and services for the new Parliament House. I must add that, at this stage, there is no commitment to all or any of the systems described in the report and that members will shortly be given the opportunity to comment on the report. Due to the size of the report, a limited number of copies have been printed and these are available to members from the Bills and Papers Office. The second development relates to a pilot study now being undertaken by the parliamentary departments into the applicability of computer-based information storage and retrieval systems to the information needs of the Parliament. Following a lengthy planning period and a tender and selection process which has extended from November 1982, a contract was signed with International Computers (Australia) Pty Ltd on 17 October 1983 for the provision of a rented service for a pilot study. It is proposed that the pilot study continue until May 1984 and that House of Representatives and Senate Hansard, Votes and Proceedings, Journals of the Senate, House of Representatives Practice and Australian Senate Practice will be mounted on the service to enable effective evaluation of computer-based information storage and retrieval in the Parliament. After the pilot study has been evaluated by the parliamentary departments, Mr President and I will decide whether the project will proceed further. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence? Can you confirm that the two companies you have mentioned, one prima facie which more logically would seem to be a subsidiary of an international or overseas company and the other named Logica Pty Ltd, which I assume is an Australian company, are both Australian companies? Mr SPEAKER —At first sight I must answer no. I will investigate the matter and advise the House later in the day. Mr Peacock —It is pretty important. Mr SPEAKER —I take the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. As he is aware in these cases there are often problems with getting the appropriate organisations. I am not trying to dodge answering the honourable member; I want to be completely sure that the advice I give him is accurate. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) reaffirms that the upholding of parliamentary privilege is an essential element in any parliamentary democracy under the Westminster system, and (2) expresses its disgust at the action of the Government in failing to list for debate on 10 November 1983, general business notice No. 1, standing in my name, and dealing with matters of parliamentary privilege relating to threats, harassment, improper pressuring and actual blackmail, against and of, Australian Labor Party members of this Parliament. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Housing and Construction, on achieving the dramatic increase in housing and unit construction in September as a result of the Government's initiatives in implementing its progressive housing policy. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) totally condemns the Government for creating severe anxiety in elderly pensioners by its confusing statements on the assets test, and (2) calls on the Government to take more notice of its own back bench members rather than use heavy-handed tactics to push the assets test through. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with deep concern that the Western Australian Legislative Council rejected legislation aimed at bringing a democratic one vote-one value system to Western Australia, and (2) calls on the people of Western Australia who value democracy to insist on the electoral reform referendum denied to them by the action of the Legislative Council. Notice of Motion Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that a long-running dispute at the Moonee Ponds Health Department has prevented many Victorian doctors from receiving bulk billing cheques for disadvantaged and pensioner patients; (2) expresses its concern that, as a result, the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association has recommended that doctors stop bulk billing and instead charge patients directly; and (3) calls upon the Minister for Health and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to immediately seek a resolution of this industrial dispute , which is causing financial hardship, and in many cases financial suffering, to both doctors and the patients they serve. Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of private banks and building societies to lower interest rates similar to the action taken by the various Government banks; (2) calls on the Government to use all of its powers to ensure that all lending bodies reduce their interest charges to a level equal to that of the Government banks; and (3) commends this Government on its housing policy which has caused such an upward trend in commencements of new homes. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm that- (a) local government received only an increase of 8.2 per cent over the previous year's grant under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976; (b) that the consumer price index increase from 1982-83 was 11.2 per cent; (2) condemns the Government for failing to maintain local government's grant in real terms; and (3) calls upon the Government to amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 so as to provide for a real terms minimum guarantee to the local government general revenue sharing arrangement in 1983-84 and future years . Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that the Australia flag is the most important symbol of our historical traditions and national pride and is a source of our unity for which many of the best of Australia's youth have fought and died; (2) notes with the utmost concern the determination of a small group of people outside the mainstream of Australian public opinion to change the Australian flag; (3) condemns those members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party who have joined in the call to change the Australian flag, and (4) calls upon the Government to give effect to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians by indicating publicly its support for retaining the Australian flag. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The major purpose of the Bill is to amend the Insurance Act 1973 to strengthen the minimum financial standards to be observed by insurance companies authorised under the Act and thereby contribute to improving the financial position of the industry. It will also seek to effect certain other improvements in the existing system of supervision of those companies. This Bill represents, in the main, a consolidation of the Insurance Amendment Bill 1982, introduced into Parliament on 29 April 1982, and amendments to that Bill which were introduced into Parliament on 9 December 1982. I think it will be appreciated by all concerned with the industry that the amendments proposed in this Bill are both urgent and necessary and I would not dispute with those who might argue that a strengthening of the supervisory arrangements is long overdue. In very large part the provisions of the Bill are of a bipartisan nature and they are clearly in the interests of industry stability and the insuring public. They have been strongly supported by successive insurance commissioners and have the support of insurance industry organisations representing general insurance companies. The main strengthening of the Act will arise from the provisions in the Bill concerned with increasing the minimum paid-up capital and solvency requirements to be met by general insurance companies. These increases will be subject to appropriate phasing-in arrangements as provided for in Part III of the Bill. The Bill also contains amendments to improve the existing supervisory machinery. Some of the more important changes within this latter category are concerned with increasing various monetary amounts in the Act, including financial penalties, to bring them into line with present day conditions; provision for improved requirement relating to accounts; more comprehensive quarterly returns; and measures to facilitate the revocation of authorisation under the Act where a company is withdrawing from the industry. In view of the Government's decision to retain the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the provisions concerning the sale of the Corporation that were incorporated in the 1982 Bill, introduced by the previous Government, are no longer necessary and have been omitted from the current Bill. The Government has carefully considered the provisions of paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the 1982 Bill which would limit the extent to which premiums held by insurance intermediaries would be treated as assets of an insurer for solvency purposes. Following decisions taken by the Government and announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 17 October 1983 to introduce legislation to regulate insurance brokers and agents, the Government has decided not to proceed in this Insurance Amendment Bill with the provisions reflected in paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the 1982 Bill. I should add, however, that it is the Government's intention to seek to incorporate provisions dealing with the practice of extended credit in the proposed legislation for regulation of insurance brokers and agents. It is the Government's intention that that legislation be introduced later this year and that it will lie on the table until the autumn sitting 1984 to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on the legislation. I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the prospect of further amendments to the Insurance Act, which, for certain reasons, have not been incorporated in this Insurance Amendment Bill. Work has been continuing on the formulation of possible proposals to amend the Insurance Act 1973 in relation to the activities of mortaged insurers. The issues involved are complex and likely to take some time to resolve. Accordingly, the Government has decided not to delay introducion of the amendments contained in this Bill until those issues are resolved. The Government is aware of, and shares the concerns resulting from, the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd. It is also conscious of the proposals that have emerged from various quarters for amendments to the Insurance Act and improvements in the supervisory arrangements with a view to minimising the risk of future occurrences of this type. In considering such proposals it is important to appreciate that the primary purpose of the Act is the establishment of a system for the prudential oversight of authorised insurance companies with a view to ensuring that the industry operates on a sound financial basis and is one in which the public can have confidence. The system requires compliance with certain minimum standards, and is directed at ensuring a company's ability to meet its liabilities. However, no matter how well devised any system might be, it cannot wholly prevent fraudulent practices, although the Insurance Act and other areas of legislation dealing with business standards and practices, such as the companies code, should of course seek to minimise as far as is practicable, the opportunities for fraud. The circumstances surrounding the failure of Bishopsgate are being closely studied by the Government. This examination is taking into account the efficacy of possible new measures, their practicability in administration and associated costs and bearing in mind the need to balance the community benefits deriving from any new legislation with the interests of maintaining an efficient industry. It will be our intention to consult with the States, industry and other interested groups in the near future on this and other insurance matters. Following those processes it would be our intention to bring forward appropriate amendments at the very earliest opportunity. My comments dealing with processes following on the Bishopsgate collapse in no way detract from the urgency of the amendments now proposed in this Bill: indeed, recent developments in the industry point to the need to strengthen the provisions of the Act. These amendments do that and I commend the Insurance Amendment Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to strengthen and improve the existing supervisory machinery of the Act and to overcome certain difficulties experienced by the Life Insurance Commissioner with its administration. The more significant provisions of the Bill are those which would amend the Act to allow for the imposition, by either the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) or the Commissioner, of conditions on registration, and to empower the Commissioner to exercise specified controls over certain forms of investments made by life offices. The Act currently does not provide scope for the Commissioner to register a company subject to conditions. It does, however, contain a number of provisions relating to investigations of life companies and empowers the Commissioner to issue such directions to a company in respect of its life insurance business as he thinks necessary in the light of an investigation. In effect this is a power to impose conditions on the continued registration of a company which has been the subject of an investigation. The processes concerned with undertaking an investigation can be very time consuming and in some circumstances it may not be in the best interests of policy-holders to defer action pending the outcome of an investigation. To overcome this problem the amendments will allow for conditions to be imposed, either at the time of initial registration of a company, or on a previously registered life company without prior resort to formal investigation procedures. Comparable provisions are contained in the Insurance Act 1973. The conditions to be imposed will be subject to appropriate appeals provisions and must be consistent with the Act's basic thrust of supervising life offices with a view to ensuring their ability to discharge their liabilities to policy- holders. The amendments relating to control over investments will empower the Commissioner to exercise control over certain forms of investments made by life offices in related companies and in trust schemes. In addition, there will be a requirement for the provision of data on such investment activities to facilitate the process of supervision. In developing these controls, the Government has sought to preserve a balance between allowing companies adequate freedom in their investment decision making and in maintaining industry stability in the interests of the insuring public. The controls envisaged in the Bill involve some changes to certain unproclaimed amendments to section 39 of the Act contained in the Life Insurance Amendment Act 1977, introduced by the former Government. The amendments take account of earlier problems raised by the industry and they do not envisage any restrictions on investment in subsidiaries and in other life companies. However, restrictions on investments in parent or holding companies and investments in companies with the same parent or holding company are considered essential by the Commissioner for the protection of policy-holders. The restrictions on investments in trust schemes, without the prior approval of the Commissioner, to 5 per cent of the assets of a statutory fund of a life company represent his concern that life offices should avoid situations where a significant part of a company's assets are given to some other institution to manage or invest. In addition to the important changes I have already described, the Bill will provide for the inclusion of a minimum paid-up capital requirement of $2m in respect of companies seeking registration under the Act. The purpose of this amendment is to give legislative backing to a requirement now set by the Life Insurance Commissioner under his registration guidelines. It is relevant that a legislative requirement of this nature is contained in the Insurance Act 1973. The Bill will also effect a number of administrative changes to the Life Insurance Act including a provision to extend the effective period for furnishing of the Commissioner's annual report to Parliament from three months to five months. Both the present Commissioner and his predecessor have found the current period to be unrealistic and the longer period will allow a more reasonable time for the preparation of relevant statistical material. Other administrative changes are concerned with improving the Commissioner's access to the information and documents needed in carrying out his supervisory responsibilities and with including provisions designed to encourage people wishing to carry out the functions of an actuary under the Act to seek qualification through the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, rather than an overseas body. Finally, Mr Speaker, the opportunity has been taken to seek inclusion in the Act of rights of appeal against various discretionary actions and decisions available to the Commissioner under the Act; changes to the appeals mechanism to bring it into line with other Commonwealth legislation; and to effect a number of formal amendments to take account of current legislative drafting practice. Taken together, the thrust of the proposed changes is to overcome difficulties faced by the Commissioner in carrying out his task of prudential supervision of the life insurance industry. I would also like to take this opportunity to foreshadow the possible introduction next year of further amendments to the Life Insurance Act. The Government has under consideration a number of other suggestions by the Commissioner for administrative improvements to the Act which have not been sufficiently developed for inclusion in this Bill. In addition, a working group, comprising officials and representatives of the life insurance industry, has recently completed a comprehensive review of the Act. It is expected that the examination of the recommendations of this working group and the Commissioner's further proposals will form the basis for a further Bill which it is intended to put before the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We will also be considering whether any changes to the Life Insurance Act developed in the light of the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd might also be reflected in the Life Insurance Act. Mr Speaker I commend the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.28) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, New South Wales. This proposal relates to the provision of new facilities on a site of 3.6 hectares of land at Macquarie University, North Ryde. The elements of the work involved comprise: Firstly, television and film studios; secondly, a 250 seat and two small theatres; thirdly, a dubbing theatre and two radio studios; fourthly, administration library; fifthly, training areas, workshops and research and technical support areas; and, lastly, landscaping and car parking. The estimated cost of the project at August 1983 prices is $13m. I table the plans of the proposed work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.29) —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: Royal Australian Air Force Base, Williamtown, New South Wales- F/A-18 Hornet facilities development. This proposal is for the provision of facilities required to meet the need for the Tactical Fighter Force during and subsequent to the re-equipment of the force with FA18 fighter aircraft, together with works needed for the possible relocation of No. 3 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, from Butterworth, Malaysia. The main elements of the proposal are as follows: Facilities for No. 481 Maintenance Squadron; fighter unit facilities for No. 77 Squadron and No. 3 Squadron; facilities for No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit; Army Parachute Training School; administration and domestic facilities; sleeping accommodation; off-base married quarter accommodation; and, lastly, associated emergency works and services. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the work in the reference and has recommended its construction, with the exception of the Army Parachute Training School component. That Army Parachute Training School, as previously announced to the House by my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), is now to be located at Nowra, New South Wales, in line with the Government's intention to maintain Service activities in the area to offset the reduction arising from the phasing out of Navy fixed-wing aircraft. The general scope of the work proposed at Nowra is the same as that proposed for the RAAF at Williamtown. The Committee will table a supplementary report for the Parachute Training School component after further consideration of final details provided by departments. The Committee has expressed concern about the noise impact from aircraft using the base's bombing-strafing range at nearby Salt Ash. Despite past warnings by the RAAF, small rural subdivisions have regrettably been approved in recent years in noise prone areas. Regrettably, the introduction of the FA18 aircraft will increase the level of noise in some areas. The RAAF will continue to do all it can to reduce the impact of noise. I understand that the RAAF has an impressive record of sympathetic consideration of resident's representations and that generally there is a sensible co-existence between the community and the RAAF. The Government will continue to advise State and local governments as to its concern about further residential development in the area. It will ensure review of the operational requirements for use of the range in view of the concerns expressed by the Committee. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) has also expressed those concerns about noise impact and safety aspects, and they will be taken into consideration. The Committee has recommended that the facilities for No. 3 Squadron, including associated new accommodation blocks, not be commenced until a decision is made on relocation of the Squadron from Butterworth. However, as facilities will need to be ready in time for any relocation, broad planning will need to be ready in time for any relocation, broad planning will continue on the basis that the Squadron will be located at Williamtown. Departments will review the construction timetables and budgetary requirements when a final decision on the relocation of that Squadron is made. The Committee has recommended construction of the work at a revised estimated cost of $98,355,000 at April 1983 prices. This reduction arises from the transfer of the parachute training element's associated land, housing and accommodation costs. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the House will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. The most significant amendments relate to the administration of the Government's nursing home program. The Government is concerned that proper priorities should be set in developing services for aged people. Inquiries conducted during the past decade have addressed this matter and there is a general consensus that there are serious imbalances in the services provided for the care of the aged. While Australia overall has very adequate provision of nursing home accommodation its community care and domiciliary services are underdeveloped as are its facilities for hostel care. The priorities of the Government as expressed in its election policy for the care of the aged are to moderate growth in the nursing home sector and encourage the further development of hostel, community and domiciliary care services. Currently it costs the Commonwealth $600,000 a year in recurrent expenditure for each 50-bed nursing home that is approved. For this reason, it is vital for the Government to restrict nursing home growth if it is to find funds for urgently needed hostel, community and domiciliary services for the care of the aged. Another important element of the Government's aged care policy is to encourage the development of assessment so that aged people can be guided to the available services most appropriate to their needs. The amending legislation before the House is an initial step in pursuing these priorities. The principal matters concerning the Government's nursing homes program which are the subject of the amendments apply to both the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. Under this legislation the Minister for Health, instead of the permanent head, will be empowered to approve new or additional nursing home accommodation. The need for such accommodation will be assessed in accordance with principles to be tabled in the Parliament, and therefore subject to the scrutiny of both Houses. Further changes affecting nursing home approvals are made in clause 34, which would amend the National Health Act, and clause 60, which would amend the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. These provisions insert new sections 39A and 3A into the relevant statutes and enable the Minister to grant a certificate, or in other words, an approval in principle, to an applicant. This approval in principle guarantees the holder that if he applies for approval of the completed nursing home or alterations to an approved nursing home under either Act within a period of 12 months or such longer time as the Minister allows, the approval will not be refused on needs grounds. The legislation provides further for specifications to be imposed on the certificate and, where appropriate, that admission to the nursing home will be confined to persons representing a special need for which the certificate was granted. An example of special need would be where nursing home approval is granted to cater specifically for crippled children or patients of a particular ethnic origin. To ensure that a full and comprehensive assessment of nursing home need can be effected, the proposed new sub-section 39A (1) of the National Health Act and proposed section 3A (1) of the Nursing Homes Assistance Act allow the Minister to invite interested persons to make application for a nursing home in a specified region. To date the approval system has operated on a first in, first served basis. The purpose of the published invitation is to enable a more informed evaluation to be made, particularly having regard to the existing aged care accommodation and services in the area, their effectiveness and what a future appropriate mix of accommodation and services should be. The legislation specifically provides for the invitation by interested parties to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The practice to be adopted by my Department will be for the relevant details also to be published in appropriate local and capital city newspapers having regard to the needs of the area. Consideration of nursing home applications has been deferred while the new growth control guidelines are being settled and the arrangements proposed in this Bill are being put in place. Honourable members will note that the provisions concerning nursing home approvals and decisions by the Minister in that regard will come into effect from a date to be proclaimed. This date will be the date when the principles have been formulated and tabled in Parliament. Let me assure the House that the Government is conscious of the need to enable evaluation of nursing home accommodation requirements to be undertaken as soon as possible. The Government's aged care policy will be underwritten by an effective system of assessing the medical, social and emotional needs of the aged and disabled to enable them to be guided to the most appropriate, available services. Ulti- mately, such assessment will be a precondition for aged persons being admitted to a nursing home, or for receiving Commonwealth subsidised community care in their own home or a hostel. A complementary form of assessment is the classification of a nursing home patient as requiring extensive care. Currently, approval of entry to a nursing home, and approval of a person's eligibility for the higher extensive care benefit, can be made only by a Commonwealth Medical Officer. This system does not involve any personal contact. The proposed amendments are a step towards achieving more meaningful assessment procedures. The Bill provides for the Minister, instead of the permanent head, to grant or refuse applications for admission to a nursing home or for classification as a patient requiring extensive care. As a consequence, these decisions will be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Significantly, the Bill also provides the Minister with greater flexibility to delegate powers for the approval of admissions and patient classification. This will enable these decisions to be delegated not only to a Commonwealth Medical Officer but also to others such as those participating in assessment units. Honourable members will recall that $2m was allocated to my Department in this year's Budget for the development of assessment procedures and the establishment of assessment units. The Government is concerned that the interests and welfare of nursing home patients should be safeguarded. There is a need to protect patients from the unscrupulous practices of a few nursing home proprietors. For example, in a case where a proprietor is given power of attorney over a patient's affairs, that patient may need to be protected by a trust fund or similar arrangement. The proposed amendment will enable conditions of approval to be imposed on proprietors of nursing homes to preclude practices and arrangements which are detrimental to the interests and welfare of patients. This Bill also applies uniform conditions of approval to both government and non-government nursing homes. The existing provisions of the National Health Act exempt government nursing homes from statutory conditions which relate to the number of beds in an approved nursing home, and the approval of patients for admission to a nursing home. Government nursing homes have in practice been subjected to restrictions on the approved number of beds since 1981. That practice is formalised in this legislation, for both new government nursing homes and additional beds in existing government nursing homes. It is proposed that formalised assessment procedures will also apply in government nursing homes. In introducing this measure the Commonwealth recognises the importance of developing co-ordinated approaches to assessment which should be followed in deciding to admit a patient to any nursing home, including a government nursing home. The legislative amendments before the House will permit this. I have written to State Health Ministers advising them of the amendments. In recognition of the continuing need for consultation of these matters the legislative changes affecting State government nursing homes will come into effect from a date to be proclaimed. The statutory conditions relating to fees control and charging policies will continue not to apply to government homes, because their financial operations are subject to State government policies. Honourable members will appreciate that it is necessary for my Department to have details of current nursing home proprietorship to administer the nursing homes program. The present legislation places the onus of notification on the person leaving the system, that is, the outgoing proprietor. Administrative difficulties will be minimised by clauses 43 and 71 of the Bill which will require the incoming proprietor to notify the Department of the impending change in ownership. Such an arrangement will enable the Department to advise new proprietors of the nature of the Government's nursing home program and of the responsibilities placed upon them under the legislation. The Bill also provides for ministerial and then Administrative Appeals Tribunal review in respect of a range of decisions. The principal decisions involved relate to the need for new and additional nursing home accommodation, approvals of nursing homes and additional services, admission and classification of patients, imposition or alteration of conditions of approval, other than fees determinations where ministerial review would continue to apply, and suspension or revocation of a nursing home's approval. Provisions for the amendment of the Medical Research Endowment Act are included in Part III of the Bill. Under the current provisions of that Act the Minister for Health, on the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council administers the medical research endowment fund. This fund is the major channel through which the Government provides financial support for medical research in Australia. The House will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the Budget the Government provided for an appropriation of $37.979m to the fund for 1983-84. This represents an increase of some 28 per cent over the funding for the previous year and is an indication of the Government's commitment to foster and to encourage first class medical research in this country. The existing legislation was enacted in 1937 and, consequently, does not conform to modern legislative concepts in respect of auditing and financial management. The current position is that the fund, and bequests to it, are maintained in Commonwealth Trading Bank accounts separate from the public account, administered by the Minister for Health, and subject to annual audit by the Commonwealth Auditor-General in accordance with the Act. However, in view of the magnitude of the Government's appropriation to the fund, it is considered appropriate to bring it within the public account and the concomitant audit and accounting provisions. Inherent in this proposal is the transfer to the Minister for Finance of the responsibility for investment of surplus money in the fund. On the other hand, authority to approve grants from the fund will remain with the Minister for Health. I emphasise, however, that the Minister for Finance can delegate the investment power to a senior officer of the Department of Health and it is envisaged that a delegation will be made to the First Assistant Director-General , National Health and Medical Research Council. Such an arrangement will, in fact, permit the fund to be administered in much the same way as now, but it will give the advantage of ensuring the use of modern accounting and audit procedures. The Bill also provides, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the Act to be amended so that the report to Parliament of work done under the Act for the preceding year is to be presented as soon as practicable after 31 December each year but that, in any case, it must be furnished to the Minister for Health within nine months of that date. This provision, which differs from the usual six months for such reports, takes account of the particular method of preparing the report whereby the text of the document consists mainly of reports prepared by selected researchers on their projects. These reports must, of course, be couched in terms understandable to the informed layperson and this procedure takes considerably more time than is the case with reports prepared within departments or agencies. Experience has shown that the report can normally be presented to Parliament within nine months of the end of each year but that it could not be presented within six months. Accordingly, this amendment will avoid the Minister for Health having regularly to seek an extension of what would be an unrealistic deadline. These amendments will not have any financial impact . I now turn to clauses 27 to 32 of the Bill which will amend the provisions of the National Health Act relating to the isolated patients' travel and accommodation allowances scheme, the purpose of which is to remove certain anomalies and overcome some deficiencies inherent in the scheme. The amendments will generally allow greater flexibility in the operation and administration of the scheme and, in some instances, will enable patients in isolated areas to obtain benefits where previously the legislation precluded payment. Specifically , IPTAAS benefits will be extended to patients referred by an optometrist to an ophthalmologist, and by a dentist to a specialist or consultant physician for treatment arising from a dental service. Currently, claims for payment under the scheme are not accepted until after the patient has returned home. The amendment in the Bill will allow, in cases of hardship or in special circumstances, for interim payments to be made. The amendments will also allow greater flexibility in the approval of further specialist treatment, and in certification of the need for an attendant or escort. The scheme will also be expanded to assist families where a patient, attendant or escort dies while away from home. Honourable members will appreciate that during the 1982-83 financial year out of a total of $9.2m paid in travel and accommodation allowances, some $2m was for accommodation allowances. Given that approximately 50 per cent of persons in receipt of allowances stay with relatives, it is considered that the present allowance based on accommodation rates at commercial premises is unnecessarily generous in reimbursing persons for private accommodation. The amendments will therefore empower the Director-General of Health to determine an accommodation allowance in relation to specified classes of accommodation, by instrument published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The financial implications of these amendments are expected to be minimal. Clause 53 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 91 of the National Health Act. This section has restricted the number of friendly society dispensaries in each State which can supply pharmaceutical benefits to all members of the public, whether they are members of a friendly society or not. Friendly society pharmacies in excess of this restricted number receive only a limited approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits only to members of the friendly society, to their spouses and children. There are currently only eight limited approvals in Australia. This amendment will remove the discriminatory legislation against friendly society dispensaries and allow all friendly society dispensaries to be placed on the same footing as private pharmacies. The amendment will have no financial impact. Clause 56 of the Bill provides for amendments to the secrecy provisions in section 135A of the National Health Act. This amendment brings the secrecy provisions more into line with similar provisions of the Health Insurance Act and will remove the confusion and ambiguity which has existed because of conflicting interpretations of existing provisions. The new provisions, whilst protecting the privacy of innocent persons, will enable the permanent head of the Department of Health to divulge to specified persons, such as State regulatory authorities, information acquired under the Act about the affairs of a person in certain circumstances. They are that that person has been convicted of any certain specified offences, or the Minister for Health has certified it desirable for the administration of certain Federal, State and Territory legislation, or where it is necessary in the public interest, that such information be divulged. The amendment will also allow information to be disclosed to a court with respect to the affairs of a person who is a party to the proceedings. These amendments have no financial impact. The Bill at clauses 13 and 14 will also amend the provisions of the Health insurance Act relating to costs involved in proceedings before a medical or optometrical service committee of inquiry. Under the Health Insurance Act as it now stands, provision exists for a practitioner to request a review by a medical or optometrical services review tribunal of a determination made by the Minister following recommendations from a medical or optometrical services committee of inquiry. Where a request for a review is lodged, provision currently exists in the legislation for the costs incurred by the practitioner in relation to proceedings before the tribunal to be borne by the Commonwealth unless the tribunal otherwise directs. This approach is out of step with the usual practice in courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its report on medical fraud and overservicing recommended that the Commonwealth should not be automatically required to meet the costs of doctors who request a review of a ministerial determination, but should require such doctors to meet their own costs unless the tribunal or court decides otherwise. The Government has generally accepted the Committee's recommendation. The effect of clause 13 of the Bill would be that practitioners who request a review of a ministerial determination on overservicing by a tribunal will now meet their own costs. The savings to the Commonwealth under the proposed arrangement would be minimal- probably less than $10,000 a year at today's prices-but the amendment would bring the operation of the medical and optometrical services review tribunals into line with the practice of other administrative tribunals. The repeal of section 123A by clause 14 would mean that, where a practitioner lodges an appeal to a prescribed court, normal court procedures would apply and the awarding of costs would be left to the court to decide. To date there have been no such appeals. The Health Insurance Act will also be amended to simplify the referral procedures currently in force in respect of persons suffering from cleft lip or cleft palate conditions. The amendment removes the requirement that patients certified as having a cleft lip or cleft palate condition be formally referred for treatment before services rendered to them by an accredited dental practitioner attract Commonwealth medical benefits. Experience has shown that this referral is unnecessary. The Bill provides for a number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 in respect of the health care card arrangements. The first of these is the restoration to unemployed school leavers of their legal entitlement to a health care card inadvertently denied to them by the operation of social security legislation introduced by the previous Government. This legislation in effect made school leavers ineligible for health care cards in their own right during the six-week period before they become eligible for unemployment benefit. The correction of this anomaly is provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. To avoid causing hardship to such persons, the matter has been dealt with administratively and consequently no additional expenditure is involved in 1983- 84. Clause 5 of the Bill removes the discrepancy that occurred following the introduction of the family income supplement. This discrepancy was between the health care card income test for sole parents and that for married parents with the same number of children. This amendment will give legislative authority for administrative action taken by the Department of Social Security from May 1983 which corrected the anomaly. The estimated additional expenditure for this measure by way of Commonwealth medical benefits in 1983-84 is $30,000. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for the issuing of health care cards to persons in receipt of unemployment and special benefits for a period of 12 weeks instead of the present period of two or three weeks. This will result in administrative savings to the Government estimated at $4m for 1983-84. Against this there is an offsetting cost of an estimated $1m in 1983-84 in health care card benefits payable to people issued with 12-week cards who will continue to use the card after their eligibility for unemployment or special benefits has expired. Clause 5 of the Bill excludes the new remote area allowance, to be introduced from May 1984, from the definition of income for the purposes of the health care card income test for low income earners. The allowance will be paid to pensioners and beneficiaries living in income tax zone A. These people generally receive little or no benefit from the tax rebate applicable to residents of this area as their income is often below the tax threshold. The allowance will reduce any zone rebate otherwise applicable. The exclusion of the remote area allowance for health care card income test purposes is considered by the Government to be necessary in the interest of equity for these persons. This Bill also permits the Director-General of Social Security to obtain information from a third party which may affect the entitlement of another person to a health care card. At present a third party can only be required to furnish a report on matters which might affect the continuation of entitlement to a health care card. It has often been found that applicants for health care cards are not able to provide satisfactory details of, for example, their income and it is considered desirable for the Director-General of Social Security to have the power to obtain this information. Finally, I am pleased to inform the House that a further amendment is to be made to the Health Insurance Act by clause 4 of the Bill to bring within the category of eligible pensioner, and therefore eligible for the attendant benefits that are available, persons in receipt of the new spouse carer's pension. This pension is a new Government initiative announced in the 1983-84 Budget which will become payable as from next month. It is to be payable to husbands providing full time care to an aged or invalid pensioner wife. The estimated cost of Commonwealth fringe benefits associated with the introduction of the allowance is $0.4m in 1983-84 and $0.4m in 1984-85. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(10.56) —I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some contribution to the debate on the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill. As most honourable members would be aware, the Inter-State Commission has been one of the most contentious of all the instruments that were provided for by our Constitution. It has been the subject of fairly lengthy and often bitter debate over the years. It continues to be a subject which is addressed by students of the Constitution and by academics as well as remaining an instrument that raises its head in a political context every so often. It is interesting to look back at the history of the Inter-State Commission. In 1898 at the Federal convention Edmund Barton argued that it was not a body for which it was necessary to make provision in the Constitution that was being discussed at that time. Barton argued that section 51 (i.) of the proposed Constitution gave the necessary powers to a Federal government to get involved in the sorts of things that an interstate commission might involve itself in. In any event a commission could have been set up under that section if it had been deemed to have been necessary at any future time and disbanded when it had outlived its usefulness. Other views obviously prevailed in the lead up to the agreement on the Federal Constitution which was adopted in 1901. As we know, the Inter-State Commission was provided for in the Constitution. It seems that the Inter-State Commission grew out of fears about railways, the pricing and use of railways in a competitive way to enable one State, as against another, to achieve some advantage. It was fundamentally for that reason that the Inter-State Commission emerged. It is quite likely that once the railway problem diminished, as it did not too long after Federation, as other forms of transport became available and the general concerns that were expressed prior to the States coming together and forming a Federation diminished, the concept of an interstate commission may have been forgotten. The discussion that has gone on about the Commission ever since has very largely been related to uses to which our founding fathers probably had not turned their minds. The fact that an interstate commission has been provided for in the Constitution has been used as an excuse by thinkers, academics and politicians over the years for bringing it back into existence so that it could perform some purpose that may not have been in the minds of the founding fathers. It is interesting to reflect upon that. I do not know whether the body, as it is constituted at the moment or as it was intended to be constituted by the Whitlam Government in 1975, really bears a great deal of relationship to what was envisaged when the provision was agreed upon at the Federal convention and ultimately became part of the Constitution by which we are now governed. Even though it is true to say that the provision of the Constitution does allow the Parliament to decide what powers an interstate commission may have, the overall intent of what form it has today is still quite different from what intentions the founding fathers may have had. Most people also realise that the Inter-State Commission operated for only three years out of the 82 years of Federation that we have enjoyed. That was in the period between 1912 and 1915. In 1915 there was a challenge in the High Court of Australia to the exercise of judicial power by the Inter-State Commission of the time. As a result of that the Inter-State Commission was allowed to lapse and no appointments were made which would enable it to operate. Finally, I think in the 1950s, in a clean-up of legislation by the Menzies Government, the relevant Act was removed from the statute books. It was not until the advent of the Whitlam Government in the early 1970s that the concept was revived. It is interesting to look at the way in which the concept was revived not so much because of the way things are today but because it gives a reasonably current indication of the way things may go if a government chooses to try to invest the Inter-State Commission with the powers that were envisaged for it by Mr Charles Jones, the then Minister for Transport in the Whitlam Government. The 1975 Bill gave the Inter-State Commission some very significant powers. It had the power to investigate any matters that related to any mode of transport. It had the power to adjudicate in matters of dispute arising out of the pricing and structure of interstate and overseas transport services. The adjudication powers related to preference in discrimination in the provision of overseas or interstate transport, either by States or by the providers of a transport service. It had the power to investigate matters relating to trade and commerce in general, and that was certainly cause for great concern in 1975. It could exercise statutory powers in matters relating to trade and commerce and it freed the decisions of the Inter-State Commission from challenges by other statutory bodies such as the Trade Practices Commission and the then Prices Justification Tribunal. It also had the power to arbitrate on matters relating to trade and commerce. Those powers, which were intended for the Inter-State Commission, caused an inordinate degree of concern not only to the Opposition but also to the community and industry generally. The result was a very long and bitter debate in the Senate. At the time the Senate succeeded in convincing the government to accept very heavy amendments which changed dramatically the nature of the Inter-State Commission. The Act which emerged from the Senate after that lengthy debate and heavy amending process resulted in an Inter-State Commission which was restricted to domestic transport matters, specifically excluding the two-airline agreement. It could deal only with matters that related to roads, rail, coastal shipping, pipelines and general aviation. The Inter-State Commission, as provided for in the Act, had no authority to initiate investigations or make any orders. It could investigate only matters that were referred to it by the Minister for Transport and it had no power to arbitrate. So there was quite a dramatic difference between the provisions of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 and the provisions of the Inter-State Commission Bill as introduced by the Government in that year. In effect, the Inter-State Commission can only investigate, consult and make recommendations to the Minister on those matters that he has referred to it. It has been described by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), as well as by others, as being an ongoing royal commission and a transport user's tribunal. That is the way that things stand at the moment. The Bill was not proclaimed before the Whitlam Government went out of office in November 1975. It just lay untouched over the entire period of office of the Fraser Government. On the Australian Labor Party's return to government in March this year the Minister made it clear that the Act would be proclaimed. I think it was proclaimed in October. So the legislation is now in force. The purpose of the Bill that is before the House at the moment is to provide for some minor machinery amendments that will tidy up some of the administration and Public Service-type aspects of the Bill to make it current with the circumstances that apply at the moment. The Opposition does not seek to raise any problems in relation to the Bill. The Opposition takes the attitude that, if the Inter-State Commission is to exist and operate, it is obviously stupid to try to enforce in 1983 and the period beyond salary levels and other things that were appropriate in 1975. I want to raise some general problems about the Inter-State Commission, its operation and the concept of the Commission in general. One of the problems that I think needs to be considered is that the Inter-State Commission will certainly duplicate the activities of other bodies. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is probably a matter to be resolved. It is certainly the case that the sorts of things for which the Inter-State Commission is intended by the Government are things that can be, or in fact are being, carried out by organisations such as the Bureau of Transport Economics, the Transport Industries Advisory Council, the Australian Transport Advisory Council, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Trade Practices Commission and, no doubt, a range of other instrumentalities, organisations and groups, formal or otherwise, that make a contribution in the area within which it is intended that the Inter-State Commission will operate. I think it is also a potential problem that the Inter-State Commission would compete with, as well as duplicate, some of the activities of the bodies which I have mentioned. I think we have to be aware of and alive to the sorts of problems that can arise when public instrumentalities find themselves in competition with one another. It is something that is not always trouble free and it may cause difficulties for policy in general as well as perhaps for the operations of the individual instrumentalities concerned. One of the other difficulties is that the Inter-State Commission, in the form in which it now finds itself, has only an advisory capacity. Anything that would need to happen as a result of any recommendations that the Inter-State Commission might make to the Minister would have to take legislative form. It is quite likely that the sorts of recommendations that are made, when put into legislative form, could raise constitutional problems, and challenges may be mounted against them. I think it is probably most likely that those problems would arise in relation to section 92. A lot of the things in which it is likely that the Inter-State Commission would be involving itself at the Minister's direction and making recommendations about would be matters that would, in their resolution, affect trade between the States and might, therefore, result in challenges from other bodies that might consider themselves to be disadvantaged by the recommendations the Minister might seek to put into legislative form. That is another difficulty that is raised by the existence of the Inter-State Commission and the operations in which it would be involved under the direction of the Minister. Another problem is the general question of whether it is better to have an interstate commission on an ongoing basis with a permanent secretariat and the capacity to develop and build up some expertise, carrying out the inquiries and the instructions that the Minister might give it from time to time, or whether it is better to set up independent or separate inquiries to do those tasks on behalf of the Minister. One particular example which is with us already has some relevance. The Government, in its first few months in office, has been concerned about the problems that exist in the long distance haulage industry, or the trucking industry, as it is generally called. The Government has been concerned to establish an inquiry to consider the problems of that industry and to make some recommendations about what could be done to resolve these problems if, in fact, they are identified. That, I would have thought, would have been an appropriate inquiry to have referred to a body such as the Inter-State Commission. I do not really think any significant timing was involved. Either the Minister could have proclaimed the Inter-State Commission a month or two earlier than he did or he could have set up his road freight inquiry a little later than he did. In any event, only a couple of months difference were involved. Yet the Minister chose to refer the road freight matter to a special inquiry, the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, headed by Mr May, not to the Inter-State Commission. The Government also has concerns about the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. It is keen to look at what is going on with Tasmanian freight equalisation. It has chosen to refer that matter, as the first reference, to the Inter-State Commission. I think it just raises the question as to whether the Inter-State Commission is the best mechanism, firstly, to have and, secondly, to use, or whether it is appropriate to do as the Minister did in the case of the road transport inquiry and refer it to a particular body for investigation. I do not make any value judgment about it. I think that the way in which the two inquiries have been handled raises the question of whether the Inter-State Commission is absolutely necessary. The arguments that could be raised in relation to having it and using it to inquire into the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme would obviously be arguments against having the road transport inquiry referred to a body other than the Inter-State Commission. Another difficulty-something which the Opposition is continually concerned about-is that every time another commission or instrumentality is set up, it inevitably becomes part of the bureaucratic structure. It becomes to some extent a self-justifying body, and it tends to lose some of the ginger and vigour that may be present in instrumentalities that are not of a permanent nature. It will be interesting to see the quality of the report that comes, for instance, from the May inquiry into road freight and the different reports that come from the Inter-State Commission over the years as it starts to settle into the role that the Minister has in mind for it. I think it is inevitable that the Inter-State Commission will seek to entrench itself in bureaucratic terms, and it will probably become a consumer of funds and a larger and larger employer of people. That is just one of the concerns that I think we must have in mind when we look at whether we should set up a body such as this Commission. Centralisation may be another difficulty in relation to the Inter-State Commission. The fact is that it is a Federal body. It is my understanding that the Minister does not have to consult with his State counterparts before he makes references to the Commission. It may well be that the things that it looks at are things that suit the Commonwealth Government rather than State governments and that the result will be a tendency to acquire more power in the hands of the Commonwealth Government and perhaps less power for the States. I, for one, would be concerned if the Inter-State Commission were ultimately to develop a role which resulted in the Commonwealth picking up more activities which are properly activities for a State government. I would not want to sit idly by watching that happen. The other side of the coin is the States' rights question. I am not sure what the Minister's intentions are in relation to the States and consultation with the States. The Minister has indicated that he will refer the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme to the Inter-State Commission. He may have already done so. I do not know whether he had consultations with the Tasmanian Government before- - Mr Peter Morris —We have an assurance that there will be consultation. Mr LUSHER —The Minister gives an assurance that there will always be consultation. I am certainly grateful to hear that, because I do not think it would be healthy for federalism as a whole and for the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States if the Commonwealth were to set up inquiries into things such as the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme without having prior consultation with the State governments, in this case the Tasmanian Government. The other concern that I have, which is a problem that may arise with the Inter -State Commission, is that it is unarguably a vehicle that can result in greater regulation. I am not in favour of greater regulation. I think the Minister understands that. Generally speaking, the Opposition would seek to move in a long term general direction toward less, rather than more, regulation. It has been put to me that the Inter-State Commission could deregulate as much as it could regulate. I acknowledge that. I would not want to see it moving down a track which resulted in greater regulation. If it did result in some deregulation within the transport industry, it would probably meet with my approval. I am a little concerned about developments in the road freight inquiry. Although my concern is not directly related to the Inter-State Commission, it could easily have been. My concern is that, apart from the restaurant industry in this country, the road freight industry is one of the most competitive. Although the sheer fact of the competitiveness in the industry does lead to people going broke and does lead to some problems in relation to safety, the reality is that we have been able to maintain over a long period very competitive freight rates, and those freight rates have been to the advantage of industry generally and have assisted the economic growth of this country. I would be concerned if the May inquiry came out with proposals that would result in heavy regulation within the transport and trucking industry. I express the same concerns in relation to the inquiries in which the Inter-State Commission may become involved at the Minister's direction. I approach the concept of the Inter-State Commission with a great degree of caution. Certainly, the concept does not carry my wholehearted endorsement, whether the Commission is in its present form or in any form which ultimately gives it greater or lesser power. I think it would become apparent that the benefits or the dangers of the Inter-State Commission would depend in large part upon whose hands it is in. I accept in good faith that the Minister of the day does not have any intentions-I imagine he does not have any intentions-of using the Inter-State Commission as some sort of draconian vehicle to implement all sorts of horrible socialist policies, regulatory policies and things of that nature. I acknowledge that the Minister would not seek to use the Commission for those ends. Equally, this Minister will not be in charge of this portfolio-I do not think he would seek to be-for time immemorial. The reality is that we must ensure that the Inter-State Commission is not, for instance, subjected to amendments which would return to it the powers that were ascribed to it or intended for it when the original Bill was introduced in 1975. The Opposition obviously would not look favourably on any attempt to amend the legislation in such a way as to increase the powers of the Inter-State Commission. I do not deny that if in the present form it is used as some sort of ongoing royal commission and as an instrument of advice to the Minister and the Government it may serve some useful purpose. However, I mention again the questions I raised a little earlier. I ask whether the Commission is absolutely essential and whether what it seeks to achieve could have been achieved in other ways. Time will tell. But I think, and the Opposition believes, that it is essential that the Commission be limited to the role that was given to it in the 1975 Act. I assure the Minister that we will closely watch the operation and the deliberations of the Commission and the sort of output that comes from it, as well as the references that he gives it. I conclude by saying that any consideration of the Inter-State Commission in its present form must be essentially a balanced, consideration or analysis. I say in all honesty that my preference is that we do not have an Inter-State Commission. But the reality is that we do have it. It is in a form that was ultimately agreed to by the Senate back in 1975. It is my understanding that the Minister does not seek to change the powers it emerged from the Senate with at that time. So whilst it certainly is a matter for the Parliament to decide what powers the Inter-State Commission might have, although those powers are not to include the exercise of judicial powers, I think we would not wish the Government to try to increase the powers the 1975 Bill provided to the Commission. The only other thing I would like to say is that the only possible alternative to an Inter-State Commission, apart from the other bodies that operate in a similar field, is what we can call loosely co-operative federalism and the use of bodies such as the Australian Transport Advisory Council, and others, constructively towards trying to overcome the sorts of problems that the Inter- State Commission will, I imagine, be seeking to overcome. It may well be that a co-operative federalist approach may avoid a lot of the problems that could develop in the use and operations of the Inter-State Commission, but that is certainly not going to happen at this time. I just raise it as being a possible alternative to an interstate commission in an attempt to achieve the sort of end that the Commission will seek to achieve. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We will be watching very closely the operations of the Commission as it undertakes the tasks which the Minister will give to it. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(11.27) —Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset might I say that this is the first time I have spoken in the House while you have occupied the chair. It is a pleasure for me to see you in that position. I listened very carefully to what the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) has said. I am pleased that he does not want to sell everything off as he did last week when we were debating the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. He raised the matter of ad hoc bodies holding various inquiries. From my point of view, as important as some of these ad hoc bodies are, it is essential that we have some consistency and rationality in the transport field. We need an overview and I believe that that is what the Inter-State Commission will be doing. I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill. Australia, because of its size, has considerable transport problems. The Australian Labor Party has long recognised this and for this reason it has been a long standing commitment of the Australian Labor Party to establish the Inter-State Commission. Naturally as a member of that political party I am proud to be playing a small part in the implementation of yet another part of Labor Party policy. Many honourable members will be aware that the Inter -State Commission Act was passed with bipartisan support in 1975, but it was not proclaimed by our predecessors. We might ask why. The only reason I can find is that our predecessors did not care about interstate transport and so today, after eight years of neglect-I might add shameful neglect by our predecessors- finally the Bill now being debated will enable this Hawke Labor Government to establish the Inter-State Commission. Proclamation of the Act passed in 1975 was arranged by this Government and it came into operation on 27 September 1983. The Hawke Labor Government sees the Inter-State Commission as an important vehicle for promoting the national development of national transport policies. The Government's action today fulfils an important election promise in the transport field. The purpose of the Bill is to update a number of provisions in the Inter-State Commission. This Government, unlike the previous Government, has a consistent national transport policy which has been developed through the democratic processes of the Australian Labor Party. The Government's national transport policy aims to develop a national transport system which encourages national development that is equitable, safe, reliable and convenient and pursues these aims in the most socially effective way. This stands in stark contrast to the dogma of deregulation and unfettered market forces mindlessly regurgitated by the Opposition. This is because our conservative opponents have no transport policy. 'Leave it all to the market', their favourite catchcry of total deregulation, is as irrelevant to the transport problems facing Australia today as are those sitting opposite. The Commission the Government shall establish will in fact investigate and advise the Government on allegations of discriminatory practices, inequalities, inefficiencies and anomalies in interstate transport. The Inter-State Commission will be a major vehicle for getting the facts out in the open when it examines and recommends on interstate transport problems. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has said it will operate like a transport users tribunal in conducting its investigations. It will be an important channel through which the views of interested parties can be expressed, such as those of the community, transport users, unions and governments. The Australian Constitution in sections 101 to 104 deals with the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. When it is established the Commission will have complete constitutional coverage of interstate transport. It will assist in the clarification of other sections of the Constitution which are currently ambiguous; it will reduce administrative ad hockery, inefficiency and conflict and it will also develop a permanent fund of knowledge which will assist interpretation in the High Court of Australia on transport matters. During its investigations the Commission will probably examine transport regulations. Clearly, it is important that an ongoing process of regulatory reform takes into account changing circumstances and assists the development of the transport industry for the benefit of users. Honourable members opposite would leave it all to what is often a very imperfect market. This market often makes an inefficient, partial and private calculation of profit and loss, not a national calculation of full costs and benefits. Often the market disadvantages many smaller suppliers and users by unfettered deregulation espoused by the conservatives opposite who avoid the truth of unfettered deregulation. An economy with less government regulation is still regulated, but by powerful private interests. The Commission provided for in the Act is an investigatory and advisory body with royal commission-type powers. Its reports and recommendations will be tabled in the Parliament. It has no regulatory or judicial powers and will investigate only those interstate transport matters referred to it by the Minister for Transport. The ISC will be required to carry out wide-ranging investigations covering economic, social, institutional and legal-constitutional issues affecting interstate transport. No other existing organisation is equipped or empowered to carry out such inquiries. The ISC meets the need for an ongoing independent body that performs these functions. While in certain circumstances there will be a need for ad hoc inquiries to handle matters falling outside the scope of the ISC , in general ad hoc commissions and inquiries are expensive to establish and lose all the expertise gained when they are disbanded. I think that that is a very important matter in the transport field. The ISC will accumulate and retain such expertise. Users of transport have no single entity in Australia to which they can take any problems they encounter with anomalies, discriminations and inequalities that exist in our national transport system. At present they can appeal only to operator controlled organisations, both government and private, whose own interests are generally paramount. Madam Deputy Speaker, one area in which I am particularly interested is the safety of vehicles involved in interstate transport. I have been told by the police and others that many vehicles, such as trucks and buses, which travel interstate are defective in many safety, or indeed mechanical, respects. The police have told me that some vehicles involved in accidents should never have been on the road. I am not holding New South Wales up as a great model, but I have been told that had some vehicles been inspected in New South Wales they would not have been allowed on the road. The tragedy is that too often such vehicles are inspected after an accident. But these vehicles have been passed as roadworthy in other States and therefore they are free to travel interstate. I have personal knowledge of an accident involving one bus from another State in which several school-children were killed. I know that this bus would not have passed inspection in New South Wales, but it was passed in another State and it came into New South Wales. Because of certain mechanical deficiencies, which might not have been the whole reason for the accident but most certainly contributed to it, it was involved in an accident in which several school- children were killed. One of the terms of reference for the national road freight industry inquiry is: The involvement of heavy vehicles in road crashes and the factors involved, especially any relation to the current commercial conditions in the industry. Depending on the report of this inquiry, and indeed even without it, the Minister can refer this matter to the Commission, and can direct the Commission to investigate safety aspects of vehicles involved in interstate transport. I hope that this will be an early recommendation from the Minister. As the Government broadens its advice-gathering base and incorporates the full economic , environmental, defence, and social costs and benefits of transport projects and services into its decision making processes, it will require a mechanism for evaluating the breadth of that advice. The approach used by the Hawke Labor Government will be the social audit. This is akin to social cost benefit analysis. The Bureau of Transport Economics is a leading exponent of this approach in the transport field and has produced many such analyses in the past. I understand it is currently engaged in further development of the technique of social audit. Its aim will be to determine the most socially effective method of performing new tasks. Another aim will be to guide policy on cost recovery mechanisms by determining the full cost attributable to each mode and type of transport or service. This will lead to a more socially effective transport system, a system balanced in terms of modal division of tasks, industrial diversity, urban, regional and rural development. Most importantly, it will be a transport system which is nationally based and co -ordinated. The advantage of the social audit is that it will keep the market honest by ensuring that the total cost of providing a service is considered, as well as total benefits. This country is extremely fortunate that in the present Minister it has someone who understands transport. Under the Minister, transport will gain its rightful place in the Australian scheme. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill and take pleasure in commending it to the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(11.39) —I wish to commend the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) for some of the comments he made in his speech on the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill. I thought his point about the safety aspect of vehicles travelling interstate was very valuable. I certainly hope that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) will take that issue on board. Of course, the problem with that kind of suggestion is that the Inter-State Commission could consider only points of view put to it and could then provide advice to this Government. Most of the matters to be considered are the ultimate responsibility of State governments, and it would be a matter of convincing the State governments that what the Commonwealth is suggesting is in the interests of road safety. I have had the opportunity of examining this Bill. I must say that initially I was somewhat concerned about what it might or might not do and about the powers which the Commission might have. My recollection is that we had a very vigorous debate back in 1975 when the earlier Inter-State Commission Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill we are now considering, which amends the principal Act which was actually passed through the Parliament in 1975 but not proclaimed, is different from the original Bill introduced by the then Whitlam Government in 1975. That Bill gave the Commission very broad powers which were of great concern to the community at large. I wish to refer briefly to some comments made about that original Bill by Senator Withers, the senator from Western Australia. At page 1681 of Senate Hansard of 21 May 1975 he said: The Government claims that the Commission will deal only with transport. If so, we would not object to the broad principle involved. But this Bill does not deal only with transport; it deals with a much wider area. It provides the Government with incredible powers which can be used through the Commission, and at the same time it denies parliamentary control of the Commission's activities. Such measures must be regarded with a great deal of suspicion. We are now speaking about the original Bill introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1975. Senator Withers referred to clause 17 of the Bill, which read as follows: The Commission has power to do any act or thing that it is authorised to do in pursuance of any law made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce, including but not limited to, a law with respect to the engaging in, or the use of aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipelines in, inter- State transport without the licence or consent of the Commission. I read that original clause simply to indicate the breadth of that Bill introduced back in 1975 and to point out that under the legislation we are now dealing with the powers of the Commission are very much more limited. I refer now to section 9 (1) of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, which is now law. It states: The Minister may at any time, by notice in writing given by him to the Commission, direct the Commission to investigate any matter or matters specified in the notice, being a matter or matters relating to inter-State transport. As I understand it, originally under the Constitution it was intended that the Commission be given very broad powers relating to trade and commerce, which would obviously include transport. Specific reference was made in the Constitution to railways and transport matters. Now we are dealing with a much more confined concept in which the Commission is, I think quite properly, concerned with this important area of interstate transport. I wish to commend the Government for its common sense in realising that it is not proper at this stage to expand the powers of the Commission. Most of the time the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, is a rational person and is concerned about transport matters. My colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and I sat with him on the Standing Committee on Road Safety. We understood then from the comments that he made that he was very much concerned about road safety matters, and in his concern for interstate transport generally he shows that he is a rational person. I am not so sure what would have happened had we had one of the more radical members of his Party appointed as Minister for Transport. I refer to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) or the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe). We might have had an attempt to expand this Commission and make it a much more centralised and powerful body. That would have been of great concern to the Opposition. The purpose of this Bill is to amend a number of provisions of the Inter-State Commission Act to take account of legislative and other developments since 1975. I will refer to some of the points briefly. Firstly, the Bill will exclude from the ambit of the Commission any investigation of matters relating to the operation of the current 1981 airlines agreement and the Independent Air Fares Committee legislation. Secondly, it will adjust to present day equivalents the salaries of the President and members of the Commission and related matters. I will comment briefly about the membership of the Commission in a moment or two. Thirdly, it will replace those provisions relating to retirement benefits in the Public Service Act with up to date provisions reflecting changes since 1975. There are also some minor changes to conform with current administrative procedures, with the present drafting practices of Parliamentary Counsel and with the practices of the Parliament. The general question of an Inter-State Commission is a fairly controversial issue. As I said before, there was a raging debate in 1975. People still have some doubts about the value of this kind of body. It will investigate and advise , as the Minister for Transport said in his second reading speech. All it will do is provide advice to the Government of the day. It will be like a royal commission. Of course, royal commissions of late do not have a very good record. They go on and on for a long time and are very expensive. That is great for the lawyers. Lawyers love to be involved in a royal commission, as the commissioner or as counsel assisting the commissioner because that means that they are paid very large salaries usually for a very long time. Of course, this Commission will be ongoing. It may never end, unless we provide legislation to rescind this legislation or somehow change the role of the Commission. It will be an ongoing type of royal commission, as the Minister has already said. That worries me to some extent. The expense worries me. It concerns me how it will relate to other bodies which already provide fairly sound advice to government, including the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the Transport Industries Advisory Council. How will it relate to committees of this Parliament, Senate committees and House of Representatives committees? Those committees have a very valuable role to play and are a good source of advice to the Government. I hope that this Commission will not undermine the role of committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. It is also a matter of some concern-this will have to be watched very carefully by the Minister-that a large bureaucracy does not develop around this Commission. There is a tendency, as one of Parkinson's laws indicate, for these sorts of bodies to expand and to keep expanding. If there is a vacuum, they will expand into that vacuum. They will take on more and more people. Sometimes the amount of expense involved for the taxpayers does not relate very accurately to the quality of advice provided by such bodies. Mr Goodluck —What is its first job? Mr GROOM —I will get to that in a moment. That is a matter of some concern. Another point, of course, is that the body might well provide very objective, academic and non-political advice, but this is not always the best advice. Many organisations provide that kind of academic advice, which is very good for the pursuit of an intellectual exercise but which does not always take into account the human factors. The Industries Assistance Commission is like that. Sometimes it ignores basic human factors such as the need for employment in a particular district. I hope that this Commission, in giving advice to the Government, will take into account these very real human factors in the community. I hope that it will not look just at statistics, at the cold hard figures, when determining the nature and quality of the advice it might give. I am a Tasmanian and I am pleased to see colleagues from Tasmania in the House. The honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr ) have always taken a very keen interest in transport issues, as have the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Bass ( Mr Newman). I am pleased that these honourable members are here to support me in this debate. The first question to be placed before the Inter-State Commission is the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. As members of this Parliament and as Tasmanians, we were very pleased to be involved in the initial groundwork which created the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. When we came to office as back bench members of the Fraser Government the honourable member for Bass was then a Minister-we were very keen to see the freight equalisation scheme implemented as soon as possible because we realised how important it was to the future of our State and the industries within it. Within six or seven months-the honourable member for Franklin might correct me-the freight equalisation scheme was introduced by the Fraser Government. This was welcomed by the Tasmanian community, by the Government, by local government, by people in industries and by the farmers of Tasmania. The farming community remains the backbone of Tasmania and the farmers were very pleased with that scheme. Mr Fife —And all national thinking Australians. Mr GROOM —As the former Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Farrer, who has been keenly involved in Tasmanian issues in his various capacities, said , this had the support of all thinking Australians who were concerned about all parts of Australia. The freight equalisation scheme recognises the disadvantage suffered by the people of Tasmania because it is an island and because of Bass Strait, which I think is our greatest disadvantage but which is also our greatest advantage because it separates us from the rest of the mainland. But that is another point. People all around Australia recognised that, to establish equity, the freight equalisation scheme had to be implemented, simply to put us on the same footing as the rest of Australia. It has helped industries to survive. For example, the paper industry is a very important industry in Tasmania, the great Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd being within my electorate and the electorate of the honourable member for Wilmot. Tremendous assistance has been provided to that industry. The vegetable industry is another key industry. The timber industry is terribly important in my electorate and throughout Tasmania. These industries have been through hard times. They have had to put off many people. They have been able to survive as a direct result of the freight equalisation scheme. I commend the Government and the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, because he has indicated his support for the continuation of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. We thank him for that . We thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for agreeing to the continuation of this great scheme. We are fair when we can be, and we commend them for this action. We are concerned about some of the comments and rumours that are getting around . Can we accept their word at face value? Usually we can, but there have been occasions when we could not. I do not want to go into the Wynyard Airport issue, which is only indirectly related to this Bill. But the Government made a solemn promise that Wynyard Airport would be upgraded to medium-jet standard. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) knows all about that because he was directly involved; he announced the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport. As soon as the election was over, this idea was immediately dropped. The people of Tasmania feel very disappointed, especially those on the north-west coast. Deep inside, they feel they have been let down. They thought these people were men of honour and that their word was their bond, but this has proved not to be the case. I shall get off that particular issue because it is not really directly related to this Bill. The Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme has to survive. It is important that the Government look carefully at the membership of this Commission. Under section 9 of the Principal Act there will be three members-the President and two other members. I hope that there will be bipartisan support from both sides of this chamber for the proposition that a Tasmanian be appointed as one of the three commissioners. This Commission will play a very important role in the economic and social future of Tasmania. It is indicative of that fact that the first reference placed before this body is an examination of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. We in Tasmania are so dependent on our shipping. Tasmania is an island, as I said before. Shipping across the Strait is our lifeblood. I do not know what the honourable member for Macarthur will say about this but tragic maritime disputes have brought our State and its people to their knees from time to time. Too often our ships are tied up at the wharf, we cannot get our goods to market and we cannot buy the essentials we need in Tasmania to live from day to day. Mr Goodluck —It is $6.50 a case to England for apples. Mr GROOM —As the honourable member for Franklin just mentioned, it costs $6.50 to send a case of apples to England. That relates very much to the cost of these disputes. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point. I put it to him very directly and I hope that he will look at it in the fair minded way in which he considers these sorts of suggestions from Tasmania. When one of these disputes takes place on the waterfront, when the ships are tied up, when Tasmania's people and industry are adversely affected and when an emergency is developing, will the Minister as a matter of urgency direct the Commission under the Act to examine the circumstances of that waterfront dispute as it affects the people on both sides of Bass Strait, on the mainland and in Tasmania? I believe that this Commission could have a very important role to play in examining those sorts of disputes that stop transport and sever the links between the States. After considering all the facts it could give some advice to the Government as to what it should do. If this Commission has an ongoing role to play, hopefully it will become expert in that kind of issue and will be able to give sound advice to the Government. Quite often in these disputes there is not a proper and free flow of good advice to the Government from people who are directly involved. Sometimes Ministers do not know what is going on in a dispute . Sometimes people who are adversely affected by a dispute do not know what is going on. We need to have a body, an action team, that can fly into the place where such a dispute is occurring, whether it is Burnie, Devonport, Hobart, Launceston or Melbourne, obtain the facts and consider each dispute carefully. I believe that it is a proper role for the Inter-State Commission to give some urgent advice to the Government. That would serve the interests of the community . I am sure that we all want to do the best we can for our community, and I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion on board. We have missed out in Tasmania. We do not now have a commissioner on the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We used to have Elspeth Vaughan on the Commission, but now the ABC has no representative from Tasmania. We have only to look at what the High Court did to Tasmania. Never has a Tasmanian sat on the High Court. It is about time this Government looked at that question and considered filling the next High Court vacancy with a Tasmanian. Nobody has a more important role to play in the future of the smaller States than the High Court. I do not want to get on to the dams dispute. I think on that issue the High Court did not take into account the feelings and the interests of the people of the smaller States, the people of Tasmania. I think the decision of the High Court on that issue was a very poor one. It was said to be a legal decision but obviously it was a political one. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Reeves) adjourned. [COGNATE PAPERS: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORMReport ELECTORAL EXPENDITUREReport] Consideration resumed from 9 November. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(12.00) —I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, lines 8 and 9, omit the definition of 'Polling booth', substitute the following definition: 'Polling booth' means a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure, or a part of a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure, provided at a polling place, in pursuance of paragraph 98 (1) (b), for the purpose of taking votes during polling;. This amendment, the first in a series of amendments to be moved by the Government, expands the definition in the original Act of what constitutes a polling booth. The Government decided on reflection that it was desirable to expand the definition of a polling booth to give it clarity because some of the other amendments to be moved down the line, and they will become obvious later because there is a requirement for an adjustment to one or two of them, make it very important that there is a clear understanding of what is meant by the term 'polling booth' in order that the possibilities for disputation arising out of matters relating to displays at polling booths are minimised. The Government has moved this amendment for that reason. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Establishment of Commission). Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(12.03) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 7, page 16, at the end of proposed section 11 add the following sub- section: '(5) For the purposes of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922, persons employed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be employed by the Commission. '. (3) Clause 7, page 17, lines 2 to 5, omit proposed section 12. These amendments are also essential machinery matters. The first amendment makes absolutely certain that public servants who work for the Commonwealth Electoral Commission after it is established as an effective independent body do not suffer any disadvantage by changing the basis of their employment. Clause 7 provides in proposed section 11 that senior management staff may be employed by the Australian Electoral Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth and that these staff are to be employed outside the Public Service Act. The Public Service Board has raised the point that Part IV of the Public Service Act, which preserves the rights of public servants who move from the Public Service to employment with statutory authorities, might not apply to those public servants who move to the Australian Electoral Commission. Employment by the Australian Electoral Commission is to be on behalf of the Commonwealth and not in the Commission's own right. The first of these amendments will ensure that the rights of public servants who move to the Australian Electoral Commission will be preserved, and that will ensure that the Commission has as wide a recruiting base as possible at the senior management level. The second amendment to clause 7 deletes proposed section 12 which provides: For the purposes of the Audit Act . . . including regulations . . . the Electoral Commission shall be deemed to be a Department of which the Electoral Commissioner is the permanent head. If we were to maintain this clause within the Bill it would create effectively a unique situation. The more conventional means of achieving exactly the same effect as has been achieved with the Legal Aid Commission, the Industries Assistance Commission and others has been for them to become, within the framework of the Audit Act, prescribed organisations which effectively permit the situations that we were attempting to achieve in the original section 12, via regulation under that proposition. It is the Government's intention that on the passage of this legislation and before its proclamation, regulations be introduced to achieve exactly the same effect as would be achieved by proposed section 12. On reflection, we think it is undesirable that a precedent should be set in this direction when upwards of seven or eight precedents have been set in the other direction of prescribing commissions for the purposes of the Audit Act to achieve this effect. The Government has decided instead to go down this course and for that reason it makes this essentially machinery amendment. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.05) —The Opposition is willing to co-operate in this matter. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) said, these are largely machinery measures and have desirable objectives. I find it rather surprising that at this late stage the Government has so many amendments on its list. With the long run-up to this issue that the Government's spokesmen and the Minister have had, one would have expected these matters to have been cleared up, finalised and settled when the Bill was printed for the House's initial consideration. In any event, we are happy to support the Government in this measure. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.07) —I wish to speak to clause 7 because there are some important implications that need to be understood. They arise out of some of the observations I made yesterday in my speech on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Certainly, the proposal for the establishment of the new Australian Electoral Commission is an advance and I do not in any way criticise the direction that is being taken or the move that was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Obviously in this area, which is a very sensitive area for parliamentarians, it is important that we have a bipartisan body able to adjudicate in matters affecting the Commonwealth Electoral Act and able to deal with matters given into its hands, particularly the redistribution of electorates and the like. For that reason, we have to look very closely at the composition of the body and ask ourselves whether the best that can be done has been done. I have examined these provisions and I doubt whether the best that could be done has been done. I make it very clear that the Australian Electoral Commission and the appointments to it will not be free of critical review by the Opposition. While I regard the provisions in clause 7 as an improvement, I do not regard them as the most satisfactory that could be achieved. We know that there are times when the present Opposition has been in government and that, as we are often reminded, the present Government has been in opposition more often that it has been in government. But under this Bill, as has been the case previously, the government of the day will be able to appoint people to deal with matters under the legislation. Notwithstanding the criticism that might have been offered from time to time by supporters of the former Government about the composition of electoral commissions and redistribution commissions, the fact is that the Australian Electoral Commission will not be free from criticism . It needs to be understood that the Chairman is to be appointed by the Governor- General. That means that he will be recommended by the Executive Council to the Governor-General, which means that it will be a Cabinet appointment. The Chairman will hold office on a part time basis. While the person shall be a judge of the Federal Court of Australia of at least three years standing, he shall be chosen from a panel of three names submitted by the Chief Judge of that Court. So Cabinet will have a very important role to fulfil in the appointment of the Chairman. The third member of the Commission shall be a permanent head, as defined in the Public Service Act, or an officer of equivalent status. Yesterday I made some observations about that. This matter needs to be understood in the context of the people who are eligible for appointment as permanent heads, or officers of equivalent status, and the Government's plans in relation to the Public Service as stated. The Government intends to put into the hands of Cabinet, by amendments to the Public Service Amendment (First Division Officers) Act, the appointment of all First Division officers. It may well be better that we all know and that it is out in the open in a sense that they are clearly political appointments and will be made as political appointments. It may be better to understand that than to have the situation we had when the present Government, in opposition, was always suggesting that the Public Service Board, in the role that it fulfilled, may have been jawboned by the government of the day. The fact is that the Public Service Board will be effectively jawboned in the way in which it makes recommendations for appointments at permanent head level. We know that. Dr Wilenski has been appointed Chairman of the Public Service Board. That appointment has been confirmed and he is in place. That appointment is not free of criticism. I have criticised it and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has criticised it. That gentleman has a view of the Public Service. That gentleman will be establishing all the committees designed to recommend appointments at the First Division level under existing legislation. He has already said that he regards the Public Service as biased. He sees it as biased against the Australian Labor Party. At times some people on this side, particularly when there were criticisms of aspects of the Public Service under the previous Government, may have been critical of public servants as well. But the fact is that Dr Wilenski says that he sees the Public Service at senior levels as biased and that it is his job to introduce certain changes at that level. It needs to be understood too that while these provisions are an improvement, and a worthwhile improvement, they cannot go uncriticised. I am critical of the fact that there is still a distinct possibility for the Government, by the appointments that it makes at this level, to have a significant influence on the way in which the Australian Electoral Commission operates. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman on this will be keeping this matter under very close scrutiny and watching very closely, as I will, the nature of the appointments made at this level. I simply observe that there are other difficult areas in which the Government has recently seen fit to consult with the Opposition on appointments that are made. A mechanism for consultation has been written into legislation in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that a similar provision has not been proposed in this Bill but I would like to think that in important appointments at this level some consultation will take place to avoid the possibility of rancour arising when appointments are made. I make it clear that I make these criticisms against the background of the appointment that has been made to the chairmanship of the Public Service Board. It was a very shabby appointment in the way in which it was made and a very shabby appointment in the way in which the former Chairman of the Public Service Board was removed. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Dundas that that is irrelevant to the clauses under discussion. Mr RUDDOCK —Madam Deputy Chairman, I do not wish to canvass your ruling, except to say that under clause 7 (5) the third member of the Commission shall be a permanent head, as defined in the Public Service Act, or an officer of equivalent status. What I believe is perfectly relevant is the way in which people might be appointed to this Commission and the factors that need to be taken into account in such appointments. In my view, the Government has clearly been shown to be wanting in one of the most important appointments at that level . Certainly, the chairmanship of the Public Service Board has a status equivalent to that of permanent head. In fact it is the doyen position-the most important position-of the Public Service. A clear and blatant political appointment has been made. That needs to be understood. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member discuss the clauses of the Bill rather than permanent heads. Mr RUDDOCK —I make the point in relation to the way in which the Australian Electoral Commission has been established that permanent heads, as defined in the Public Service Act, or officers of equivalent status are to be appointed to the Commission. It needs to be understood-I make this point once again only for emphasis-that important officers of statutory bodies of this sort are capable of being appointed on a political basis. The most important position, the chairmanship of the Public Service Board, was appointed on that basis. It is a factor that needs to be drawn to the attention of honourable members. I will continue to draw that matter to the attention of honourable members because I think it is very important. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(12.16) —As the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which made this recommendation, I say that it was in the interests of appointing a fair commission that we recommended to restrict the positions to people who had reached a certain level in their careers and who would be less likely to be stood over by governments. That is why we restricted the appointment to the highest possible level. The alternative would have been to omit the restriction as far as the non-judicial appointee was concerned and appoint anybody who appeared to be acceptable. I do not know who the Government will appoint to any of the three positions. I am quite sure that the Government will go out of its way to ensure that the appointees have no previous political involvement and that the Australian Electoral Commission is independent and fearless. My own view-I think the other Committee members will agree with me-is that federal redistributions carried out by all kinds of commissioners appointed by all kinds of governments were reasonable redistributions. Nobody suggested that any of the redistributions were politically biased. One of the reasons we take the line that the redistributions should be final is that all kinds of political groups in the Parliament-especially in the Senate, of course, where governments often do not have a majority-are able to stop a redistribution. It is quite clear that, for example, a party or a group of parties will knock back any sort of redistribution because they want to delay an election or have an election carried out on old boundaries. We need an independent, fair body. We interviewed a number of distribution commissioners. I think the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) would agree that there was no suggestion from anybody on the Committee, no matter how biased, that any of the redistributions have been politically biased. I accept the point that there are and always have been people in the Public Service who have political backgrounds and political biases, but those people are not likely to be chosen for appointment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to. Clause 9. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(12.20) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 9, page 17, lines 23-25, omit proposed section 17, substitute the following section: Representation of Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory '17. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory shall each be represented in the Senate either- (a) by 2 senators for the Territory; or (b) by that number of Senators as is ascertained by dividing by 2 the number of members determined to represent the Territory in the House of Representatives, and if on such division there is a remainder, the number of senators for the Territory shall be reduced to the nearest whole number, whichever is the greater, and they shall be directly chosen by the people of the Territory voting as one electorate.'. (2) Clause 9, page 19, proposed section 25, line 36, after 'of the several States' insert 'and of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory'. (3) Clause 9, page 19, at the end of sub-section (1) of proposed section 25 add ', and, in accordance with sections 25C and 25D, the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory'. (4) Clause 9, page 21, at the end of proposed section 25C add 'until determined to be otherwise by the Electoral Commissioner in the following manner: (a) a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of people of the Commonwealth, as ascertained in accordance with section 23, by twice the number of the senators for the States; (b) the number of members to be chosen in the Australian Capital Territory shall be determined by dividing the number of people of the Territory, as ascertained in accordance with section 23, by the quota and, if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the Territory'. (5) Clause 9, page 21, at the end of proposed section 25D add 'until determined to be otherwise by the Electoral Commissioner in the following manner: (a) a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of people of the Commonwealth, as ascertained in accordance with section 23, by twice the number of the senators for the States; (b) the number of members to be chosen in the Northern Territory shall be determined by dividing the number of people of the Territory, as ascertained in accordance with section 23, by the quota and, if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the Territory'. These five amendments are directed to the representation of the Territories both in this House and in the Senate. The matter of representation of the Territories in both houses of the Parliament has in the past been under challenge. I accept the fact that the High Court of Australia has found that the Parliament has the power to grant representation to the Territories both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. I am concerned, however, that on one interpretation of clauses 121 and 122 of the Constitution it would be possible for the Parliament to increase the representation of both Territories out of proportion to their populations. In relation to the rest of the Constitution, so far as the original States are concerned, the founding fathers were very concerned to ensure that there was a proper balance of representation. So far as the House of Representatives is concerned, the numbers for each State are allocated in accordance with population. Those formulas have been laid down in the Constitution, leaving to the Parliament certain discretions operating within the ambit of the requirements of the Constitution. For a time there was some difficulty as to how fractions of quotas were to be allocated. These difficulties have now been overcome. The Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill covers the special problems that might arise if a State were quickly, because of population change, to become entitled to an additional member. As I pointed out last night during the second reading debate, the Government was very conscious of the problem that could arise in a particular State during a federal election. It addressed that problem, recognising the importance of ensuring proper representation in this place in accordance with population. So far as the Territories are concerned, all the Government has done in this legislation is to state that the Australian Capital Territory shall have two members in the House of Representatives, the Northern Territory shall have one, and each shall have two representatives in the Senate. The Government seems to have ignored the fact that population changes are occurring in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. It is my view that as this Bill is such a major reform of the electoral legislation it should contain a clause which directs electoral commissioners as to the manner in which the representation from the Territories is to be changed from time to time. As is the case with the Constitution, representation in the House of Representatives should be in accordance with population. In relation to the clause relating to representation in this place insofar as it affects the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, it should be clearly laid down in this legislation that electoral commissioners are to grant the Australian Capital Territory an additional member if it qualifies for an additional member under the same quota provisions as are provided for in the case of the States. It is my resolution that this Bill should contain a formula which directs the electoral commissioners to ascertain the quotas which apply to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and to allot seats to those Territories in accordance with those quotas. That would remove any doubt that it is the present intention of the Government and the Opposition that the representation in this place from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should expand or contract at the rate at which their populations vary in proportion with the rest of the population. I am surprised that the Government was not alive to this fact because given that it is proposing in some other legislation that we will debate next week that the size of the Parliament should be increased, the population of the Australian Capital Territory will be such that it may not be so many years before it will equal what will be three of the quotas applicable to the States. I would like to see the requirement as to how membership from the Territories will be determined to be entrenched in the Constitution, and I will continue to pursue that through the Constitutional Convention. Given that we cannot vary the Constitution without going through the rather tortuous processes of the Constitutional Convention -matters must also be accepted by government and this Parliament and legislation passed so that a referendum can be held-I suggest to the Government that it accept a provision that would lay down the formulas under which additional representation in this House should be granted to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I accept the fact that one Territory has two members and the other has one. I am not suggesting that there should be any reduction in their representation. I feel the same way about the Senate. There is in the Constitution at present- although in the past there has been some debate about whether it should be changed-a nexus between the number of members in the Senate and the number of members in the House of Representatives. The number of members in the House of Representatives is as near as practical to twice the number of senators. That formula applies to senators from the original States. Territories should receive one additional senator for every two members that they are entitled to under a quota formula over and above four. In other words, the number of senators that the Territories now have is sufficient until such time as territorial representation in the House of Representatives rises to six. But for the similar reasons to those that I have advanced in the case of the House of Representatives, I think this Bill should lay down the basis upon which there can be additional representation from the Senate. I would like to see that written into the Constitution as well as the requirement that representatives from the Territories be chosen by the people. Our founding fathers did not put that in the Constitution. In fact representatives from the Territories have always been chosen by the people-this Bill requires that they be chosen by the people-but there should be constitutional guarantees that this should always be so. However, given that we cannot here in this chamber change the Constitution, at least as we are expressing it in the Bill, senators and members should be chosen by the people so we should lay down the formulas under which additional representation in this House and in the Senate should be established. I hope that the Government will recognise that these amendments are intended to achieve clarity as to the manner in which the two Territories should be represented in this House. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the proposal. I would like to see it accept it because, as I have said, I believe it would be an earnest of its good faith and desire to ensure that the people are represented in the chambers of this Parliament in a manner which reflects the numbers of people throughout the Commonwealth. I do not want to place the Territories in a similar position to that of the original States that have a special guaranteed position with regard to the minimum numbers of senators and members. I do not think that should apply to the Territories, or the new States. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(12.30) —The Government will not support the five amendments which have been moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). Nevertheless I also indicate that we think that he has raised some important points that are worthy of consideration. The implications of passing them at this stage, in the form in which he has them, would probably mean a substantial number of other machinery amendments. These are matters which have been discussed at different points of time in the High Court of Australia. I think all honourable members are aware that there is always likely to be concern in that quarter about what precisely are the entitlements of the Territories. Under the Constitution as it exists at the moment, and as the honourable member for Sturt quite clearly recognises, to place that beyond doubt will probably require constitutional amendments. I suppose that is the reason why he very sensibly wishes to pursue the matter in at least one area, at the Constitutional Convention. In seeing those merits in the honourable member's arguments, I am impelled to undertake to him that I will raise with the Government the possibility of referring the matters that are in his amendments to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which brought down the original report and which contains suggestions for the legislation that we are now considering. I think that would be a very appropriate forum for the propositions that he is putting forward to be considered in detail. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.32) —I commend the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) for his attitude to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). In particular I support in general terms the honourable member's proposition. The dangers that he points to in the uncontrolled area at the moment, the unintegrated area, of the Territories in relation to the rest of Australia are very real. I do not want to take up any length of time but I support the honourable member because I know of the long time that he has put into studying this matter over the years and his effort in the last few days when the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill presented an opportunity for him to move an amendment. I urge the Minister not only to put that proposition to the Government but also to press it very hard because it could at some time in the future, nebulous as it may be now, head off what could be quite a crisis in the institution of Parliament. It is the objective of honourable members from both sides of the House to see that those opportunities are removed and that we can proceed in a sense of normalcy without having to face the extraordinary crisis which, if things are left as they are, would be our responsibility. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(12.33) —I thank the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) for his response. Is he prepared to give an assurance, on behalf of the Government, that the Government will not be coming forward with legislation to increase the representation of the Australian Capital Territory in this House unless the Australian Capital Territory qualifies and if a quota formula, similar to that applicable to the States, applies? Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(12.33) —I can certainly give the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) that assurance in regard to this House. I also assure the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) that I will not only put the proposition to my colleagues; I will press it hard. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.34) —I also support the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in complimenting the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) in respect of this matter. We are very indebted to the honourable member for Sturt for having pressed this issue. It is not the first time that he has done so. We have had a very objective response from the Minister. I am very grateful to the Minister for his attitude on this issue. I am sure that it is an issue to which the Joint Committee could turn its mind. I have no doubt that the Minister will make appropriate submissions when the issue is being dealt with. I am sure that he has highlighted a deficiency in the Act as it now stands. I am quite convinced that some action needs to be taken in terms of constraint to place the Territories in a position similar to those of the States. Amendments negatived. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.36) —I move: (1) Clause 9, page 23, proposed section 25K, after paragraph (c) of sub-section (2), insert the following paragraph: '(d) if the Electoral Commission is so directed by the Minister following the passing of a resolution of disapproval of a proposed redistribution or determination pursuant to sub-section 25ZC (14A)'. I wish to move a total of four amendments. The other amendments are dependent on the success of the first amendment. If this amendment is agreed to it will meet the arguments that have been raised and I will then move the second amendment to clause 9. The first amendment is really consequential to the further amendment that produces the argument. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) knows, much has been said in the arguments that have been put on this question about the power of parliament in relation to the final determination of distribution. A number of very respectable positions can be taken in this regard. It can be said, as the Government has said and as the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has said, that it is fairer if Parliament does not have a final jurisdiction over the distributions. However, others are of the view, and the Opposition takes the view quite strongly that, in the end, parliament should be the final court, the final determinant as to whether the distribution is acceptable to the Australian community. After all, parliament is the most representative body of the Australian viewpoint. For this reason I have moved the amendment which, if carried, would be the forerunner of other amendments which would ensure that the redistribution would be laid before parliament and would be subject to disallowance. As I have said, I know that there are those who maintain that the distribution should be accomplished outside any final determination as such. I repeat the question: What could be a more final or a fairer determinant than the people's representatives in the House of parliament? I hope that the Minister will give some thought to this matter. I notice that he has not accepted it in his own amendments. I am not surprised at that, I suppose, because his representatives on the Committee certainly pushed for no further reference back to parliament. I would have been somewhat mollified if the Minister had proposed some reference to parliament which would then have resulted in a view being put before the Australian Electoral Commission. In the absence of the view, one which I would have considered to be a very reasonable view, that parliament's opinions of the distribution should be considered by the Commission, and that was my personal view in that part of the dissenting report on this issue, the Opposition must move for the retention of parliament's power over the distribution. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.40) —I want to speak on this provision because the new Part III that is to be inserted by clause 9, about which we are speaking, outlines in each of the new sections a number of provisions relating to the redistribution committees for the states. The reason this amendment is being moved is, in part, because of the objections that I raised yesterday and wish to reiterate today relating to the establishment of the Australian Electoral Commission. In relation to the redistribution committee to be established for each state, a significant number of positions have been identified as constituting those people who will be members of a redistribution committee for the state. It needs to be understood that, whilst the Opposition welcomes this construction, which is a distinct advance, because of the nature of human beings it cannot, in my view, be perfect. While I do not want to suggest to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) or to his colleagues the manner in which they might be able to manipulate the establishment of these committees, it ought to be obvious to all honourable members that there is still a capacity for those who are so inclined and who have the imagination and the guile to set in place people holding particular positions who will be able to be very much involved in the formulation of the redistribution proposals to be submitted and the rehearing of the objections under the committees that have been established. There is no other arbiter, no other place where there can be any comment. The reason this amendment is being pursued is that that opportunity ought to exist. Under proposed new section 25L in clause 9 we find: . . . members of a Redistribution Committee for a State shall be-- (a) the Electoral Commissioner; (b) the Australian Electoral Officer for the State; (c) the Surveyor-General for the State; and (d) the Auditor-General of the State. Yesterday I made the point that I know that the Surveyor-General in New South Wales is involved in the matter of redistributions and that, therefore, a great deal of attention is given by the Government of that State to that appointment. While I suggested that the Auditor-General's position was not one that had been so scrutinised in the past for any other motives, it may well be, having regard to some of his other reports of late, that people would be wanting to have somebody who would be more pliable in that position. I regard the Auditor- General as one of the most important statutory officers. I worry at the possibility of his role being compromised for any base reasons or because somebody wanted to be manipulative in relation to these matters. I am not suggesting that manipulative appointments have been made in that area in the past. I certainly hope that manipulative appointments will not be made in those areas in the future. It is a fact that, under the procedures that are available for appointment of officers at these very senior levels, Cabinet is involved. I have made the point before that Cabinet has not been shown to be unwilling to involve itself in political appointments. The most recent example is the appointment of Dr Wilenski as the Chairman of the Public Service Board. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —I suggest that the honourable member come back to the amendment to which he is speaking. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes. This amendment has been moved because of the doubts that I and some other members on this side of the chamber have about the whole framework proposed in clause 9 and about the way in which the redistribution committee will be established. That is the very reason that there needs to be in the legislation a provision for parliamentary review in circumstances where appointments may have been made that would so compromise the redistribution itself. I am not suggesting that such appointments will be made. That is the reason the Parliament ought to be capable of being involved. Those honourable members who do take an interest, and I admit that they take an interest in these matters, will have the opportunity to invite review. This is essential because we are dealing with human beings, with human beings with human failings. We know that the Government, on its recent record, has been prepared to appoint people to particular positions. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKER —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Government concerned that, because the effects of the March devaluation have been totally eroded, there has been an alarming rundown in reserves of the Australian Wool Corporation, to the extent that the Corporation in the last month has had to intervene in the market to the tune of $90m? As the Government supported the Corporation lifting the wool floor price by 7.5 per cent following the March devaluation, what does it now intend doing, given that the continued appreciation of the dollar is placing the wool industry at risk? Mr KEATING —I answered a question on this matter only a week ago. I observe that the depreciation which the Government embarked upon within a day of its election was essentially caused by a political run on the currency, promoted in part and very largely by the irresponsible statements of the present Leader of the Opposition, then a Minister, during the election campaign, and supported by other members of the coalition parties and other members of the former Cabinet. I made the point last week that there was no basic underlying reason in terms of the balance of payments why that devaluation should have taken place. Contrary to the forebodings of the honourable member for Kooyong, within a week or two of that devaluation having taken place funds had returned to Australia. Since then the market has taken the view that all things being equal, the dollar was undervalued, and over time the currency has regained its value. The trade weighted index is roughly back to where it was in March. We were experiencing some substantial problems with capital inflow as a consequence of a number of things. The first was the quality of and high degree of confidence in the policies of the present Government. Another was the weakening position of the United States dollar. However, at the moment the United States dollar is strengthening, and for that reason and other reasons we are not now seeing the capital inflow that we saw in the last month or so. To try to deal with the problems the Government was experiencing, it embarked upon changes in the exchange rate management regime which drew the complimentary support of the Opposition, which I was pleased about. Those changes will have the effect of making it more difficult for people to speculate in currency on an intra-day basis, peppering us with capital inflow and pushing up the value of the Australian dollar. The basis of the honourable member's question was whether there was a conscious policy on the part of the Government to revalue the dollar because of some overriding anti-inflation policy. The answer to that is no. But at the same time a very difficult part of the monetary management of the exchange rate is trying to lessen the capital inflow and the monetary growth which we have experienced. It is in those terms that the Government is taking a very moderate approach in trying to preserve our international competitiveness while at the same time trying to rid ourselves as far as possible of the problems of monetary growth. I make this final observation: The Australian dollar has been markedly devalued over the period from its cyclical peak in late 1981. It has gone down about 10 per cent during that period. So the underlying basis of the question, that the Government in some way is trying to ratchet up the exchange rate, having in mind some anti-inflation notion, at the same time ignoring competitiveness-by the Wool Corporation or any other body-is simply not sustainable in fact or in argument. Mr HAND —Can the Acting Minister for Primary Industry advise the House whether Smorgon Consolidated Industries or a subsidiary of that company was charged with a number of offences under the export regulations? If so, what were the charges, how many were proved and was the case heard in camera? Mr HURFORD —I have heard of this case. In fact, I called for some notes about it. I am informed that the company and an employee were charged with trading description offences in relation to meat goods for export. One charge relating to interference with an official stamp was proved and the other charges were dropped. No conviction was recorded in relation to the charge that was proved, but a good behaviour bond, a conditional payment and an amount of costs were imposed against the company. The honourable member asked whether the charges were heard in camera. I am informed that they were heard in open court. While I am talking about meat exports, I would like to convey the Government's intention to improve industrial relations in the meat export industry. There are grave problems and there is a dire need for employers and employees to get together on the problems of that industry. I am happy to tell the House that as a start the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will be meeting officials from the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union next week to discuss, among other things, labour adjustment problems within the meat industry. Mr LUSHER —Can the Treasurer confirm that the additional revenue which will flow to the Government as a result of the indexation of the 2c a litre levy for the Australian bicentennial road development program will be paid to Consolidated Revenue and not to the ABRDP trust fund for use on roads? Has the amount of the additional revenue been estimated by the Australian Road Transport Federation at $492m over the period to 1988-89? Does the Treasurer agree that this figure is approximately correct? Will the Treasurer ensure that the trust fund legislation is amended so that the additional $492m is paid to the trust fund for use on roads, as this was the clear understanding of the purpose of the levy when it was introduced? Alternatively, will the Minister ensure that the indexation legislation is amended so that the Australian bicentennial road development program levy of 2c a litre is not indexed? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman raised many issues in his question. I will examine them and furnish him with a reply. Mr SNOW —I refer the Minister for Transport to representations made to me by private contractors, stating their concern that the New South Wales Department of Main Roads, by tendering for national and arterial road works under the Australian bicentennial road development and roads grants programs is prejudicing private contractors and their employees. Are there any grounds for those concerns? Similarly, are there any grounds for the concerns expressed by DMR employees in New South Wales that the Department of Main Roads will not be able to retain its work force unless it obtains a fair share of projects under the tender provisions? Mr PETER MORRIS —The question raised by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is a vexed one. I should explain that the legislation of the previous Government requires that tenders be called by State road authorities for construction projects on national highways and arterial roads that are being financed under the ABRD program. Since that legislation came in, the States and the relevant unions consistently have made representations for relaxation of that inflexibility in the legislation. The case that they have put is a strong one and has considerable substance. In the way of this Government, there have been extensive consultations with the States and the unions concerned and with the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors. I have given the States an assurance that I will be bringing before the Government for consideration a proposal to introduce an element of flexibility into that compulsory tendering process. The nature of that flexibility will be along the lines that a State Minister may put a case in respect of a particular project to the Federal Minister for Transport seeking an exemption from the calling of tenders. There would need to be guidelines in respect of that operation. It could cover instances such as the remoteness of the project, the unavailability of other contractors-these things are happening-and the low unit value of the project concerned. In some cases the State road authorities are going to tender for works costing about $100,000 with the bureaucracy and paperwork being quite disproportionate to the cost of the roadworks involved. With respect to the impact of the legislation on private contractors, the record shows that since the new scheme came in, 90 per cent of the contracts let have been let to private contractors. State road authorities are able to tender as are, in some circumstances, local government units. They have won about 50 per cent of the tenders in which they have participated. They tender only for selected ones. Following on from that, in regard to the concern for employees of private contractors and employees of State road authorities, let me say this: Both groups of people suffered considerably under the previous Government. There was a substantial slash in Federal road expenditure of some half a billion dollars over a period of seven years. Under the new deal for roads from this Government and under the top priority accorded jobs and roadworks by this Government the 49 per cent increase in Federal expenditure this year on roads will mean some 19,000 new jobs in those areas for Australians. I think that will offset much of the concern of the employees of private contractors and also means that there will be a lot more work and a lot more jobs available for the State road authorities. Mr SINCLAIR —Can the Prime Minister confirm that the statement to the Malaysian Parliament yesterday by the Malaysian Deputy Defence Minister, Datuk Abang Abu Bakar, that the second Royal Australian Air Force Mirage Squadron will be withdrawn from Butterworth on 11 August 1984 is correct? What is the result of negotiations with the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore on the future basing of a RAAF FA18 squadron at Butterworth? Will the Prime Minister seek Malaysian endorsement of the importance of the RAAF role in regional security so that the former good relations between the local communities in Butterworth and Penang and RAAF personnel and their families can be restored? Finally, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that the five power defence arrangements in which Australian participates with Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Great Britain are not affected by his Foreign Minister's unprecedented public attack yesterday on the Government of Singapore? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted for the question from the right honourable member. I will deal with the latter part of it first. The right honourable member seeks to continue the process pursued by the Opposition of undermining the good relations that do in fact exist between this country and the Association of South East Asian Nations countries. The Foreign Minister has my endorsement in the remarks that he made. We have taken steps to convey to the ASEAN countries our concern at what has been developing. Certain spokesmen for the ASEAN countries have overblown-there is no point in beating around the bush-a situation in which this country, through its Foreign Minister, explained the position in the United Nations in regard to their resolution on Cambodia. May I say in that respect that I recommend to the attention of all honourable members the observation in today's Age editorial on this broad issue. The article stated: One ASEAN complaint is that Australia has withdrawn from co-sponsorship of the yearly resolution on Kampuchea at the United Nations. Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden explained that Australia had difficulty in co-sponsoring the resolution because of references made to the Khmer Rouge-Son Sann-Sihanouk coalition. But Australia did vote for the resolution. Australia, quite properly, refuses to give aid or comfort to the Khmer Rouge. In adopting that line we are of course exactly in line with the attitude that was expressed in this House by the current Leader of the Opposition on 28 April 1981. It is about time that the House was reminded of what the current Leader of the Opposition had to say on this point. This of course was in the context of his well-known display of Cabinet solidarity when he walked out of the Cabinet and had a few kind things to say about his former Leader. But the important thing is that this is what he had to say about the Khmer Rouge. I will quote from the Hansard of 28 April 1981. Mr Peacock stated: In the early part of 1975 the Whitlam Government recognised the regime of Pol Pot as the legitimate Government of Kampuchea. Soon after disturbing reports of atrocities perpetrated by this regime began to filter to the outside world. More horrific information about Pol Pot emerged after the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnamese forces in December 1978. As a result, I sought and obtained Cabinet approval to review the question of Australia's recognition of the Pol Pot regime . He continued: I should explain that the question of recognition of the Pol Pot regime involved questions of principle that were to me of the gravest importance. On moral grounds, on political grounds, on legal grounds, recognition gave an impression of support to a butchering regime which had no effective control of the territory. Recognition was unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens. If Australia was to maintain a credible foreign policy and its government to retain the respect of its people, recognition had to be withdrawn. It is axiomatic that Australia has a vital role in Asia. In my view the integrity of Australia's foreign policy should not be compromised. Mr Cohen —Who said that? Mr HAWKE —This was said by the present Leader of the Opposition. He said that the assessment of the horrific character of the Pol Pot regime was a relevant consideration if we were going to retain the integrity of the foreign policy of this country. That thinking was precisely in line with what motivated this Government and its Foreign Minister in explaining the position in the United Nations. In other words, we were at one with the ASEAN countries in the thrust of their position in regard to the situation in Kampuchea. But because of the emphasis in that resolution on this horrific butchering regime of Pol Pot we could not bring ourselves to co-sponsor. In other words, the precise language, thinking and philosophy employed by the present Leader of the Opposition in this place on 28 April 1981 is precisely the sort of thinking which led this Government and its Foreign Minister to adopt the position which it did in the United Nations. Having said that, I return to the first part of the right honourable member's question. No decision at this stage has been made in regard to the very important question raised by the right honourable member. But I am pleased to say to him that in the consideration which this Government gives to the question of its co-operation in the defence field with our friends in ASEAN and with Malaysia in particular we will be balancing the considerations of our joint interests which may be served by a continuation in one way or another of our Air Force unit with the requirements put to us as a government by the leaders of the defence forces as to most appropriate use of those forces. We will seek to balance both those considerations-the maintenance of an effective relationship with our Malaysian friends and the taking properly into account of considerations put to us as to what is necessary in the best interests of Australia. Finally, in taking all those appropriate criteria into account, we will also look at what is best able to be done to maintain in a direct sense the best possible relations with the people in the area directly concerned. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of some of the more outlandish claims made about the latest bottom of the harbour legislation, will he explain the rationale for this legislation? Will it help to ease the tax burden for the ordinary, law-abiding, taxpaying Australians? Mr HAWKE —It is in no formal way that I acknowledge not only the interest but also the deep involvement of the honourable member for Hunter in economic matters generally and in the fiscal area in particular. The latest legislation introduced by this Government is a result of the Opposition's hypocrisy and double standards in rejecting the Government's two previous tax recoupment Bills . The effect of its rejection of that legislation is the loss to revenue of about $60m this year, and $270m in total. The unforgivable behaviour of the Opposition shows simply that it has caved in to the tax avoidance industry. In that process it has had the hypocrisy to try to accuse this Government of being a high tax government. What this Government has been about in its two previous attempts to have tax recoupment Bills passed, and what it is about again, is the creation of the condition in which it is most likely that this Government will be able to ease the tax burden upon the great mass of ordinary, honest Australian taxpayers, and to do that by making sure that the tax rip-off merchants are brought to heel. That is the basic rationale of the legislation. It is quite clear that the Opposition is doing its very best to sabotage this Government's very proper approach to this matter. This legislation, if it is passed, will enable the Commissioner of Taxation to administer more effectively the existing law and to assess recoupment taxpayers for avoided tax. In particular, the Bill now before the Parliament will allow the Commissioner to waive an appropriate amount of tax in cases where a public company shareholder has benefited only partially from company tax evasion. Let me emphasise, as I have had cause to do before, that this Bill, as I know the honourable member understands, is consistent with the spirit of last year's legislation brought into this place by the previous Government. Yet now those opposite have decided once again to oppose most of this legislation. In conclusion, it seems that they are determined to do everything in their power to establish their credentials as friends of the tax cheats of this country. Mr CONNOLLY —I draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the ominous increase in average weekly earnings reported today for the September quarter of 2.1 per cent, some three times the rise for the June quarter. This took place before the Government formally ended the previous Government's successful wage pause and the awarding of the 4.3 per cent wage rise. Can the Minister advise the House of his Department's estimates for the rise in AWE for the December quarter and for the 12 months to December? By how much will this exceed the forecast levels for our major trading partners? To what extent will this reduce the capacity of Australian industry to compete and to employ more Australian workers? By how much does he expect average weekly earnings to exceed the 1983-84 projection of 5.5 per cent contained in projection A presented to the Economic Summit Conference which involved an increase in unemployment of 80,000 this financial year alone? Mr WILLIS —I have seen the preliminary average weekly earnings figures for the September quarter which came out today. The increase in respect of full time adults for that quarter is one per cent, not the figure of over 2 per cent which the honourable member cited. The fact is that those figures do not necessarily reflect total increases in actual wages paid. They can be affected by the number of hours worked. As they are earnings figures, they can be affected by increases in the amount of ordinary time worked or the amount of overtime worked. I understand from a preliminary analysis that there is some reason to believe that that could be at least part of the explanation for the increase of one per cent in the September quarter at a time when we have had a zero increase in award rates. I believe the concerns of the honourable member are somewhat exaggerated. We do not expect to see a blow-out in average weekly earnings this year. The Budget forecast, as I recall it, was for an increase in earnings of the order of 7 1/2 per cent, and we expect that to be adhered to. The increase in award wages this year will be of the order of 4 1/2 per cent and next year, on our estimates to this stage, will be of the order of 5 1/2 per cent. Those increases, along with the associated increases in earnings which will be slightly in excess of that, will be compatible with continued economic recovery, a continued increase in employment and a substantial decline in the rate of inflation. Those are the forecasts which are important to this Parliament and to this nation. There is no doubt that we are looking at substantial declines in the level of wage increases and in the level of inflation compared with what we have experienced in the past . Those two factors are certainly compatible with this Government's economic forecasts in respect of total economic growth-in the order of 5 per cent to 6 per cent this year-and employment growth-in the order of 1 1/2 per cent at least . Since the question encompassed employment, may I say that today's figures are certainly encouraging to the Government as they show a continuance of the upward movement in employment. The strong growth in employment which occurred last month has been sustained this month and expanded, with employment on a seasonally adjusted basis up by another 4,000. Over the last six months employment on a seasonally adjusted basis has increased by 82,000. Those employment increases do not appear to have slackened off as a result of the national wage increase in September. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Balaclava have said in their employment Press releases in the last couple of months that, come the national wage decision and the introduction of a system of wage indexation, disaster will occur on the employment front. There is no comfort for them in the figures that came out today in that regard. On the contrary, they show a continued strengthening on the employment front. On the unemployment front, we see for the first time since this Government came to office that unemployment has fallen below 700,000. It is now below 10 per cent for the first time, having declined from 10.3 per cent to 9.9 per cent. Those are encouraging developments. We are not saying at this stage that they demonstrate that unemployment is on a continuing downward path. What happens in that regard will be affected not only by what happens with regard to employment growth but also by what happens with regard to labour force participation rates; that is, the proportion of the working age population who decide to seek work. If that figure picks up considerably, if more of those people who have not been seeking work start to do so, we will not make great progress against unemployment this year. But the trends are encouraging. It would now appear that the developments in respect of employment and unemployment this year might well be more optimistic than our Budget forecasts. Mr Campbell proceeding to address a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. Mr PEACOCK —The Treasurer will recall on Tuesday replying to a question without notice from me about compensation following the Government's decision on uranium . I ask: Will he confirm or deny Press reports today that Caucus, at its special meeting on Monday, specifically directed Cabinet to consider the issue of compensation for those disadvantaged by the decision? How does he reconcile this decision, of which he must have been aware, with his statement to this House on Tuesday that 'the whole matter of compensation as such, is not one which has arisen to date'? As the Minister for Resources and Energy has now admitted that Cabinet will consider this issue next week, will the Treasurer explain why he misled the House and the many Australians, including the Aboriginal people, who will be deeply affected by the Government's decision? Mr KEATING —There has been no decision about compensation, as I said. In that sense, there has been no attempt at all to mislead the House. The Leader of the Opposition implied in his question, in his ignorance, that in some way mines which had not had a cash flow available to them may on that basis have been in a position to make a claim for compensation. I indicated to him that no such claim had ever been made. I did not indicate on Tuesday but I indicate on this occasion that the Australian Labor Party had enunciated a policy in this direction for a very long time before any of these mines were established or, indeed, were in prospect. In those terms the reply I gave the honourable gentleman was very much in line with the question he asked and based upon the ignorant premise upon which the question itself was based. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The Australian Labor Party's election speech pledged an additional $37m to State schools and an additional $16m to assist the most needy non-government schools. As the inherited Budget deficit prevented either grant being made in full this year- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he should not include argument. I invite him to ask his question. Mr MAHER —Certainly, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister refute the allegation made at a meeting in Sydney that the shortfall to non-government schools was paid to the state school system? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge the assiduous nature with which the honourable member for Lowe has concentrated on the needs of all schools within his electorate. Indeed, very soon after he was elected he attempted to get Ministers for Education to visit the electorate of Lowe to look at some of the appalling circumstances which existed within government and non-government schools within that electorate. Minister after Minister refused to accept his invitation to visit Lowe and to examine the schools. I, on the other hand, accepted an invitation to visit the schools. I looked at the circumstances of one school by the name of the All Hallows school which would be a disgrace to any government which held out any pretence of having the objective of equality of educational opportunity. That school was, and still is, desperately in need of capital assistance from the Federal Government-that is where capital assistance for non-government schools comes from-in order to provide even an acceptable standard for the children attending it. The former Minister for Education, Senator Peter Baume, apparently one day during the election campaign happened across the All Hallows school, knocked on the door, said that he was just passing by and asked whether he could have a look. But apparently outside of the context of an election campaign it is impossible to get Liberals to face up to the depressed circumstances of these schools. It is perfectly true that in the circumstances which we inherited we were not able to go as far as we wanted in relation either to government schools or non- government schools. But we have established the very important objective of applying the financial resources we have to the schools throughout the country, with the poorest circumstances, whether they are government schools or non- government schools. As the Prime Minister has already indicated, our policies have led to the fact that this year $5m has been provided for the poorest non- government schools in Australia in addition to what would have been available under the continuing policies of our predecessors. This also draws attention to the very close co-operation and involvement of both the government and non- government school systems in the decisions that are taken in relation to these matters. In relation to the allocation of capital funds for non-government schools, I point out that representatives of the non-government schools sit on State planning and finance committees of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. They have been responsible for making recommendations on the allocation of some $51m for next year, including $9m for new places. So there has been an attempt to work up an hysterical campaign in relation to this matter. As the Prime Minister has said, we make no apologies at all for our objective of ensuring that all children throughout this country have an equal opportunity to achieve the highest possible educational standard that is available to them. That is in sharp contrast with the policies which were pursued by our predecessors. Mr FISHER —I refer the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to his Press release last month announcing tougher policies on sporting contacts with South Africa. Does the Minister believe this hardening of policy will lead to the loss of international endorsement for Australian tournaments or the restriction of competition by Australian teams in third countries? Is the Minister concerned that by continually raising the stakes the Government will breed cynicism rather than encourage a healthy attitude to change? Mr JOHN BROWN —This Government adopts the view which has been adopted on a bi- partisan basis in Australia for the last 10 years at least with regard to apartheid. We view apartheid with a considerable amount of opprobrium. Mr Peacock —But you apply your policy with a double standard. Mr JOHN BROWN —We apply our policy very fairly. The policy which has been formulated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and me now calls upon individual South African sportsmen or sportswomen who want to come to Australia to prove that they are not de facto representatives of South Africa. Amateur sportsmen will have great difficulty in proving that, for obvious reasons. Professional sportsmen will obviously be able to come here to compete in world class events without too much difficulty as long as they are not recognised as outspoken supporters of the apartheid system. There will be no lessening of Australia's ability to stage world class events such as grand prix tennis tournaments in those circumstances. As far as third country contacts are concerned, the previous Government insisted that Australian teams wishing to compete in competitions in third countries had to make their abhorrence of the South African presence well known when the South African teams arrived and, if possible, in every case withdraw. There were several instances of Australian teams, whose members had in fact paid their own fares to world class events, withdrawing. For instance, the Australian gliding team in Colorado was the only team from a Western nation to withdraw when South Africa arrived. It was greatly to its credit that it did. The Australian golf team in Switzerland was the only Western team that withdrew from the Eisenhower Cup when the South Africans, as is always the case, arrived on the last day. Our only fear is that people will say in these cases: If all other Western countries are competing and if all other signatories to the Gleneagles Agreement are competing, why should not Australian teams compete? We still ask them, as a matter of principle and as a matter of support for the Australian population's well-known abhorrence of apartheid, to withdraw under those circumstances if at all possible. So the policy that we formulated in no way weakens the resolve we have as a sporting nation to see that the people of South Africa who are not of white colour-the blacks and the coloureds-are given an equal opportunity in sport in that country. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence Support. I preface it by expressing my appreciation of yesterday's announcement of the offsets negotiated with the Boeing company. The thrust of the question relates to the failure of the previous Government to translate into orders and jobs the many hundreds of millions of dollars of offset obligations on foreign companies selling goods to the Australian government over many years. I ask the Minister to indicate what courses are available, what attitudes the Government has and how soon and in what ways we can expect those offsets to be translated into real gains to the Australian community. Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Newcastle for that question because I know of his concern for offsets as a means of ensuring that, where there are substantial government contracts and government purchases, benefits flow to Australian industry. I stress that in relation to offset negotiations and opportunities that come to Australian industry, there is no sense in which those opportunities represent any kind of a subsidy. Indeed, with respect to the package that was announced yesterday as part of the purchase of the Boeing aircraft, Australian industry will get considerable opportunities. Something like $150m worth of work will flow to Australian industry over the next five years. To translate those offset obligations into work, it will need to be demonstrated by Australian industry, either in the private sector or the public sector, that it can carry out that work at a price, at a level of quality and in a time period which is competitive with industry in the United States of America . Indeed, a number of firms in Australia, particularly in the aircraft industry, have been able to develop their establishments, increase their employment and sustain very high levels of technology, partly because of offset opportunities but also because they have been able to achieve the highest level of performance . The Government believes that offset policy is quite integral to its industry policy. We believe that it is important that we maintain not only a 30 per cent level in relation to major government purchases but also that we transfer comparable levels of technology. Offset policy is not there simply to get work for Australian industry, although it may have that effect. It is there to ensure that, where we are required to make major purchases, in the process we achieve a transfer of technology, in this case from the United States to Australia. I thank the honourable member for his question and I draw the attention of the House to this policy. I hope that honourable members will encourage private sector industries in their electorates to inquire and to become more informed about opportunities that exist under offsets. One of the constraints, perhaps the principal constraint, in the very large level of unfulfilled contracts, I believe, has been the lack of enthusiasm and initiative on the part of Australian industry. There are great opportunities if industry is willing to pursue them with greater enthusiasm. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Is it a fact that the Minister is planning a management takeover plan for the South West of Tasmania along the lines of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Mr COHEN —At the moment there is a Cabinet submission on this matter so, obviously, one cannot reveal too much. It is our intention to have a plan of management for the world heritage area of Tasmania. It will be done in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government. Mr Peacock —Have you got the numbers? Mr COHEN —The Leader of the Opposition should contain himself. He is getting all excited about a park. He was never interested in it before. He has ants in his pants. A number of models can be used. The honourable member for Franklin mentioned the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which was set up in consultation with the Queensland Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Mr Goodluck —This area still belongs to Tasmania. Mr COHEN —The honourable member's Government, the one that he represents so badly here, is constantly- Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not a member of the Government. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr COHEN —The Tasmanian Government is constantly asking the Federal Government to provide the funds for the plan of management and for the management of that area. We are going about doing that. Other such models I mention are the Kakadu model, the Uluru model and even the Murray River model. All of those will be examined by the Cabinet and in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Tasmanian Government. Mr Groom —By legislation? Mr COHEN —If necessary, yes. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to expand on an answer I gave yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —I grant that indulgence. Dr BLEWETT —Yesterday the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) asked me a question about the application of the assets test to pensioners living overseas. In giving my answer, I promised him that I would seek further details in answer to the question. I promised him that I would speak with my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and give him a more detailed response to the issues raised. He raised the question of the number of pensioners living overseas. As at 30 June 1983 18,621 pensioners who live outside Australia were paid pensions. Some of these people have assets overseas and, of course, some of them may also have assets in Australia. In addition, it is possible that some people living in Australia also have assets overseas. As the honourable member pointed out, in some countries the Australian pension may provide quite a good living but, of course, in other countries, because of exchange rate and inflation factors, it may not. The balance depends very much on exchange rate factors and inflation factors in various countries. It is a practice, in accordance with international behaviour, that Australia does not adjust its basic rates of pension in relation to living costs overseas. The usual method that countries use to protect the pension rights of their individuals and to co-ordinate national social security systems is through the negotiation of reciprocal agreements, which I mentioned yesterday. These agreements typically provide provisions for administering such things as assets tests. As honourable members know, we have agreements of a reciprocal nature with New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and we are presently negotiating one with Italy. Consideration is now being given to the valuation of assets for the pension income and assets test and ways in which that administration would be conducted overseas. The method of dealing with the valuation of overseas properties is one of the matters under detailed examination at the moment. But it is the Government's determination that the assets test will apply equally to all pensioners regardless of where they live. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a record of proceedings of the National Crimes Commission Conference held in Parliament House, Canberra, on 28 and 29 July 1983 . Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a policy discussion paper entitled 'A National Crimes Commission?'. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 20 of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, I present the first annual report of the Special Prosecutors Office for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report to review the Australian Trade Commissioner Service, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Canberra Commercial Development Authority annual report for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co -operative Societies annual report for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council annual report for 1982-83. Ministerial Statement Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —by leave -One of the most important and far reaching policy proposals to which the Labor Government is committed is our national strategy on occupational health and safety. It is an issue, however, which should transcend party politics because it is about the health and well-being of members of the community engaged in the work force, and their families. The nation as a whole is incurring enormous costs from unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Individual employees suffer the hardship of physical pain, disabilities and loss of income. Employers bear losses through reduced output and payments of higher workers compensation insurance premiums. The community as a whole faces higher prices and taxes to meet the spiralling financial costs of occupational injury and ill health. Conservative estimates suggest that more than $6 billion per year is wasted through loss of production and other costs as a result of occupational injury and ill health, which means that more production is lost through occupational health and safety issues than through industrial disputes. Despite the significant efforts made by employers who have been prepared to accept some responsibility in these matters, about 300 people are killed each year in work related accidents and a further 150,000 persons are injured at work each year. Over the last decade, while countries such as Britain, Canada and the United States-countries with which we like to compare ourselves-have been implementing major programs in this field, Australia has failed to develop a national framework for action. Occupational health and safety matters and their implications have been ignored in Australia for far too long. Since coming to power the Government has worked steadily towards making the implementation of its national strategy a possibility. I wish now to inform honourable members of the initiatives which the Government intends to take in these important matters. We are now witnessing a watershed in Australia's approach to occupational health and safety-a long overdue recognition that the piecemeal adaptation of laws and attitudes based on those of nineteenth centrury Britain is totally unacceptable and inadequate for the industrial world in Australia today. It has been said on many occasions that the legislative framework in Australia for occupational health and safety is 'chaotic'; yet no effort has been made to rectify the deficiency. The Fraser Government used the excuse that constitutionally it is a matter for the States to sort out and did nothing. In fact, the previous Government in its Review of Commonwealth Functions in 1981 actually curtailed its own efforts. It reduced the resources available within the Federal bureaucracy through the abolition of the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Safety and Health and the Commonwealth Committee on Occupational Safety and Health in Australian Government Employment. The Federal Government has demonstrated an ability to achieve uniformity of legislation in many areas-for example, implementation of a national companies code. Similarly, we can work, and will work, with State governments to develop uniform national standards for occupational health and safety. Indeed, it is encouraging that several States have already undertaken worthwhile legislative and organisational improvements in occupational health and safety. The Hawke Government is committed to rectifying the serious neglect of the past and to working in a spirit of co-operation with the States towards national co- ordination of occupational health and safety initiatives. The National Economic Summit Conference held earlier this year expressed its belief that the nation must give occupational health and safety a greater priority and endorsed the need for concerted government, employer and union action to improve the quality of the working environment in Australia. For its part, the Federal Government intends to honour, to the fullest possible extent, its commitment to upgrading occupational health and safety by implementing a national strategy-a co-ordinated attack on the barriers to improved occupational health and safety that currently exist in Australia. This strategy also forms an integral part of the prices and incomes accord, which is central to Government policy. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party are in agreement that a high priority must be given to improving the quality of working environments in Australia and that employers and unions should be directly involved in setting standards to guide such improvement. The two parties are in complete agreement as to how these improvements may be achieved. The ACTU and ALP policy on occupational health and safety is predicated on the principles that the work environment needs to be adapted and designed to suit the needs of people working in it; that employers have a basic responsibility to provide a healthy, safe and stress-free work environment; that workers have a right to know what hazards they are exposed to; and that peak councils of unions and employers at a national level, and unions and workers' health and safety representatives meeting with management in health and safety committees at a local level, have the right to participate in the setting of standards for health and safety in the work place. I am confident that these principles and objectives are supported by both sides of industry and by the community in general. In the past few months I have received many representations from a wide range of community interest groups and organisations who have indicated their complete support for initiatives planned by the Federal Government in this important area. National Strategy Our national plan for occupational health and safety has been based on an analysis of experience and on the direction which reform must take to modernise Australian working environments. A number of principles are fundamental to our efforts. These are: Support for participation of workers and employers in decision making at the work place and in policy formation at the State and Federal level; consistency in and co-ordination of the legislative system and framework as a whole; priority being given to prevention; and provision of adequate training, information and research facilities. Information must be made more accessible so that all parties can more effectively contribute and participate. The Government is determined to put these principles into practice. National Authorities The Government's occupational health and safety policy and the statement of accord by the ALP and the ACTU propose the establishment of four bodies. They are: Firstly, a tripartite National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, NOHSC, responsible to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to set health and safety standards at the national level; secondly, a National Occupational Health and Safety Office, NOHSO, also responsible to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to implement the policies of the Commission and to enforce standards and regulations within the Federal sphere; thirdly, an Environmental Contaminants Authority, ECA, responsible to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, to license new chemicals at the national level, according to principles and criteria to be developed by the Commission; and fourthly, a National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health, NIEOH, responsible to the Minister for Health, to provide hazard information, commission research and train health and safety professionals. Interim National Commission Responsibility for occupational health and safety lies predominantly with the State governments. To date, it has generally been considered that the Commonwealth's power is limited to its own employees and within the Australian Capital Territory and external territories. Thus, in implementing our national strategy we are actively seeking to obtain the co-operation of the States and broad community acceptance of the agencies and processes through which the national strategy will operate. Members will appreciate that, given the nature of health and safety issues and in particular their jurisdictional complexity, there are many matters requiring further consultation which have yet to be resolved. For these reasons, the Government has already sought advice through a wide-ranging consultative process, involving the ACTU and the Confederation of Australian Industry, CAI, through the National Labour Consultative Council, NLCC ; State governments through the Ministers for Labour Conference and the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee, DOLAC; and the relevant Commonwealth departments. On the basis of these consultations the Government has decided to establish a tripartite Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission charged with advising the Government on the final structure of the agencies to be embodied in legislation. Membership The Interim National Commission will comprise: A Chairman; two representatives nominated by the ACTU; two representatives nominated by the CAI; two representatives nominated by State governments; one nominee from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; and one nominee from the Department of Health. I am pleased to inform members that Dr Richard Gun will chair the Interim National Commission. Dr Gun is a medical practitioner who is currently a Visiting Scientist with the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. From his previous position as a Senior Medical Officer in the Occupational Health Branch of the South Australian Health Commission, Dr Gun has a long involvement with, and knowledge of, occupational health in Australia. This, together with his relevant international experience, will bring to the Interim National Commission a most valuable contribution. I have received and accepted from the ACTU and the CAI the following nominations for the Interim National Commission: Mr Bryan Noakes, Director General of the Confederation of Australian Industry Industrial Council; Dr John Bisby, Director, Environmental Health and Safety, and Senior Medical Officer, Shell Australia; Mr Bob Gradwell, Assistant Secretary, ACTU; and Mr Ken Stone, Vice-President, ACTU and Secretary, Victorian Trades Hall Council. At the recent Conference of Federal and State Ministers of Labour, my State colleagues fully supported these Federal Government initiatives. All States agreed that there was a great need to work towards developing uniform standards and States agreed to participate in developing the details of the national strategy. It has been since agreed that New South Wales and Western Australia would nominate representatives to the Interim National Commission. I have received the nominations of the Hon. J. M. Riordan, Under Secretary, New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations, and Dr Judyth Watson, Ministerial Advisor on Occupational Health and Safety to the Western Australian Minister for Industrial Relations. In addition, I have nominated Dr David Charles, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; and in recognition of the specialist occupational health expertise that will be necessary, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has nominated Dr David de Souza, Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer and Deputy Director-General of the Department of Health, as members of the Interim National Commission. These members not only bring an expertise in their own right, but they have demonstrated over a long period their commitment to improving Australian working environments. Method of Operation The Interim National Commission will be asked to consult fully with all States and Territories, unions and employers through a National Consultative Committee, with a view to recommending appropriate ways of ensuring their eventual participation in the National Commission. This National Consultative Committee, of 18 members, will have representatives from all States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, as well as the ACTU, the CAI and the relevant Government departments. Other than the Chairman, all members of the Interim National Commission will also be on the National Consultative Committee. The States and Territories must be involved in the processes of the Commission if there is to be acceptance and implementation of the national standards thus developed, and it is the firm intention of this Government that the current level of co-operation be maintained and developed. There are also many other community interest groups which will need to be consulted during this development stage. These groups include small business associations, women's groups, workers' health centres and specialists health and safety associations and professional bodies. The Interim National Commission will ensure that an opportunity is provided to these groups to participate, probably through a public inquiry process. Terms of Reference The Interim National Commission will be asked to prepare a report for the Government within six months. To ensure that proposals for the development of the bodies involved in the strategy are complementary, the Interim National Commission will be responsible for the development of the National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health as well as for the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and Office. The terms of reference of the Interim National Commission include advising on: the detailed functions, structure, membership, staffing levels, methods of operation and future consultative arrangements of the Commission, Office and Institute; appropriate legislative proposals; and inter-agency links for the common occupational health and safety interests of the Commission, Office, Institute and Contaminants Authority. Our national occupational health and safety strategy will be developed in the light of the following broad organisational arrangements: the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will have the principal role at the Federal Government level with respect to occupational health and safety, to ensure a coherent and co-ordinated approach to development; given the need to rationalise the occupational health and safety responsibilities of the proposed bodies, administrative arrangements are to be determined to the greatest extent possible, so that responsibility for occupational health and safety policies are located together; a single tripartite body be established to co-ordinate advice on policy, standard setting, research and enforcement; and there be a single national focal point for occupational health and safety information, advice, inspection and implementation of standards. Secretariat The Interim National Commission will be supported by a secretariat drawn from the Departments of Employment and Industrial Relations, and Health, supplemented as necessary by specialist consultants. Administrative arrangements for establishing this secretariat have now been concluded and the operating headquarters for the Interim National Commission will be passed in Canberra. Co-ordination When the National Commission and Office are established they will bring together into one administrative and policy framework the interrelated subject areas of occupational health and occupational safety. This will be of considerable assistance to all parties seeking access to relevant information, and will be an impetus to the raising of workplace standards. It follows from this that the National Commission will be the primary umbrella body. The national office will be the operational arm of the Commission. The National Commission will be the principal adviser in recommending the priorities of the National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health, NIEOH, and the Environmental Contaminants Authority, ECA, in relation to occupational health and safety matters. This is consistent with the strong view that has emerged from the consultations to date, and which was endorsed at the ACTU Executive meeting in May 1983, that there should not be a proliferation of bodies at the Federal level and that activities should be rationalised and co-ordinated to the greatest extent possible. As Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I will have the principal role at the Federal level with respect to occupational health and safety, while working with my colleagues the Minister for Health and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to ensure a co- ordinated approach during this development stage. Occupational Health and Safety in Commonwealth Employment and the Australian Capital Territory At the Federal level, this Government recognises that it has responsibilities not only in the national interest but also as a major employer. In this regard, however, the Government is again faced with the legacy of our predecessors and their refusal to accept responsibility to initiate any framework for occupational health and safety applicable to the area of Commonwealth responsibility. The Government's policy is quite explicit in its desire to involve employees, through their representatives, in the evaluation of workplace hazards and the processes to deal with them. To date discussions have been held with representatives of the ACTU and the major Commonwealth employing authorities with a view to re-establishing necessary consultative machinery. The Government's policy includes the setting up of joint union-management health and safety committees in places of Commonwealth employment. In recognition of its responsibilities for improved occupational health and safety in the Australian Capital Territory, the Government has decided that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) will appoint an Australian Capital Territory tripartite committee to report to the Interim National Commission. This committee will comprise representatives of the Trades and Labour Council in the Australian Capital Territory, employers, the House of Assembly, the Departments of Territories and Local Government, and Health, and the Capital Territory Health Commission. Conclusion In conclusion, our intention is to establish a comprehensive approach to occupational health and safety problems, not a series of short term expedients. It is clear that the breadth and complexity of the problems facing us are such that governments and their agencies cannot solve them in isolation. Experience has shown that government machinery has its limitations and weaknesses and that, by itself, it cannot create conditions essential to a major improvement in working environments. Each of the agencies proposed in our national strategy is an integral part of our comprehensive approach to occupational health and safety. We will foster and rely on the active participation of all parties-unions, employers, State governments, specialist groups and the community in general. I am convinced that we can maintain the momentum that has been developed, and as a government, provide the opportunities and support needed to reform our occupational health and safety systems. Mr Hicks —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is there any provision in the Standing Orders under which I can draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of members of the Tibooburra School, which is the most isolated school in New South Wales? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no such provision. It is inappropriate for the honourable member to raise the matter in the form in which he has. Nevertheless, the House is always pleased to welcome people from remote parts of Australia. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —by leave-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in his statement that this is an issue which should transcend party politics because it is about the health and wellbeing of members of the community engaged in the work force and their families. Of course he is correct in that. The Opposition shares the concern which has been expressed by the Minister. In fact I recall, when I was the Minister for Productivity, making some statements in this House expressing that concern. I recall also chairing meetings with State Ministers seeking to get the kind of co-ordination to which this statement refers. This statement goes rather further than we believed was possible for constitutional reasons at that time. I wish to refer to some other statements in a moment. There is no doubt that the personal and economic cost and the loss of productivity are major national problems which must be dealt with in a co- ordinated way by Federal and State government, the employers and the trade union movement. The problem is very largely to be found in the small to medium sized companies. Most of the larger companies have very good safety records and safety awareness-raising programs. Governments, going back to the Gorton and McMahon governments in my memory, have periodically tried to arouse an awareness by various programs. But there still seems to be an area which is hard to penetrate in the largely non-unionised work places of the medium to small companies. I believe that the task will remain a massive one even if the Minister is able to get the level of co-ordination and co-operation to which he has referred. I wish him well in that regard. I wish just to point out a couple of things with which I disagree. There are a couple of areas where I wish to ask the Minister some questions. First of all, he unfairly criticises the previous Government for its approach to the Constitution. Indeed, he acknowledges a little later in his statement when he refers to the Interim National Commission that, to date, it has generally been considered that the Commonwealth's power is limited to its own employees within the Australian Capital Territory and external territories. So it was not just the previous Government which viewed the Constitution in that way. The State governments, of both political persuasions, also view it in that way. The Minister will need to be treading carefully-as I am sure he knows-even when he is dealing with State governments of his own persuasion. I see that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the chamber. My recollection is that the State Health departments and the State labour and industry departments had a good deal of disagreement about the way in which matters should proceed within the States. So, the co-ordination problem is indeed a major one. I recall that, under the previous Government, model legislation was prepared for use by the State Governments. Some of them in fact adopted that legislation. So the former Government did much more than it has been given credit for by this statement to try to get co-ordination and uniformity between the States. We prepared also very elaborate and detailed health and safety codes which were made available in readily comprehensible form to Commonwealth employees. Again those codes have not been acknowledged as I believe they should be. At the same time we established the National Labour Consultative Council. As I understand it , this body will now be merged, with the Interim National Commission. I, therefore, stress that the previous Government tried much more than it has been given credit for to bring about a level of co-ordination and co-operation. There is a need for a bureaucratic and political will within the States to achieve more than we were able to achieve. I hope that the Minister is able to achieve it. It is very important for the nation and for the individuals who suffer as a result of industrial actions and through occupational health hazards. I notice that it was stressed at the National Economic Summit Conference that the nation could do it. Even there it was acknowledged that there were some constitutional problems in the way. It is worth observing that the Minister's statement relies a good deal on the prices and incomes accord. While the Minister referred to the two parties being in complete agreement, that statement immediately follows a reference to the employers and unions. It should be pointed out to the House again that the employers are not party to the accord. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are the parties. Some aspects of the accord still cause the Opposition concern and should cause the employers concern. I refer to pages 26 and 28 of the published version of the accord. I will ask the Minister a question that he may, with the leave of the House, be able to answer today. Under the heading 'Occupational Health and Safety' we see: . . . unions and union-appointed workers' health and safety representatives meeting with management in health and safety committees at local level, have the right to set standards of health and safety in the workplace. If read literally that could mean that the union and the union-appointed workers ' health and safety representatives have the right to set standards of health and safety in the work place, or it could mean that they do it in conjunction with management and health and safety committees at the local level. I think there is ambiguity there. Some employers have raised with me what the meaning of that statement is, especially as the Victorian Government has introduced legislation which seems to confer rights of that order on union representatives, not even union representatives elected by people at the place of work but, in some cases, imposed upon them from outside by the union movement. I notice also that, in respect of Commonwealth employment, it is agreed by the ALP and the ACTU that that is a priority area. That matter certainly is attended to in this statement. Again it suggests that workers' health and safety representatives will have a number of rights. I assume though from the Minister' s statement, which is much softer than the accord, that those rights will be exercised in conjunction with management and in conjunction with representatives of the Government itself as the overall employer. I think the Minister will wish to clarify that situation. Certainly the private employment sector in the Australian Capital Territory is entitled to answers to these questions: Are people at the place of work to have rights? Or is there to be the establishment of the health and safety committees at the place of work in which management and union representatives work together on occupational health and safety matters? I hope, for the sake of the private employment sector in the Australian Capital Territory, that we will get those answers. The Opposition embraces the objectives of the national strategy. I certainly embrace also the idea that it ought not become too bureaucratic; I hope that the Minister is successful in that. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the jurisdictional complexity. I think he will find that, unless he is able to go on working through the States, he will run into difficulties if he seeks to assert more power in this Parliament than has traditionally been thought to be there. I believe that he is wise to establish an interim body and to have the public hearings, the terms of reference and the modus operandi that he has outlined. We in the Opposition, will withhold our judgment about the ultimate method of operation of the permanent council until we actually see what is recommended. I assume that the Minister will make another statement to the House at that time. We will also withhold judgment on some of the activities of the committees and institutes that are foreshadowed in the statement and in the accord, particularly such activities as those of the Environmental Contaminants Authority which will be licensing new chemicals at a national level. While we recognise the need to achieve a more uniform approach to licensing, labelling and such matters, we would be anxious to see how it is done. Our support on an interim basis for what the Minister has outlined does not mean that we give open -ended support to the outcome, having regard both to the Federal Constitution and to the methods that may be adopted regarding interference with the running of business. The Minister may be able to clarify this, but I note that at various stages he referred to his relations with the State governments in strikingly different ways. He says on page two of the written document: . . . we can work, and will work, with State governments to develop uniform national standards for occupational health and safety. At page 5 of the written document he states: Thus in implementing our national strategy we are actively seeking to obtain the co-operation of the States . . . At page 7 he says: At the recent Conference of Federal and State Ministers of Labour, my State colleagues fully supported these Federal Government initiatives. I cannot see that he is referring in those three places to something different, yet there are three quite different senses of State and Federal co-operation; one going from absolute agreement to others being endeavours to get agreement. I think the House is entitled to know just how wholeheartedly the States are behind what has been outlined to us today. There is no doubt that there are proper concerns within the State spheres about the power of this Parliament and the activities of the Federal Government in relation to what have been traditional State areas. The Opposition acknowledges the very great importance to individuals and to national income and productivity improvement of effective preventative programs and effective rehabilitative programs in the area of occupational health and safety. The bipartisan spirit which should be evident will be evident as far as we are concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member for Bradfield has indicated that he wishes to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented at Question Time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —In my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) I said that average weekly earnings for the September quarter increased by 2.1 per cent. The Minister replied that the correct figure was one per cent and questioned the veracity of my figures. I would like to clarify this point. I was referring to the normal measure for average weekly earnings which relates to total earnings of all male employees and which has always been used as a basis for statutory comparisons. The full time adult figure used by the Minister is not normally used for comparisons because it is subject to numerous variations, including male-female employment levels and, among other things, wage differentials. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the appropriate section from catalogue No. 6301. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not appropriate to incorporate that material. Mr CONNOLLY —May I just refer to this- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is going beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. Mr CONNOLLY —I want to make just one important point. Mr Peacock —What was the reference number of it? Mr CONNOLLY —It was 6301, which is the Australian Bureau of Statistics report for the September quarter. The point is that nowhere in that statement is a figure of one per cent, which was quoted by the Minister. It refers quite specifically to the respective changes to the June quarter of 1983 as being 2.1 per cent, 2.7 per cent and 1.5 per cent. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WILLIS —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr WILLIS —In the document to which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) referred there is a summary headed 'Main Features of Catalogue No. 6301' which contains the average weekly earnings preliminary figures for the September quarter of this year. A small table is highlighted. The figure which is given for the increase in earnings in the September quarter in heavy dark print, the highlighted figure for full time adults, is one per cent. That was the figure I quoted; it is the most obvious figure in the document and the one which-- Mr Connolly —Look at page 3. Mr WILLIS —Give me a chance. Look at the figures. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's chance is very restricted indeed. I ask him to state where he has been misrepresented. Mr WILLIS —I have been accused of misrepresenting figures to the House, and I have a right to defend myself. The honourable member is saying that a figure of 2.1 per cent is contained on the frontispiece of this document. That is true. So too are a number of other figures. The highlighted figure, which relates to persons who are earning an income, is one per cent. The figure for all persons working all hours, not just ordinary hours, is 1.5 per cent. If there is any feeling that I should move away from the one per cent, I would say that 1.5 per cent is the appropriate figure. The figure which the statistician highlights in his document is the one per cent which I quoted to the House. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to respond to legitimate concerns about its funding policies for non-government schools. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.27) —There can be no doubt at all that in the past two weeks the issue of government assistance to non-government schools has become a major political issue in this country. There can be no doubt that the reaction of the Government over the past week indicates its concern about its handling of this issue. It is not surprising that this question should have become a major political issue in Australia. Not only has the Government fundamentally changed bipartisan support for government and non-government schools by the funding decisions it announced some three months ago, but its arrogant, inept, indifferent handling of proper criticism of those decisions has aggravated the very nature of those decisions. Fundamentally, there are two areas of great concern. Firstly, the Government has abolished the percentage link which was the lifeblood of Commonwealth Government support for independent schools, a link seen by the independent sector as being the very basis, the very guarantee and the very essence of good faith so far as continued government assistance was concerned. Most importantly, what the abolition of that link has done is to remove into the annual whim of the education Minister of the day the question of funding levels for independent schools throughout Australia. No longer is it possible for all independent schools to know that without qualification, without question, they all have a basic level of per capita support irrespective of the nature of the school or the nature of the pupils or the parents of those pupils. That guarantee has now been removed. What will happen is that the level of government funding for independent schools, whatever their alleged wealth or lack of wealth, will be resting in the hands of an annual bargaining session between the Minister for Education and the rest of the Government. Included in that bargaining session will be the claims of the most militant elements of the Australian Teachers Federation whose President, Mr Van Davy, who is a member of the Schools Commission, believes that the zero option of funding for non-government schools must be part of the Schools Commission's consideration. I hope the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who represents the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), will have something to say about that. The second area of concern is the decision by the Government that, in future, Commonwealth capital funding will not automatically be available for new independent schools if there is a possibility that those schools may take pupils away from existing government schools. On the surface, that sounds sugar coated and reasonable. But in reality it has the potential to restrict the growth of the non-government sector. When I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday whether that decision would have the same impact on the poorer non-government schools as it would have on other non-government schools, not only did he fail to answer the question but it was perfectly apparent from his response that he did not even understand the import of his guidelines. I believe that many honourable members on the other side do not really understand what Senator Ryan is about. I believe that many members of the Australian Labor Party are concerned about the bushfire that has been lit on this particular issue. They know how bitter and divisive was the debate on aid to independent schools for many decades. They know, as well as honourable members on this side of the House that Australian parents, in their tens of thousands, are voting with their feet for the independent sector. They are doing so not because they are wealthy, not because they are elitist, not because they are privileged, but because they are concerned-and rightly concerned-about some of the trends in the government school sector. Why else would we have the spectacle during an economic recession of an absolute surge in applications for non-government schools? That has occurred in the face of record levels of funding for government schools by Commonwealth governments over the past seven years. I take the opportunity to give the lie to the charge made by the Labor Party that the former Federal Liberal Government neglected the government sector. In fact, on a per capita basis, Federal Government support for government schools under the Fraser Government increased in real terms during its seven years in office. More and more Australian parents want the freedom to choose to send their children to non-government schools because they believe that certain advantages, certain values and certain assistance are provided to children in non-government schools that are not available in the government system. The Government, by this decision, is making it harder, not easier, for Australian parents to exercise that right and that freedom of choice. The Government is not really applying a needs principle. If the Government really believed in a needs principle, it would argue in favour of charging enrolment fees to wealthy people who send their children to government schools. But of course nobody argues in favour of that proposition; it would be absurd. So Senator Ryan in the other place and the Prime Minister in the House should not say: 'It is all a question of need; it has nothing to do with anything else other than need'. It has nothing to do with need. It has to do with the prejudice of Senator Ryan and many people in the left wing of the Labor Party about the nature and the quality of independent schooling in this country. Australian parents, in their tens of thousands, are voting with their feet against the militancy of the teachers unions of this country. Unfortunately, teachers unions in this country do not fairly represent the great rank and file of teachers, who do a very conscientious and committed job and have delivered a high quality of public education to Australian children over the years. There can be no argument that the leadership of teachers unions in this country is in the grip of militant elements. There can be no argument that the Labor Government is paying back the Australian Teachers Federation for the financial support given to it during the last Federal election campaign. No less than $750 ,000 was donated by the teachers unions of Australia to the Labor Party's election campaign. As I have said before, one would have to be enormously charitable to believe that the Labor Government would not be influenced by the size of that donation when it came to make its funding decisions on education. One would have to be enormously charitable to believe that that was not the situation. In the past few days the Prime Minister has defended the Government's decisions . He sought to give the impression that the last funding guidelines in reality gave the greatest level of increase to the poorer non-government schools. The reality, of course, is that in the last decision announced by the Government the increase in funding to the government sector was between 5 and 6 per cent and the increase that went to the non-government sector was only 1.5 per cent. In the face of that, the Prime Minister would assert that in reality he is trying to give greater help to the poorer non-government sector. I believe that these funding decisions reflect the outdated prejudice of many people in the Labor Party about the role of independent schools in our system. Perhaps the Prime Minister, Senator Ryan and other members of the Labor Party would do well to read an editorial in the Sydney Sun of 8 November. I refer to part of that editorial because it sums up much of the misguided thinking of the Labor Party and others on this subject. The editorial reads: Private schooling has long since outlived any reputation it has for harbouring silvertails. Too many working mothers and two-job fathers have seen to that. They are prepared to work and sacrifice for a private education, which is just as deserving of their tax dollars as public education. The trouble is that Labor governments make no secret of their intentions. Their first financial sqeeze on private schools will not be the last. If we needed any confirmation of that view, we got it from the Minister this morning on the Today program. When she was interviewed on this subject she was asked this simple question: 'Will more schools be put on the hit list of 41?'. She made it perfectly clear in her answer that more schools would be. After a lot of gobbledegook about a new formula or a new system being introduced, she said: 'However it comes out, if more than 41 schools fulfil the criteria, that number will be increased'. It is perfectly clear from that answer, as I said in this House about two months ago, that what was announced by Senator Ryan in her education guidelines was the thin end of a very large wedge. It was the beginning of a process of destroying the bipartisan guarantee available to non- government education which many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Australians had taken for granted. I think it was a very retrograde decision by the Government. It is a decision that it will live to regret. The Prime Minister is whistling through the electoral graveyard when he says that his policies have the overwhelming support of the Australian people. Has he not read the gallup poll on this subject taken only a few weeks ago, which showed that 52 per cent of people asked were against the decisions of his Government? It demonstrated that something like 65 per cent of people who sent their children to government schools were also opposed to the policies that had been announced by Senator Ryan. Of course, that illustrates that there are large numbers of people locked up in the state system who would like the opportunity to send their children to independent schools. We on this side of the House believe that we should encourage and multiply the choices that are available to Australian parents. We believe that the quality of Australian education can best be improved by competition. We are opposed to a monopoly of public education. We believe that greater diversity and greater plurality of education ought to be the goal. The goal ought not to be to level people, to abhor and to shun excellence, which appears to be implied in so many of the policies advocated by the Government and advocated in particular by Senator Ryan . There can be no doubt that these decisions have disturbed a very large number of people. We are not dealing with just people who for generations have traditionally sent their families to independent schools. We are dealing with a whole new generation of Australian parents, most of whom went through the state school system, but who, for a combination of reasons, are no longer as happy with that system as they once were. They want the freedom of choice. They need government assistance. They are not elitist. They are prepared to make sacrifices. They are prepared to work hard to fulfill the goal of sending their children to independent schools and they are entitled to be recognised and not to be undermined by this Government. The Government has failed, over the last few days, to answer properly the concerns of those 7,000 people who attended that overflowed meeting in Sydney. First of all, the Government has tried to ignore the criticism. Senator Ryan ignores invitations to attend meetings. When the Government realises that the issue is taking off, what does it do? It hurriedly organises a series of dorothy dix questions, in the week it was supposed to have sent dorothy dix on holidays, and quite inadequately responds to the concerns that have been raised by the people who attended that meeting and by many tens of thousands of people throughout Australia. At no stage has the Government satisfactorily answered the charge that under its new restriction on the provision of Commonwealth capital funding poorer systemic schools which might be opened in new areas of Australia will be just as disadvantaged and just as much at risk as other schools. That particular proposition gives the lie to what the Prime Minister said the other day when he claimed that the poorer schools would not be disadvantaged. How else can we possibly interpret that particular guideline which will have the practical effect of stopping the expansion of the non-government sector? To stop the expansion of the non-government sector at a time when more and more people want that sector to expand is not only unfair; it also goes against the wishes of a very significant and growing number of people in the Australian community. The Government has, most seriously of all, re-ignited a divisive debate which many people in this community thought was, once and for all, behind us. I think the Government's decisions are tragic. I believe they are misguided. I believe that the Government will live to regret them electorally. I believe it has misunderstood the temper and the attitude of hundreds of thousands of Australian men and women in the middle ground of Australian politics who do not want discrimination or broken promises from the Government; what they want is an earnest of the Government's good intentions and good faith in supporting their fundamental right, their inalienable right of freedom of choice for the education of their children. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(3.43) —I think that when we politicians are participating in a debate of great sensitivity we have a clear responsibility to contain that debate within the bounds of truth and to calm any emerging hysteria which might be developing on a particular subject. There is no question that this is a debate which does involve great passions; it does involve great and deeply held concerns within the community. But Opposition members would be making a very great mistake if they thought that the concern was all on one side or if they thought that, in any way, the sorts of arguments they are putting today are the only views which are felt very deeply and very keenly by people in the community. We have here a campaign that is being whipped up. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, a bushfire has been lit. Let us just examine for a moment who has struck the match. The match has been struck by those people who see political advantage in exciting sectarian differences within this community. The match has been struck by a few failed Liberal candidates who have been going around this country organising meetings. The match has been struck by a few people who see that they may have to pay more so that their children can enjoy a standard of resources which is simply beyond the means of the vast majority of people in the community. As well, a few decent Australians have been misled by those people who have been spearheading this campaign. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has an enormous amount to be ashamed about for joining in and leading this campaign because he knows how deceitful it is, he knows how dishonest it is and he knows that he is participating in an attempt to frighten the vast majority of those people who send their children to non-government schools, most of whom are destined to be greatly advantaged by the funding policies of this Government. I might just indicate that as a result of the meeting in Sydney to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred, a large number of these decent Australians came up to the State Minister for Education afterwards and said they wanted to disassociate themselves from the abuse and name calling which the leaders of the campaign, largely out of the Liberal Party of Australia I expect, were directing at him and to the absent and unavailable members of this Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that this campaign has been whipped up. He is trying to pretend that it is the children who go to more than 80 per cent of the most needy schools in Australia who will be disadvantaged when he knows very well that as a result of our policies not only have they got more money this year than they would have under the policies over which he presided but also in the future they are destined to do even better. I think it is useful to examine the way in which this debate has proceeded over the last decade or so . I will quote from an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning because I think it does put the position in a very balanced way and does bring to this debate a sort of calming influence which we really have always been interested in and which our policies now are determined to maintain. The article states: One of the major achievements of the Whitlam Government was to defuse the political and social explosiveness of State aid. A complicating factor in the current dispute- The article goes on to say that this Government has not explained its policies adequately. That may be so, but let me go on and say that when these sorts of debates develop in this hysterical way of course people are going to point to the most blantant examples, the most blatant differences which exist within schools in Australia. We have not attempted to do that. We have attempted to maintain this debate within reasonable limits. I will again quote from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. It states: Lost within the uproar of the rehetoric are a number of home truths: people with a lot of money have a great deal more freedom of choice than those less well off; some schools have extravagant facilities for their students; the resource-poor schools in both sytems have tended to decline rather than improve; and the debate has increasingly neglected the purpose of the exercise, the education of children. That is what I find so disturbing about the trend in this particular debate because the last thing that the Liberal Party is concerned about is the educational opportunities of the kids throughout Australia. In the seven years in which it presided over the Commonwealth school funding policies we saw a massive distortion. More and more funds were provided to those schools which were already best off at the expense of those schools which were already badly off. What we saw was a growing gap, a gap between the rich and the poor schools which the policies of Professor Karmel and the Schools Commission under the Whitlam Government intended to close. In fact, under the policies of our predecessors we saw that that gap got wider and wider. I wish that there was some reference to the consequences of their policies when we see these crocodile tears about the kids who have to put up with absolutely appalling circumstances in schools throughout Australia whether they- Mr Connolly —What you say is true only for New South Wales. Mr DAWKINS —I will give the honourable member some figures in a minute. I might mention that it would not be a bad idea if honourable members who participated in this debate actually declared their interest in relation to their own backgrounds and in relation to where their own children go to school. Leaving that to one side, let us look at what has been going on in New South Wales. On this occasion I am making a comparison with only non-government schools. We find that, within the non-government school system, three times more money is spent per child in some schools than in other schools. Mr Howard —That applies in government schools as well. Mr DAWKINS —It does not apply in government schools. I do not see how the Opposition and indeed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can justify the spending of three times more money on the education of some children than on the education of others. If parents want to pay extraordinarily high levels of fees and in that way provide facilities which are far and away beyond those provided in the government school system, that is up to them. But the degree to which the taxpayers of Australia ought to be embellishing those high standards of resources is a separate question. We have said and will continue to say that the extent of public support ought to be determined by the needs of the schools and the private resources available to those schools. On this occasion we are reversing a trend which was occurring under our predecessors whereby subsidies to the best-off schools in the non-government system increased by 259 per cent, subsidies to the worst-off non-government schools increased by only 165 per cent and those to government schools in fact fell by 12 per cent. Under the policies of our predecessors more and more was going to those who already had most and less and less was going to those who already had the least. If honourable members opposite are concerned about equality of opportunity and if they are genuinely concerned that kids, regardless of the circumstances of their parents, regardless of their backgrounds and regardless of where they live , ought to have an equal opportunity to have the best standard of education that this wealthy country can provide, I would have thought they would be determined in the first instance to ensure that those schools to be assisted first were those which, because of their circumstances and their very fabric, currently are unable to provide decent standards of education for their kids. That is what we have done on this occasion in a very tentative way. We did not have this year the opportunity to increase to the level we would like the amount of additional assistance to those poor non-government schools or , for that matter, to government schools as well. But next year we will have an opportunity to provide even more extra assistance to those schools which are worst off; that is, to the 80 per cent of those kids now at schools in category 3. That is where the kids in the non-government school sector are. They are not in the schools which are now screaming their heads off because they might be among the 41 out of 2,000 schools which have received small cuts in the level of funding. I remind honourable members opposite that those are the schools which are already spending three times as much on the education of their children as is being spent within the poorest non-government schools throughout the country, which is 80 per cent of non-government schools. Honourable members opposite can do what they like to try to manufacture a sectarian-based political campaign out of this, but we knew when we were developing these policies that there had been a serious determination by the Liberal Party in government to re-ignite the flames of the state aid debate, and there was developing a great concern amongst -- Mr Hodgman —Are you attacking the Catholic bishops of Australia? Are you saying they tell lies? Mr DAWKINS —If the honourable member for Denison would like me to quote some very eminent members of the Catholic heirarchy, those involved in-- Mr Hodgman —Quote Bishop Kelly on Judas money. Mr DAWKINS —I could also quote Archbishop Carroll from Sydney and the Catholic Education Office in Victoria; each has commended Senator Ryan on the guidelines she delivered to the Schools Commission. Of course, there are details in relation to the way in which funds are going to be more directly applied to the most- Mr Howard —What about the opening of new schools? Why don't you answer that question? Mr DAWKINS —I will come to that very quickly, as I did at Question Time today. It seems to me that anybody who is concerned about the facilities and the opportunities in the non-government school sector should be concerned about improving the circumstances in existing schools. We are saying that, in the first instance, we will be directing our attention towards improving the fabric of those schools, because, as I mentioned earlier today, All Hallows school in the electorate of Lowe is a fire trap and went ignored by our predecessors for years and years. If we are to see a sensible use of scarce resources, it is important in these circumstances to ensure that there is not a great duplication . That does not apply in areas where new places have to be provided in new and developing suburbs. In fact our policies will ensure that non-government schools get on the ground in new areas quicker than they would have done under the policies of our predecessors. For far too long supporters of non-government schools had to wait years and years before they could get together their share which then made them eligible for Commonwealth capital grants. The policies which we are undertaking will shorten that delay. This is a quite blatant and unprincipled attempt by the Liberal Party, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who is trying to re- establish his fortunes with the monied ranks of the Liberal Party, and those extreme right wing and conservative elements of the Liberal Party, to deflect the Government. That is what this is all about. However, the Government will not be deflected from its determination to ensure that in the funding of schools, whether government or non-government, the needs of the children are taken into account and that children have an equal chance to get a high quality education. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les. Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —I present the 211th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, relating to Finance Minute on Report 184-Internal Audit in the Australian Public Service, and I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms MAYER —The 211th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 184th report which was a discussion paper on internal audit in the Australian Public Service. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations as contained in the 184th report which was tabled in the Parliament on 11 February 1981. The Committee regards internal audit as an essential tool through which management can monitor the effectiveness of its controls and keep informed about the reliability and suitabilility of the systems and procedures it employs. The inquiry did not result from a specific reference; rather it was a discussion paper arising from the Committee's long standing interest in management and the quality of administration within the Public Service. The discussion paper was based on the collective experience of the Committee over many years as well as discussions with government departments, academics, professional accounting and auditing bodies and leading organisations in the private sector. The paper looked at some of the problems of internal audit, ranging from an historical perspective to the work being undertaken to increase the effectiveness of internal audit groups. The Committee hoped that the report would stimulate further consideration of the broader dimension of the problem and suggestions for the development of a balanced approach towards achieving a solution. Previous attempts to improve internal audit in the Australian Public Service had been generally unsuccessful. It is clear that those failures resulted from an insufficient interest on the part of permanent and statutory heads and a lack of support for internal audit by senior management; a situation exacerbated by the low standard of internal audit capability. The findings of the 1977 Public Service Board review of internal audit focused attention on the dismal state of internal audit in the Public Service and stimulated renewed efforts to bring about improvements. The Public Service Board has now initiated action designed to upgrade internal audit. Its success will depend entirely on the support given by individual departments and authorities. The Committee regards it as essential that the heads of departments and authorities cultivate a genuine interest in internal audit and learn to use it effectively. The tendency for many permanent heads to concentrate on policy matters and ignore administrative and financial affairs cannot be condoned. In addition, the Committee believes that officers who are motivated, qualified, experienced and capable must be encouraged to enter internal audit so that it can attain its full potential. The joint impact of the 1977 joint management review of internal audit and this Committee's report has now been observed within the public sector. This Finance minute details the main policy developments which have resulted. These are as follows: Establishment of the Joint Implementation Committee on Internal Audit to assist the Public Service Board and departments in implementing the follow-up action arising from the joint management review; establishment of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Internal Audit; 20 departments or authorities now have internal audit committees consisting of Second Division officers and chaired by permanent heads, deputy secretaries or first assistant secretaries; progress has been made in the area of automatic data processing auditing-this has been encouraged through an IDAC paper circulated in June 1981 and entitled ' The Development of Departmental Arrangements of ADP Auditing'; the Public Service Board has issued, in Volume 4 of its Personnel Management Manual, seven sets of guidelines for departments on different aspects of computer based systems-these provide a starting point for the planning of ADP audits; classification of the chief internal auditor position has been raised in 24 organisations-in six departments this position is in the Second Division and in most others it is at the top of the Third Division; most departments have reorganised their internal audit positions so that there has been an overall trend of upward movement in their classification; and in all organisations surveyed in 1982 the control of the internal audit function had been centralised. Nevertheless, the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that considerable effort is still necessary to ensure that internal audit capability in the Public Service is established and maintained at an appropriate level. The Committee is committed to ensuring the necessary improvements in internal audit are brought about. The Committee will therefore use every opportunity to check progress within departments and test the commitment of permanent and statutory heads and management towards effective internal audit. I commend this report to honourable members. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixth and ninth reports for 1983 of the Committee, together with the transcripts of evidence, relating to the proposed construction of a Telecom State Head Office Building, Adelaide, South Australia and the construction of accommodation for the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, New South Wales, respectively. I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the ninth report relating to the National Institute of Dramatic Art. Leave granted. Mr SAUNDERSON —The National Institute of Dramatic Art has had with the Government for some time a proposal for new accommodation. The former Public Works Committee held a public hearing into this matter but was unable to report on that hearing prior to the dissolution of Parliament. The proposal was referred to the current committee on 6 October this year. On 14 October Senator Jones and I, on behalf of the Committee, inspected NIDA's facilities and the site for the proposed work. We were appalled at the conditions under which NIDA is required to operate and are entirely supportive of the proposal. Following the Committee's decisions we have arrived at this report which is being presented to the Parliament in time to allow the early construction of the building. I wish to make a few comments in relation to the National Institute of Dramatic Art which, like so many organisations, has done such fine work in Australia and has gone virtually unrecognised for that performance other than by those who are directly associated with it. NIDA was established in 1958 and has been present at the University of New South Wales since then. It was Australia's first professional theatre school. Its aims are to encourage the knowledge and appreciation of drama, opera, music and all the arts of the theatre. It specifically provides practical training for the professions in live theatre, television, film and radio. It provides courses in acting, technical production, directing and design for theatre, film and television. It has played a major role in the re-emergence of film and television with Australian content. To show the sorts of problems that NIDA has had I think it is important to look at its accommodation. It is currently residing in a number of World War II Army huts and is also using part of the old Kensington racecourse jockeys' change room, which was built quite some time ago, and the old Totalisator Theatre. NIDA , with its graduates, has had some dramatic results. Many of the now famous actors and actresses in Australia have been graduates of the theatre. Such well known people as Mel Gibson, Judy Davis, John Hargreaves and Robyn Nevin have been graduates of the theatre. One can only congratulate not only those who are currently on the board but also those who have served in the past. In particular I take the opportunity to congratulate the full time staff of NIDA for the marvellous success they have achieved under such awful conditions. [COGNATE PAPERS: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM Report ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE Report] Consideration resumed. Clause 9. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —The question is that the amendment be agreed to . All those in favour say aye, to the contrary, no. I think the noes have it. Mr Steele Hall-A division is required. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Only one voice is calling for a division. Would the honourable member like the Committee to record his protest? Mr Steele Hall-Yes, Madam Deputy Chairman. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —You may consider it done. Amendment negatived. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.09) —I move: (2) Clause 9, page 30, at the end of proposed section 25T add 'and any member of the Redistribution Committee who disagrees with the reasons for the proposed redistribution shall state in writing the reasons for his dissent'. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the reasons why a distribution is accomplished will be visible to the people and that the Australian Electoral Commission's various views will be tabulated so that they can be publicly scrutinised. As I understand the legislation as it exists at the moment, a majority view of the Redistribution Committee could and would be promulgated, published and dealt with in the required way. However, the reasons, which might be quite interesting reasons, might visibly affect a future distribution, or the standards of distributions to come would be affected by a publication of the dissenting view. My amendment contains the words 'shall state'. The amendment to be moved by the Government contains the words 'may state'. I regret that the legislation is weakened, in the sense that the provision is not mandatory but it is simply the choice of the particular person. I am very pleased that the Government has seen the merit of this amendment, and I will not quibble about the alteration of the words. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(4.11) —As the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has pointed out, effectively our amendments (4) to (6) and (7) to (10) achieve the objectives of the honourable member for Boothby, with the exception of the word 'may'. Our amendment has 'may' instead of 'shall' . We have in fact accepted in total or in part a number of amendments put to us last night by the Opposition, and this is one of them, in the spirit of trying to keep this legislation as bipartisan as we possibly can. We will move accordingly. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.11) —I interpose to make sure that we are talking about the right amendment. Obviously the Minister is not accepting my amendment but is talking about his proposed amendments. Amendment negatived. Amendments (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (4) Clause 9, page 30, line 4, insert 'and any member of the Redistribution Committee who disagrees with the proposed redistribution may state in writing the reasons for his disagreement' after '25S (1)'. (5) Clause 9, page 30, line 20, omit 'and'. (6) Clause 9, page 30, line 21, omit proposed sub-paragraph (iii), substitute the following sub-paragraphs: '(iii) its reasons for the proposed redistribution ; and '(iv) if a member of the Redistribution Committee has stated in writing reasons for his disagreement with the proposed redistribution-those reasons,'. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.12) —I will not proceed with my amendment (3). The reasons have been declared. It related to 'shall' and 'may'. The point has been well covered by the previous statement from the Minister, although I understand he has technically still to move his amendments. Amendments (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (7) Clause 9, page 34, line 32, insert 'and any member of the augmented Electoral Commission who disagrees with the determination may state in writing the reasons for his disagreement' after '25Z (1)'. (8) Clause 9, page 35, after proposed paragraph 25ZB (1) (c) insert the following paragraph: '(ca) if a member of the Redistribution Committee has stated in writing the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed redistribution-those reasons;'. (9) Clause 9, page 35, line 6, omit 'and'. (10) Clause 9, page 35, Line 8, at the end of proposed sub-section 25ZB (1) add the following word and paragraph: 'and (f) if a member of the augmented Electoral Commission has stated in writing the reasons for his disagreement with the determination made by the augmented Electoral Commission-those reasons.'. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.14) —I will not proceed with my amendment (4). It was consequential on the passage of my amendment (1). Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 15 (Form of Rolls). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.15) —I move: (5) Clause 15, pages 41 and 42, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: '15. After section 31 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Overseas and itinerant electors '31A. Where an elector is an eligible overseas elector or an itinerant elector, the Roll shall not set out the place of living of the elector.'.'. This amendment is to leave in the Act the provision that occupation and sex must be published on the roll in relation to each elector. The reason for this is that, whilst one understands and notes the Government's desire to simplify the roll, bearing in mind the civil liberties question on the point that only as much information ought to be available publicly about people as to accomplish the purpose of having a roll, we believe that it is necessary to have further facts than the Government intends, to be able to discern who we are talking about and the separate identities of people who may share common dwellings and common names, for instance. That is not an unheard of circumstance when one moves away from the metroplitan areas to country districts. The actual place of residence is not very often the address of a person. When one puts a district complexion on this point, I have known, for instance, three people with the same name in one district. It seems that, whilst the local officers might know the persons when they turn up at the polling booth, would they be able to do so if the Government's intention, which we oppose, of having voting across the whole division were implemented? I believe that the validity of the argument supporting this amendment is increased by the Government's intention to move into the total division ordinary voting. I do not think a lot more needs to be said about this. What I have said is self-evident. No one can deny the simple points I make. People in the same house can have the same name, and, more particularly, people in the same country district can have the same name and the same occupation. That is why I believe that we do need as much differentiation as we can get on the roll in the way of sex and occupation. I see no strong reason to take that out. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned the matter of civil liberties. We have a roll and we have to make it work. One of the objectives of this legislation-I compliment the Government on one of its general objectives; not all its objectives, but one of the major ones-is to make the process of the operation of the electoral machine more efficient. There are a number of places in the Act where we tend to sacrifice common sense and workability by perhaps putting too little demand on the elector. I will refer to that later in regard to the manner of voting. In this regard I see no real reason why the Government should proceed in this way. It is simply an organisational factor. I ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) to consider seriously the inconvenience that will be caused if the Bill proceeds as it is written and if this amendment is not passed by the Committee. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(4.18) —I will try to remind the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) of the reason for the suggestion from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which, I think, at the time was a unanimous recommendation. It was on the question of civil liberties-which I do not think is the right phrase; it is more a question of privacy-in that people do not really want their names picked out by all kinds of commercial organisations which look to send letters to every teacher or shop assistant, et cetera. We also considered that the rolls were not really accurate in giving such information. As all of us will be aware unless one actually changes one's place of abode and re-enrols, one is still registered with one's original occupation. Someone may be on the roll as a student and now may be a university professor; or someone may be down as student and may now be a barrister. It is misleading and to some extent it interferes with the privacy of the individual. I am not prepared to go to the wall on this issue, but I am not sure that occupations would necessarily distinguish people living at the same address and having the same names. If they are males they are likely to be listed as labourers, soldiers or something like that. If they do not work their occupation is likely to be listed as home duties or something like that. So occupation does not help very much. I am aware of people who have objected to being sent commercial letters because a particular occupation is noted next to their name on the roll. Their listed occupations are often wrong. It was put to members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the occupation was required by the common roll States, which, for practical purposes, are all of them. I think that Victoria uses the electoral roll for jury purposes. But I should have thought that if defence or prosecution barristers were interested in jurors' occupations they would try to get those occupations directly from the prospective jurors rather than from the roll. The occupations listed on the roll are likely to be ones which they have not followed for a significant number of years. That is the explanation for the recommendation of the Committee. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.22) —I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who of course has the distinct advantage of having served in both State and Federal parliaments, and indeed having been Premier of South Australia. He is in a position to give the chamber the benefit of his experience. I appeal to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), for whom, as he well knows, I have the highest regard, to ask the Government to accept this amendment. I make this request on the basis of two matters. I shall deal with the second matter first because it is the very point made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in his concluding remarks. It is true that the electoral roll is used in every State and Territory of Australia for the purpose of preparing jury lists. We in this country do not have the procedure which exists in the United States, where prospective jurors can be personally interrogated before taking their positions on the jury. Quite frankly, I would never like to see that United States practice followed here. In a big trial it can take weeks to empanel a jury. Ordinary members of the community who are called into the courts of the United States to serve on juries may find themselves cross-examined for a day or two as to their entire lives- their personal beliefs, where they have worked, where they have lived, with whom they have lived and what their political views are. Dr Klugman —Only if the barrister is on legal aid. Mr HODGMAN —I am talking about the United States. The electoral roll is used for jury purposes in Australia, and that is a matter of some significance. The second matter which I raise is the most important one. I put this to the Minister, repeating as I do-I do not say this lightly-that I have the greatest regard for his integrity, but if the wish of this Parliament is that our electoral system and our electoral rolls be clean, it will be much more difficult to cleanse the rolls if the sex and the occupations of the elector are not included on the roll. An acquaintance of mine of many years standing in another political party in Sydney told me that he and others from time to time have witnessed dead men voting. I know it is the wish of all political parties-I hope all political parties certainly in this Parliament-that the roll should not be corrupt. The process of cleansing the rolls would be well known to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), as it is well known to honourable members on this side of the House. One has to obtain the electoral roll and actually check the area concerned and see whether the people are there. On that basic principle I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I suggest that if we do not know the sex of the elector whom we are checking on the roll it will be very difficult to determine whether it is the correct person. The Minister's Christian name is a classic example. The name 'Kim' is popular with both sexes, and more and more names are being used by both sexes. I ask the Minister-I hope he will take this suggestion seriously-for the purity of the roll, to enable cleansing to be efficient and to ensure that we do not have corruption in our electoral system, not to reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby and to permit the original section 31 of the Act to remain for a cleaner electoral roll and a cleaner electoral system for Australia. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(4.25) —I take the points made by both the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). In fact, once in my career as a student politician, in the days when the National Union of Students used to segregate by sex and allocate different floors at its conferences, I had the distinct pleasure of being located on the wrong floor-or the right one, depending on one' s point of view. I can see some force in the points made by the honourable gentlemen. As I understand it, there will be available to the Australian Electoral Office the product of a habitation review, which will determine the correctness of the matters indicated on the roll. The rolls are essentially available to the general public. As I understand it, whilst this is not a matter that any of us would go to the wall over, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was of the view that, because of the requirements of privacy and because the roll was beginning to be abused for commerical purposes to a degree that was undesirable it would be better to pursue this course. I have noted the force of the arguments but I cannot see my way clear to resile from the current position of the Government. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 16 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 (Persons entitled to enrolment and to vote.). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.28) —I move: (6) Clause 23, page 47, line 7, omit ''5 years'', substitute ''12 months''. The Government is moving away from the provisions in the Constitution which govern the disqualification of members of parliament who have been subject to imprisonment. I should have thought that the Government would want to have a commonality between the standards required of a member of parliament and those required of an elector. I should have thought there was some direct connection. The elector is as important in the system as the member of parliament. All citizens are electors. An elector is disqualified if he is attainted of treason, has been convicted, is under sentence or is subject to sentence for any offence punishable under the laws of the Commonwealth or a State by imprisonment for one year or longer. That position would apply to any of us here if we were so sentenced or under sentence under either a State of a Commonwealth law. That is the position as set out this moment in the Electoral Act, which states: . . . no person attainted of treason, or who has been convicted and is under sentence for any offence punishable under the law of any part of the King's dominions by imprisonment for one year or longer, shall be entitled to have his name placed on or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. It is something about which I have never heard a complaint. I guess those who are affected might complain, but they are paying the penalty for their transgressions. I see no move by the Government -which is about to hold a costly referendum next February-to put this matter to the people to alter the Constitution in relation to the tenure of members of parliament who are under sentence. Why is there a different standard? Dr Klugman —Are you suggesting that a bankrupt should not be able to vote? Mr STEELE HALL —I am suggesting that there should be commonality in relation to sentences. If the law states that a person cannot sit in this Parliament because he has received a sentence of 12 months, what is wrong with applying the same standard to the elector, a standard that applies now and which has been seen, up until now, to be a sensible position? We have heard no argument to sustain the Government's proposal. What is the argument? I hope that in a moment the Minister will give it to us. On reflection, bearing in mind the sentences given by courts since the Constitution was put into effect, I would have thought that the courts were far more lenient now. I am not blaming the courts. I think that society would not support sentences of the severity which obtained when the Constitution was formed and this period of 12 months was set into effect. In this case, the proposed period is five years. So not only is this provision of the Bill moving against the Constitution, it is also going against what is accepted in modern day terms. The Minister gave no reason for it in his second reading speech and I have heard of none in the community; I know of no demand in the community for this. Therefore, I promote my amendment on the basis that there should be commonality in the severity of penalties. The severity of the penalty that prevents people from holding a seat in this Parliament should be the same as that applying to people having the right to vote. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(4.32) —Again we had numerous submissions on this topic and the basic proposition is that the provision does not apply to a person who has been actually convicted to be imprisoned for a year. He may have received a sentence of only six months but the offence for which he is convicted may be one which carries a maximum penalty of one year. The general argument was that, for serious offences, the maximum penalty was usually five years. We could not see why people convicted of lesser offences should not be entitled to vote. People feel that it is a civil liberties issue and that they have already been punished . It could be likened to the position in the Soviet Union where a person may be sentenced to five years gaol and then lose his civil rights for another period- Mr Steele Hall —Do you think that should apply equally to members of parliament? Dr KLUGMAN —No, it would require a change to the Constitution. Mr Steele Hall —Do you think that that should be done? Dr KLUGMAN —I have no strong views on the matter. Provided the elector knows that a person has been convicted of a certain offence, it could be argued that that person should be not be excluded from standing for office. The electors may want to vote for him even though he has been sent to gaol for a particular offence; it could be justified. My view is that it is the duty of the courts to punish and that the loss of civil rights, such as is common in countries with which we do not usually like to compare ourselves, represents an additional punishment which should not be meted out. That was obviously the view of the Committee. The honourable member may recall that the argument was between those who wanted a 12 months period and those who wanted complete deletion. Finally the compromise period of five years was arrived at. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 24 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 27 (Claims for provisional enrolment). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.35) —I find the proposal set out in proposed new section 41A strange in the width of its application. It states: Any person who is 17 years of age and who, if he were 18 years of age, would be entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for a Subdivision may send or deliver a claim to have his name placed on the Roll- I am sure that the Committee would want-certainly members of the Opposition would want-anyone who is 18 before or on the day of polling to have the right to exercise his or her electoral entitlement. It would be wrong to take any other view. There is no reason why the mechanics of when an election is called, or a particular view of any stage in the development of voting rights, should make any difference. There is no reason why any person who is 18 right up to the date of the election, should be prohibited from voting but an enormous step seems to have been taken into a vacuum. This proposed new action states that the name of a person who is 17 can be placed on the roll. Is this a move to reduce the voting age to 17? That is the question that must be asked. The Government has not said that it intends to do any such thing but the question 'Why 17?' must be asked. Mr Young —Because it is before 18. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, but why not 16; why 17? It can be argued that they will be enrolling progressively, that they will not be loose and unenrolled around the place, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has said. But there is no particular reason for the age to be 17; it could be 17 1/2. I suppose that would be administratively awkward, but is it not also administratively awkward to clutter the roll with the names of people who cannot vote? I suppose that the Government intends to go out, get the names of hundreds of thousands of people and put them on the roll and then put a special mark against their names which shows that they cannot yet vote. Does it intend to put their date of birth there ? How will they be differentiated? It is going to involve a lot of effort on the part of electoral officers. The Government will have a roll with two standards-a sort of social membership and a full membership- Dr Klugman —An associate membership- Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member has been a very good Chairman of the Committee. It is a good term and the Government should have put it in the legislation-the term associate- Mr Hunt —Elector. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, or first class and second class elector. I do not know how it is to be done, but that is the situation. If the Government were to see some immediate advantage in having an election there would be a scramble to mark up the rolls somehow. I suppose that the computer would be able to do that in a few hours, but surely it is untidy. I see no necessity for it. It seems to me that again one must ask: Is it a move to 17-year-old voting? As honourable members can imagine, representations will certainly be made from people. They will say: 'You let me put my name on the roll two months ago for an election but I cannot vote. Reduce the voting age to 17.' That is another argument, one that I would not approve at this time. It is open to great argument, if the Government wants to do that, but surely it is not the intention that we should build that situation into the legislation until we decide to take that step. Inevitably it is a push for 17-year-old voting; it cannot be anything else, knowing the realities of politics. People who are half way to anything will want to go all the way there. My amendment would, I believe sensibly, confer full voting rights on the prospective elector as long as he or she is 18 on or before election day, and it would take out the make-believe or fiction part of the roll that will be created by having a sort of associate elector. As honourable members will see if they read my proposed amendment, it ensures that after the cessation of alteration of the rolls, and prior to the date of election, a person who is to be 18 years of age within that time can have his name put on the roll. It is as simple as that. It seems to me that no one is denied anything. However, a much tidier roll will result and an expectation will not be built up in people who are on the roll but cannot vote that they ought to be able to vote. Surely the Government does not want, given all the apathy and dissatisfaction about the electoral system that it has described as existing in the community, to breed another great area of dissatisfaction based on the knowledge that one is a non-voting enroller. That seems not to make any sense at all. Therefore, I move: (7) Clause 27, page 58, proposed section 41A, omit sub-section (1), substitute the following sub-section: '(1) Any person who- (a) is 17 years of age; (b) will attain the age of 18 years after the time specified in sub-section 43 (4) for the cessation of alterations to the Rolls and prior to the date of an election; and (c) if he were 18 years of age would be entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for a Subdivision,may send or deliver a claim to have his name placed on the Roll for that Subdivision to any Divisional Returning Officer.'. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(4.40) —I wish to very quickly respond to the point that has been made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). The argument surely is that we want to spread the time over which those people can register. I have made a very rough calculation and I would say that something in the order of 30,000 people would turn 18 in the 33 days we have allowed, from the time of the announcement of an election to the actual election. If we do not allow them to register before then, in the five days that they have from the time of the announcement of the election to the time of the closing of the rolls some 30,000 young people would have to go to the Australian electoral offices and register. In this way we will get them to register over a longer period. I think a large proportion of people will still register in the last five days but at least we can spread it out and make it easier for the Electoral Office. It is intended to help the administration of the Electoral Commission. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(4.41) —I want to speak briefly to this clause because I think the fears expressed by honourable members opposite are bogus fears, ones that will not come to pass. I remind the House that the Representation of the People Bill, I think in 1948, in England produced what was known then as the 'Y' voters' list. The 'Y' voters' list allowed- Mr Hodgman —'Y' voter? Mr BLANCHARD —The 'Y' stands for young voter, for the elucidation of the honourable member for Denison. The 'Y' voters' list allowed for the electoral office to put more speedily on to the roll those persons who attained the age of 21. As was mentioned by another speaker earlier, this was designed to facilitate that process and in so doing encourage potential young voters to take an interest in the political process, stimulate their interest and, hopefully, encourage them to vote when they were due to vote. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.43) —Briefly, I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I will be slightly less charitable than the honourable member for Boothby in the remarks that I make about the proposal which the Government brings before the Parliament. I say at the outset that I felt-I believe all honourable members of this Parliament would genuinely feel-disappointment and concern at the number of people, particularly young people, who, for one reason or another, were not able to vote in the recent Federal election. I have a fundamental view that those who are entitled to vote should be able to exercise that right. If the situation is as I believe it to be that thousands were not able to exercise that right, I think it is a sad thing for them individually and it is a sad thing for democracy. I recognise further the administrative point made by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and I appreciate the spirit in which he advanced his remarks. But I have to ask: Why does the Government want to go beyond the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Boothby which, if accepted by this House, will ensure that no person will be prohibited from voting in the circumstances which occurred in March this year. Depending on the period referred to in section 43 (4), it will mean an additional burden, which I recognise, being placed on the Australian Electoral Office. I hope that officers from that office right throughout Australia will recognise that honourable members on this side of the House or, indeed, honourable members on the other side of the House, do not willingly go out of their way to make the job of these officers more difficult. All the criticism which was properly raised following what happened in March this year would be remedied forever if the amendment of the honourable member for Boothy were accepted. I also think the honourable member for Boothby raises a point to which the Government, through the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), should respond. I do not believe that there can be such a thing as provisional enrolment, provisional age of majority or a provisional right to vote. I do not see it as a grey situation. I must confess that I see it as a black or white situation. I think there may well be validity in what the honourable member for Boothby says, in that young people who are taking advantage of the provision, if the Government gets its way and this becomes the law, will feel an expectation and will then feel disappointment and disillusionment if an election occurs when they are 17 years, 11 months and one week old. I ask the Government, through the Minister, why it wants to take it further than the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Boothby, save only the administrative argument put by the honourable member for Moore which I can understand and which I recognise in good faith? I am suspicious of the Government-not the Minister-in this. I smell a rat . I notice that in yesterday's Hansard there was some talk about dogs. I look at the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) when I say I smell a rat. There is something a little bit funny about this. I would just like the Governmenst to tell us what it really has in its mind. Mr Young —Nothing in your interest. Mr HODGMAN —I do not think anything that this Government would propose would be in my interest. I say that on the friendliest basis across the chamber. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(4.46) —As I have been directly challenged to respond, the Government's position basically is as was outlined both by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). It relates in the first instance to an administrative question. In fact, this will probably be an easier way for the Australian Electoral Office to deal with this problem than would be its experience in dealing with it in the way that has been suggested by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). In addition to that, one further point can be made. I assure the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that there is no question of rats, dogs or anything else of an animal nature being involved in the legislation. We are concerned here with a more general proposition. The surveys that have been taken by the Australian Electoral Office indicate-I think it would be the common experience of all of us involved in politics that really we do not need surveys to tell us what we nevertheless understand ourselves from having been in the business for a reasonable amount of time-that there is a very real problem in the community in encouraging young people to enrol and get involved in the process. If anything, that problem is worsening rather than getting better. Many factors are involved; some of them do not reflect great credit on us. When I use the word 'us' I mean honourable members collectively and include honourable members on this side of the House. Nevertheless, if we are to have a healthy democracy that situation must cease. Any process which encourages that to cease, provided it can be done in an administrative and sensible way and does not produce, as this will not produce, the type of undesirable effects described by the Opposition, ought to be undertaken. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment of the honourable member for Boothby. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 28 to 41-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 42. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(4.47) —by leave-I move: (11) Clause 42, page 66, at the end of proposed section 58 add the following sub-sections: '' '(7) Where an Australian Electoral Officer causes a copy of a decision made under sub-section (5) to be given to a person under sub-section (6), the copy shall be accompanied by a written statement to the effect that a person whose interests are affected by the decision may, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, if he is dissatisfied with the decision, make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision. '' '(8) Any failure to comply with the requirement of sub-section (7) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.'.''. (12) Clause 42, page 66, lines 33 to 41 and page 67, lines 1 to 34, omit proposed section 58AA, substitute the following section: Review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal '' '58AA. (1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision made by an Australian Electoral Officer under sub-section 58 (5). '' '(2) In this section, 'decision' has the same meaning as it has in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.'.''. (13) Clause 42, page 70, line 22, omit 'comprises or contains the word ' Independent' or 'independent', substitute 'comprises the words 'Independent Party' or comprises or contains the word 'Independent' ''. In amendments (11) to (13) there are two points that one might describe as administrative. The third point has a policy element as well as being administrative. The first two amendments relate to the question of the role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It does not change the character of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill in any shape or form and does not really need any explanation on my part. The third amendment requires a degree of explanation. It changes what was in our original proposition which was 'Independent' and 'independent'. We have amended that to read 'comprises the words' ''Independent Party''. This follows some way down the line of a suggestion made by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and needs to be read in conjunction with the rest of the clause, the objective of which is to ensure that nobody, in a bogus fashion, attempts to associate himself or herself with the major political parties and thereby creates a degree of confusion in the electorate. It needs to be remembered when this Bill is considered that other clauses in the Bill provide for the names of parties to appear on the ballot paper. While that is a very highly desirable amendment and one that I notice is supported by honourable members on the other side nevertheless the residual possibilities for a degree of mischief-making lie there. That matter is directly addressed in other parts of the Bill. There is also required an individual addressing of it in this area to ensure that people cannot go around the electorate touting themselves as Liberal or Labor candidates when they are not, by simply inserting the word 'Independent' in front of the party name. The Joint Committee saw that situation as important. While achieving that objective the legislation goes slightly further than that and addresses the question of the creation of the term 'Independent Party'. Whilst in some ways it might seem odd to take objection to this, we have to remember that in other sections of the Bill references are made to people who can describe themselves, if they wish to, as Independents. There was some concern by the Government, when we got down to looking at this matter seriously, that we might create a situation in which a person, by defining himself as an Independent Party, could create a difficulty because someone else described himself on the ballot paper as an Independent. We considered this undesirable, and for that reason we have come up with this additional amendment. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.52) —Does the definition 'Independent Party' apply to another inclusion, for example, describing a party as the Independent Labor Party or the Independent Liberal Party? Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(4.53) —It applies in both circumstances. One cannot describe oneself as Independent with the following name that is related to any other registered party. Therefore one cannot describe oneself as Independent Labor. However, if for example one wanted to describe oneself as Independent Tasmanian or Independent Western Australian or, if there is no socialist party, Independent Socialist, Independent Monarchist or whatever, one is quite entitled to do it. Mr Hodgman —Independent atheist republican? Mr BEAZLEY —Or something like that, such as, socialist atheist republican or atheist republican socialist. One can probably use all of those names although one would have difficulty with the acronym of one of them because other prohibitions deal with that problem. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.54) —I had some difficulty in discussions in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform about this matter. I sympathise with what the Government is trying to do and with the majority of members of the Committee who fear mischievous activity. A long time ago it seems now I was involved in another party. Mr Scott —Many of them. Mr STEELE HALL —No. My friend from Hindmarsh is incorrect in saying: 'Many of them'. I made a move that required selecting a name. Many names of course come to mind. I believe that Independent can mean something. I have never been a member of anything called an Independent party. However, I can sympathise with people who use that as a descriptive word. At this time I cannot support a move which extends the meaning of Independent to a party in this way. As the Chairman of the Committee knows, I have been uneasy from the beginning about this restriction. It seems to me that this amendment is further restrictive; in a sense it is a restriction of freedom. It is a protection for parties which exist . I get back to my general contention about the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. There are many admirable aspects to it and I am pleased to have been part of the information process that went into the Bill. However, I regret the general strength that is given to parties at the expense of individuals or to existing parties at the expense of those that may emerge later. For instance, I refer to the requirement to get 4 per cent of the vote in order to get public funding. In many ways I regret all those things, but I cannot agree with this amendment and I will vote against it. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.55) —As a former Independent member of the Tasmanian Parliament, I listened very carefully to the explanation of the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). Whilst I think I see what the Government is driving at, I must say that I share the views of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I think this amendment will limit the choice candidates have of describing themselves as they would wish to be described to the electors from whom they are seeking votes. On that ground I am with the honourable member for Boothby 100 per cent, and I will vote against the amendment. The second point I would like the Minister to deal with if he can-he did not advert to it in his remarks; it may be that it comes up in another section and I have missed the point-is that it has been suggested in the corridors of this building that the effect of this amendment will be to convert, for example, Senator Harradine into a party. I am putting that in shorthand because the honourable senator was heard to say that he thought it would mean that he would be required to be a party. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is indicating that that is not so. Would the Minister or the honourable member for Prospect clarify that matter, because if that were the situation it would be an absolute outrage. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(4.56) —The only thing that will happen is that one will not be able to call oneself an Independent party. A person can call himself Independent. The amendment arose out of suggestions by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and Senator Sir John Carrick who felt that one should not be able to call oneself, for example, Independent Liberal, Independent National or Independent Labor. I do not think they were as concerned about Independent Labor . A person can call himself Independent, but he cannot call himself independent and one of the registered party names. I am not sure how Senator Harradine is known in Tasmania. I have a feeling that he is just Independent. Obviously he can put that after his name. He could call himself Independent Tasmanian something or other, but he could not call himself Independent Party. That is the only thing we are stopping. Mr Ruddock —He could lead an independent duo. Dr KLUGMAN —One could call oneself an independent duo, but one could not call oneself an Independent party. Amendments agreed to. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.57) —This clause contains quite an enormous change in political circumstances concerning the registration of political parties. It is a very large clause. That does not mean that we oppose everything in clause 42. We had already come part of the way before we got to registration which is in Part IXA. I again raise in brief the argument that I put yesterday at the second reading stage that this is the first real manifestation of the marrying together of a political party and the Government of the day. It is the beginning of the march on the public with political parties arm in arm with public administration and the Government. The Government is going to do it by using taxpayers' money. In the Government's eyes the need for registration is there because of two major departures in the current electoral system. They are public funding and list systems of voting. A few other things may require registration, but they are the main ones in our eyes. These are the two major departures, as I have said which the public does not want and does not approve of. From the polls that have been taken, whether one refers to the poll quoted by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) which is more recent than the example I gave yesterday, basically the public does not want a conjunction of interest between political parties and the Government. The simple fact that one registers gives one an advantage. The Government must face this point. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) must face the fact that if a party does not register it will be disadvantaged. He cannot deny that point. If a party does not register, it will not receive any money and its candidates will not be listed on the ballot paper. So if this legislation passes, what will every party be forced to do? They will not have the choice any more. There is no choice about whether they will register, because they are dead if they do not register. It is the offer that they cannot refuse. If parties register and receive more than 4 per cent of the vote they receive all of this lovely money, a great cheque. Mr Hunt —It is corrupting the system. Mr STEELE HALL —As the honourable member for Gwydir says, it is corrupting the political system. Corruption may extend from registration through to public funding. Yesterday I heard the Minister-or it may have been the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)-say that public funding, providing money to governments, prevents corruption. That amazing member said: 'The only place in Australia which has public funding is New South Wales'. There is no corruption in New South Wales! A Minister has just resigned in New South Wales. His seat is still warm. In fact, it has just been filled-unlike the case of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, whose former office is locked, awaiting his return after the Caucus vote. We are fed this great logic that corruption will be prevented by feeding taxpayers' money to hungry political parties. The most corrupt government in Australia is the New South Wales Government. New South Wales is the only State which has public funding. I have never heard of such a disgrace and such a lack of logic in approach. Dr Klugman —Madam Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I protest on behalf of the Queensland State Government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr STEELE HALL —I do not think we need to become heated about this matter. It is a matter of great principle for the coalition parties. As I said before, we cannot refuse this offer. The coalition parties, in evidence before the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, said that they cannot resist it. If the Parliament says 'You are dead if you do not register', they will have to register. As I said, it is the offer they cannot refuse and they will be forced at electoral gunpoint to accept it. We do not like this conjunction of the parties and the Government marching together on the electors, and funded by the public-the very taxpayers whose votes they want. It is a bad conjunction, bad principle and bad government. Obviously, instead of making governments free of corruption, it in fact corrupts. As the Ministers march out of the New South Wales Government, which is the only publicly funded government, we need no further example of why we should turn away from it. We oppose this clause because it is the beginning of corruption of the system and we will vote against it. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(5.03) —I will keep my remarks reasonably brief because of time constraints, but a couple of points made by the Opposition require an answer. The first point is that we must also recognise elsewhere in this legislation that the situation of the political parties will become much more important, not least because of the fact that political parties to which candidates belong will be stated on the ballot paper. With regard to things such as how to vote cards political parties will have to exercise far greater technical responsibilities in relation to the Commonwealth Electoral Act than they have done for some considerable period. Irrespective of the question of public funding, there needs to be a basis on which political parties can effectively be recognised by the electoral law so that when the electoral officers register the Senate cards and when they place a party designation against the name of a particular candidate they will actually have a reference basis on which to work. It seems that the registration of political parties is about the most sensible way that we can go about ensuring that that position is properly protected. Of course, registration of political parties is given added importance by the fact that provision for public funding is included in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Two points need to be made about that matter. I have not claimed, nor to my knowledge has the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), that by providing for the public funding of political parties we will eliminate from politics all forms of corruption. That would be a silly thing to maintain. By this legislation we will be making a contribution to moving parties in that direction. There must be a reason why most other democratic nations have the public funding of political parties enshrined at the moment in their electoral processes-countries as diverse in their political systems as the welfare democratic socialist states of continental Europe and the United States of America, which I suppose at the other end of the spectrum in terms of a social system, stands of all democracies for the most unfettered free enterprise. The reasons why they have arrived at both of those conclusions is that they have noted within their systems the inordinate expense that election campaigns now impose on political parties and the potential for that expense to be a source of the corruption of the political process. While in many other areas of democratic practice we led the way at the time of our foundation as a nation, this is one area in which we trot along fifteenth out of some 22 democratic states in the world. As I said, we trot along in that position of fifteenth behind the United States and most European states. Nothing particularly unusual has been proposed in this legislation by the Government. This clause stands in the first instance because we require the registration of political parties for the very many functions that it is now acknowledged by this Act that they perform, and for the purposes, as I said, of ensuring that this necessary and useful move to public funding is done on a proper basis. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) 5.07)-The provisions contained in this clause are very important. They are the key to the Government's public funding proposals, and only by registration of political parties will these proposals be able to be put effectively in place. So this is a key part of the Bill, one about which I spoke yesterday in the Parliament. I want to emphasise what I said then, because I do not think the Government can get away with the charade that it is endeavouring to play with the Australian public, by suggesting that it can in some way legislate for honesty. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) endeavoured to say: 'We will not be able to eliminate all corruption; there may be some, but the Bill will be able to handle corruption'. I put it that there is no way that we can legislate for honesty in this area. In fact, I think the proposals that the Government is putting will place me in a far more difficult situation than under the operation of the funding code which the Liberal Party has had in place since it was formed . By the very nature of the provisions-the total scheme, the total framework-of the registration, coupled with disclosure of donations to political parties, I have been made aware, simply by the fact that the information must be collated and put before a department, of the names of donors to my campaign and the Party 's campaign, which is information to which I have not been privy before this time. The Government can make all sorts of allegations and laugh about people who have a code which they are prepared to accept, such as the fund raising code of the Liberal Party. But if we are dealing with honest men whose integrity we can trust, that code is all that is required. I have not made inquiries about donations. I have never involved myself; I have never written for money. I will not accept money in my office because I do not believe it is appropriate for a member of parliament to be beholden to anybody. If people support a party and the principles that it believes in, they will give that party support. It would be preposterous to suggest that if people say they have voted for me I should in some way treat them differently from somebody who said that he had not voted for me. I hope that all honourable members would regard it as preposterous. As far as I am concerned, once I am elected to parliament I am here to treat all people equally. I am not going to be influenced by the fact that somebody says: 'I gave some money to your campaign'. It is because he believes in the fundamental principles that my party believes in that I am elected to parliament and that he has given that support to me and my campaign. I believe in the importance of the fund raising code. I do not think it is going to be of any help to me in my duties that it will become public information, which I will be privy to, who was prepared to support my campaign in my electorate for me or to support my party. That is why these registration principles contained-- Dr Klugman —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I hate to interrupt at this stage because the honourable member is just about to get to the point, but none of the funding argument is relevant to this matter; only registration is relevant. I think the principle of funding should not be debated at present. The CHAIRMAN(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. The comment that has been made might be helpful. Mr RUDDOCK —The point that was being made by the honourable member was of course directly related to clause 42 which we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that without registration no political funding scheme will be possible. Of course, the Minister has said that there are other reasons why it is important that political parties be registered. Let me turn to some of those reasons. One of them is to enable the operation of the list system for Senate elections. That particular provision was suggested as an option which might be taken up by the Government in evidence that was given before it in preference to a number of other options that it was known were before the Government, including the optional preferential system and the first past the post system. As far as the Opposition parties and I are concerned, while the list system might be the least worst option in terms of an effective system that should be put in place for electing parliamentarians in this country, it is not an acceptable option. It may not be the worst of the three options, but in terms of the system we have now, it is not an acceptable option. For that reason we do not believe that registration of a political party to put in place that list system is important. All of the other aspects that are laid down and various matters that have to be followed in relation to the naming and the registration of political parties are set out in the relevant provisions of the Bill. Part IX, Part IXA and Part IXB deal with the registration of candidates and provide for a very complex system for registration of political parties. It appears that when we have eliminated the list system and eliminated public funding to political parties there is only one other reason in this Bill to require registration; that reason is to enable the party name to be put after the candidate name when it appears on a ballot paper. I do not regard that one reason to be sufficient justification for the registration procedures that are outlined, the difficulty that people will be put to and the amount of work that will be required. I have not asked but I suppose it would be appropriate to suggest that somebody should ask how many additional officers will need to be appointed to the Australian Electoral Commission to administer a procedure of this sort. When we think about it, when we get to the stage of not only running elections but also organising political parties, providing for registration, changing registration and deregistration provisions, providing for the inspection of registers, servicing documents and reviewing decisions we have to ask ourselves: What are we coming to in terms of the amount of regulation and endeavour that is required in this country? At some point people are going to ask this Government: What is the nature of the decisions that you have taken, such that we have seen a very significant increase in the levels of public expenditure in this country? The totality of decisions of this sort will mean that the Australian public will harshly judge the Government because of the additional cost to the taxpayer over time in the range of areas. It is in this area, registration of political parties, that this Government will be condemned. I do not think there is any evidence that public funding and registration of political parties is desired in the electorate and that it will achieve any good purpose. As I said before, I do not believe that we can legislate for honesty. If people want to be dishonest in the way in which they seek election to the Parliament, they will still do so and they will still be judged, in my view, accordingly by the electorate. The most satisfactory way in which parliamentarians who indulge in improper practices will be judged, and if corruption is involved people will be judged, will not be by registration of political parties but as a result of the decisions the Australian electorate will take in relation to those people when they seek election. I urge the rejection of these particular provisions because they are not required in any way whatsoever. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.15) —In deference to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and the shortage of time I will make my remarks very brief. This Moscow -like legislation will be overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Australia. This legislation is a precursor. I am totally opposed to the provisions relating to public funding, taking the taxpayers' money and paying it to political parties, and the list system. Public funding originated with Lenin in the Soviet Union, was carried forward by Stalin and embraced by Mussolini in Italy and by Hitler in Germany. I will have no part of it and the people of Australia will have no part of it. I suggest that by going down this track the Government is doing something where, in the long run, the chickens will come home to roost and it will not be to the Government's advantage. Let me tell the Government how undemocratic its registration of political parties provision is. The Government puts a premium on democracy because it will not let a party register unless it has 500 members. I think the people of Australia ought to know this. We could have a party which, in theory, might have 100 members, a first rate candidate in the Senate collecting 15 per cent of the Senate vote in the State, but that party could not be registered because it did not get 500 members. Further on in the legislation we see the taxpayers' money will go only to the big parties. A party has to get 4 per cent of the vote. If it is below 4 per cent of the vote it will not get a cent of taxpayers' money. I do not support public funding. I suggest the legislation is iniquitous. On the registration of political parties-I appeal to the Minister to pick this one up-the Bill provides that certain party names shall not be registered. If honourable members look at clause 58G (b) they will see that the name of a party cannot be registered if it is obscene, but what about if it is blasphemous? What about if it is sacrilegious? This is not an idle point. I ask the Minister to look at this. I am sure it is an oversight on his part. I am not making it a political point in relation to what he intends to do to the oath of allegiance to God and the Queen , but I ask him seriously why he is not going to make it illegal for blasphemous names to be registered as being the names of political parties. I will deal with the question of deregistration. This is covered in clause 58Q; these are my concluding remarks. The Australian Electoral Commission will automatically deregister a party if its membership falls below 500. I think that is unjust. I think that is completely undemocratic. Provision has been made for it to be a party operating in one State or territory, it does not have to be national. This legislation discriminates against the smaller States and against the territories. If the number drops below 500 the party is out. In conclusion, the legislation, of which this is the core, is undemocratic, unprincipled and whatever happens in this Parliament the people of Australia will reject it neck and crop. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(5.20) —I have a few words to say on this matter. It is a well-held theory in this Parliament that the people who cry wolf most about Lenin and Stalin and Soviet Russia may have some interest in pushing that barrow . I remember someone making that charge years ago against Billy Wentworth. It seems to me that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) cries wolf too often on this sort of thing. I wonder whether he has an ulterior motive in keeping their names before us and whether, as some people allege, he belonged at some time to a secret cell in Hobart. He is always wearing a red flower. I suspect that he is doing a job for someone and putting up a different front. He goes crook about public funding, but he used 90,000 bucks driving his car round here last year when he was a Minister. He did not mind spending that money. Mr Hodgman —Well, the figure is going up. Keep it clean. I ask for a withdrawal. Mr YOUNG —On the question of registration-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is a point of order. Will the honourable member withdraw the remark? Mr YOUNG —I withdraw. I have always been bewildered that earlier parliaments did not take the step of providing registration of political parties. We register dogs, aeroplanes and cars, and if we step outside the place we can be asked to breathe into a machine to see whether we have been drinking. The people of this country have acceped all sorts of laws, yet the main instruments of this democracy, namely, the political parties, have never been asked to register. They are now being asked to register in recognition of the part they play in our democracy. This is not so selective. If it was terribly selective, if it restricted those who might want to form a political party or if it restricted in some way or gave benefit to the parties already formed, perhaps people would have a logical objection to it. Let us look at the way in which a party can be registered. One person in the parliament can be recognised as a party and can be registered as a party. A party does not need 500 members. If a party has no representative in the Parliament, it needs 500 members. I suggest to honourable members that, going on the experience of the last election for the Bundestag in West Germany, there will emerge in Australia other parties-conservation parties and perhaps others- which will not find any difficulty at all in complying with what is laid down in this legislation. It may not be to the advantage of the established parties for these things to develop but, judging from what is happening in Europe, it almost goes without saying that these things will occur. I do not see any way at all in which the measures incorporated in this Bill will restrict the freedom of people to form political parties, to have them registered and to receive the benefits which may flow to them as a result. I do not see any inconvenience to the Australian people. The Australian Labor Party has been in existence for over 90 years; the Liberal Party, under its present name, for about 40 years, and the National Party, under its various names for 70 or 80 years. The forces have not changed much. The names may have changed occasionally, but the people of Australia have grown up with basically the same type of system we have at present. It may change. I do not see any bar to that change in the proposed new sections incorporated in clause 42 of this Bill. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(5.23) —As mentioned earlier, registration is the keystone of public funding. I take this opportunity to indicate that I am totally opposed to public funding. I was surprised by some of the comments made by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). He seemed to be half-hearted about his reasons for supporting public funding. Mr Beazley —That is because it is not in this clause. Mr GROOM —The Minister commented upon it and I want to comment on the remarks he made. He talked about it helping to reduce corruption. This is nonsense. There is no way in which public funding of political parties at election time will reduce the risks of corruption in our political system. The Minister must realise that. There is at the moment a risk of undue influence and bribery and corruption. That risk will remain despite the public funding of political parties. The degree of risk will depend upon the integrity, the honesty and the character of the people involved in the political system. That is obviously a fact, and will remain so. The Minister also seemed to say that this will somehow assist political parties . He said that campaigns are expensive and that by providing political parties with about $7m or $8m of public funds, as provided in this Bill, the burden borne by political parties will be reduced. I do not believe that is a fact. If we give $7m or $8m of the taxpayers' money to political parties, the cost of campaigns will increase by $7m or $8m. That is a fact of life. If a wage or salary earner gets an increase in his wage or salary, his expenses increase by a proportionate amount and he is just as much in debt after getting an increase in his salary as he was beforehand. The same thing happens with governments. When they get an increase in revenue, somehow there is an increase in expenditure programs, all the money is absorbed and the deficit is just as high. The same thing will happen with political parties. They will be given to spend as they want $7m or $8m of taxpayers' money, the money of the ordinary, working people of Australia, and they will spend an additional $7m or $8m on a campaign. There will be a more lavish campaign. Let us take our hats off to the voluntary workers in the political parties. They do a tremendous job foot-slogging around the place, raising money and working hard. They do a tremendously important job in the political process in this country. We do not always give them the credit we should give them. Mr Scott —It is registration we are talking about. Mr GROOM —Yes, and funding is based on registration. The Chairman has already given a ruling on that point. The workers who help us, whether in the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party, will have to do just as much work. There is no advantage whatsoever in this system. We will spend $7m or $8m of taxpayers' money, and there are many disadvantages. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said yesterday in an excellent speech, this is nationalisation of the political system. That is a fact of life. The whole political system will be controlled. Under the clause we are now debating returns will have to be made and forms will have to be filled in. What good do forms do? A candidate will have to fill in his return. That will employ a lot of people. Party officials will have to fill out their returns, and that will employ a lot of people. A publisher will have to fill out his return and that will employ more people. Mr Beazley —I take a point of order. This is way off the clause being debated. We are dealing with registration. What the honourable member is discussion is coming up later. Mr GROOM —The Minister has already made comments. I am relating my comments-- The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with-- Mr GROOM —I will wind up my comments. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member to make his remarks relevant to the clause. Mr GROOM —I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman. The Minister said that in the United States and in Europe there is public funding, and that that makes it right. Mr Scott —Registration. Mr GROOM —We are talking about public funding at the moment. Mr Scott —We are talking about registration. Mr GROOM —We are talking about public funding and relating it to registration. Does the fact that the United States and Sweden have public funding and that West Germany has it to some degree make it right for Australia? We have a good political system and it will be caused great harm as a direct result of this Bill and of this clause. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.29) —The Committee is discussing the registration of political parties. Proposed new section 58A of the legislation specifies the conditions under which registration may take place and states, in part: (b) a political party, other than a Parliamentary party, that has at least 500 members; So, a party must gain 500 members before it can be called a party for the purposes of registration. If it is a parliamentary party it may have at least one member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth-the House of Representatives or the Senate-of the Parliament of a State, of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Australia or of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Those are the bases upon which a political party may be registered. What is the purpose of gaining registration under the legislation? The primary reason is to receive funding and, in that process, accountability. The other reason is to register for the Senate vote on a list. Dr Klugman —That is not true. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Prospect talks about other reasons why registration should take place. Dr Klugman —You can get money without being registered. Mr CADMAN —If there is to be a process of funding there must be a process of registration; I accept that. Indeed, if we are to pay funds to political parties there must be a process of registration. That is reasonable and proper. If public funds are to be paid to political parties registration must take place. But what has happened to the right of public association? What has happened to the basic freedoms of Australians? Why should people not be allowed to associate in small political parties or interest groups within the community, taking up causes as they wish and by that process over a period establishing a political party? In my view there is nothing to prevent people from calling themselves a political party without gaining registration. If they call themselves a political party, how are they then seen by the community? Have they a right to register their name under the Acts of the various States and call themselves political parties through that process? I take it that this legislation does not override the provisions of the States in that regard. If that provision does not apply, a group cannot call itself a political party under any Commonwealth legislation unless it is registered through the processes of this legislation. I regard that as an extremely dangerous proposition in that people who may be in the processes of developing a political party are a political party in name but not in fact. Two categories of political parties are formed by this process. The great parties of this nation were built by people who demanded and claimed the right of association. Let us look at the early development of the Australian Labor Party. For years the Labor Party, under the provisions of this legislation, could not have called itself a political party. It seems to me that the rights of association of individuals have to be prescribed by an Act of parliament if one is in the political field. That is what honourable members opposite are saying. They say: 'If you are going into politics we want to know about it. We want to register you, we demand to see your constitution, we demand to know who your chief officers are and we demand to know the details of the way in which you operate as a political party'. That is a different proposition from the open community, the open freedoms that have been accepted over many years by the Australian community. One just has to look at the great list of provisons that have to be gone through, the complicated administration that must be undertaken by a political party. If one wants to form a party, one has to publish a notice of application, one has to publish one's intention and tell the whole world of one's intention to form a political party. If one does not do that one is ineligible for funding, ineligible for listing. What about the processes that must be followed to change a name on the register , the processes of voluntary deregistration and the deregistration of parties not endorsing candidates? There is a provision in the legislation that a group which may have operated in the terms of this legislation as a political party for four years but has not fielded a candidate can be automatically deregistered . I think this is crazy. I do not know what Australia is coming to if the people opposite believe that this is advancing the freedoms of our society. The prospect of spending $8.6m in a campaign to encourage political parties to adopt a registration process, to lift the level of funding and to ascertain exactly who the members, supporters and contributors to a party are, seems to indicate a wrong priority in days when expenditure of those funds are spoken about in the House as being needed for employment programs, taxation cuts, abandoning some aspects of the assets test and keeping some of the promises of the Australian Labor Party. Now that is the priority the Government has set- Mr Beazley —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This speaker is outrageously out of order on this clause. He is making a mockery of the Committee process. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN —I refer to previous rulings on this matter and to the fact that the Minister himself in his earlier response cut very deeply into the area of public funding of political parties. I have dealt with the processes of registration. The main reason why registration is required is to ensure that there will be public funding. What are the Government's priorities? Are they to spend funds and to give handouts to political parties? Why should political parties receive handouts? Why should they be registered? Why does the Government want to control the processes of registration, administration, deregistration, inspection, service of documents and review of all the decisions that have already been made ? We even have three pages of legislation to tell us how these processes can be reviewed. Freedom of association is a basic freedom that all Australians have held dear. Our political parties have started through this freedom of association and now we are to see that process changed by government regulation and control purely so that the Government can offer a dollar to political parties. I think it is disgusting and dishonourable. It ought to be voted against and withdrawn. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(5.37) —I shall take only half a minute. The last two speeches were depressing. No wonder the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) left the chamber. He worked hard on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to work out a system and now he finds that his back bench is completely ignorant. As the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) will undoubtedly realise, registration is completely irrelevant as far as funding or list voting is concerned. A group can be funded without being a registered political party; it can register a list without being a political party. Mr Cadman —How do you do it? Dr KLUGMAN —The honourable member should read the Bill. For goodness sake, he should not argue without doing so. An Independent can get funding. One can register a list of preferences without being a political party. The only reason for having a registration system is to protect people against fraud; for example when two or three people nominate for the electorate of Mitchell and call themselves Liberals. It is purely from the point of view of having on the ballot paper-- Mr Cadman —It is unbelievable. Dr KLUGMAN —It may well be unbelievable, but that is the proposition. Mr Ruddock —Get rid of it. Dr KLUGMAN —All right. If we get rid of it a number of people in addition to the honourable member for Dundas will stand as Liberals for the seat of Dundas, and the first person to squeal will be the honourable member for Dundas. Question put: That clause 42, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Hurford, C. J.Blanchard, C. A. Jacobi, R.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J. (Teller) Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Mountford, J. G. Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Ronald Katter, R. C.Cunningham, B. T. Cameron, IanCharlesworth, R. I. Millar, P. C.Kelly, R. J. Adermann, A. E.Jones, Barry Rocher, A. C.Keating, P. J. Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 to 62-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 63 (Duty of witness). Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(5.47) —by leave-I move: (14) Clause 63, page 95, line 10, omit 'A', substitute 'Subject to sub-section (4), a'. (15) Clause 63, page 95, line 11, omit 'subject to sub-section (4),'. Very briefly, these amendments pick up a difficulty in the Bill that we discovered after we had examined the question, it must be said, on the initiative of our opponents. This clause of the Bill restricts the possibilities that are available for postal vote gatherers to engage in what the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and I think all of us from our experiences, would regard as undesirable practices. In doing so we recognised, however, in the Bill as it stands at the moment that under sub-clause (b) a situation could arise where a person seeking a postal vote could in fact request in writing the attendance of a witness who might nevertheless be unable to pick up and witness that postal vote. Consequently, in amending this clause, we have shifted the words 'subject to sub-section (4)' appearing in sub-section (a) to appear in the introductory sentence after 'a person shall not' so that they cover both of those proposed sub-sections. In covering both of those proposed sub-sections they will make certain that the procedure established is actually applicable and that a would-be voter can seek the assistance in writing of a witness to witness a signature on the paper. It is a fairly technical matter. There is opposition from the other side. An amendment will subsequently be moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), to the principle. We feel that we have covered in this amendment all the things that needed to be covered. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.49) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), in his amendment, may have made things a little easier, but it still seems to leave the severity of proposed sub-section (b). I understand that it is the aim of the legislation not to have people pestered and induced to obtain postal votes. I put it to the Minister-I ask him to listen to the argument-that, for instance, a person who wishes to obtain an application for a postal vote at the post office and who meets a friend outside and says 'Can you witness this in my car' is precluded from doing so. That seems to be a totally undue restriction. Mr Beazley —He can write him a letter. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes. As the Minister knows, all the parties send out notes which state: 'Can we help you?' People write back and say that they want help. They actually write the note by signing the party form. That is legally correct and in fact it provides an enormous service all over Australia, as the Minister knows. That is to be desired. But what is wrong with a personal request-in writing? People may make oral applications for postal votes in order to overcome the problem of absentee voting, but they cannot make an oral application to their neighbours to witness their postal vote application forms. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I think it is a real point of inconvenience to people. I do not see why it is maintained, given that one cannot induce, and so on. I do not see why we are taking away the right of an ordinary citizen to ask his neighbour or his friend in the street to witness his postal vote application . It seems to be nonsense. I therefore oppose the Minister's amendment not because I do not think it helps but because I do not think it goes far enough and should be replaced by an amendment of mine. Amendments agreed to. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.51) —I move: (8) Clause 63, page 95, lines 14-17, proposed sub-section (3), omit paragraph ( b). I move to delete paragraph (b) to remove the restrictions on an elector choosing whom he wants to witness his postal application form and the place where he wants it witnessed. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 64 to 73-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 74. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.52) —This clause deals with the correction of errors by an officer. I am sure the Committee will agree without demur that a formal defect as simply stated here should not prevent the obtaining of a ballot paper or the admission of a ballot paper. However, there is no definition of a formal defect. It is therefore left to the officer to decide, as far as I can interpret the legislation, what the formal defect is. We would all at first blush immediately say that we would know what it is, but in the fight for postal votes and their admission in a close count there is enormous pressure in regard to what is a proper vote to admit and what is not. This provision is altogether too loose and will cause a great deal of contention about which votes should be in and which should be not. What is a formal defect? This amendment throws the onus back on the elector. It says that a formal defect is other than an error or omission by the elector. I think that is fair enough; at least it makes clear to the officer what to admit in a poll. If the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has a better idea, I will be happy to agree to it. I am not here to support a particular wording, but unless there is some wording which defines a formal defect this clause is at fault and needs the type of amendment which I move now. I move: (9) Clause 74, page 101, line 24, after 'error,' insert 'other than an error or omission by the elector,'. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.54) —I thought long and hard about this clause, because, like the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), I was worried about what is meant by a 'formal defect'. Dr Klugman —They probably put the wrong subdivision in. Mr RUDDOCK —That is exactly what I said. I said to my colleagues: 'That is what they had in mind; people do not know the name of their subdivision, they put down the wrong subdivision or somebody has changed the subdivision'. I thought that if that is what the formal defect is, maybe that is what we should say. It was not my business to try to draft the legislation for the Government. What is a formal defect? Is a formal defect created when somebody forgets to put his signature on a postal vote application? I do not know, but I suspect that that is not really quite what the Government has in mind. Is a formal defect created when a person does not know his own address? Should the officers fill in that information for him? I do not know whether that is what the Government has in mind. The Government should have given some attention to this matter and defined formal defect and provided that when those alterations were being made scrutineers should see what was being done to satisfy themselves as to whether forms were being filled in correctly. I have a great deal of faith in the returning officer in my electorate; I regard him as a man of great integrity. But it rankles a little when we can put a man, no matter how highly we regard him, in a room on his own to add something to somebody's form so that his vote will be counted. I think it is very important in relation to such matters that we specify the formal defects and what we have in mind. Perhaps we can look at this provision later. We do not want to be unreasonable. I thought the easiest approach was to move the amendment we have moved. If the Government has something else in mind that could define what is a formal defect it can tell us and we can consider it. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 75 to 77-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 78. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.56) —I move: (10) Clause 78, page 102, line 22, after 'paper' insert 'for House of Representatives elections and green paper for Senate elections'. This is a very simple amendment to retain the present position in relation to different coloured ballot papers for the House of Representatives and the Senate . I know that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform made the recommendation, which is reasonable enough, that white paper is likely to be different from that of how to vote cards and would be convenient for printing and so on. But from an elector's point of view, I think the difference in the colour of the two ballot papers is a very good point indeed. I think it should be retained. Ballot papers could be mixed up. One might say that that is a pretty unlikely occurrence, but it has occurred. Anything can occur in the complexity of the Australia-wide-- Mr Robert Brown —That is only in the Liberal Party. Mr STEELE HALL —We have won most ballots over the years; we just do not have the numbers at the moment. As I understand it, the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has agreed to the amendment so I will not talk myself out of it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 79 to 81-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 82. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(5.58) —I move: (16) Clause 82, page 106, line 34, omit 'displayed in', substitute 'prominently displayed at'. The Government wishes to amend clause 82 in order to make clear what is intended by the display in relation to the location of a polling booth. We have included the qualification 'prominently' and substituted the word 'at' for 'in'. When considering this clause in detail, we came to the view that there would be a possibility of a degree of disputation as to the location of the various how to vote cards. A candidate could believe that the stand was not being displayed prominently enough. There may be disputation if someone suggests that it should be in the actual voting box, as opposed to at the polling booth. Given that this will be truly a monstrous document when it is put up, any suggestion that someone might require it actually in the place might well lead to a nonsense situation developing. For this reason the Government has suggested the change. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.01) —As I remember the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform this is one of the clauses in respect of which the Government has not followed its recommendation, which was that we would not have displays of such a nature in polling booths. The Chairman can correct me if I am wrong. Dr Klugman —In the polling booth but not in the cubicle. Mr STEELE HALL —Perhaps there was a difference there that I did not pick up at the time. I do not oppose the proposal in that it is part of the list system of voting. If we have a list system we must have this. Such a system is objectionable and I merely want to state the case. This is just a part of that system. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 83 to 85-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 86 (The polling). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.02) —The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides for 8 o' clock closing of the polls and the Bill seeks to institute in its place 6 o' clock closing. The argument on that has been well heard in the community and in the Committee. There are, of course, views on all sides of politics as to what the closing time ought to be. Many of the States have moved for 6 o'clock closing. However, the Opposition believes that the 8 per cent of people who vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. should be considered; that there are religious denominations which must take other measures than attend at the booth if 6 o' clock closing is to apply. They must obtain postal votes. We contend that the state is not supreme in these matters, that the elector should be supreme and the convenience of such groups should be met by maintaining 8 p.m. closing. Accordingly we oppose the clause. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.03) —I would like to speak briefly on this matter because I regard it as being very important. If one looks at the scheme of the Bill that we are discussing, one appreciates that the Government has in mind maximising the possibilities for electors registering a vote. That is a part of the total scheme of the legislation that the Government is pressing upon us. I am not disagreeing with that. But, Mr Chairman, if you look at it in relation to visiting the sick in hospital; if you look at it in relation to the extension of postal votes; if you look at it in relation to ensuring that 17-year-olds will be able not only to get ready to go on the roll but will be able to do so on the very day they turn 18; if you look at all of the complications involved; if you look at the provisions being made to ensure that a wider range of people in gaol are able to vote, if you look at the wider range of people in the Antarctic who are to be able to vote; if you look at the wider range of provisions relating to people who are going overseas for a period, to ensure that they remain on the roll, you see that an endeavour is being made to maximise the possibility that an elector may have to vote and to ensure that nobody will be excluded. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to the question of whether the polling booth ought to be opened for a sufficient number of hours to enable people to vote who find it difficult to do so on the sabbath or before sundown, the Government says 'No, we are going to put you to the inconvenience of having to vote in some other way. You will have to make a pre-poll vote or a postal vote. You will have to find some other way of doing it because we will ensure that the polling booths will be closed before you are able, in accordance with your religious beliefs, to turn up'. I do not happen to be a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jew but I respect their right to be able to vote at a time which is convenient to them and I will defend their right to be able so to do. That is why I will vote for the Opposition's motion. One of the reasons I pushed for retention of 8 o'clock closing was its convenience. If we look at the total framework of the amendments to the Act that are being put to us, we see that they seek to maximise the possibility of a person who is entitled to be an elector being able to vote. We are doing this at very considerable expense to the Australian public. I point to the provision being made in relation to the Antarctic, to allow half a dozen electors to vote; to the provision being made for people to trot around hospitals with a portable ballot bax. All of this will be costly. None of these provisions will be undertaken without expense. Yet when it comes to a question of whether the polling booths should be closed at 6 o'clock or 8 o'clock, because the Seventh Day Adventists or Jews are affected, the Government is saying: 'No, we will make it more inconvenient for you'. Mrs Darling —It is not because of that. Mr RUDDOCK —That is what it amounts to. They find it extraordinarily difficult, on their sabbath, to be able to vote before 6 o'clock. Yet, if the closing time were 8 o'clock they would be able to do so. Mr Milton —That is not the reason at all. They can lodge a postal vote. Mr RUDDOCK —Honourable members who are interjecting are saying, in effect, 'Let them have a postal vote; let them have a pre-poll vote; put them to that inconvenience'. I say to honourable members very firmly and with a great deal of conviction that no group of people should be put to that amount of trouble unless the circumstances are very necessitous. In that case, as the Act recognises, it is appropriate that they should make an application. I urge all honourable members, in conscience, more than on any other matter, to support the Opposition's motion. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(6.08) —I will give an explanation of the reasons for the Government's proposal. Numerous submissions in favour of it were made to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The late father of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was a prominent Minister in the New South Wales Government which introduced the change to 6 p.m. poll closing. Mr Ruddock —Are you saying that my father's view should bind me? Dr KLUGMAN —No. All I am saying is that a Liberal-Country Party Government introduced it in New South Wales; a National-Liberal Party Government introduced it in Queensland; and a Liberal Government introduced it in Victoria. I have not checked what happened in South Australia and Western Australia. Again, I do not think it is a terribly important issue. The Committee was asked to look at the various submissions and found more people in favour of the proposal than were against it; nobody objected to it. We asked whether there had been any significant increase in pre-poll or postal votes in areas where we knew there were high concentrations of people of certain religious faiths. Such a result did not appear so we accepted the proposition that the hour of closing should be 6 p.m. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(6.09) —I wish to make a final plea on behalf of the 8 per cent of people who have availed themselves of the opportunity to cast their vote between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. They happen to be people of various religious faiths but, in my own electorate they happen to be people living in very remote parts of New South Wales. On wet polling days, for instance, it often takes them up to half a day to get to the polling place. Mr Robert Brown —Come on, Ralph. There is no one who takes half a day. Mr HUNT —The honourable member does not understand this. I ask him, please, to let me make a plea for my people. He made a plea for his electors in Hunter. I listened with great intensity to the problems of his people. Mr Robert Brown —I know you did. Mr HUNT —I ask him to listen with some respect to the problems of my people- people who I have some feeling for, people who live in isolation. They do not have television reception and barely are able to receive radio broadcasts. They educate their children by using the Flying Doctor Service communication system and so on. These people are living hundreds of miles from a polling place. The trend has been to close down polling places to make it easier for the polling system. I honestly believe that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform endeavoured to give an opportunity to the maximum number of people to cast a valid vote on polling day. It was a genuine attempt. I am pleased that the Government has adopted the recommendations in respect of the mobile polling booths. So much has been done in this legislation to make it easier for itinerants, Aboriginal people and other people to cast a vote. It is all very well to say: ' Yes, we will have a roll for those people who want a postal vote. We will do that'. But not everybody in these remote areas will use a postal vote. These people have relied on going from their place of residence to the polling place on polling day. Believe you me, on wet days or in flood times it takes them up to a day to go from A to B. This represents a small number of people, it will not make or break any political party. But I believe, as one who represents a very isolated electorate, that it was a great mistake not to maintain the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Other people have argued the case of the Seventh Day Adventists, as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has done, and people of the Jewish faith. But I would not be doing my duty if I did not register a protest in this chamber on behalf of the people who live in remote situations. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(6.12) —I want to speak briefly on the matter of the isolated voter. I guess there are no more isolated voters than in the most decentralised State of Queensland. For as long as I have been voting in Queensland, the State Government-the only government in Australia where the majority of the members belong to the same party as that of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who has just spoken-has adhered to a 6 o'clock closing for State elections despite having voting until 8 p.m. at every Federal election. I do not think the honourable member's argument has very much impressed the members of his Party who formed a State government in that State. Clause agreed to. Clause 87 agreed to. Clause 88 (Where electors may vote). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.13) —I move: (12) Clause 88, page 107, lines 26 and 27, omit paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) extends ordinary voting across the whole division of a Federal electorate instead of confining it to subdivisions. Again this has been the subject of some lengthy discussion in various places. It has been discussed by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and, I have no doubt, in the party rooms. The Opposition has decided that there is a risk of bad practice arising from the fact that electors can vote over the whole of the division, thereby voting outside the areas where they are known. Under present circumstances they are likely to be known because of their periodic visits to the polling booths and, in recent years, their quite frequent visits to the polling booths. I have moved this amendment on behalf of the Opposition simply to maintain the current situation of voting in sub divisions and the need for absentee provisions outside those sub- divisions. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(6.15) —The reason the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform introduced this measure is that when State redistributions take place the subdivisions are often changed. I am sure that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has had experience of this in New South Wales. We then get people who have been used to going to a particular polling booth being told: ' You cannot vote here. You have to go to a polling booth in the other subdivision '. We had numerous complaints about this. We were worried about the problem that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has raised, that people could vote twice or more often but had evidence from the Electoral Office to the effect that this just does not happen. In all the cases of double voting that have been investigated it has turned out that the same name was crossed out twice on the list. For example, it was found that T. Street might have been crossed off twice but A. Street has not been crossed off. It is quite obvious that those people who were eligible to vote voted only once. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.16) —I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) about the confusion that can be caused in regard to the change in subdivisional boundaries and the difficulties electors from one geographical area might have in finding their polling booths even though the relevant information may have been mailed by the Returning Officer. However, in the process of applying for an absentee vote the signature from the person making the application is required and the signature of the Returning Officer is required on the envelope. The Returning Officer is required to indicate that the process has been properly gone through and he has identified the voter. Whereas under these provisions where the voting is at large within a division in my view it opens up the prospect of individuals voting in a number of sub divisions without any chance of it being checked. The honourable member for Prospect is saying to me that, after the papers and the rolls are returned and it has been found that there have been multiple markings off, an allowance is made for that process. I put it to him: If there is any large scale use of multiple voting this will become an impossible administrative task, one in which the returning officers will not be able to assess whether the voting was done by the individuals whose names have been ruled off, or by other individuals voting in other subdivisions on their behalf. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) would know that the distances involved in country areas would perhaps preclude this process taking place. But in small city electorates where movements between subdivisions can be undertaken very quickly- Dr Klugman —But you can do that in four or five booths in the one subdivision, and it just does not happen. Mr CADMAN —That process certainly can take place at four or five booths in the same sub-division. I go back to what I said previously: The protection now offered for those who vote outside their subdivisions is sound. I believe that the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall ), representing the Opposition, is a sound one. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.18) —I want to speak briefly on this matter as I share the concerns expressed by my colleagues. In my electorate there are a number of locations where it is very difficult for electors to vote when they are faced with a situation where there is a booth immediately across the subdivision boundary. When they seek to lodge their vote there, they are sent away. I know the difficulty. It worries me enormously when people are put in such a situation . I have had to weigh up in my mind-I have done it on a number of occasions- whether one ought to put, in a sense, temptation in the way of those in a marginal situation because that is the only case in which it might, of necessity , be done. Some people may not even be involved in a political party but because they are very keen supporters of a candidate or a political party, might decide to exercise a number of votes. It would trouble me enormously if the situation that we have at the moment, which the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and the officers assure us is one which is without blemish are one which so rarely happens that it ought not to be a matter that is taken into account, were suddenly to change a to a situation in which this was a relevant factor. I will use my electorate as an example. In the electorate of Dundas there would be some 32 polling places where a person who wanted to vote on a number of occasions, not necessarily in his own name, it may be for somebody else-- Mr Cadman —Eighty in Mitchell. Mr RUDDOCK —My colleague tells me that there are 80 polling places in Mitchell. People would be able to go to each of them and lodge a vote. It may not be possible to do it in 80. Dr Klugman —It is possible now. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says that it is possible now. Let me make the point that in the electorate of Dundas there are only two subdivisions, Ryde and Ryde South, and there are five polling places in the one subdivision. I do not regard that as desirable; I do not think it is good; I think it maximises the possibility of a person voting more than once. At least in Ryde, if someone tried to do that he would run the risk that one of the polling officers might know him. However, when he went to an adjoining area that risk would be diminished. Mr Milton —It is not worth the fine. Mr RUDDOCK —It is not worth a fine. A person would know that. The prospect of his being detected is the greatest deterrent. A fine is most unlikely to be a deterrent to a person who has some genuine desire to help his party even though he may not be associated with it. I am not inputing any motives to my colleagues on the other side. I am saying that somebody who has the best will in the world for his own political party may be desirous of doing that. It has nothing to do with the fine; it is the prospect of his being detected. Within a subdivision the prospect of his being detected by moving between one, two, three, four or the maximum of five polling places is much greater than it would be of his being detected in a whole electorate where he could move between anything up to, as my colleague tells me, 80 polling places and where the prospect of his being known at any of those other polling places would be correspondingly reduced. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(6.22) —What the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) say is utter nonsense. Subdivisions were not set up to try to restrict the corruption that might be involved in voting. If people want to pervert the voting system they can easily do it now. They do not have to use their own name; they can use other names if they want to when voting in different places in the subdivision. By keeping subdivisions one does not overcome those problems. I do not think polling clerks would look forward to trying to distinguish everybody who lived in the district and who voted at a certain polling booth so that they would know whether these persons had voted once or twice. I do not think that is likely to happen because the Australian Electoral Office does not pay much to those who work on Saturday. There is a fair turnover of staff at each election. Therefore polling clerks are not capable of doing that check. It is a very sensible step to allow people to vote anywhere in their division. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 89 (Interpretation). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.24) — This is very much a housekeeping amendment. It may not be necessary, depending on how one reads it. Mr Beazley —We have it in clause 17. Mr STEELE HALL —I am sorry, I have not put those two clauses together. Dr Klugman —Our clause 17 is really yours. Mr Beazley —It is not like yours, but it deals with the same problem as yours deals with. Mr STEELE HALL —It may deal with the same problem, but does it have an effective solution? I am quite happy to accept it if it does. It is a small point; it is not worth going to town on it. If the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) can assure me that he is certain that scrutineers will be present I will accept the Government's amendment because it is not a major part of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable gentleman seeking leave to withdraw his amendment or is he not proceeding to move his amendment? Mr STEELE HALL —We are not proceeding with the amendment. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(6.26) —I move: (17) Clause 89, page 110, at the end of proposed section 113D add the following sub-sections: (7) Where an arrangement is in force under section 113B or 113C, the Divisional Returning Officer shall, before 4 o'clock in the afternoon on- (a) in the case of an arrangement under section 113B-the day before polling day in the election for which the arrangement was made; or (b) in the case of an arrangement under section 113C-the day before the day, or before the first day, on which votes are to be taken under that section, cause to be prominently exhibited at his office a notice setting out- (c) in a case to which paragraph (a) applies-the hospital to which the arrangement relates and the time or times at which votes are proposed to be taken under section 113B; or (d) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-the hospital to which the arrangement relates and the day or days on which, and the time or times at which , votes are proposed to be taken under section 113C. '(8) As far as is reasonably practicable, votes taken under section 113B or 113C shall be taken on the day or days and at the time or times specified in the relevant notice under sub-section (7), but any failure to take those votes in that manner does not invalidate the result of the election'. I express some gratitude to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) because he pointed out to us yesterday in the amendments that he moved a possible source of difficulty associated with the mobile polling booths. The problem was that the form in which the amendment arrived probably amounted to something like a near physical impossibility in that it carried and obligation to every single candidate, and that would be 70-odd people at least in most circumstances. It also raised a second problem. If there happened to be a slip- up down the line or, having announced an intention to appear in a particular area, a mobile polling booth could not get there that might negate the whole election or something like that. We wanted to prevent that from happening. The solution we have come up with is that there is an obligation at divisional headquarters to display at 4 o'clock the day before the poll the places where the mobile polling booth will go so that the organisers of the political parties and the candidates can see where the booth will go. I again express gratitude to the honourable member for Boothby for pointing that out. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.27) —I am grateful to the Special Minister of State ( Mr Beazley) for effecting a better solution to the problem than I had attempted. However he does have more resources at his disposal than I do. We are grateful. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 90 (Errors not to forefeit vote). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.27) —My amendment is consequent on my previous amendment, and I do not intend to proceed with it. Clause agreed to. Clauses 91 to 97-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 98 (Marking of votes in a Senate election). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.28) —by leave-I move: (14) Clause 98, page 117, line 11, omit 'may', substitute 'shall'. (15) Clause 98, page 117, lines 14-17, omit proposed sub-section (1B). This amendment is of greater note than my previous amendment, although every amendment has its place. This clause introduces a tick or a cross. I raised this matter yesterday in the second reading debate and made some moment of it. Afterwards the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) said that this amendment did not apply. He was good enough to again bring to my attention the Schedule, with the pro forma voting paper. That is fine. The directions expressed on the voting paper are fine, but the Minister undermines it. No matter how much he may claim that his intentions rest on the fact that the ballot paper is defective, quite clearly, he is deeming a tick or a cross to be a vote. I do not want to disturb the Minister or in any way impute wrong things to him. He is trying to be too helpful. Obviously if one has the numbers one can deem a tick or a cross to be a vote, but I hope that the Minister does not use the numbers on this issue. I hope that he uses common sense of which he is reputed to have a great amount. I hope that the Minister will understand the difficulty. Mr Young —A tick or a cross for the Country Party. Mr STEELE HALL —There is a retort I am pleased I did not use. We know the problem that has tended to exist in the past with local government voting. I think one can still use a tick and a cross. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —The question is: That grievances be noted. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. [COGNATE PAPERS: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM Report ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE Report] Consideration resumed. Clause 98 (Marking of votes in a Senate election). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.01) —Before the dinner break we spent several minutes discussing the marking of ballot papers with ticks and crosses. The obvious aim of the Government has been to reduce the informality in voting, and that has been the aim of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. No one would do other than support that general aim. However, the Minister is now proposing in this clause to reduce informal voting by ridiculous and absurd means. The Minister maintains in this piece of legislation that people, having obtained directions, are unable to put the figure 1 in a single square. That is the basis of the proposed amendment to the Act. We have come from the extreme of the full Senate ticket under the list system to this contracted and very simple system of voting. I have addressed this matter in another way at another time, but that criticism does not apply to this clause. But having attained a system whereby the marking of one square will indicate the totality of a voter's preferences for the Senate, this Bill proceeds to say: 'We deem a tick and a cross to be a 1 '. What on earth is the necessity for that? How can the Minister maintain that that is necessary, when the Australian public has been brought up in the Federal scene on voting by way of numbers? Now he is saying that we must deem a tick and a cross, to be the figure 1, suitable. We do not follow that procedure now. In reducing from perhaps 70 to one the possible number of squares that we must mark -on a small Senate ticket, probably 45 to one-the Minister is saying that we do not even have to use the figure 1; we can use a tick or a cross. That is a ludicrous situation. Apart from the amazement that we express on this side of the chamber at that juvenile approach, a much more serious point must be made, the one which I was beginning to make prior to dinner. This legislation allows a parallel system of numbers, ticks and crosses. We can use not only a tick or a cross, but a tick and a cross. I say to the Minister-it cannot be denied-that there are some fringe voters who get into trouble when voting because they cannot understand the system and who will inevitably cast their vote on the Senate ballot paper by way of a tick or a cross and then proceed to vote on the House of Representatives ballot paper with a tick or a cross. I cannot say how many voters will do so. But we would be silly not to say-and nobody will deny it-that some will, because they will have just done so on one ballot paper. Dr Klugman —They will be told not to. Mr STEELE HALL —They may be told not to, but the Act says that they can do so. What does the Government think that organisers will do? What does it think that people who hand out how to vote cards will do? The organisational wing of the Australian Labor Party is committed to a first past the post system. What will it do? Let us be realistic about it. Some people will say: 'Go in and vote, it does not matter how you mark the square, whether by way of a figure 1, a tick or a cross'. Pressure will be put on the system and informality will be increased in another direction. It is against the stated desire of the Government to reduce informality. It is not worth taking much time on this matter. The point has been made and any sensible person who has been involved in the system will know that this will occur. Proposed new section 133A (4) it is stated that a preference mark means a tick or a cross or the figure 1. It does not say 'figure 1' first. It says 'a tick or a cross or the figure 1'. It comes third. We will not need to go through many elections before those errors will creep into the system and we will see in voting for the House of Representatives the three different forms of voting for the Senate-a tick, a cross and the figure 1. I do not understand why the Government would not accept this amendment. It will amaze me if they do not because, as I said, it is putting pressure on the system to increase informality , and it ought to accept this amendment. Surely, by simplifying the system to one-seventieth of the complexity of the previous system, it will at least give members of the public the credit that they can vote by inserting the figure 1. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(8.07) —I do not think the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) concentrated on the most important feature of this legislation; that is, the retention of the preferential voting sytem. Mr Steele Hall —It is not the matter under discussion. Mr YOUNG —He raised it because he said he thought the Australian Labor Party was doing this because this was perhaps an inroad into the introduction of first past the post voting. It is no secret that over the years when this proposal has been discussed I have certainly been a proponent of first past the post voting, although I must say I am not opposed to the list system of voting in terms of the preferences being carried on. I think the suggestion made by the Liberal Party in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is acceptable to the voting system that has been adopted in Australia. Let us look at the systems that have been adopted overseas. I have in mind particularly the most recent British election, when Mrs Thatcher received only 34 per cent of the eligible vote in the United Kingdom, when those who did not vote taken into account-and only a little over 50 per cent of the eligible voters voted, because voting is not compulsory. Under the first past the post system, she has a huge majority. Under our system of voting, of course, the result for the House of Commons would have been much closer. It is up to the British people to adopt whatever system they like. But it seems to me that the important feature of this legislation is that it retains the old system of voting but it makes it much simpler for people to express their view. All of the political parties will campaign on the basis of people putting a figure 1 on the ballot paper, because the Act puts the emphasis on the figure 1. But why should we worry about the few people who will make a mistake by putting a cross or a tick, and say that their vote should not really be recognised? It does not seem to be a matter that ought to take up- Mr Steele Hall —What about those who do the same thing on the House of representatives ticket? Mr YOUNG —They do that now. People do all sorts of things. When I was a candidate for the seat of Port Adelaide in the House of Represenatatives, Senator Harold Young, who has now retired, was running for the Senate. He was not No. 1 on the Senate ticket for the Liberal Party. He received an enormous number of primary votes in Port Adelaide because the voters thought that I was running for both Houses at the same time. So we cannot excuse people for the mistakes they will make. With regard to the peculiarities of voting systems, I must say that people's interest in the political system is not great. I do not think the Opposition should be too concerned about the allowances we are making for some people. As the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) said, 38 per cent of people in this country were either born overseas or are children of people born overseas, and they come from countries which have different political systems. A lot of them would have voted with a cross on the ballot paper before they got here. A lot of old people might put a cross or a tick on their ballot paper. I do not think we should disallow their vote. It is a vote which they have attempted to put legitimately. I think we should count it. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 99 to 102-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 103 (Formal votes according to group voting ticket). Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.10) —by leave-I move: (16) Clause 103, page 125, line 24, before 'numbers' insert 'consecutive'. (17) Clause 103, page 125, proposed sub-section 133B (1), omit paragraphs (e), (f) and (g). (18) Clause 103, page 126, line 4, omit 'other' substitute 'consecutive'. (19) Clause 103, page 126, proposed sub-section 133B (2), omit paragraphs (e), (f) and (g). These amendments are aimed at bringing some order into what could be a disorderly situation in the voting system whereby an error is allowed in the voting procedures of one in 10 or one if the number is below 10 in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives. From our reading of the legislation, it would seem that as long as a person had fulfilled his first vote he could cast a nonsense vote thereafter by simply repeating in every square to the required number, the number 'two' or whatever other number is put in the square as long as it is a number. There does not seem to be any requirement that it shall be a sensible choice. I suppose that one comes away from a committee study with different views from others as to what has been agreed to. I lay no blame here at all. I just say that my personal view of the decision of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was that there would have to be a sensible vote in 90 per cent of the votes or in all but one of the House of Representatives votes . I might be mistaken. It might be quite a genuine mistake. I am not blaming anyone for that. But it is certainly my view that in allowing the voter additional errors to increase the number of formal votes, I had never intended that that would be a nonsense vote, as it could be. I believe a genuine attempt should be made by the voter up to the allowed number of errors in a form with a consecutive use of numbers. The aim of these amendments is to ensure that the voter is not playing with the system but is making full use of the preferential system. To allow the Bill to go through as it is does strikes a significant blow, I believe, at the preferential system because as I have said, one only has to mark the ballot paper with the number '1' and the others can be a nonsense vote. I cannot see the logic of that. Again, I think we downgrade the intelligence of the electors if we think it is necessary to allow what amounts to a wholesale number of errors. We allow a limited number of omissions, but what about a wholesale number of errors? On the situation generally of formality of votes I take a much more optimistic view than many others-obviously including Government members-on how Australians react to the challenge of voting. Whilst I deplore informality of voting, I believe it is a credit to electors that about 90 per cent of them vote properly in the Senate. I think that it is a tremendous tribute to voters that they can successfully decipher the ballot paper. Likewise, there is an increased number of formal votes in the House of Representatives because of the simpler ballot paper. I put it to the Government that the attempt to vote should be genuine and it cannot be genuine unless it attempts to make votes consecutively meaningful. I have moved the amendments in that spirit. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(8.15) —The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform definitely did intend to do what is expressed in the legislation. In the case of the House of Representatives a person had to fill in all squares excepting one square. That is the position now because, by implication, it is taken that if one square is left blank it is the last number. If the proposition of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) were correct, we would not have changed the position at all to try to increase the formal vote. What we said was that obviously people should use consecutive numbers and they are asked to use consecutive numbers on the ballot paper. If they make a mistake and, let us say, write down '1', '2', '3' and '3' then the votes '1' and '2' are formal. The vote is formal as long as the intention is clearly understood. I accept that this is not terribly important in House of Representatives elections. People do not make many mistakes, but in Senate elections they do make mistakes. What was said there is that a person had to fill in at least 90 per cent of the squares. If a ballot paper had 50 names, the person would have to fill in 45 squares; at least, if the list system is not chosen. The elector then votes '1' to any number but if he repeats the number '23', or any number the vote is formal until such time as it becomes informal. It becomes informal because it is impossible for the returning officer to decide where the preferences should go. If there were two number ones on the ballot paper the vote becomes informal immediately and is not counted because the returning officer cannot tell for whom the vote was intended. A very large number of people vote in an incorrect numerical sequence. I will give an example, as I did yesterday, of the 1983 survey of informal ballot papers for the Senate. If we take the electorate of Lyne-I collected these statistics yesterday-there were 9,000 informal Senate ballot papers of which 5,177 were ballot papers with an incorrect numerical sequence-either a break in sequence or a duplication of numbers. That is the point the honourable member for Boothby was driving at. If that were not allowed for, 5,000 of those 9,000 informal votes would still stay informal and we would not be helping these people. Out of the 9,000 informal votes another 3,000 odd were ballot papers with more than one square left blank. We did not check on how many squares were left blank, so that a fairly high proportion of the votes may still be informal. If people left no more than 10 per cent of the squares blank those ballot papers might well be formal now. It is just an attempt to help people to cast a formal vote where the intention is clear. If the intention is clear that it is not a formal vote, it is not a formal vote. Coming back, in a sense to the argument that the honourable member put on the previous clause, if a party were silly enough to do what he suggests the Australian Labor Party might do and put a tick or a cross on the ballot paper, we would be causing the House of Representatives voters to vote informal. The people standing outside the polling booth would not be encouraging people to do that. I am sure that what will happen is that how-to-vote tickets will still have numbers on them. All we are saying is that if a person makes a mistake and has obviously attempted to do the right thing-he has filled in all the squares, except 10 per cent of them, and he has made a mistake amongst those other numbers-his vote is still formal. That is certainly the proposition as far as the Select Committee is concerned. We were just upset by the large number of informal votes. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 104 to 112-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 113. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(8.20) —I move: (18) Clause 113, page 139, line 5, insert '(whether or not incurred during the election period)' after 'campaign'. It was always the Government's intention that this clause should permit the interpretation now to be specifically written into it. However, there is the possibility that some disputation might arise as to precisely what is meant here in what may be claimed by a candidate, and ultimately a political party, in seeking the basis for ultimately gaining that amount of public funding to which their percentage of the vote entitles them. The legislation refers throughout to an 'election period', which basically extends from the issuing of the writs until polling day. Whilst the election period is not regarded as the campaign for the purpose of the legislation, we had concern that it might be so regarded. Of course, as all honourable members would understand, legitimate election expenditure begins considerably in advance of the issuing of the writs. For that reason we decided that this object of disputation and difficulty for the political parties and candidates who are obliged to place before the Electoral Commission details of their expenditure in order to receive the entitlement to which their percentage of votes polled entitles them should be spelled out clearly. Whilst the provision overall may be controversial, I do not think this proposed amendment to it is. Amendment agreed to. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.24) —I move: (20) Clause 113, page 142, at the end of sub-section (1) of proposed section 153D add 'of three-quarters of the amount of the sum payable and shall make payment to the candidate upon whose votes the amount is payable, one-quarter of the sum'. In clause 113 there are set out the various ways in which public funds shall be disbursed. There is no provision for payments to individual candidates. Public funds are to be directed to the State branch of a party. The situation is different in the New South Wales legislation. It would be wrong of me to hold up that legislation as a great example because I have always derided the argument of honourable members opposite on the basis that it certainly does not achieve the main objective that they said ought to achieve-the inhibition of corruption. But at least that example of public funding allocates a proportion of the funds to candidates. It seems to me that there is something wrong in principle with the operation of public funding if the funding is to go to the party machine. This is another example of how the Government regards the more authoritarian approach to be the best approach-put the money into the central party machine. I do not support public funding, as the coalition does not. But if there were a principle behind it, I would have thought it would be to get the electoral message about which people will vote right across the electorate in some form or other. The Government will say that State branches of political parties will do that. But will they do it? There would be in almost every party an example of an individual who is off-side with the party organisation for some reason or other. He does not have to be off-side and to incur the wrath of the party not to get funding; he could simply be a candidate in a blue ribbon seat, and no money would be allocated by headquarters to spread the message. If we are saying that, as a matter of high principle, public funding is to be used to spread the message so that the public can make their assessment and vote, where do we as a legislature stand if we then say: 'Lump it all off to the central party of the State and we will not care whether or not it gives anything in a quarter of the seats. It does not matter. There need not be a message there'? The funding will be concentrated on a few swinging seats. Is it the objective of the Parliament to allocate these huge sums of taxpayers' money to a few seats? It does not make sense to me. I have been looking for a principle behind public funding. I have not been able to find it, and I cannot find it here in the sense that again the individual, in the eyes of the Government, is less worthy than the authoritarian organisation. The State party headquarters will say yea or nay to whether a candidate's message will be supported. That is nonsense. In our amendment we have not gone to the extreme of the portion of funding which goes to candidates under the New South Wales legislation, but we have said that at least a quarter of the great public funds, millions of dollars across Australia, should go to the individual candidates for work in their electorates to make sure that a message for every Australian is supported by these public funds. How can the Government deny the justice of that case? Why has it departed from the one example of public funding in Australia which it uses as a model? Why has it ignored the individual? I can answer my own question only by saying that that is the basis of the operation of the Labor Party. It is the authoritarian approach: If an assessment has to be made between an individual and an authoritarian body, always come down on the side of the greater power structure against the smaller operator. That is Labor' s attitude to decision making, and it seems to be evident here. I ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and his Party to consider this carefully. Surely his own members would desire a share of the funding for use in their own electorates free of party direction, knowing that not all of the funds will be lumped into marginal seats where they would be most politically effective in the interests of the party. Surely the public deserves a message. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(8.29) —I am not totally unsympathetic to the views expressed by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) about the split- up of funds. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform discussed this quite a deal. The first thing we have to admit is that very few members of this place would be here unless they carried the tag of their party. One or two may be able to win seats without being endorsed by the major parties, but by and large most of us are modest enough to accept and to acknowledge that we are here because we won the endorsement of our political party. That is one thing. The second thing is that the New South Wales system, whereby the money goes to the candidates, has not worked very smoothly. Those honourable members who have been reading the New South Wales newspapers will have read that a number of members from both sides of politics had great trouble in putting in their returns. They came in late. There was a refusal to meet the demands and there was some questioning of expenditure. Of course, in those areas we are trying to survey, in the case of New South Wales, 80-odd members; here it would be 125. So rather than experiment with the funding, which is the principle which lies behind the legislation, it seems to me that it would be more efficient if it went to the parties. I raise the question that has been mentioned by the honourable member for Boothby. What do the parties do? If someone is in favour or in a marginal seat he will get twice the quota and a person in a safe seat like my own seat of Port Adelaide will probably not get any funding. I think we will just have to sort that out within our own machines. As honourable members know, the great burden of expenditure which now falls on the political parties is not so much in the local campaigning as in the enormous increase in the costs of television and radio. The Committee in continuing its work will look at some of these problems, and perhaps in the parliaments that lie ahead of us we will amend this legislation in view of other recommendations the Committee makes in trying to overcome these problems. I have been involved in raising the funds necessary to fight campaigns over the last few years. It has been a never ending source of trouble to try to meet what has been an extraordinary increase in costs on the major media, television and radio. I think between the 1980 election and the early 1983 election-we are not talking about indexing the cost of television time that we bought-advertising costs actually went up 100 per cent. So the political parties-the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the National Party-had to find twice as much money to buy the same amount of time in a period of a little under 2 1/2 years. So the major parties face that problem. What is involved in this Bill will not overcome all the problems, and certainly the parties will have to sort out the other minor hurdles that they have in recognising that some seats are not as safe as others and some candidates have to be looked after a little more than others. I think that to a certain extent what is included in this Bill is very much an experiment. It may well turn out that further amendments will come before this Pariament after the Committee has looked at other systems that apply around the world in television and radio. We might have a completely different setup in the elections that lie ahead of us in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. I can see a considerable number of quite radical reforms being brought about in our broadcasting and television legislation to overcome a number of the problems that we find in this Bill. But at the moment it seems to me that the cleanest and most efficient way to fund is to deal directly with the parties and to have all of us who make up those parties sort out the intricacies within them. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(8.37) —I wish to read a couple of points into the record. The first is that the submission from the Australian Labor Party was that 20 per cent of the amount allocated be for constituency campaigns. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform tossed this question around at great length. Paragraph 9.35 on page 157 of its report reads as follows: 9.35 The Committee discussed the issue of separate constituency funding for House of Representatives candidates. It was agrued before the Committee that the only way to ensure suitable support for each local campaign was to provide some measure of funding to constituencies, Even safe seats are entitled to an energetic campaign. The next paragraph reads: 9.36 The majority of the Committee considered that campaign strategies regularly called for campaign emphasis over the group of seats or in dispersed key seats and that decisions on where money was best spent should be left to party organisations. The majority of the Committee were also of the view that providing funding at the central State party level only would make for the most simple accountability system. The majority of the Committee were really persuaded on the basis of simplicity; it did not have a Labor Party versus Liberal Party or a similar attitude. Different people put forward different points of view, as honourable members will know from reading the report. In fact the Labor Party originally suggested what the Opposition is suggesting now, but we came to the conclusion that it would be simpler, instead of the funding authority having to deal with masses of submissions, for it to receive just a few submissions and to leave it up to the parties to get the submissions for the claims to show how much had been spent. The funding authority would then pass the money on to the party. In a more general sense, I completely agree with what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said. The huge increase in expenditure in the last few years is one of the things that the Committee is now to look at. We have already advertised for submissions to see how we can deal with it. I think it would be silly to pretend that the Committee felt that it would solve many of the problems associated with electoral campaigns just with additional money. Amendment negatived. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.35) —by leave-I move: (21) Clause 113, pages 144-146, proposed section 153J, omit '$1000' (wherever occurring), substitute '$2000'. (22) Clause 113, pages 144-146, proposed section 153J, omit '$200' (twice occurring), substitute '$400'. The effect of the amendments I have just moved is simply to double the amount that can be given before the disclosure provisions operates. As this Bill stands , $1,000 is the limit for disclosure of an amount to a party and $200 is the limit for disclosure for a candidate. As the Committee would know, the coalition opposes this whole principle of disclosure on the basis that it is an intrusion into privacy and that people should have the right to support their choice of political candidate or party without having publicly to declare that choice. We pride ourselves in the secret ballot which is universal in the electoral systems in Australia, and we would like to see it apply to all forms of voting in Australia where possible. It is something that we adhere to as a proud principle and in this legislation we are to obviate it. We are moving against it in relation to a person's or company's support of political choice. It is a backward step in Australian national life. It is an intrusion, and we do not support it. Having said that and having intimated that which the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) already knows-we will illustrate our dipleasure about this clause by dividing on it-we nevertheless must try to ameliorate it whilst it is before us. We put to the Minister that given the rate of inflation in Australia-it may have dropped a little but it is still very significant and far more significant than it ought to be-there is no provision for increasing the amounts in this clause or in this Bill. It seems sensible to us to move at a much lower level than the amounts tendered to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform by the coalition parties which, I think, suggested a sum of $10 ,000 in relation to companies. The coalition is not moving to any extreme; we are simply saying that the figures ought to be doubled for the sake of convenience. I remind the Minister that some gifts to parties will make a nonsense of this provision. I would like to know what the secretary to any State division of the Australian Labor Party would do if he opened an envelope and found $2,000 in it. Would he rush off, cash in hand, to the Australian Electoral Commission? I hope so. I do not want to attribute this to any individual; I would say the same about my Party. What will happen? What discipline is this? There is none, as everyone here knows. Unless the donor fronts up and becomes known the system will not work. So there are many problems with that provision but to take it away from the tedious level and to prevent people getting into trouble we suggest that the figures be doubled. It will accomplish the main purpose of this clause-to reveal large and influential gifts. Today, gifts of below $2,000 and $400 respectively cannot be termed 'influential'. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment, knowing that the Bill will probably be unaltered for a number of years and that the double figure would be a more realistic one, even in the definition of his own requirements today, as the years pass. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(8.39) —I shall respond very briefly to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). Deplorable as any rate of inflation always is-certainly we have had substantial rates of inflation in the last few years-I do not think the rate of inflation in the last quarter has managed to reach 100 per cent. Of course, that was the distance between when the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform made its recommendation for $1,000 and $200 and when the amendment appeared here. I take the point made by the honourable member. It really is an arbitrary figure, the figure that the Committee arrived at. I guess that, if the Committee had arrived at the figures he has suggested to us, they would have appeared in the Bill and he would possibly now be moving for $3,000 and $500 and we would be saying exactly the same thing to him. In this legislation we have tried to stick as closely as we can, and we have not always been able to do it, to what has been suggested to us by the Committee. This is but one example of that process. Amendments negatived. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.41) —I do not intend to speak at any length about the matter of public funding. It has been dealt with in the second reading debate and now through several amendments which have affected this matter in principle. I reiterate that the coalition sees this as a major reversal of standards in the matter of conducting elections in Australia. It does not like the conjunction of political parties being recognised financially by the Federal Government through this legislation. It does not like the fact that parties obtain advantages by coming into this system. It is an offer which they cannot refuse. I say to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) that when the Government returns to the Opposition benches he can expect this legislation to be rescinded. In the meantime the coalition expresses its view in the best way that it can, and that is by dividing on this clause. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.42) —In the days of consensus and reconciliation there is only one matter that the Australian Labor Party will not take to the Australian people, and that is the matter of public funding. It does not dare take it out of this chamber. It will not present it to the people of Australia in any way. It will not present it as part of its Party's platform. It will not present it to the Australian people in such a way that they can have their say. I dare the Government to have a referendum on this matter. I dare it to take it to the Australian people. It will not because it knows that the Australian people are absolutely opposed to this matter of public funding. Public funding of Australian political parties is an absolute disgrace, and the Government knows it. It is a process whereby the Government seeks to re-ensure its position in office. By the number of seats and the number of votes a party gains, the Australian Labor Party is seeking to gain a greater share of taxpayers' funds and therefore re-ensure itself in office. It seeks to gain for itself more than its fair share of $8.6m which will go into its Party's coffers and will supplement all those other funds which it claims it does not receive but which it receives through a three-year period from the union movement. It knows it receives them and it knows that it is not prepared to account for them properly. It is not prepared to put the matter to the Australian people. The people have not been consulted, and Government members claim their Party to be a party of reconciliation and a party of consensus. There is no consensus on this matter, and they know it. The Australian Labor Party knows that there cannot be any consensus on this matter because more than half the Australian public is opposed to it. More than half the people of Australia oppose this matter. The only place where there is consensus is within the Australian Labor Party. It seeks to grab with its hands Australian taxpayers' dollars. If it is prepared to spend dollars so freely, why does it not look at the $8.6m that it seeks to turn over to political parties and divert that money to employment programs or to the tax cuts that it promised? What about the assets test that it said it would not bring in? Why does it not do something about that? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Will the honourable member speak to the clause. Mr CADMAN —I indicate that there are alternative uses for the funds that the Australian Labor Party seeks to gather to its coffers. I merely mention in passing, and nothing more than that, some of the alternative avenues in which these funds could be used. Why does the Government not keep some of its promises ? That is what the Australan people want to know. Australian political parties are voluntary. Why does the Government seek to corrupt that process? Why does it have to encourage members on this side of the chamber, who have never known who their political donors are, to find out? I do not know who the political donors in my electorate are; neither does the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) , the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) or the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). No members on this side of the chamber know who contributes to their political funds. This disclosure process and the funding of political parties will force us to become aware of where political favours may be owed. Are you saying that as members of the Australian Labor Party you know precisely where each dollar for your campaign funds comes from? Mr Gear —You will soon. Mr CADMAN —So you are saying that you do not know at this stage. It seems to me an incredible factor that such a large proportion of the Australian Labor Party' s funds come from the Australian union movement and yet during the whole process of accord, conciliation and reconciliation, the union movement has come so far out in front of this whole process. You claim that you do not know where your funds come from. Yet the Liberal Party knows where your funds come from. You have put on record that you know where your political funds come from. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he speak through the Chair and ignore interjections. I suggest to honourable members on my right that they cease interjecting. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Chairman, you will be aware that the Australian Labor Party has now said that it knows where each dollar of its campaign funds comes from. So be it. It knows where it owes its dues. It knows where it has to commit itself. Mr Griffiths —I take a point of order. That is a grossly misleading comment. I certainly did not make that suggestion. I made that suggestion with respect to the Liberal Party. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN —There is no point of order. He is seeking to interrupt me. The insinuation is that the non-Labor Party forces have greater access to funds than the Labor Party forces. Let me destroy that proposition. What about the thousands of leaflets that flow over a three-year period through every workshop and every shop floor? The union movements that are committed to the Australian Labor Party do not claim to work for their members. They work as political organisations for a three-year period on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. What if we add in the cost of some of those leaflets and those radio programs paid for by the Australian Teachers Federation? What if we add in the cost of the radio stations which the Australian Labor Party owns and the free plugs and the free advertisements which I am sure you, Madam Deputy Chairman, are aware of and which are played on behalf of the Australian Labor Party? What if we add in some of the thousands of other avenues that are used by the Australian Labor Party between election periods? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member will come back to the clause that the Committee is discussing. Mr CADMAN —Indeed. I am sure, Madam Deputy Chairman, that you will agree that the funds that a political party can draw on are most important as part of this clause that we are discussing. I am pointing out that over a three-year period, not over a three-week period, the Australian Labor Party has massive resources and it draws on those resources without relent. It draws on its union movement and its contracts through the union movement. It draws on the factories, the shop floors and its oganisations throughout those areas. It draws on its own radio stations. Why are these matters not considered? The Australian Labor Party looks at funding and says: 'We will draw for ourselves a disproportionate share of the taxpayer's dollar'. It is incredible that the Australian Labor Party, through a series of processes, is seeking to perpetuate itself in office. These include access to a disproportionate share of funds and boundary changes which will ensure office for its members. It seeks to have list voting, which will gain for it a disproportionate share of the vote. It seeks by the appointment of commissioners, a capacity to influence the result of the- Mr Reeves —Come on, before you sit down, tell us you won't take the public funding. Mr CADMAN —I pointed out the way in which you have sought to disrupt and destroy the whole process of democracy. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(9.51) —The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) commenced his remarks by saying that the Government would not take this matter to a referendum. There was a referendum at which we put this proposal on 5 March . In the policy speech prior to 5 March we told the Australian people-as we had in 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1980 and 1983-that when given the opportunity we would pass these reforms. In some areas of electoral reform throughout the Western world Australia has been the leader-for example, in giving women the vote. On some other questions, however, we follow the world, and this is one of them. I think it is important for those people who may have listened to the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) to understand that all we are doing is instituting in Australia a system that already applies in most democracies of the Western world. The people of West Germany, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Holland, Italy-all across Europe-and in the United States of America have the system which is now being instituted in Australia. I once asked Malcolm Fraser, when he was Prime Minister of Australia, to hold a referendum on one of these questions. He said: 'We will hold a referendum at the next election. People can decide whether to support or oppose us.' I can assure honourable members not only that we have a mandate to introduce the system, as we are doing now, but also that if ever the conservatives return to power in Australia, as they are likely to do in the years ahead, they will not change the system. Once it has been introduced they will see that it is the best system for Australia, and they will follow it. The honourable member for Mitchell said-I believe him, as I believe the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock)-that he does not accept any money and that he does not know where the money for the Liberal Party comes from. But they remind me of the member of the Diet, maybe the elected member of Yokohama prefecture, who did not know Tanaka got $1.2m from the Lockheed Company. Of course, the honourable member does not know where the money comes from; he is far removed from the executive. He sits on the back benches; he does not run Australia. Why would Lockheed give him $1m? The company would say: 'Why would we give it to a dill from Mitchell? If we want to give someone $1m we will give it to Malcolm because he makes the decisions'. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is straying from the clause. I draw him back to it. Mr YOUNG —The important thing for this Government and all future governments is that public funds will be on the record and that private donations will be out in the open. If people want to donate money to political parties, which they will be able to do under these new laws, everybody in Australia will know. If someone wants to give the Labor Government $100,000, the Opposition will know. One would think that after so few years in government-this is our fourth in the last 34 years-we would play it to our advantage and say: 'Let us close the books ; we will do the same as the Liberals did for 33 years'. Would the Opposition not be embarrassed if all the books of the Liberal Party kept over the last 30 years were opened for us to see where the money came from? Would that be a story ? It would make the Godfather look like a nursery rhyme. Let me read to the Committee what the Liberal Party stated in a submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Liberal Party, at paragraph 3.6 on page 9 of its submission, stated: The Liberal Party acknowledges that public funding has been a commitment of the ALP for some years, and is clearly stated in several points on page 21 of their 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules. We further acknowledge that such a commitment was also made (p. 29) in the Policy Speech delivered by Mr Hawke on 16 February 1983. The people of Australia knew that that was our position because we had stated it at every election. I reiterate and re-emphasise for the benefit of the people who will take an interest in this debate-I am surprised the media have not given it much more coverage than they have already-that all we are doing in this area of reform is bringing ourselves into line with what exists in most democracies. We see this as strengthening democracy, not weakening it. If people want to make donations, they can make them as long as they are prepared to tell everybody in Australia that they are making them so that the connection between donor and Government policy is clarified and everybody can see it. Mr Cadman —What are you going to do about radio stations? Mr YOUNG —That is up to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Commission will look at what will happen in terms of television and broadcasting time. It will decide in the years ahead what ought to be done in respect of broadcasting and television, but we are making this move at the moment after seeing campaign costs double between November 1980 and March 1983. I was General Secretary of the Labor Party at the time of the 1972 election. At our head office we raised a little over $400,000 for the conduct of the campaign. In 1983 the Labor Party set out to run its campaign from head office by trying to raise $2m-that is, a 500 per cent increase in a decade. If campaigns in Australia continue in this way, political parties will have to raise tens of millions of dollars in order to campaign. All the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal annual reports will tell honourable members that for every dollar we spend on television and radio the Liberal and National parties spend $ 2. We spend $2m they spend $4m. The honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Dundas may say, as they did this afternoon, that they do not know where the money is coming from and that perhaps they need only $8,000 or $10,000 to conduct their campaigns, but the head offices of their party may need $7m or $8m. Do honourable members not think it is of some interest to the Australian community to know who donated $7m or $8m to the conservative parties of this country? Or, if the Labor Party has to raise $4m, do honourable members not think it would be of interest to the Australian people to know who made a $ 4m donation to the Labor Party? The other question which I raised yesterday should not be overlooked. Apart from Canada, no country is more dominated by foreign interests than this country . We are, to some extent, almost overrun by foreign investment. Some industries are 100 per cent owned by foreign interests. To the extent that those companies want policies introduced by government to suit their management, it seems to me that in the absence of reforms such as this, they are in a position to manipulate governments, whether they be in Canada, Australia or some other country. This reform can stop that activity and put an end to what has been an overbearing influence on our political system from people outside this country. That is another reason why public funding has been introduced overseas and why we are introducing it here. We have not gone half the way governments have gone in Europe. In Europe, as honourable members would know if they have read anything about the matter, money is paid out during the period between elections. With the money given by governments parties can print their newspapers and fund educational institutions for the purpose of educating people according to their own philosophy. All that we are doing at this stage is adopting one element of that system, the public funding of campaigning, which has been accepted in the vast majority of democracies in the Western world. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.00) —I do not intend to speak at any length and had not intended to speak at all. However, the honourable member for Port Adelaide ( Mr Young) continually over the last few months and years, in making the case for public funding of elections, has pointed the finger at the Liberal Party and the coalition generally and cried corruption. He has done so from the base that his party is the only party that has so publicly demonstrated its willingness to buy favours from other countries. It was the infamous breakfast with the Iraqi representatives by the then Labor Prime Minister of this country that highlighted that fact. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will direct his remarks to clause 113 and not bring in extraneous matter. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, Madam Chair, but the clause is about political funding and gifts for political parties. Honourable members can make their case as they like but it is entirely unfair also for the honourable member for Port Adelaide to speak to the public of Australia as if corruption exists here now. Apart from that one instance, which was so flagrantly spread abroad by the news media of Australia and brought so low the reputation of the Australian Labor Party-as demonstrated thereafter at the polls right through the latter part of the 1970s- Australian governments, and the Australian Parliament, have been among the most remarkably free of corruption in the world. I stand up on behalf of everyone, including the members of the honourable member's own party, and say that this Parliament is to be congratulated on the lack of corruption within it. I do not want anyone who is listening to this broadcast to think that the search for public funding is to correct corruption perceived in this Parliament now, because what he has described does not exist now. He does a disservice to his own members and to the national Parliament of this country and I reject the reasons that he gives. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(9.02) —This matter has been canvassed at considerable length. I notice that there is agreement on both sides of the House that we should have at least some grievance debate. I therefore move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That clause 113, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Johnson, Les.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert Maher, M. J.Brumby, J. M. Mayer, H.Campbell, G. Mildren, J. B.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J. (Teller)Hollis, C. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Street, A. A.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Mountford, J. G. Tuckey, C. W.Kerin, J. C. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Ronald Katter, R. C.Cunningham, B. T. Cameron, IanCharlesworth, R. I. Miller, P. C.Jones, Barry Rocher, A. C.Keating, P. J. Shipton, R. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on the following paper presented by Dr Klugman: First Report of Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and on motion by Mr Uren: That the House take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Consideration resumed from 24 August, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Report of the inquiry conducted by Sir Clarrie Harders into the disclosure of electoral expenditure and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Parliamentary Privilege-Remembrance Day-Military Spending-Peace Movement-Uranium Mining-Proposed Casino in the Australian Capital Territory-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Human Rights-Northern Territory-Immigration-Discrimination Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.12) —I grieve tonight for parliamentary democracy in Australia and, in particular, the blow struck today at Australian parliamentary democracy by the Hawke socialist Government, to its eternal shame and discredit. The United States of America had its own Watergate. Australia now has its own Hawkegate on its hands. That a government, which claims to support the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, could be so cowardly as to prevent debate in the national Parliament on a matter of privilege involving the rights and entitlements of its own members not to be threatened, harassed, improperly pressured, intimidated and actually blackmailed is a scandal of national proportions. That the Hawke Government-a government which claims to be committed to honesty and integrity-should cringe and run away from a parliamentary debate on a matter of privilege which the Westminster system demands must be dealt with promptly is a matter of national disgrace. Over the past week the Hawke socialist Government has been shown to be a government of political thuggery, intimidation, and blackmail. In one of the most shabby and dirty episodes in Australian politics, the Hawke socialist Government is now exposed as worse than Tammany Hall; a political jungle where the strong intimidate and threaten the weak; where reputations are destroyed overnight and where political futures, and specifically preselection and ministerial promotions, are used as vicious tools in a brutal and sordid brawl, a political struggle of life and death. This Government is a hypocritical government, as all thinking Australians are now starting to realise. It is just as ruthless in its relations with its own parliamentary members as it is in its relations with millions of Australians who put their trust in it, misguidedly as they now realise, at the Federal election of 5 March this year. The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) has stated: I think there has been intimidation of Ministers and backbenchers by the Prime Minister and the right wing of the Party. The Minister added: A whole stack of people have been hauled in and done over by the Prime Minister . The headline on page 1 of last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald screamed: Prime Minister bullying, Minister says. The front page of the Melbourne Age of the same day stated: Hawke's lobbying on uranium 'intimidatory' says Howe. The national Press reported: David Charles, MP, called privately to the Prime Minister's office for ' discussions'-and not just once. Threats of preselection withdrawal abound in a party which its members claim is the most democratic party in Australia. If this is democracy then heaven help Australia. Smear and innuendo, threats and promises, bribery and blackmail-these are the matters which have provoked several members of the parliamentary Labor Party to urge me to continue my efforts to bring this monumental scandal, Australia's own Hawkegate, to the attention of the people of Australia through the medium of this parliamentary broadcast. As I said earlier, this is without doubt the shabbiest and dirtiest episode in Australian politics for generations. Let me put my position squarely on the line . I support uranium mining under very strict guidelines but this debate tonight is not about uranium mining; it is about parliamentary democracy under the Westminster system and the basic fundamenal rights of the men and women of Australia who sent us to this place to represent them in this national Parliament, to know that parliamentarians can go about their business free from threats and intimidation, bribery and blackmail as to how they vote in this place and how they speak. The Hawke socialist Government has shown that it is a government of political thuggery which tramples on the rights-- Mr Wells —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I find the preceding sentence offensive. The suggestion that I, or any other member of this Parliament, was coerced in any way is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! I am watching this matter very carefully. But in respect of the last several sentences I fail to see any breach of the Standing Orders. The point of order is not upheld. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Hawke socialist Government has shown that it is a government of political thuggery which tramples on the rights of individuals; a government which does not give a damn for parliamentary privilege and a government which is prepared to strike a blow at the very heart of parliamentary democracy itself. Shame on honourable members opposite. They have done more today to hurt parliamentary democracy than any other government since Federation. Today, 10 November 1983, will be recorded as a day of infamy in the constitutional and parliamentary history of Australia. Today this Government raped the Westminster system by refusing to debate in this Parliament , so that the people of Australia could hear it, a matter of privilege involving its scandalous treatment of its own members. Today it perpetrated a Watergate- like cover-up of grave and serious allegations made by its own members, involving threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation and actual blackmail by its own leaders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he is required to comply with standing order 76, which states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I think the honourable member is in breach of that standing order. I ask him to modify his terminology. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like Voltaire, disagree though I will with many of the things that honourable members opposite might want to say, I will fight to the utmost, as will those honourable members on this side of the House, to protect and uphold their right to say it. If this national Parliament becomes a place where honest men and women are brutally silenced; if this national Parliament becomes a place where the truth can be subverted and where integrity becomes a vice; and if this Parliament becomes a place where power- crazed leaders can rule like tyrants, then democracy in Australia will be dead. This is Australia, not the Soviet Union; this is Canberra, not Moscow. As the Parliament is well aware, there has already been proposed in the House that 7 November 1983 be officially designated as the day upon which the nation saw the beginning of the end for the Hawke socialist Government. (Quorum formed) I now propose, and I believe that the people of Australia will overwhelmingly endorse this view, that 10 November 1983 will be forever remembered to the eternal shame and discredit of the Hawke socialist Government as the day upon which it conspired to desecrate parliamentary privilege and conspired to cover up the truth and, in a most cowardly manner, to run away from the investigation by the House of Representatives Privileges Committee into some of the most scandalous and evil conduct ever to be brought to the attention of the Parliament and through this Parliament to the nation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should resign and the people of Australia should be given the opportunity to throw the Government out of office at the earliest possible opportunity and before it is given any further opportunity to damage irraparably, if not destroy, the very fabric of parliamentary democracy in Australia. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(9.24) —Tomorrow, 11 November, is Remembrance Day. Since the first anniversary of the Armistice on 11 November 1919 this day has been set aside every year for us to reflect upon those who died. More than 102, 000 Australian servicemen and women have died in war. World War I was a war that should never have been. There was untrammelled butchery, military stupidity and criminal arrogance. World War I was no different from any of the other thousands of big wars and little wars that have wrecked our planet since man first picked up a stick and a stone as weapons. I think it is well worth it that while we remember the Australians who died we have a good think about where we will go after tomorrow. What did these people die for? What did the wounded suffer for and what did their loved ones mourn for ? There is a lot of jingoistic drum-beating, which railroaded those men and women to war. I think we have just heard a good example of it in this House. All that jingoism and nationalism and all the rest of it bear reflection upon tomorrow. There is a lot of nationalistic claptrap. People are saying: 'We are the best at this; we are the best at that. We are the goodies, we fight for freedom and democracy. We are fighting for peace with our bombs, our bullets, our bayonets and our bombers. Other people are the baddies; they are not like us . Look at what they are doing. They want to take us over. They do not believe in God'. The reality is that we live in a small shrinking and delicate world that has been brought to the verge of extinction by nations, leaders and people who build and threaten the use of weapons of world destruction in the name of peace, democracy and assorted ideologies. In 1983 world military spending is rapidly approaching $800,000m. Australia's estimated contribution this year will be $5,280m. If this $800,000m were distributed this year among the member states of the United Nations it would amount to about $5,000m per nation. What a difference that would make to the economic and social development of the Third World. The total military budget for one day would feed, clothe and house all the people in the world for one year. In the United States of America 240,000 bridges are technically unsafe, while New York loses 400 million litres of water every day because of a rotting drainage system. Between the two super powers there are 50,000 nuclear warheads. Each day they add eight or nine more to their stockpile. Each super power has enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world 1,000 times. Yet each side wants more. Each side demands of its people more money, more nationalistic commitment, more sacrifice and more subservience. The equivalent of 4 tonnes of TNT is aimed at every person on this earth, and yet the maniacs want more. The concept of mutually assured destruction has been abandoned. There are maniacs who believe that a limited nuclear war can be won. No one wins a nuclear war; no one wins any war and the innocent have the least chance of all of surviving. After a nuclear war only the cockroaches and the rats will be left. Of one thing we can be sure: There will not be a World War IV. Having made sure of that, what can we do to ensure there is not a World War III? On 12 June 1982 more than one million people walked for peace through the streets of New York. If we read the newspapers closely and perhaps if we watch Channel 0-28 we will probably see that every day more and more people in Europe are mobilising for peace. Only a month or so ago one million people turned out in a single West German protest against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation missiles in that country. Recently in London a quarter of a million people turned out for a peace demonstration. Peace marches and rallies in Australia are now reaching the dimensions of the Vietnam moratorium rallies of the 1970s. At the British election in June this year 48 per cent of voters backed the deployment of Cruise missiles in that country. Now, only five months later, 47 per cent of the voters are against that deployment and only 37 per cent are in favour. Many people in authority, many people in this House and many people in the general public would have us believe that these ordinary people are simple, misguided fools or, at the other extreme, evil, atheistic socialists intent on wreaking hegemony and destroying democracy. How many times have we heard that sort of claptrap in this House from certain members of the Opposition? These peace loving people are not like that. They are basically ordinary people from the width of the political, social and economic spectrums. Some believe in God, others do not. Some are socialists, others are capitalists, others do not care. Tomorrow a group of Australian women will go to the Pine Gap communication base near Alice Springs to protest at a secret installation on Australian soil, an installation that without question is the target of a Soviet missile. How will the Opposition react to this statement of peace? How will the media report it? Will it highlight the confrontation? Will it talk about the issue? Will it present these women as women concerned about our future or will it present them as women attacking the United States? The people who live in front of Parliament House and who protest against uranium mining have been scorned by many in this House as ratbags and bludgers but they are not. They are there because they believe that Australian uranium is contributing to the nuclear arms race. They are concerned about this planet and our future. Participation in any part of the nuclear fuel cycle is participation in the total nuclear system. All parts are interlocked. If this belief needs documentation it is in chapters 12 to 16 of the first Fox report, the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry 1976. Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle through the mining and export of uranium is part of our contribution, for whatever economic, political or military reason, to the world arms race. It seems that some of us can accept that reality more readily than others. I ask Australians tomorrow, when they remember the thousands of Australians who died in war, to begin to think what they as individuals and groups can do to prevent or delay World War III, or for that matter any future hostility, nuclear or not. Alone we cannot move at all, but together we can move governments. The Vietnam war was stopped mainly because the opinions of the American people, the Australian people and many others, turned again against the opinions of their political leaders. Political leaders will respond to the pressure of public opinion and public action. If people only knew how much power they really have to change the opinion of their friends, neighbours and politicians, we might be able to move toward peace much faster. If Australians joined groups such as the People for Nuclear Disarmament, the Movement Against Uranium Mining, Pax Christi, or any of the many other groups which campaign for peace, opinion in this world would start to change. Hundreds of municipal and shire councils have declared their areas to be nuclear free zones. Victoria is a nuclear free State. More than 350 Australian scientists recently formed a group called Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, SANA. Last year, the European network of Scientists for Nuclear Disarmament was formed . The mobilisation for peace continues. Some honourable members in this House and some people in the community scoff at these ideals and actions. But at least they are actions for peace. But the challenge exists for us all. It exists for the Government, the Opposition, the media and the general community. We should not look at peace in the belief that if we have more nuclear missiles than someone else has we will have peace; that we must confront each other with ideologies, flags and guns; that we are right and they are wrong. We must challenge our leaders and the leaders of the super- powers to reduce world paranoia, to reduce the race for space and arms weaponry and to reduce the buildup of nuclear arms. Confrontation has always produced more confrontation. Military spending produces more military spending. It is not a simplistic argument and it is not pie in the sky. If we are to have peace-and if we realise that war and the defeat that comes with nuclear war must first be in our minds, then victory also must first be in our minds. Tomorrow on Remembrance Day, while we reflect upon the 102,000 Australian men and women who died in wars, let each of us make a decision to take action to ensure that we move towards world disarmament, mutual acceptance of each other's position and world peace. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(9.33) —I am concerned and appalled by moves by this Government to establish a casino in the national capital without any effort to determine the wishes of the residents of Canberra, without any effort to investigate the possible implications, both economic and social, that a casino may have. The real issue for the people of Canberra is not whether it is desirable that a gambling casino be established in the national capital, but whether it is in the public interest that a casino be established here. The most recent inquiry into casinos was undertaken in 1982-83 for the Victorian Government by the Hon. Xavier Connor, QC, a former Federal judge. In his report titled 'Report of the Board of Inquiry into Casinos', he found that casinos should not be established in Victoria for the following reasons: Casinos would be likely to stimulate casino gambling to an unacceptable degree; there is no substantial demonstrable demand for them; there would be a substantial risk that in one way or another they would be infiltrated by organised crime elements; they are likely to be accompanied by an unacceptable level of street crime; they are not, by comparison with certain other forms of gambling, likely to be efficient producers of revenue for the State. The Victorian Labor Premier John Cain was equally vocal against casinos. In a ministerial statement to the State Parliament on 24 May 1983, Mr Cain said: The Government is not prepared to expose this State and its citizens to the avoidable risk of introducing a facility upon which organised crime could propser. Mr Cain went on to say: We do not propose to test the capacity of the police force or any regulatory body which the Government might establish to supervise casinos and therefore have come firmly to the view that no casino of whatever variety should be set up in this State. That was stated by a Labor Premier. Let us see what other Labor Party luminaries have to say about casinos. The Australian Capital Territory Labor Party Council also opposes a casino for Canberra. In fact, according to the Canberra Times of 22 October, the Party's Council once again endorsed its opposition. Of course, members of the Labor Party by now should be used to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) riding roughshod over them. They should be used to having Labor Party policy made on jets flitting from country to country, or in the Lodge over a glass of whatever. Yes, ALP members may be used to it and accept it, but it is completely unacceptable that the residents of this beautiful city should be treated in the same way by this Prime Minister. Churches representing all major denominations in the Australian Capital Territory publicly called on the Government to rescind the decision. Editorials in the Canberra Times and in the Sydney Morning Herald have slammed the casino proposal. But still this Government persists. Why? The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) told the Master Builders Federation in October that a casino would give the national capital a welcome economic boost. In fact, the Minister naively sounded like he had discovered El Dorado in Canberra. He said that the casino would provide employment and it would stimulate tourism. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown)-or, should I say, the Minister for Koalas-sounded like Little Sir Echo as he cheered on his ministerial colleague and predicted wonders for Canberra's tourism trade. Let us look at what the experts say. Mr Connor, in his report, said: It must also be conceded that there could be some significant rearrangement of the gambling dollar and perhaps a more significant drop in TAB revenue. Current employment levels arising from other forms of gambling could be reduced. He further stated: If revenue was the principal consideration, on the basis of figures considered by the Board, the further promotion of lotteries and the invigoration of the racing industry would make far more sense than the introduction of casino gambling. I wonder whether the retailers of Civic or Manuka are aware that when Atlantic City introduced a casino the result was the loss of 600 retail jobs and the closure of five supermarkets and a department store. Let us look at the tourism question. The Standing Committee on Tourism and Recreation of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, in its 1977 report on a casino proposal for Canberra, in regard to Wrest Point, stated: We were somewhat surprised to learn that the patrons of the casino included a very large proportion of Tasmanians. It was said and believed that between 70 and 80 per cent of the people in the casino at any one time were from Hobart. Let me turn to one other very disturbing aspect; that is, the link between casinos and organised crime. The link has been well established overseas and also Mr Connor made special reference to it. In his report he stated: There would be substantial risk that in one way or another casinos would be infiltrated by organised crime elements. Casinos are likely to be acompanied by an unacceptable level of street crime. After tabling the Connor report, Premier Cain said: The Government is not prepared to expose this State and its citizens to the avoidable risk of introducing a facility upon which organised crime could prosper. The Board concluded that the confidence of certain police witnesses as to their ability to control organised crime was misplaced. The Government has confidence in the Victorian police. But it cannot disregard the conclusions of the Board that a casino would be highly susceptible to the overtures of organised crime and that such elements would extend their overtures to any regulatory body established to supervise casinos. I do not think I need to go on much longer establishing the links between casinos and crime in general. But before I refer to possible crime links with the Canberra proposal, I quote from Mr Justice Moffitt's report titled ' Allegations of Organised Crime in Clubs, 1974'. At page 43 it is stated: A weapon of organised crime is to insulate from the crime those who organise it . . . in seeking to make decisions as to the presence and operation of organised crime, investigators, and hence governments, will normally have to rely on evidence of a different character to that necessary to prove crime itself. The actual link would rarely, if ever, be provable by any direct evidence, but the connection of the criminals with the business and the connections of the business with the crime may be sufficiently proximate to enable the probability of the link to be inferred. Keeping in mind Mr Justice Moffitt's comments, I now turn to the unique situation of a link between organised crime bosses and the push for a casino in Canberra. One of the richest men in Australia is Eddie Kornhauser, who was recently named at the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Kornhauser is a close associate of Abe Saffron, described by the then Labor shadow Attorney-General in Queensland, Bob Gibbs, as 'a purveyor of brothels in Sydney'. Kornhauser is also the same man who was described in 1956 by New South Wales Licensing Court magistrate, Mr S. M. Stewart, as 'not a fit person to hold a publican's licence'. Kornhauser is also the man who was interested in establishing a casino in Melbourne. Furthermore, in 1981-82 he attempted to persuade the Queensland Government to grant a company with which he was associated a casino licence. The Queensland Goverment was strongly lobbied by a senior politician on behalf of Kornhauser. In fact, the policitican made a trip to Brisbane to put the casino case for Kornhauser. This politician has links with the current push for a casino in Canberra. The politician, or should I say Linkman, is no stranger in the shady world of crime boses. He is the same man who in 1978 travelled to the United States of America with the now disgraced David Combe and met with the Mafia hood Sal Amarena. Sal, who among his friends boasts of men like Jimmy 'the weasel' Fatianno, a confessed Mafia murderer, had lengthy discussions with Combe and his soon-to-be-politician mate. It was Jimmy 'the weasel' Fattianno who has testifed twice under oath that he was introduced to Sir Peter Abeles by Rudy Tham of the San Francisco Teamsters Union. The meeting took place in 1975. In 1980 Victorian police sergeant Acting Inspector Phillip Wallis made some interesting comments to members of the Advanced Detective Training School. I will quote from the Victorian State Parliament Hansard of 20 October 1983, page 1305, relating to this police officer's comments about Sir Peter Abeles. The Hansard reports Sergeant Wallis as telling the course that Sir Peter was followed 'from Australia on a visit to the West Coast of America and was seen and photographed consorting with Mafia members and known Mafia members and was seen in many entertainment clubs with these Mafia connections'. And yet again the link emerges. Who is the close friend of Abeles, if not the politician mentioned earlier? It is the same politician- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Mr ALDRED —That politician is the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is reflecting on the character of a number of persons in the course of his contribution to this debate. I think he is aware of the need for substantive motions when such reflections are to be indulged in. I ask him to have regard to those provisions. Mr ALDRED —I will. I am drawing my remarks to a close at the moment. It is the same politician who is now- Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on the point that you have just raised. In fact, the honourable member for Bruce went much further than that. He made a series of very serious allegations without naming anybody and simply named someone at the end. I think the person named is not here, as is normal, and I think it is appropriate that the honourable member for Bruce should withdraw the allegations. Mr ALDRED —Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I ask why the Prime Minister is so strongly pushing this casino for Canberra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr MacKellar —Why are you sitting him down? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to order. I ask the honourable member to sit down while I rule on the point of order. The honourable member for Bruce has now decided to sit down because he has concluded his speech . I will not have an honourable member challenging the Chair's ruling in this matter. The matter was being dealt with totally in compliance with the Standing Orders of the House. I was about to rule on the point of order that the Minister has drawn to my attention. It is difficult having regard to the way the honourable member rendered his speech to recall his precise words and to have them withdrawn. I noticed that in the point of order the Minister did not refer to any particular remarks. He can be assured that if I had an effective recollection of any disparaging words used I would call for their withdrawal. Mr Dawkins —It seems that the difficulty- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the Minister speaking to the point of order? Mr Dawkins —Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that both you and I are in a difficult position. The Standing Orders are perfectly clear. If someone is going to reflect on a member of this House it is required that the remarks be made in the context of a substantive motion. In fact, the honourable member for Bruce has quite clearly breached the Standing Orders by proceeding- Mr MacKellar —What is the point of order? Mr Dawkins —That is up to the Deputy Speaker. I am sure he can do quite well without the honourable member's assistance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have already said, the Standing Orders are perfectly clear. I just wonder what remedies you have in these circumstances when an honourable member has quite clearly flouted the Standing Orders as you have pointed out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the House will recall that it was with total spontaneity that I raised the question and asked the honourable member to have regard for the Standing Orders. He indicated his preparedness to comply at that point. I am unable to do anything retrospective in the matter. I believe the incident is one that honourable members to advantage could have regard to in future debates. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(9.45) —According to the latest 1979 census of population in the Soviet Union, there are 1,811,000 Jews in the Union's 15 republics, but the factual figure is closer to 2 1/2 million. Soviet Jews are the sixteenth largest group among the 103 Soviet ethnic groups. The Soviet constitution guarantees all ethnic groups complete freedom to pursue their own culture, literature, traditions and language. Yet such rights are not accorded to the Jewish minority . There are two Jewish languages in the Soviet Union-Yiddish and Hebrew. Hebrew is a recognised world language and a number of Soviet universities and institutes of learning teach Hebrew and do research in the Hebrew language and literature. Jews cannot study in these institutions, nor are they permitted a single Hebrew school. Hebrew teachers are refused registration, warned against continuing their activities and are often subjected to persecution. Similar situations pertain to the teachers of Yiddish. Anti-semitism is a crime under the Soviet constitution. In this respect, however, the gap between theory and practice is even wider than usual. In fact, anti-semitism is rampant throughout the Soviet Union. Public seminars are, of course, totally banned for Soviet Jewry, but private gatherings were only periodically subjected to harassment and obstruction in the past. However, during 1981 and since a whole series of such private meetings has been systematically broken up and participants who have been identified have been threatened. These meetings are manifestly harmless-they generally have to do with the study of the Jewish religion and history. But the Soviet authorities may now have concluded that all such meetings are dangerous to the existence of their totalitarian regime. In one respect Soviet Jews are singled out for special treatment in a positive sense. Emigration from the Soviet Union is not permitted but under the Helsinki provision for reunification of families Jews are permitted to emigrate to Israel . Applicants, however, are subject to harassment and/or persecution. After an application for an exit visa, potential emigrants usually lose their jobs; some are brought before the courts on trumped up charges and sentenced to imprisonment, often for long terms, or internal exile. Emigration has dropped from over 5,000 a month at its peak to over 100 a month in June 1983. Tens of thousands of people have been refused exist visas and large numbers have never even had a reply to their applications. What the future will bring is hidden from us. But we are certain of one thing: Soviet Jews are no longer a lost tribe , they want to go home physically and spiritually. The pervasive attack on the nascent Jewish culture, history, language and religion by the present regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appears to be designed to isolate Soviet Jewry from outside contact and frighten them into submission. The open anti-semitic character of the campaign has plunged the Jews in the USSR into an abyss of insecurity more frightening than at any time since the death of Stalin. The signing of the Final Act at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on 1 August 1975 brought great hope to the citizens of the signatory states. As each participating nation committed itself to the specific provision of the third basket, they simultaneously recognised the concept of human rights as a legitimate concern on the international agenda, and gave notice that the implementation of the Act would be monitored, each country being made resonsible for its failure to live up to the ideals included in the Act, as well as the overall spirit of Helsinki and that co-operation between nations and respect for human rights. In relation to the right of emigration, the Final Act contains the following provision: The participating States will deal in a humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family. . . . and Principle VII on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, specifically contains the commitment by the participating states to 'act in conformity with the . . . Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which stipulates: Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and to return to his country. This is in clear defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights of the Helsinki Final Act, to all of which the Soviet Union has been a signatory. Jews in the Soviet Union have been deprived of the basic human rights to which the Soviet Government committed itself in the presence of the world. On 14 and 15 August this year the Jewish community in Australia, as part of a nationwide campaign, held a 32-hour vigil in the Melbourne city square to protest the plight of Soviet Jewry. The chosen date commemorated the death of 25 prominent Soviet Jewish writers and intellectuals executed on 12 August 1952. The slogan adopted for the campaign was: 'Let my people live. Let my people go'. I repeat again that the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union has dropped to a trickle. At the height of detente 5,000 Jews per month were allowed to leave Russia. In 1983 about 100 Soviet Jews have been permitted to leave. Large numbers of Soviet Jews still wish to emigrate to Israel to be united with their husbands, wives and/or children. If the Soviet Union does not want them, why does it not let them go? Jewish communities everywhere in the world have been deeply concerned with study and with academic advancement. It is the privilege of a persecuted minority to be able to concentrate on educating itself. This was so in the Soviet Union, as in other countries where Jews suffer discrimination. But by 1976, the last year for which figures were available for those in universities, the proportion of Jewish students had almost halved. So had the proportion of Jewish postgraduates. It seems that there has been a planned and discreetly conducted campaign to squeeze Soviet Jews out of the education system. I believe people who care about human rights and freedom must join together to exert all possible pressure on the Soviet Government to grant this basic human right. Given the ebb and flow of international politics, nothing is impossible. If the Russians decide that it suits their purpose to allow a high level of emigration to resume, they will do so. Judicious application of pressure at the correct time can have an impact. The petition circulated at the vigil and directed to the President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was in five parts. It asked that the USSR permit the emigration of Soviet Jews from the Soviet Union and in particular permit those Soviet Jews who for years have sought to leave the USSR the right to leave and be reunited with their families in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. It also called for the Soviet Union to cease all harassment and pressure on Jews who express their wish to emigrate and to cease threats and intimidation against those teaching and studying Hebrew, to stop the harassment of Jewish seminars and to enable Jews to maintain and develop their national culture and religion. Finally, it called for an end to the Soviet Government's sponsored campaign that is fanning the flames of anti-Semitism in Russia. It was my privilege to be asked to address the vigil on 14 August. I concluded my remarks by quoting the words of the former Israeli Foreign Minister , Mr Abba Eban, who said: The Soviet Union cannot have everything its own way, unless those of us who cherish freedom are so intimidated by its power and pretentions that we surrender our cause. What can be done by the outside world? Many European social democrat, socialist and communist parties have spoken out vigorously in the cause of Soviet Jewry, particularly in the last 12 months. The general experience of the last few years has shown that the most effective aid to Soviet Jews has been the protests of the outside world. I have no doubt that if the Soviet Union responded to the plea of men and women of good will all over the world to allow Jewish people who wish to emigrate to Israel to do so, it would earn the thanks of those of us throughout the world who are interested in human rights and human dignity. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.55) —Over the last six months I have travelled rather extensively through the Northern Territory as part of my responsibilities as shadow Minister for northern development and local government. What has appalled me in these visits is the cavalier attitude being taken by this Labor Government towards the Northern Territory in its breaking of promise after promise and the negativism of its elected representative, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), who has become purely an apologist for the Labor Government in Canberra. All I can say is thank goodness for Senator Bernie Kilgariff who, being a member of the other place, is able to give voice to the real concerns of the Northern Territory in Canberra because they are not being properly expressed by its member in the House. The reference in the mini-Budget by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the Northern Territory was generously treated properly reflects Labor's whole attitude to the Northern Territory. Firstly, I refer to the infamous decision to torpedo the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. An undertaking by the Fraser Government and a promise by the Labor Party was that the Commonwealth would contribute to the whole of the costs, as it did towards the South Australian section of the line. What happened to that is now history. It was replaced by a promise to spend $5m on a review which will specifically not take into account the defence advantages of that railway link. The Labor Government reasons that when the report is available it will take into account the defence factors. Let us look at Labor's record on this aspect of defence. It has scrapped the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, phased out the fixed-wing aircraft, taxed the reserve forces pay, reduced the defence personnel and scrapped the army cadets and the North Queensland Military Band. What hope is there for any sympathy for Labor towards Northern Territory defence? Absolutely none. As far as I am concerned, the $5m is only window dressing. The uranium decision last Monday was purely a political decision and not one based on a principle or a policy. The decision means that uranium mining at Jabiluka and Koongarra mines and those in South Australia and Queensland, apart from those specifically excluded, is now completely stymied. Even though there is fairly common agreement among leaders of the Aboriginal Land Councils in favour of uranium mining, Labor has stopped Northern Territory production of uranium in midstream. It is a decision aimed directly at disadvantaging every Northern Territorian, the same result that eventuated from the scrapping of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. How can the Northern Territory become truly independent if Labor denies it an industry that moves it towards economic independence and an opportunity for employment and population growth, a prejudiced decision forced on the Northern Territory people by the left-wing, radical, communist backed section of the Labor Party? Compensation for such loss is being sought. I suggest that no one in the Northern Territory hold his breath on this, for one has only to look at the Franklin Dam compensation promises or to ask any Tasmanian to see the pittance that this Labor Government will offer. Yet the honourable member for the Northern Territory on Tuesday of this week defended in this House the no- extension uranium decision of the Government and the loss of thousands of jobs at those new developments. The Canberra government looks as though it is also ready to muscle in on the very carefully arranged financial arrangements between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth set at the time of self-government. For instance, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), has said that he would seek a change in those financial arrangements so that funds could be taken from the Northern Territory and given to Aboriginal communities to pay for water and electricity. Clearly this is in contravention of what was arranged with the Territory Government in 1978. In addition to this, the Federal Treasurer said in June that the Northern Territory may be included in a review of State taxation sharing relativities. From the manner in which this Government intervenes in these matters and in view of Labor's pre-conceived impression that the Northern Territory is generously treated, the Northern Territory is in no doubt that such a review would mean only a slash in the Northern Territory's tax-sharing arrangements. But these actions are equivalent to tearing up the constitutional arrangements that exist between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. This is a massive repudiation of the principle of allowing the Northern Territory Government the right to govern itself. I am not sure whether all these interventions are a result of the claims made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory about that Government with respect to the spending of Territory funds. All I can say about that is that the highly respected Commonwealth Grants Commission received the claim from the Territory for the 16.9 per cent special appropriation and the Commission recommended its payment. Like all public expenditure, this is subject to the Auditor-General's report that the Government is spending its funds on the purpose for which they were allocated, and the Auditor-General has been so satisfied. There is evidence of other discrimination by this Federal Labor Government. For instance, the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund apparently advised the proponents of a tourist hotel of 300 rooms in Alice Springs that it could not finance it because it already had too many hotels in its portfolio. Yet I understand the same fund intends financing a large hotel in Canberra. I ask the Minister responsible to look urgently at this complaint because if the government accepts such a proposition the people of the Territory can only assume, as they do at the moment, that this Federal Labor Government is out to strangle them and to stifle what is an infant tourist industry at the moment. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It is now 10 p.m. In accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Motion by (Mr Dawkins) proposed: That Order of the Day No. 1, Government Business, Grievance Debate, be extended until 10.30 p.m. Debate resumed. Mr BRAITHWAITE —There is also the matter of airports and the south road from Alice Springs to Adelaide. Both were bitterly criticised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory before his election as indications of neglect by Canberra, that is, by the Fraser Government. It is now being argued by the same person as a member that it is the fault of the Northern Territory Government. He cannot have it both ways. Fortunately, the previous Federal Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), locked the south road into the bicentennial road development program for completion by 1988 . So in spite of the efforts of the honourable member for the Northern Territory this program should go ahead unless, of course, the present Government is intent on pursuing its vendetta against the north. The Federal Government is also trying to pass the Alice Springs Airport on to local government in Alice Springs, although the airport is not within its boundaries. Certain services have to be maintained by the Commonwealth in view of the Territory's fledgling economy, and airports and air services are two of them. This is at a time when the Commonwealth is actually taking money from local government by reducing in real terms the local government share of personal income tax around Australia by $13m. It is another example of this Government's reducing funds but expecting the Alice Springs local authority to assume its financial responsibilities for airport maintenance. The same applies to the Tennant Creek airport. I hope that the developments required at Katherine , at Tindal and at Darwin will be proceeded with urgently by this Government. On my various visits throughout the Territory I have seen that the tourism industry in this region is in its infancy. But it has great potential because the area has retained its natural characteristics. It is an industry that is being fostered and encouraged by the Northern Territory Government. I have submitted to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that we want not a 30-day all Australian excursion air fare for the southern golden triangle but a 30-day excursion for the North. I was advised that the Government felt that such an excursion fare was not practical, no doubt because it might upset the southern industries. We should be encouraging that vast number of tourists from the Pacific and South East Asian areas to enter Australia through the front door; that is, through Darwin and the North Queensland ports, and not limit tourist trade to the south. One of the problems is the abnormally high cost of fares in the markets of South East Asia and particularly Japan. So I also suggest that our domestic airlines should be allowed to operate the short- haul international flights to Singapore and Hong Kong to lessen the cost. Northern Australia has everything the tourist is asking for-the unspoiled beauty of Ayers Rock, Alice Springs, Katherine Gorge, the Kimberleys and the Great Barrier Reef, but the Federal Government offers no incentive, no competition and no challenge to market this beauty to the world. We have as good attractions in sun, surf and scenery as any other part of the world. Our share of the international travel market needs people and government which understand it. Canberra does not, and certainly the Labor Party totally neglects the north. There are so many examples of this neglect, such as the broken promises of less tax, cheaper fuel, controlled prices, more employment and cheaper air fares. All have been abandoned along with the interest in advancing the development of the Northern Territory. It is of great regret that it is left to me as shadow Minister to advance the interests of the Northern Territory as obviously the Labor member and senator representing the Territory have adopted the role of the Labor Government in this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.05) —The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has taken on the mantle of the Northern Territory Government in his inaccurate and hysterical attacks on this Federal Government. Just yesterday I receive a telex from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory which indicates just how puerile his approach is to the Federal Government. I propose to him in relation to the uranium question that we take a bipartisan approach towards the question of an assistance package for the Nothern Territory. His response was to suggest that his approach to the Federal Government in future, as it has been in the last eight months, would continue to be one of abuse, insults and invective. He gave as part justification for that the fact that he had his nose out of joint because he failed to be appointed to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. He claimed that the Premier of Queensland, his colleague in the National Party, had got in ahead of him or had been offered the job ahead of him and, when he refused it, his political colleague in Tasmania had had the offer ahead of the Chief Minister. Basically he is saying that his abuse and insult towards the Federal Government is in part because that Government did not put him on the Economic Planning Advisory Council; his nose is out of joint. I think that is a very irresponsible, childish and unnecessary way to behave in relation to the Northern Territory. If he were properly representing the views of the Northern Territory he should be doing some of the things that I have been suggesting in this House. Let us talk about the Alice Springs Airport. The Labor Government is committed to spend $1 million to upgrade that airport during its first term of office. We are willing to proceed with that, but we propose that because the airport is obviously in need of an overall upgrade, including the tarmac and the terminal, the Northern Territory Government should consider local ownership through one of its own authorities in a similar way to the Queensland Government with the Cairns Port Authority, having redeveloped the Cairns airport through the local ownership plan. When that suggestion was put to Mr Everingham he rejected it out of hand. It would have involved the Northern Territory contributing $1 million to $2m, for which he would have got a reconstruction program for the Alice Springs Airport costing between $10m and $12m. He said that his Government was not interested in making any contribution at all towards what he regarded as a Federal responsibility. Yet at Yalara airport, which is not 300 miles away from Alice Springs, the Northern Territory Government is accepting local ownership moneys. This year it received $29,000 in local ownership moneys. It built that airport at a cost of $6m. It is willing to contribute $6m towards the construction of an airport at Yalara but not willing to put between $1 million and $2m into the construction of an airport at Alice Springs. It just shows how poorly directed the Northern Territory Government's priorities are. The honourable member for Dawson referred to the south road as having a completion date of 1988. Sure, that was the previous Government's completion date. This Government has accelerated that program and it will now be completed by middle to late 1986. So the honourable member for Dawson should get his facts right when he is talking about things in the Northern Territory. He is obviously an instant expert on the Northern Territory. In the past six months he has spent a few weeks travelling through it. A few weeks ago he suggested in this House that the Honeymoon mine was in the Northern Territory. His knowledge of the geography of the Northern Territory is very lacking. He should not tell me and other members of this House that he knows everything about the Northern Territory. At about the same time the shadow Minister for Transport suggested in this House that the $5m that we are to spend on the route identification study-not the transport study-for the railway should not be spent. He suggested that that money should be withheld. In other words, he was suggesting that the whole program should be scrapped. Just so the honourable member can get it straight, I inform him that the $5m is to be spent on the route identification study, not on the transport study. He should check his facts again before he struts in here putting himself forward as an instant expert on the Northern Territory. Let us talk about the superannuation fund that the honourable member mentioned. The Northern Territory Government was offered the funds. This Government was prepared to transfer those funds to the Northern Territory Government but the Chief Minister went cold on it. The honourable members should go back to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and ask him about that. Next time he comes in here he should have his facts properly researched. The honourable member also mentioned the Grants Commission report on the Northern Territory. He made the point that the $16.9m was approved. Certainly it was approved, but the Grants Commission made a number of quite critical comments about the Northern Territory Government's accounting system. In effect the Commission said that the system was in a financial mess and that the figures that it requested from the Northern Territory Government were not provided until the last minute and even then they were inaccurate. It said also that its whole job in relation to the assessment of special assistance for the Northern Territory was hampered by the incompetence, I suggest, of the Northern Territory Government in handling an accounting system. He mentioned a number of other issues. In closing, I say that he suggested, as does the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, that thousands of jobs would be created as a result of uranium mining in the Northern Territory if Jabiluka and Koongarra went ahead. I suggest that he ask the companies concerned how many jobs will be created. He will find that 597 jobs will be created, not thousands of jobs. Again, I suggest that, before he puts himself forward as an instant expert on the Northern Territory, he get his facts straight. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.11) —Tonight I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the citizens of Malta who have come to Australia as migrants are celebrating the fact that this year Maltese migrants have been coming here for 100 years. It is something of a celebration to realise that Maltese people have been immigrants for 100 years. I am a little disappointed that the Parliament-I do not blame the Government or the Opposition-has not more fully recognised this fact. As the House will probably be aware, Maltese people are very proud people with a very long and historic background, living as they do on an island in the middle of the Mediterranean and being relatives of the ancient Phoenicians. They are people who speak an Arabic-type language but which is written in a Romanistic style. Over the thousands of years that they have been there they have been visited by some significant people. Of course, they have been visited by St Paul. During his great travels he was shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Later the Turks attacked Malta and it was a difficult period when Maltese people were taken as slaves and sold into the Turkish area and to the countries of their influence. Still later on, when the Knights of Jerusalem were forced to leave Cyprus they settled in Malta. Having left Jerusalem, gone to Cyprus and failing to be able to retain Cyprus, they moved to Malta and made that their headquarters and place of accommodation. There were great wars during the period that the Knights were in Malta, and the Maltese people supported the Knights during that period. Of course, following the visit of St Paul they became a very committed Christian nation. The people of Malta during the Second World War distinguished themselves greatly. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), the former Foreign Minister, knows very well indeed the contribution the Maltese people made to world peace during the Second World War when they took a battering such as no nation had had before, had at that time or has had since when on each square mile of Malta seven times the weight of bombs were dropped than were dropped in the densest bomb drop in the centre of London. In fact, following the Second World War, the whole island was awarded the George Cross and proudly on the flag of Malta, in the left-hand corner, it can be seen. The red and white flag of Malta bears the George Cross, which was presented by the sovereign of Britain at that time to the total island, to the whole of the Maltese people in recognition of their bravery and support during the Second World War. Migration to Australia started from Malta in an organised fashion in 1883. The first group of Maltese citizens to come to Australia were 70 labourers who came to work on the canefields in Queensland. Mr Braithwaite —In Mackay. Mr CADMAN —In Mackay, indeed. The honourable member for Dawson recognises that. I inform the honourable member that, in addition to the 70, there were nine stowaways. Those stowaways were in fact having a cheap ride to Australia. No doubt they left their families and came to Australia to make good, to make their fortunes and to make a contribution to Australia. The Nuddea, the ship that they came on, was an old steamer with sails. At that time there was with them a Fransciscan priest, Father James Ambrose Cassar. Father Cassar was born in 1849 and, of course, that made him 34 when he came to Australia. He travelled with this group of migrants who settled in northern Queensland, at Townsville and Mackay. They made a very great contribution, as my honourable friend has said, to the whole economy of northern Queensland and in fact to the whole of Australia. Father Cassar is legend in Queensland. He was the first Maltese born priest to set foot on Australian soil and he never again returned to his native Malta. He travelled the outback and northern Queensland horseback and in buggy. For him there were no airconditioned cars or helicopters. For Father Cassar there were only primitive means of transport and foot slogging in dust a foot deep in scorching sun and tropical forests. Mr Braithwaite —A great priest. Mr CADMAN —He was a great priest indeed. He was recognised and revered by all Maltese people. Since that period there has been massive migration of Maltese people to Australia. In total, more Maltese migrants have come to Australia than there are Maltese people left on Malta. The 380,000-odd people from Malta who are now here have been hard working, dedicated citizens who have contributed a great deal to the Australian way of life. They are law abiding, peace loving people and, as I said, hard working and very fond, committed family people. Their children have grown up to be fine Australians and there are many distinguished Australians with a Maltese background or Maltese forebears. I was privileged to be able to attend a celebration concert which was organised at the Opera House by one of the Maltese groups in Sydney. It was a centennial gala concert on 3 October and, in particular, some of the representations in tableau form were presented on the stage of the Opera House. These presentations were prepared by Victor Vella, which is a typical Maltese name, and Mark Caruana . I would like to think that this House and this nation will take the opportunity to say thank you to the Maltese people for their fine contribution. They have been extremely distinguished in their contribution and in their hard work. Their families have been citizens that we are all proud of. Migration from Malta will continue, and the bond between the peoples of the two countries is an extremely strong one. Politics and the difficulties of political relationships may wax and wane between the two nations, but no-one will ever take away the fond bond that exists betwen Australia and the Maltese people. I wish to conclude my remarks in the grievance debate by raising matters relating to immigration because I have had great difficulty over the last few weeks in getting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to recognise the importance of working holidays and the capacity to change the status of the entry to Australia of working holiday makers. I wish to draw this matter to the attention of the House. I have taken it up with the Minister and will be doing so further because he does not seem to comprehend the difficulties of young families and young people from those countries with which we have working holiday arrangements who came to Australia, who travel around for a period and then settle in a job with an employer who really does find their skills of great significance. In particular, I wish to refer to Mr and Mrs Lord who have drawn to my attention the fact that their employer writes of them in these terms: We are an engineering company engaged in the production of air-conditioning and mechanical engineering services. When employing personnel we require them to have experience in this particular branch of engineering, which Stephen Lord has . As the success of his application does obviously concern us as a company very much, please do not hesitate to advise if there is anything further we can do to support Stephen Lord's application. Eddie Zweris is in a similar situation. These young people would make fine citizens. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs does not understand the situation in regard to working holidays in Australia. I am extremely disappointed to find that we cannot get the very cream-the very best-of these young people to stay in Australia. They are committed to this country and its future. They have had the opportunity to live here for a period of up to two years, during which time they learnt the habits and character of Australia. They now wish to make their homes here. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has not seen fit to consider favourably the circumstances of families such as the Lord and Zweris families. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.21) —In rising to address the House in the grievance debate I wish to express my concern for those who not only suffer the frustrations, the hardships and the indignities of poverty and unemployment in this otherwise affluent society but also are blamed for being poor. We know that there is a common tendency in all communities and groups to stereotype other groups and to arrange them into in-groups and out-groups. Sadly, the out-groups have attributed to the characteristics that denigrate them. We are all aware of the appalling bias against different ethnic groups. These biases are based upon prejudice and ignorance. Alleged anti-social or demeaning characteristics impair the pursuit of justice and equality of opportunity of the members of these groups. Aborigines, ethnic groups, women, pensioners, the poor and the unemployed have all suffered from the affects of group stereotyping. Often the attitude of the in-group is overtly hostile and results in the formation of ghettos of the disadvantaged. However, sometimes it is not an attitude of hostility that is expressed towards out-groups; it can be quite sympathetic in intention. It is a twist on this aspect of stereotyping that concerns me tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the tendency even among avowedly sympathetic groups to blame the victim. This occurs in a number of ways and is referred to in William Ryan's book titled Blaming the Victim. He says: I have now come to believe that the ideology of blaming the victim so distorts and disorients the thinking of the average concerned citizen that it becomes a primary barrier to effective social change. He continues: And, further, I believe that the injustices and inequalities in American life can be understood (and, therefore, can never be eliminated) until that ideology is exposed and destroyed. I believe that what he said about America might well be just as easily applied to Australia. What does blaming the victim mean, Mr Deputy Speaker? How is it manifested and what are some of the implications in Australia? What particular role should government play in ridding society of this unjust, divisive and cruel ideology? To a marked degree it refers to groups that are poor, unemployed and to some degree seen to be deserving of your sympathy. Becoming the victim means that the generalised responsibility for the fate these people suffer is levelled at the disadvantaged people themselves. This means that we suggest the disadvantaged are the problem and are the ones with the problem. If they are poor, it is because they lack initiative or their parents did not give them adequate opportunities. Some months ago I came across a classic example in my electorate of Ballarat. Unemployment is very high and youth unemployment is higher still. One of the local service clubs decided to help the unemployed by providing a careers night. The motives of the organisation were impeccable. I believe its members had a genuine concern for those whom they perceived to have a problem. They perceived no problem in themselves; only the unemployed had the problem. What transpired was that the unemployed young people stayed away in their droves. The organisation's well-intentioned work proved to be a futile effort. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know how the service club members reacted to the young people's apparent lack of appreciation of its efforts, but one letter was written to the local newspaper. This letter truly represented a classic case of victim blaming of the conservative model. It had to be the fault of the young unemployed. They were not interested in improving themselves and lacked any sense of appreciation of the efforts of those who were trying to help them overcome their deficiencies. They were seen to have the problem. They were the ones who were deficient. Quite obviously, the best way to help them was to get tough with them, to make them earn their dole and to make them feel as though they were blameworthy. This is an example of blaming the victim. To be sure, it does not represent most people's position. I am sure that it would not represent the position of the great majority of those people who organised that careers night. Most people who blame the victims do so very unintentionally. It is a state of mind. Apart from those who are overtly prepared to blame them for their faults and to treat them as hopelessly inferior, there are those who still see them as having the faults caused by social and/or environmental factors. The solution is to provide them with various remedial assistance schemes to help them to overcome their problems. Again both of these groups who set out to assist the poor, et cetera, are ideologically conservative. Ryan states: Blaming the victim is an ideological process, which is to say that it is a set of ideas and concepts deriving from systematically motivated, but unintended, distortions of reality. These ideas must be aimed at preserving the interests of the dominant group. This requires the maintenance of the status quo. By and large, there is little conscience element in this position. Often the ideology lacks articulation but the characteristics of the ideology are readily discernable. Whether the victims be Aborigines, the poor, the unemployed, the children of migrant groups whose primary language is other than English, the gist of the problem is the same. The problem lies in the victims. It is they who must undergo the change. It is their values, their language, their behaviour that must be changed. Those who, with compassion and concern, devote themselves to improving the individual member of the out-group, the victims, are often social workers, members of charitable groups, service clubs and other well intentioned people. The victims, nevertheless, are still seen to be at fault. They have the faults which must be remedied. Little reflection upon the causes of the differences between the in- group and the out-group is undertaken. One wonders how receptive are the well-intentioned helpers to the notion that they represent the problem. While the social environment is the primary cause of poverty and disadvantaged, all the well-intentioned work of the helpers will do little to change the situation. Some might be helped but the majority will not be. It will require a different set of beliefs together with a more resolute will from courageous people to make the change that will relieve the suffering of the poor and the disadvantaged. When the cause is seen to be the inequitable distribution of justice, of permanent decision-making about the wealth of the nation and of the inadequate provision of education and its bias, only then will the problem be able to be tackled. This, I believe, is the radical approach that is needed to change the system. My concern, my grievance, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that too few understand the problem and too few are willing to make the shift in their own values and aspirations to commit themselves to the radical action necessary to develop a social environment in which the victims will no longer be blamed. I raise this issue tonight because I believe that government must play its part in raising the consciousness of this nation to the injustice of blaming the victim and to the impossibility of eradicating the practice and the tendency without changing the social conditions that create the victims. There is no likelihood of a simple solution, nor will the goal be achieved in a short time. Like so many other defects that abound in our society, the unwillingness of the haves to divest themselves of advantage, of power, of wealth and of discriminatory privilege will be a major obstacle to the achievement of a just society. However, be this as it may, the effort to achieve the desired social change must be unrelenting. But it must also be accomplished peacefully, otherwise one out-group will be replaced by another, and in the long term nothing of substance will have altered. In the parry and thrust of parliamentary proceedings there is much huffing and puffing about the effects of governmental action upon this group or that. Barely in all this resounding rhetoric do we hear honourable members call for a thorough examination of those factors within this society that promote social division, that act like some process of social Darwinism and cause poverty and injustice. There is little dignity in being poor, especially if one becomes an object of charity or of social manipulation. Therefore, whenever the victims rather than the system are blamed and when all the efforts to bring about change are directed at the Victim rather than the social system, we as politicians must make every effort to ensure that we do not perpetuate the problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the provisions of standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2 p.m. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 589 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 October: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the article 'Defending the Sunburnt Country ' by M. Hayes in Chain Reaction in the August-September 1983 issue. (2) If so, will he table in the House promptly any Congressional testimony or technical publication regarding the new radome for Pine Gap referred to on page 14 of the article. (3) What attitude has Australia expressed to the current United States of America first-strike counterforce policy. (4) Is he able to say what cost assessments are available for an (a) effective anti-missile and first-strike capability, in terms of existing and projected incomes and defence budgets of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and (b) international communications, military surveillance disarmament monitoring, peace-keeping and armistice-policing force using joint facilities installed in Australia by USA military and intelligence agencies. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Contrary to the statement in the article in Chain Reaction, it is not US practice to publicise details of the equipments at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap and their purposes. I do not have any such Congressional testimony or technical publications to table. I can however advise that the purpose of the radome is to protect the enclosed antenna from the effects of the weather. (3) The characterisation of US strategic policy as a first strike counterforce policy is not accurate. Authoritative statements of US policy emphasise that US strategy is purely defensive and that pre-emptive or first strike action by the US has been ruled out. In this context I draw the honourable member's attention to the FY 1984 Defense Report issued by the US Secretary of Defense, Mr Weinberger, which contains the following statement on page 33: 'Our strategy excludes the possibility that the US would initiate war. The US would use its military strength only in response to aggression, not to pre-empt it.' (4) No. Question No. 615 Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: Will the Minister advise whether the Government policy for introducing inbound duty-free shopping at Australian international gateways means that (a) excise on Australian alcoholic beverages will be waived and (b) customs on imported alcoholic beverages will not be waived. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The matter of introducing inwards duty free shopping for passengers arriving in Australia is currently subject to consideration by an inter-departmental committee which has been established for this purpose. The committee met during October and is scheduled to meet once more in November when it is expected it will finalise its considerations of the matter. A submission will then be made by the committee to the Government recommending whether or not inwards duty free shopping should be introduced in Australia. Under duty free shopping arrangements which presently exist in respect of passengers departing from Australia, both Australian and imported alcoholic beverages are available for sale. Should the Government decide to introduce inwards duty free shopping arrangements, it could be expected that both Australian and imported alcoholic beverages would be available for sale. Question No. 543 Mr Shipton asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Did the Australian Tourist Commission announce that Mojo Australia had been appointed to handle large tourist promotion advertising campaigns in both Australia and the United States of America; if so, what is the estimated cost of each campaign. (2) Is Mr Paul Hogan likely to be used as a presenter as part of the Mojo Australia strategy; if so, (a) what theme or themes will he be using and (b) is he providing his services free of charge. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Australian Tourist Commission's Chairman, Sir Peter Derham, announced on 18 August 1983 that Mojo Australia had been appointed as the ATC's advertising agent in Australia and the West Coast of the United States. The Australian domestic campaign is estimated to cost a minimum this financial year of $1.5m which will be jointly funded by ATC, the States and industry. The United States of America campaign was initially estimated to cost a minimum of $1.579m of ATC funds. The Government decided to increase this by $2m to take advantage of the awareness of Australia brought about by the winning of the America's Cup. (2) Yes. (a) The campaign strategy is being developed by the Domestic Tourist Committee, a joint Commonwealth and State Government and Tourism Industry Committee, in liaison with the agency. The campaign concept and theme have not been finalised as yet. (b) Yes. Question No. 549 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is it the intention of the Government to establish a radiation ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory; if so, have drafting instructions for an ordinance been completed. (2) By what date is it anticipated that (a) a draft ordinance will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and (b) the ordinance will be proclaimed. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) It is the intention of the Government to introduce a radiation ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory. A draft ordinance has been considered and approved in principle by the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Some minor formal alterations to the draft are still required but it is not anticipated that these will cause any difficulties. It is envisaged that subject to the approval of the Executive Council the ordinance will be made and gazetted by the end of November this year. Question No. 583 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a news bulletin dated 20 September 1983, from the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. (2) Is he able to say (a) when condolences were expressed by Soviet leaders for the loss of life in the Korean airliner flight 007 on 1 September 1983, and who were those leaders, (b) whether the flight's departure from Alaska was delayed for 40 minutes with no explanation, (c) whether the USA intelligence satellite Ferret D as a result of this delay, appeared over the Chukchi Peninsula and flew east of Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands for some 12 minutes just before the airliner entered Soviet air space, thus monitoring Soviet radio activity in the region, (d) whether, on its next orbit of 96 minutes, Ferret D flew over Kamchatka while the airliner was entering Soviet air space over strategic facilities in southern Kamchatka, (e) whether the satellite then detected an approximate doubling of Soviet radio activity, (f) whether the satellite on a 3rd orbit appeared north of Yakutsk one minute before the airliner entered Sakhalin air space, recording all additionally switched-on electronic devices of Soviet anti-aircraft defence in the region, (g) whether the airliner's flight was continuously within Theus radio navigation system Loran-C which permits constant location of a plane, and (h) whether 2 RC-135 reconnaissance planes, 2 Orions, an E-3A (AWACS) plane and a USA frigate Badger monitored the airliner's flight and that of Soviet interceptor planes for the USA. (3) Will he support calls of the USA or other nations for an inquiry into this incident under the auspices of the UN or the International Court of Justice. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) On 6 September a Soviet statement on the incident was issued containing an expression of regret for the loss of life. This was attributed to the Soviet leadership, without identifying any individuals by name. On 29 September a statement was put out in the name of Mr Andropov which contained a similar expression of regret. (b) KAL 007 departed Anchorage at 4 a.m. local time, instead of at the scheduled departure time of 3.20 a.m. The US authorities have stated that this delay was due to strong tail winds which would otherwise have caused the aircraft to arrive in Seoul before the scheduled ETA of 6 a.m. Korean time. operating regulations at Seoul international airport restrict aircraft arrivals between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. (c) to (h) These points have been raised by the Soviet Union in support of its allegation that KAL 007 was sent by the United States on a spying mission over Soviet territory. It should be noted that the Soviet authorities have produced no plausible evidence whatsoever in support of this allegation. The US Government has publicly stated that there is absolutely no truth to the assertion that the US uses civilian airliners for intelligence purposes, and it has categorically denied that KAL 007 was involved in any intelligence gathering mission. The Soviet news bulletin to which the honourable member's question refers attempts to claim that the flight of KAL 007 was co-ordinated with a number of US intelligence operations taking place in the region. The US has never denied that an RC-135 aircraft had been carrying out a routine reconnaissance mission in international airspace off the east coast of Kanchatka several hours before the shoot-down of KAL 007. However, at the press conference given in Moscow on 9 September Marshal Ogarkov indicated that Soviet radar actually followed the divergence of the flight paths of the two aircraft. Moreover, the RC-135 never communicated with KAL 007 and at the time the Korean aircraft was destroyed the RC-135 had already been on the ground for about an hour, some 2,000 kms away. While the United States does not make public details of the operations of its intelligence-gathering satellites, the US Government has stated that there is absolutely nothing to the Soviet contention that KAL 007 delayed its departure from Anchorage to synchronise its approach to Kamchatka with the flight of any American satellite. As to the question of the monitoring of KAL 007's flight by the United States, it is clear from the available information that while the aircraft was off-course over Soviet territory it was beyond the range of US radar, either civilian or military. Moreover, it should be noted that the kind of information regarding the flight which was subsequently released by the United States, including transcripts of the Soviet pilots' conversations with their ground control, is based on data which was not analysed until some time after the event. The fact that the US and Japanese authorities were able later to piece together an account of KAL 007's tracking and destruction by the Soviet military (an account which differs in important respects from that provided by the USSR) in no way proves, therefore, that the aircraft was 'under their control'. (3) The Government has from the outset taken the view that all the circumstances which led to this tragedy should be thoroughly investigated by the competent international civil aviation authorities. An investigation under the auspices of the Secretary-General of ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, is currently in progress and a report is expected by mid-December. The Government hopes that the Soviet Union will see fit to co-operate fully in this investigation. There have also been reports that a Soviet state investigatory commission has been meeting to examine the circumstances of the South Korean airliner's entering Soviet airspace, but there has been no public release of any of the findings of this commission.